HC Deb 12 March 1908 vol 185 cc1841-6

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. HOLT (Northumberland, Hexham)

said he had felt it his duty to take exception to Clause 56, but he was glad to say that he had had a conference with the promoters, and they had undertaken to substitute the following clause— The City Council may appoint out of their own number so many persons as they may think fit for the execution of any of the purposes of any local Act or Order for the time being in force within the city, which, in the opinion of such authority, would be better regulated and managed by means of a Committee; provided that a Committee so appointed shall in no case be entitled to borrow money or to make or levy any rate, or order any rate to be made or levied, or to enter into any contract, and shall be subject to any regulations and restrictions which may be imposed by the City Council. If his hon. friend the Member for the Everton Division, who he understood represented the promoters, would confirm this undertaking he would be pleased to support the Bill instead of opposing it.

MR. HARMOOD BANNER (Liverpool, Everton)

thought there was an undue nervousness as regards the effect of this clause. But the Corporation were perfectly ready to meet the objections that had been taken, and to accept the clause in the amended form. With regard to the objection taken by War rington to Clause 16, he thought it was more a matter for Committee than for discussion on the Second Reading. Warrington had had the right to call upon Liverpool to supply water for twenty years, and had not exercised that right. Now it was suggested that that term should be extended for three years, when the right should end. He thought that was giving Warrington as much as it was entitled to. But whether it was right or wrong, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Warrington not to raise it now, but to permit it to be dealt with in Committee. Objection was also raised to the Bill by Prescot, which felt strongly on the subject of the water clauses. But in this case also Committee was the proper place to deal with the question, and he therefore hoped the objection on behalf of Prescot would not be pressed now.

MR. CROSFIELD (Warrington)

said: he had been desired by the Corporation of Warrington to call the attention of the House to the provisions contained in Clause 16 of the Bill. Under this clause it was proposed that the agreement which was entered into between the Corporations of Liverpool and Warrington in 1887, and duly confirmed by Parliament, should be determined without the consent of the Corporation of Warrington. The Corporation of Warrington protested against this action on the part of the; Corporation of Liverpool. They urged that when an agreement had been arrived, at between important public authorities, and sanctioned by Parliament, it should not be open to one of these authorities, to ask for its recision. As to what the hon. Member for Everton had said as to this being a matter for Committee, he felt that it was of such very deep and vital importance to Warrington that he ought to enter a protest on the Second Reading. But an appeal had been made by the Chairman of Ways and Means that he should not press the matter further at present, but should agree to its being considered upstairs in Committee. He was very happy to agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Everton without in any way withdrawing the protest he was bound to make as a matter of principle on the Second Reading of the Bill.

MR. SEDDON

who had given notice of Motion for the rejection of the Bill, Slid he did not propose to take a division, but he desired to state the objections of Prescot to Clauses 16, 17, and 18. These clauses, dealt with a matter that had been in dispute for forty years between the small township of Prescot and the municipality of Liverpool. During; that time there had been various debates in Parliament, many convictions before the magistrates, decisions of quarter sessions, judgments of the; High Courts, and proceedings before Parliamentary Committees which justified him in presenting the case of Prescot to the House. Prescot's position was somewhat different from that of Warrington. It was under a statutory obligation to take water from the Corporation of Liverpool. The Act of 1866 placed upon the 'Corporation the obligation to supply water for domestic purposes at sufficient pressure to supply the highest house in the town. Now they sought to evade that responsibility. The history of this matter disclosed unfair dealing on the part of the Corporation towards Prescot. In 1897 there was a police court action that went against the Corporation. It was heard on appeal before the Master of the Rolls, and. they were defeated. In 1898 they were again defeated, and eventually, in a test case in the Queen's Bench Division, they agreed to pay the amount sued for in the county court with costs, and to abandon all their pending appeals, the right of the complainants to commence new proceedings being expressly reserved. After all these unsuccessful attempts to cripple Prescot in regard to its water supply, this wealthy 'Corporation, having been obliged to erect a pumping station because the water could not reach the highest houses by gravitation, were now seeking, by a clause in the Bill, to throw the burden of the pumping station on Prescot. It was said, as a reason for this proposal, that Prescot might erect "sky scrapers" at the highest part of the township, and that if that were done, the Corporation would be put to very great expense in putting in new pumping apparatus. That time might come, but he thought the House could rely on the Liverpool Corporation, with its love of litigation, to take proceedings if Prescot broke any of the conditions into which it had entered. So far as the pumping arrangements were concerned, it had been said by some members of the City Council that there was only one house in the town that had not an adequate supply by gravitation. He denied that. The inadequate supply affected many houses, and the Liverpool Corporation in this Bill—a very good Bill, which he would like to see passed, except for these two vicious clauses—were trying to throw this great burden upon Prescot. At the present time water in Liverpool cost the consumer 1s½d. in the £, and in Prescot it cost 10½d., or 3d. in favour of Prescot, and Liverpool Corporation thought it unjust that Prescot would get the water at a cheaper rate than the citizens of Liverpool, who had sunk their money in providing one of the best water supplies in the country. But Liverpool had many advantages in regard to water supply that were not possessed by Prescot. When Liverpool had liquidated the sinking fund he believed that the fixed water rent now charged would practically cease. A Committee of the House of Commons in 1887, when the Corporation sought some unfair advantages, laid it down: (1) That the people of Prescot were merely consumers of the Corporation, and not partners in the undertaking; (2) that they had no right to any portion of the sinking fund provided under the Liverpool Waterworks Act; and (3) that the water charges fixed by the Act were fair and equitable, and ought not to be increased. Yet in face of that decision they sought by the Bill to inflict a burden on this small community. So far as Prescot was concerned, they had all along been willing to carry out their obligations under the Act of 1866. He did not want to say hard things of Liverpool. It was a city he had a very great pride in, for he had been connected with it to some extent practically throughout the whole of his life. But he thought in this case the corporation had displayed a selfishness that was untrue to the true character of Liverpool. They appeared in this Bill like a colossal vulture, overshadowing and all powerful, and thought they could by frequent litigation deplete the reserves of this small community, and compel them by force to submit to unreasonable demands. He would not press his Motion now. He relied upon the Committee to do their duty, and if they did not he would reserve to himself the right to take action upon the Report stage and Third Reading. He thought it fair to say that Committees had always looked at this question with an unbiassed view. He was not unmindful that in the Committee upstairs a long array of counsel heavily briefed would press the claim of this rich corporation over this small community, who would be practically at the mercy of these lawyers. He quite admitted that Prescott had joined with other urban district councils to protect themselves. But their voice would be lost among the many, and this small community in the Committee might be robbed of their rights and have imposed upon them a grievous burden. He thought it only fair to say that so far as concerned the existing Act of Parliament, Presoott was willing to carry out its obligations. He was fortified in saying that by the fact that these obligations were the just and equitable findings of a Committee of that House. They had stated definitely and emphatically that the charges already in existence were fair and just, and because of that statement, and because of the feebleness of Prescott, he now made his protest. Unless consideration was shown to this small community he must reserve to himself the right, though lie did not wish to do any injury to other parts of the Bill, of opposing the Third Reading. But he sincerely hoped that hon. Members representing Liverpool would act kindly to a small community, instead of like a bully to a small boy, and if they did that the inhabitants of Prescott would be the first to congratulate them on their magnanimity.

MR. BRUNNER (Lancashire, Leigh)

who had on the Paper the following: "That it be an instruction to the Committee to insert a clause providing that an alderman shall not, as such, vote in the election of an alderman," said he understood that the instruction would not be in order or he would have liked to have raised this question with regard to Liverpool. He understood that the reason why this clause had not been put in was that it was unusual to pass a general law in a private Bill; in fact, the Local Government Board would object. He had put the instruction down because the Liverpool Corporation had petitioned that the law might be altered in this respect. He found, from the reports of public petitions, that a petition was presented by Mr. Royden asking that an alteration should be made in the law so that aldermen as such should not vote in the election of aldermen. But he understood that the President of the Local Government Board intended to propose a general Bill which would have the effect that aldermen should never be permitted in future to vote for aldermen; therefore, his instruction would in any case be unnecessary.

MR. SPEAKER

It is unnecessary to deal with the instruction after what the hon. Member has said.