§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Mr. JOHN WARDI beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now" and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
519 I am very sorry to have to detain the House upon this subject, but it is necessary, in order to explain the points which it is desired to make against this particular measure. There is, as it were, an initial objection to the proceedings relating to this Bill. It is well known that Stoke-on-Trent, to which this Bill largely applies, has 69 per cent, of its area and considerably more of its population included within the scope of the measure. Stoke-on-Trent consisted of six separate authorities until quite recently, when, by a decision of Parliament, it was decided to throw the six towns into the melting-pot for the purpose of establishing a large corporation now known as the county borough of Stoke-on-Trent. This borough has only recently been established, and it is thought by many connected with the work of the district and with local affairs that it is rather ultra vires for a wealthy company of this description, without any particular reason or immediate necessity, to have reopened the question of their rights and privileges, with a view to the extension of their powers so soon after the new borough has been brought into existence. The new borough has scarcely had a chance of getting its bearings so to speak, and, seeing what its possibilities and business duties are connected with the administration of this great area, and for this company to use the period of transition between one form of government and another for the purpose of introducing a Bill of this description is thought by a great many people in the district to be unnecessary and uncalled for.
That is the preliminary objection which they take to this measure, and it is borne out to a very large extent by the terms of the Bill itself. Borrowing powers are sought to be extended. These borrowing powers, I understand, are only required for possible additional works during the next fifteen years, and it is a moral certainty, therefore, the sum being as it is only a relatively small sum, that the Bill is not so much a Bill to seek borrowing powers for the extension of the business of the company as it is for securing a readjustment and reassertion of the company's powers, while the local authority is in a comparative state of transition. One particular reason against the proposal of the Bill is that if these extended powers are to be sought so soon after the establishment of the new county borough of Stoke-on-Trent, at least there should have been 520 some provision made, in the Bill itself, that those additional powers should not be used for the purpose of enhancing the value of this property, and making it utterly impossible for the council to assume control of the water supply. There should have been some provision made by the company, or by the promoters of this measure, to deal with that phase of the subject. This is a very wealthy company, and its wealth, I venture to suggest, is largely due to the fact that it was established so many years ago, and no real revision has since taken place of its powers and privileges. It has, in fact, many powers and privileges which Parliament, under ordinary circumstances, would not grant if a new company were being formed, and certainly would not confer on a new body.
It is seeking for borrowing powers, and as proof again that that is not essential, and that the Bill need not be hurried on in the way it has been, they are seeking these powers while their old borrowing powers under previous Acts are unexhausted and unused; that is a clear indication that they do not require this money only for works during the next fifteen years. There are clearly other reasons prompting the promoters in bringing forward this Bill at the present time. I wish to call attention to one or two other matters that should be considered by this House when dealing with a measure of this description. Everybody knows that Stoke-on-Trent is a very poor neighbourhood. I suppose that of its total population 95 per cent, are poor working people. It has the lowest rateable value of any town of similar size in the whole country. That must be taken into special consideration in connection with the statement and criticisms I am going to make about the proposal contained in this Bill. There is very little reference to any alteration of charges in the new proposal. I have looked through the Bill very carefully, and, excepting in one or two individual cases where the owners of property threatening resistance and threatening carrying it to its logical conclusion have forced a compromise from the company—with those exceptions I do not think there are any suggestions altering, in the slightest degree, the charges for supply in the district. What I particularly object to, and what I am instructed by the Trades and Labour Council in the district, representing some 20,000 to 30,000 organised workmen, to bring before this House is—and I am 521 pleased to see the President of the Local Government Board in his place, because this is a matter which more directly affects his Department—that this company at the present time makes charges under its old Act of Parliament for any w.c. on any rateable property or dwelling-house above the value of £6.
Of course, it is a peculiar subject to bring before the House, but as it is thought proper that such matters should be made Imperial questions, I am bound to deal with it, as I know the locality, and have obtained information upon the subject. There are portions of this district where, owing to the charge made by this company, builders in years gone by have erected half a dozen cottages with only one w.c, with the object of avoiding this charge. One can easily see what the effect of that must be upon the sanitation of the locality. When we consider that in conjunction with another matter I shall have to mention presently, we can quite understand how it is that Stoke-on-Trent has one of the highest death rates of the larger towns in the country. Even to-day buildings are being erected without any w.c's at all. That system is a disgrace to a thickly populated district like this borough. I venture to suggest that it is a subject which the Local Government Board ought to investigate. It is almost entirely due to the charges made by this company, which amount practically to a tax on public decency. I could quite understand it if this company were a poor company, and in difficult financial circumstances, and was not able to pay a dividend upon its capital. In those circumstances I could understand it making a resistance to a reduction of the charges, even of this necessary description. But that is not the condition of this company. It is probably one of the wealthiest companies in the whole country. I believe its capital stands very high, and almost as high as any water company in the country. Surely there is no justification for this wealthy corporation seeking new powers from this House without at the same time giving public advantages such as many other companies are obliged to give. I am told there is an agreement, and I have seen a copy of it, between the town council of Stoke-on-Trent and the water company relating to the charge I am dealing with. I understand it is proposed in that agreement to raise the rateable value from £6 to £8. I say that is not sufficient, 522 for the simple reason that that only allows the very worst property in the locality to escape. The council itself asked the company to grant free of charge the erection of w.c's in properties under £10, but the company haggled about the business, and have only accepted a maximum of £8 at present. I do not say I will take a Division on the Bill, but I move its rejection in order to hear what those who are to speak for the promoters have to say with regard to the several matters I am bringing before the House. I do not propose, if there is, any kind of reasonable explanation, to take the question to a Division, but I certainly say that unless some reasonable arrangements have been made in the interval, I shall not only do the very best I can to obstruct the Bill through its remaining stages, but I shall take a Division on the Third Reading in the hope of being able to get it.
Take another phase of the sanitation question. We have driven these six towns into one. The law says the six towns are one. That is a very good thing. But the water company still says they are six, and it refuses to treat the new borough as one consumer. It insists upon treating each of these separte localities as separate consumers, and Parliament is asked to accept an alteration of the law it passed. It is a matter of great importance, for the simple reason that the scale of charges would mean a saving on the scavenging of the streets, and the proper swilling of the sewers, and the necessary work of sanitation, if the borough were treated as one consumer, of about £400 a year to the ratepayers. When one considers these two things together, they will see the meanness, because it is nothing else, of a great wealthy company, whose capital pays a regular 7 per cent.—heaven knows what they do with the the rest of their money—that rather than lower charges they should come before this House and haggle over the question as to whether this new corporation should be treated as one body or whether they should continue to treat it in their Bills as six bodies. Of course, I understand it if the company were poor and found it difficult to pay interest on their capital, but when it is considered that it is one of the wealthiest bodies of a similar character in the country, and that it haggles as to whether an Act of Parliament shall be recognised as law so far as its charges 523 are concerned, I say it is certainly meanness. The House will see, from the observations I have already made, that we have a good cause of complaint. I know it will be said presently that the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation have agreed with the company. That is easily explained, when one comes to consider the state of Stoke-on-Trent, owing to the coal strike and other conditions, and the fact that these six bodies have only just become one and have scarcely taken their bearings or been able to compass their financial responsibilities. They are almost forced to accept any arrangement rather than promote opposition to this Bill, which will be a tax upon the ratepayers amounting, perhaps, to many years of the cost saved by the advantages that ought to be secured without promoting opposition petitions at all. As to the question whether these conditions apply to other towns, I find there are no charges for water closets on properties under £10 in value in towns like Oldham, Darlington, Birmingham, Wakefield, Plymouth, Bath, Tynemouth, or Chester, and I do not know how many others there may be. Stoke-upon-Trent is not asking for anything exceptional. It is only asking to be treated in an up-to-date fashion as the sanitary authority of a great new body with an immense population amounting to 250,000 people. The surprising thing is that these are all wealthy towns. Take Oldham, Darlington, Birmingham, Wakefield, and compare the poverty of those localities with our districts. There is no comparison at all. Yet these can escape the extortionate charges of water authorities to the extent that we are asking for, while we, a poor neighbourhood, cannot even get the condition which these wealthy authorities can secure.
For these and many other reasons it is impossible for us, representing the purely working classes of the district, to obtain the good sanitation on which the health of these people largely depends, apart altogether from the difficulties of the council in being unable to venture on the expense of promoting a petition and appealing against the Bill, because that is an expensive matter. If it does it effectively it soon runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds. The mere fact that the corporation is in that position, that it cannot assert its rights for fear of the expense, should not prevent the House on the Third Reading disposing absolutely of 524 the Bill unless by their own volition the company are prepared to do justice to the district they serve. I am not now concerned with the question of purchase, but it would be wrong for Parliament to give increased powers to this company until the corporation has had a chance to take its bearings relating to its duties to the locality that has been specially created by an Act of this House, and any increased franchise or powers that you give by this Bill should not be made a burden upon the ratepayer of the locality, in case within a few years they decide to become the water authority of the district. Beyond that statement I am not going to press this question to-night. The House has declared that these six authorities are one, but the water company, for the purpose of laying hold of a few hundreds of pounds more per year out of the ratepayers, whom I represent, are insisting even in this Bill that, they shall be considered as six authorities for the future It is a most extraordinary position of affairs.
There is another matter. This company is not compelled to supply water to fires, or anything of that description, unless they choose to do so of their own sweet will. Of course, there is no such antiquated provision in any Bill that has passed this House for the last quarter of a century, but so considerate am I and the Labour men in the locality that we would not make that a case for obstructing the Bill, because, after all, that is a question for the larger ratepayers and the insurance companies to consider. If they do not choose to take the proper course to protect their own property it is nothing to do with us. We are concerned about the sanitation of the poorer dwelling-houses of the community. Surely the streets and courts are black enough as they are without leaving the mud on them for days and weeks, because you are afraid to use the water to clean them. Settle the problems I have mentioned and treat the authorities as one authority in accordance with the Act already passed by this House, and I should be prepared to allow the Bill to go through without any trouble at all as to purchase or anything of the kind; but these are essentials before I can allow it to proceed beyond the Second Reading. I shall deliver the same address or something like it on the Third Reading, and shall add a great many facts to my case in the interval. While I shall allow the Bill to proceed after an explanation, its passage will be a very stormy one unless at least some consideration is given to 525 these claims of the working population to decent treatment from a wealthy corporation.
Mr. POINTERI beg to second the Amendment.
I have been asked to oppose the Bill by the North Staffordshire Labour party. They have been taking a very keen interest in the negotiations which have led up to the promotion of the present Bill. So far as I have been able to gather they have brought what influence they have been able to bring in favour of getting the Purchase Clause inserted in the Bill in order to safeguard the position of the corporation. I am not quite at one with the hon. Member because, as I understood him, there were a lot of things which he mentioned severally which he was anxious should be put right, but he was not inclined to lay very great emphasis upon the question of the Purchase Clause. I do not want to belittle any of the points that he mentioned. They are all very important, especially those relating to sanitation, but still we ought not, on the other hand, to belittle the question of purchase. That appears to me to be a very important consideration indeed. In fact I am not quite sure if I should not be correct in saying the very agitation for the combination of the six towns was assisted very materially by the statement that it would enable the community to have charge of its own water supply, if only it was established in a bigger way, as would be secured by amalgamation. If that is so, it appears to me that the present Bill amounts to a very grievous betrayal of certain promises which were made by certain persons interested—whether in a pecuniary sense I am not here to say—in getting the amalgamation of the township, and if in order to bring that about, to get over initial opposition from certain quarters, they use as an argument that the water supply could be placed under the control of the community, when they have achieved their object they proceed to betray the promises they have given and the arguments they have used, the House ought to take it into very serious consideration before it passes lightly a Bill of this kind.
The hon. Member (Mr. J. Ward) indicated that there were still borrowing powers left open, or, rather, that there was still capital which had been left open to them to float if they so desired. I have some figures which have been supplied to me by one of the local councillors. I take 526 it that he is conversant with the matter, and that, therefore, we can rely upon the figures. I am informed that, taking the loan capital and the stock and share capital together, there is still £43,662 not taken, up. When we consider that the only amount asked for under this Bill, so far as I can see, is £180,000, it will be seen that they can have a quarter of the sum they require in hand as soon as they like to avail themselves of the powers given under various Acts, and especially the last one passed in 1888. So far as their present intention is concerned, that £[...]80,000 extra capital is to be distributed as regards expenditure over a period of fifteen years. I think it will be obvious to anyone that if £180,000 is going to last for fifteen years, the £43,000, which they already have the opportunity of getting at any moment, will last them a few years to come, especially when we take into consideration the rate at which capital expenditure has been indulged in for a period of ten years. For the last ten years they have been indulging in an expenditure of £8,800 a year, so that if there is £43,000 still not taken up it means that they have at their option enough money at the same rate of expenditure to last for the next five years. That does appear to me to emphasise the point I mentioned at the outset, namely, that there has been a betrayal of the interests concerned by this company, especially when we consider that a promise was given. Now, before the corporation has time to turn round, they are seeking to make it more difficult than ever before for the corporation to purchase this undertaking if they desire to do so in the near future; for obviously, when they are taking up fresh capital, that only means that the corporation will have to raise a larger sum of money, and consequently, with the inflation of capital likely to take place, it may mean that the amount of expenditure they have to indulge in will make it very difficult indeed to make both ends meet, and they will be saddling the community with debt which will have to be liquidated by the rates.
I think these are weighty considerations. Those promoting this Bill ought to have some definite answer to give as to why they are taking the line they are taking at the present time. I quite endorse, so far as my information goes, the remark made by the Mover of the Amendment, namely, that it is not poverty that is driving them to this course. It is not because they want capital to launch in different directions in order to convert 527 their concern from a poverty-stricken kind of thing into something out of which they may make a legitimate profit. From 1901 to 1910 there has been an increase in revenue of £1,000 a year. That obviously shows that the company is prosperous, and that there is no need for them to scheme and plot and plan as they appear to have done to leave the corporation in that dilemma. It appears to me that they are reckoning upon a certain eventuality, and I suppose they think that the sooner the eventuality arises the better their purpose will be served. They are reckoning that the people are going to get dissatisfied with the local water supply, and that an agitation will be set on foot in favour of the municipalisation of the water supply in this district. It appears to me that this is a carefully calculated trick in order that when the situation becomes ripe for the community to take action, they will be able to show a larger capital outlay, and to ask a bigger penny, so to speak, than otherwise they would be able to do.
There have been statements made by the promoters of the Bill to the effect that it would not be possible for the ratepayers to make this scheme pay. I cannot help being struck, amazed almost, at the solicitude these people have for the poor, innocent ratepayers who are going to suffer so much. I always begin to suspect when I hear any man who is interested in these local supply firms or one of his friends expressing anxiety as to the state of the poor community. Then I take him for what he is, a hypocrite, and I do not believe a word he says. I believe that is the position in this case. It seems that they have taken the trouble to get statements from persons who think they are in a position to give them advice. I understand that a Mr. Kean has been consulted on the matter, and that he points out—I believe so far as the majority of the people are concerned he has proved his point—that, taking the capital value upon a certain number of years' purchase, say a sixty years' loan, it would then be quite possible for the corporation in its extended area, and as a joint borough, to conduct its operations in such a way as to make it pay without costing the corporation a penny-piece, and that they would be able to effect savings in certain directions. For instance, at the present moment I understand the directors' fees reach £1,000 a year. I think the greater part of that might be 528 saved under a unified scheme in which the corporation would take the place of the present company. My hon. Friend has mentioned the case of the non-necessity under which they are at the present moment to keep up a sufficiently high pressure of water to cope with the requirements of the neighbourhood.
That, I contend, is a very serious matter indeed. I hardly think that my hon. Friend estimates it at the proper value. He said that that was a thing that the neighbourhood might make itself responsible for. I quite grant that that is so up to a point. Still, if this House is going to give larger powers to a community which is so remiss, and which appears to take advantage of every little loophole in its constitution which allows it to slip out of obligations, then this House must share in the responsibility if bad results ensue. I understand that under Section 46 of the Act of 1853 their charter empowers the company to charge 40 per cent, extra in certain districts. That is a remarkable provision, and altogether there appears to be a maximum of bad points in the powers of this company, and, so far as I can gather, they have a decided genius for using all the bad points and not taking advantage of the good ones. I am also informed that if, in the opinion of a local authority an extension of water mains is necessary in the interests of sanitation the company can refuse to lay down those extra mains unless the locality is prepared to pay 10 per cent. extra cost. In reply to this, it is said that they have never exercised this power. Presumably, they do not deny that that power is theirs, but their excuse is that they never exercise it. I take it that they are a sort of limited white hen that never lays astray and never does anything that is wrong. That may be a very nice excuse to put up, but, unfortunately, it is not true. I understand that there are at least four local authorities—small ones, I gather—in the neighbourhood, all of which are at the present time paying the 10 per cent.—what I suppose would be called the minimum rate—in regard to water. In addition, I understand that the local authorities, small though they be, in the generosity of their hearts undertake the collection of this money and so save the company from anxiety on that point.
9.0 P.M.
As to the point which my hon. Friend made regarding the invidious statement of the unified borough, I understand that this is a sort of an arrangement trans- 529 mitted from the old days when each separate township, self contained, had a separate contract and bargain between themselves and the particular company. Obviously one would have thought that common sense and a sense of fairness would have dictated when the united borough became united that they should proceed to deal with them as one customer instead of keeping up the old fiction that they were still separate undertakings. I do not know what the saving would be, but my information tallies with that of the Mover of the Amendment that if they were treated as one customer they would save £400 per year. Not only have they gone to the trouble to get expert opinions on the question as to whether it would be possible for the corporation with its larger powers, if given the opportunity, to make the water undertaking under their hands a success, but they have made assurance doubly sure, by going to another expert, and though his figures differ, and the second man gave figures altogether higher than the original estimate, even this Gentleman makes it quite clear that there will be no difficulty even at a purchase price including working capital, and a sum set aside available for capital purposes, amounting up to the sum of £1,950,000. As I understand it, is it at all sure that the sum needed would reach that figure. So far as the ability of the particular corporation that we are speaking of is concerned, I do not think we need have any trouble. I have yet to learn that what private individuals can do a corporation with public spirit and enterprise cannot do equally well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley) will go into the facts and take up the municipal year book, or if he distrusts that, get his information from any source he likes, provided he goes to the fountain head, and does not take Tariff Reform or anti-Socialist figures of one kind or another, because obviously I could not trust them as being at all a reliable source of information, but if he will go to the fountain head, and if he will inquire into the respective merits of municipal and private management, in any of the public utilities, I think he will find that in almost every case, certainly in the large majority of cases, the municipality shows up to splendid advantage either in regard to cost, or public service rendered, or the purity of the thing or service supplied, and that in every case they have the best of the 530 argument. Not very long ago this House was concerned with rather a large water undertaking, at least slightly larger than the one we are discussing to-night, and if my memory is not altogether at fault the people of London not long ago were threatened with a water famine. Water was very scarce—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean)I think the hon. Member is rather straying.
Mr. POINTERWith all respect, the point of the whole business is this, that we are opposing this Bill because of the refusal of the company to insert in the Bill a purchase Clause which will enable the Corporation at a later date to step in and purchase when they declare their intention of doing so. The company have not only refused, but they have given indications to show that they have refused under certain circumstances which are a gross betrayal of the promises which they made, when there was an agitation for the unified borough, at an earlier state of the proceedings, and consequently we urge that as an objection. All the same, I will not pursue the matter further. I only wish, in conclusion, to mention one or two other points. One is that the operations of this company a but upon sanitation. The great danger of the absence, in sanitary arrangements, of water wherewith to carry them out is a matter of grave import to the public health of the neighbourhood. The promoters having refused to put into the Bill a purchase Clause, I think on all the points to which I have referred we ought to have some very definite assurance from them if the House is to pass the Second Reading of this Bill.
§ The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley)The hon. Member for Stoke, in moving his Amendment, stated that he did not intend, at this stage at any rate, to press has opposition to this Bill. He made a number of interesting observations which have been added to by my hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment. They were speeches, if I may say so without offence, that might well have been delivered in the council chamber of the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation. If I am not mistaken, they were delivered there, I do not say by the hon. Members themselves, but to all intents and purposes they have repeated them. For when I look at the petition of the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation, I observe that every single one of these points, to which reference has been made are 531 set out seriatim. What we are asked to do is to review the decision, of the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation. I do not think that the strongest advocate of democratic government should impose upon us such a tyranny as that. Their persuasion is, of course, legitimate, and could be applied in the proper place. In asking the House to send this Bill to be examined by the usual Committee, I need only, I think, put before the House this fact, that this petition has been presented to the House, among several others, by the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation, setting out every single one of those points which it has taken fifty-three minutes to hear about to-night. An agreement has been arrived at between the promoters of the Bill and the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation. It is quite true that the Stoke Corporation have not got all they wanted, but people do not always get what they want in this world. The corporation, however, have got certain of the largest points which they required. They have got the removal of the extra charge to those districts referred to by my hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment, and they have also got a reduction in the charges for water closets, which was such a great point of the Member for Stoke. On that point I would say to him that, according to my information, the charges upon houses under £10 rental value, including the charge for water closets, are not higher but lower than are the charges of other water companies and other authorities for that purpose.
§ Mr. WHITLEYBefore this reduction made under the agreement. But surely that is a matter to be looked into by a Committee rather than debated on the floor of the House. I do not know that I need say anything further, except, perhaps, on a point of purchasing by the local authorities. If the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation had come to this House and asked for a purchase Clause to be inserted on consideration that they did without delay themselves apply to Parliament to be the water authority, I do not think the House would have granted that unusual thing. They put the point forward in the petition, but in consideration of the concessions obtained from the company, they have withdrawn that petition. I think I have said enough for the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
§ Mr. LLOYDI would urge the hon. Member for Stoke not to oppose this Bill any further. I would like to correct him in. one matter, namely, in regard to the fire brigade. I understood the hon. Member for Stoke to say that it was only at the sweet will of the Waterworks Company that water was supplied to the fire brigade. That is quite incorrect. My information leads me to believe that under Section 42 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, the company has no option; it is under statutory obligation to allow persons at all times to use water for extingushing fires without any payment whatever. Under these circumstances I think the point of the hon. Member falls to the ground.
§ Mr. J. WARDMy point was as to the pressure necessary to extinguish fires in the case of buildings of good height.
§ Mr. LLOYDMy recollection is that the hon. Member's point was quite different. It is quite true that no definite pressure is stated, but, at all events, the Waterworks Company do the best they can, and the pressure in their mains is as good as the pressure provided by other authorities. From his remarks I certainly thought he gave the House to understand that it was only at the sweet will of the Water Company that the fire brigade could obtain water to extinguish fires, which is certainly incorrect. I urge that this Bill should be allowed to go through for the supply of the district concerned, which is an immense one, with a population of 330,000—an increase of 100,000 since the last Bill in 1888. If only the hon. Member for Stoke paused to consider, he would realise that if this Bill is opposed and its passage frustrated the position of the company in another summer like that of last year would be very serious, and the whole of the Stoke borough would be left without water and without those facilities which are most Urgent. It seems to me that there is no reason whatever why this Bill should not be allowed to go upstairs. The Chairman of Ways and Means has dealt very adequately with the question of purchase and other points raised, and I only trust that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent may see his way to withdraw his opposition and allow the Bill to go through.
§ Mr. STANIERThe hon. Member for Stoke seems to think there is some difficulty about the pressure of water in pipes. If he refers to Section 42 of the Consolidated Acts, in regard to the supply of 533 water for fires, he will see that it is provided that the undertaker shall at all times keep the pressure of water "as aforesaid"; and if you look to what is "aforesaid," you will find that by Section 35 the pressure is to be such as will make the water reach the top storey of the highest house within the limits. I think that in itself is quite sufficient to show that the hon. Member need have no fear that there will not be enough pressure in the mains in case of fire. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment rather led the House to believe that the directors of the company received £1,000 each; he did not say that it was £1,000 amongst them.
Mr. POINTERI did not wish to create a wrong impression; I was speaking about the possibility of making ends meet, and I said £l,000 could be saved.
§ Mr. STANIERI do not think that amounts to very much, nor do I think that these directors are at all overpaid. They receive about £80 a year each; they have to meet once a week, and they are paid by attendances. I ask the House to send the Bill to Committee, where, and where alone, the points which have been raised can be argued, and not points that ought to be argued in this House. I suppose I have blocked more water Bills than any other Member of this House, and some forty or fifty in the last four or five years. I blocked this one at the beginning, but I allowed it to go through, and I hope the House will allow it to go through.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIt appears to me that we are discussing a measure which is in the nature of assisting a syndicate. The House ought to be very careful before it allows a Bill of this kind to be carried through. I should have thought it would have been wise to have postponed the Bill until after the discussion which, I understand, we are going to take in a few moments. To those Members who are afraid of the dangers of Syndicalism, I would point out that here is a case in point where we are giving control over the supply of water over a very large district to one monopolist company. In London we had experience of what it cost to buy such companies out. We had to pay an exorbitant price. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] I can speak, as the hon. Baronet the Member for the City said the other night, either for a long time or a short time. I have two or three things to 534 say and I intend to say them. The difficulty you find yourself in when you come to deal with one of these syndicates is very great indeed. If the people of the Stoke boroughs want to buy the syndicate out, they will probably find themselves saddled with a large debt and that the ratepayers will have to pay very much more than they otherwise would. If the hon. Member does not go to a Division we will not be able to divide, but I do suggest, that those who are so anxious to prevent the growth of Syndicalism in the country ought to oppose the trade root and branch.
§ Mr. J. WARDAfter the statements which have been made, though holding to my warning to the company, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. KINGI do not think the Amendment ought to be withdrawn in that manner. It is said over and over again that every man has his price, and when I see a man of principle and of such courage and integrity as my hon. Friend withdrawing his proposition in this kind of way, I begin to be a little suspicious. I do not want to make any accusations against him or anybody else, but I really think that this is a matter which might fairly occupy the time of the House a little longer than an hour. I do so, not because I have any very wide experience in the matter, but I observe that there are one or two Gentlemen who have not yet returned from dinner, and whose advent to this Debate we should very heartily welcome. For instance, there is the hon. Baronet—
§ Viscount WOLMERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Deputy-Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that question.
§ Mr. KINGThe hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. I believe that I am only doing a public service in occupying the House until he comes.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe remarks of the hon. Member are wholly irrelevant.
§ Mr. KINGThere are one or two matters of principle. There is the most important question whether a town or a city like Stoke ought to have a Bill passed which does not provide opportunity for the community to obtain as early as possible and with as little expenditure of public money as possible the control of its own 535 water supply. We are extremely sorry that we have not the assistance of the Local Government Board in this matter. I do not know where the President of the Local Government Board is, but I really consider he ought to be in his place. I see that he has sent the Under-Secretary, but so far that hon. Gentleman has not favoured us with any observations. I trust we shall hear something from some representatives of the Government.
§ Mr. J. WARDI beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. [HON MEMBERS: "NO, no."] I hope that at this stage my hon. Friends will not insist on a Division, because the object I have in view would not be served by a Division.
§ Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed.