OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION. (Hansard, 4 June 1880)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Lords, the question of the Metropolitan Water Supply appeared last Session in the shape of a Bill which met with a rather untimely fate. It has re-appeared in the present Session in rather a different shape. I am not going to make a speech upon the question generally. I wish now to call attention to one point only which, if wholly neglected, or not properly attended to, will, within a short period, in my belief, entail a considerable additional outlay upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis. I find this question has now, under the present Government, taken quite a different shape. As your Lordships will have observed, last night in the other House a Select Committee was appointed to inquire and report as to the expediency of acquiring the undertakings of the Water Companies, whether the agreements entered into provisionally for the purchase of those undertakings affords a satisfactory basis for such a purchase; and finally as to the powers of the Water Companies to levy water rates and rents, and whether it is desirable to modify or alter them. The first point I have to notice is that the terms of Reference are very wide. They raise two or three questions which, if they are examined and discussed with the want of rapidity which is usual in Parliamentary Committees, will make it highly improbable, and almost impossible, that a Report should be made this Session; and, even if a Report should be made, it will, I think, be next to impossible to pass the necessary Bill to enforce the agreements with the Companies, or such modifications of the agreements as may be found satisfactory. If the agreements should be found unsatisfactory and legislation should be deferred, in what position will 1191 the ratepayers find themselves? Inquiry is only half, and the least important half, of the question. The most important matter to the ratepayers of London is, How are we to prevent new powers of rating from accruing to the Companies? These inchoate agreements with the Water Companies will expire at the end of the present year if nothing should be done by the Legislature within that time. Supposing the agreements to be dead, and supposing we have reached the 1st of April next year, the assessment which will come into force on that day will furnish new evidence of the value of house property in the Metropolis, and no doubt the experience of the past will be repeated, and we shall become liable to pay still higher charges for exactly the same article. In these extremes, we, the ratepayers, naturally look out for someone to protect us from such a state of things, which is unjust, and which was not contemplated at the time the Water Companies commenced their undertakings, and when the original bargain was made. To whom are we to look? It has been said it is not the duty of the Home Office to undertake this matter, which properly belongs to a municipal body. Unfortunately, we are obliged to take facts, not as we would like them to be, but as they are. The fact is, we have no municipal body; and yet no one will say that the ratepayers are to be left unprotected. If we are not to fall back upon the Executive Government to protect the ratepayers of London, may I ask, where are we to look? If no notice should be taken of this representation, if no agreement should be come to, or if no measure should be passed this Session to enforce the existing agreements, then I think the ratepayers will consider that, due and timely warning having been given on more than one occasion, their interests have been neglected, and they will feel some indignation, and not without reason. I therefore ask whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps to protect the ratepayers of the Metropolis from arbitrary augmentations of assessment by the Water Companies in the event of no bargain being concluded with the Water Companies during the present Session of Parliament, or whether the Government propose to refer the whole water question, including the means of pro- 1192 tecting the ratepayers, to a Select Committee of the House of Commons?

§ THE EARL OF FIFE

My Lords, I am quite sure that my noble Friend will believe mo when I say that the Government are as fully alive as he is to the necessity of consulting in every way the interests of the ratepayers in this matter. This is a question of great importance, and one to which I am sure my noble Friend has given considerable attention. He will, therefore, bear me out when I say that a matter of this magnitude, involving many and varied interests—interests of a sanitary as well as of a financial character —cannot be settled without much care and deliberation. At this stage of the question, when the whole matter is in the crucible, I cannot but feel that I should be serving no useful purpose were I to allow myself to be drawn into the general arguments on the incidence of the water rates of the Metropolis. I will, however, refer my noble Friend to the well known case of "The New River Company v. Mather." This case showed that where any ratepayer considered himself aggrieved in the matter of the annual value which the Company may arbitrarily fix, as in the case of his house, he has a remedy in his power— to get the annual value fixed by two Justices. This, I think, would almost provide the remedy against any excessive demand such as my noble Friend seems to anticipate. I think it may be gathered from the remarks of the Home Secretary in the House of Commons last evening that there is no disposition on his part to sit by complacently while the water rates of the Metropolis are being extravagantly increased. On the contrary, it is his desire, as stated by himself, not to close the door against the possibility of a still more economical scheme being realized. And if it should turn out to be possible, as the Home Secretary said last night, to secure the desired object for, say, £20,000,000 instead of £30,000,000, I think no one will see cause to regret the delay which has occurred in this matter. My noble Friend seems to think that it is the duty of the Government to step in and with paternal hand to protect the ratepayers. Surely he would not desire the Government to abrogate and suspend the Parliamentary rights which the Water Companies possess; that would be to take away a statutory right of property; and I am 1193 sure your Lordships would agree that that would be a most serious thing, not to be contemplated, save under the plea of some overwhelming necessity. Such a proceeding would sap the springs of commercial enterprize, and would strike a blow at the very foundations on which repose our commercial undertakings. It is not in Government interference with the lawful remuneration of successful enterprize that a remedy is to be found for exorbitant charges, but in allowing the ordinary rules of commerce to take their course. The Companies know full well that it is in the power of the Metropolitan authorities to get a new supply if the Water Companies act unreasonably and exorbitantly. I really think, however, that it is better not to anticipate an evil by supposing that the Companies will proceed to such extreme measures as seem to be feared. The Companies must feel that it is not to their advantage, in the long run, to stir up strife. With regard to the reference of this question to a Select Committee, I will remind my noble Friend that is just the course which the authorities who represent the ratepayers of London universally recommend. The City Corporation, the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the vestries, through their deputation, headed by Mr. Beale, who is well known as having taken great interest in this matter, all entirely concur in this course. I may say that the gist of their recommendations has been embodied in the Reference to the Select Committee, which, with your Lordships' permission, I will read— To inquire and report as to the expediency of acquiring on behalf of the inhabitants of London the undertakings of the existing Metropolitan Water Companies; and also to examine and report whether certain agreements or any of them already entered into provisionally for the purchase of these Companies would furnish a satisfactory basis for such an acquisition; and, further, to inquire and report as to the nature and extent of the powers of the Water Companies to levy Water Rates and Rents, and how far it may be desirable to modify the same. If, after this Reference, my noble Friend still feels dissatisfied, he will perhaps allow me to consider him the only dissentient from the course which the Government have felt it their duty to pursue.