STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BILL. (Hansard, 30 May 1912)

Mr. POINTER
I beg to Move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
I wish to indicate briefly why I put down this Amendment. The Staffordshire 1648 Water Company have in previous Sessions promoted Bills very similar to the one now under consideration. There are very few points of difference between the earlier Bills and the present one; the chief difference, I think, consists in an effort to-extend the operation of the Bill over one or two fresh areas, coupled with the fact that the local authority itself has changed, and therefore different considerations have arisen from those which we had to consider before. I am not going into the history of the negotiations at all. It would be sufficient for me to say that efforts have been made by the corporation to get the company to meet them upon certain points. There are certain outstanding points upon which satisfaction has not yet been given. For instance, the enlarged corporation, which hon. Members will remember consists of an amalgamation of several of the smaller boroughs, want certain concessions made in consequence of the character of their corporation. Under the old order each locality was dealt with separately and the larger corporation, known as the Stoke Corporation, desired to be dealt with as a corporate body in the matter of charges rather than as before, each district being taken separately and separate charges being made.
There is the question of a Purchase Clause which has been considered, but which I shall show has been dropped for certain reasons, and there are a number of smaller points dealing with the conditions under which the company undertake to supply water to the locality. I think it was on 21st March the council, by a very small majority agreed to an agreement drawn up between the corporation on the one hand and the company on the other. Efforts have been made to get certain concessions, but the company responded very meagrely to the demand made, and they gave just one or two concessions of a very minor character indeed. The agreement drawn up to embody these concessions was passed on 21st March. That, I think, was passed by a majority of seven votes. I forget the exact numbers voting, but since then the council itself has turned round and quite a number of those who previously supported the company against the corporation now have turned over and are supporting the corporation side of the question. That may be looked upon in this House as very unusual, and a very undesirable proceeding for a council to take up a certain attitude and then later on change that attitude and 1649 come to this House and ask us to change also. As I understand it, the reason they have changed is that a number of them rightly or wrongly, have come to the conclusion that the information that was given to them at the time they voted on 21st March was not correct, and that generally they were misled upon certain points, and at a recent meeting held a month ago, by a majority, this time not of seven, but of twenty-seven, the previous decision was reversed and the council decided to ask that the necessary arrangements should be made in order that the Bill might be put back so that they might reconsider their decision and make what representations they thought were desirable.
I see that the Chairman of Ways and Means is in his place, as he was on the Second Reading, and if my memory serves me right, he replied to the remarks made by myself and the hon. Member for Stoke by saying that all we had said was of no effect because the council itself appeared satisfied, and therefore we had no standing. He said it was idle for us to presume to oppose this Bill if the council who are directly interested are not offering opposition. We all felt that that was rather an unanswerable case, but it appears that the Chairman of Ways and Means was not quite accurate, or at least he was accurate, but circumstances have altered since which have changed the position as regards the opinions he expressed at that time. The corporation itself is now seeking to offer opposition, and it is because of the changed attitude of the council, brought about it is alleged—I have no means of deciding whether the allegation is well founded or not—because they were misinformed by the Mayor of Stoke, who took upon himself to give certain undertakings for the company, and then the council felt bound to ratify what the mayor in his official capacity, without real authority, had undertaken on their behalf. I think under the changed circumstances it is well that this House should consider whether it is going to affirm its former position or offer reasonable facilities to the Stoke council under the changed conditions to try and get some redress and some concessions, and the type of concessions that are desired will be found by hon. Members if they will look at the Clauses which the hon. Member for Stoke desires to add to the Bill.

§ Mr. JOHN WARD
I beg to second the Amendment.
1650 I wish to supplement the observations of the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Pointer), and if I am allowed some little latitude, it is quite possible we shall be able to avoid considerable discussion. It is quite true that the original attitude of the Stoke-on-Trent council was one of opposition to this Bill. Even after the concessions had been granted by the company at a meeting of the council, it was moved by the mayor himself—who seems to have taken a very prominent part with regard to acceptance of this agreement—that these concessions be considered ample and sufficient for the purposes of the corporation. In spite of the fact that it was the mayor and in spite of his position, an amendment was moved by Councillor Brookhouse, seconded by Councillor Whittingham, "That the concessions offered were totally inadequate, and cannot be accepted by the Committee." Except for the fact that the council at its full meeting decided to leave out the word "totally," that was the policy of the council right up to quite recently. Unfortunately, or fortunately, as the case may be, the council at a very small meeting and by a very small majority, I think either two, three, or four, decided that this offer of the water company should be accepted. Practically the moment that was decided an agitation began in the opposite direction in favour of the petition against the Bill being proceeded with. Meanwhile, according to the discussion which took place at the Stoke council meeting the other day, the mayor and town clerk had put the seal of the corporation to the agreement between them and the water company, and, though the council from the discussion and vote which took place was clearly most anxious to proceed with the petition, the mayor ruled that it was utterly incompetent for the council to alter their decision, the agreement having been sealed and acted upon. Therefore, unless the council have means at their disposal of completely altering and reversing the decision and ruling of the mayor, that will remain the position of affairs.
The question we have to consider is whether we should take action independent of the corporation. We have, of course, the authority and the power to do so if we choose to take the initiative; and, of course, the decision of the Committee and the corporation would be swept aside if we thought there was the occasion to take such action. I do not think I could ask the House, as a representative of Stoke-on-Trent, to take such a drastic course as 1651 that, but, in view of the important considerations still outstanding, I do ask that the position of the corporation of Stoke-on-Trent should be preserved to them, and that even now they should be entitled to appear before the second branch of the legislature when the Bill goes before the other House, if it is possible to do so, and if the procedure allows. On the last occasion I drew attention to one peculiar fact in the position of affairs. I enumerated the great towns of the country where no extra charge was made for sanitary accommodation in the shape of w.c.'s in houses below a certain value, and that seems to be the general law of the country. Gradually, as these companies come forward for new powers, those old rights are being swept away, and as a result of this tax upon w.c.'s in cottages under £8, or upon cottages of £6 rateable value, 70 per cent. of the total dwellings of the whole place served by the company, as admitted by their own engineer, have no sanitary accommodation at all. If the Corporation had taken the trouble to have appeared before the Committee and the Committee had heard the facts, I do not think that would have been passed; but, as the Bill came before the Committee as an unopposed measure, naturally the Committee could not undertake business of that kind and alter the Bill, especially after the Corporation themselves had made the agreemnt.
There are other things connected with the petition and the discussions which have taken place which are equally important. The question of treating the corporation as one borough ought to have been conceded without the slightest hostility by the water company themselves, for the simple reason that where there used to be five bodies there is now only one corporation. The water company, however, still insist upon their rights of declaring them five separate authorities, and charging them as five separate consumers. They are, as a consequence, able to get out of the ratepayers for sanitary and other purposes some £400 or £500 a year to which they would not be entitled if the district was treated as one authority as it really is. One would naturally have thought there would have been no haggling about things of that sort by a wealthy company paying big dividends upon their share capital, one of the wealthiest corporations of its kind in the country. If the corporation had taken the proper course and had 1652 appeared before the Committee, these things would have been rectified. I want to know—and this will decide entirely my own course relating to this matter—whether, supposing the Corporation of Stoke-on-Trent finally decide, in spite of the ruling of the mayor, that they will present and go forward with their petition in the House of Lords, if this Bill goes to the Lords, they have the right to petition in the House of Lords, or whether it is to be taken as a fact that their having withdrawn their petition here they are also practically in the position of having withdrawn their petition in the House of Lords? If I am satisfied on that point, and it is still within the power of the corporation to appear by counsel if they wish to do so, and to be represented with their petition before the second branch of the Legislature, then, of course, I do not wish to press the matter further because this thing is in their hand, and if the interests of the locality and the ratepayers have not been properly protected and looked after, the responsibility falls upon the council and not upon this House. If I am satisfied on that point, I shall certainly advise a certain course relating to the Motion now before the House.

§ The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. J. H. Whitley)
I do not think it will be necessary to remind the House of the previous proceedings en this Bill at any length. We had a discussion when it came up for its Second Reading. I stated then the position to the House, and the Motion against the Second Reading was withdrawn, and the Bill went upstairs to a Committee. It has now been considered by the Committee, and comes back to the House for consideration. There was a petition from the Corporation of Stoke-on-Trent—in fact, there were several petitions from other authorities, but the petition of the Corporation of Stoke was perhaps the chief one. That was withdrawn on certain terms, and the Corporation did not therefore appear before the Committee of the House of Commons. The concessions which were offered by the promoters of the Bill and the terms on which opposition was withdrawn were three in number. One was inserted by the Committee in the Bill, namely, that the reserve fund should be reduced from £60,000 to £30,000, but this was not inserted in the Bill by the Committee, because the agreement was that it should be inserted if requested by the corporation, and the promoters informed me that they 1653 are perfectly willing to insert it should the Corporation signify their desire that it should be done. The real point upon which the hon. Member has moved the rejection of the Bill is that the attitude of the Stoke Corporation has changed since the Bill came before them. I have taken the trouble to consult the authorities of the House on the question whether or not it is possible for the Stoke Corporation to renew its objection to the Bill as originally presented to this House, and I am informed by the highest authority that they have undoubtedly a right to petition against the Bill in the other House. I am aware there have been certain allegations as to whether the agreement which has been referred to had been arrived at regularly or irregularly, but that is a matter for the Stoke Corporation themselves to deal with. I hope I have been able to satisfy the hon. Member.

§ Mr. JOHN WARD
I should like to know whether it would be possible for the Chairman of Ways and Means to make such an arrangement with regard to the further stages of this Bill as will overcome the difficulties which I have indicated?

§ Mr. WHITLEY
I have taken the trouble to inquire, and I understand that the earliest day will be the 18th June, which gives at the very least four clear weeks before the council need come to a decision as to future proceedings.

Mr. POINTER
In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.