§ House in Committee (according to Order).
§ Clause 1:—
*VISCOUNT HAMPDENmoved to leave out sub-Section 3 (which provides for the constitution of the board), in order to insert an Amendment constituting the Water Board of thirty-three members, besides the chairman and the vice-chairman, and allotting fourteen to the London County Council, two each to the City, Essex, and West Ham; three to Kent; four to Middlesex; three to Surrey; and one each to Hertfordshire, the Thames Conservancy, and the Lee Conservancy. He felt some compunction in putting this Amendment on the Paper, because it seemed to him the discussion of this question had become somewhat unprofitable—unprofitable in the sense that all the arguments seemed to be on the one side, and all the voting on the other, which was very often the case when political considerations were allowed to intervene in matters of this kind. He had put the Amendment down because he honestly believed the Government were making a grievous mistake in the 1146 constitution of this Board. Concessions had no doubt been made by them, but the Board remained the same, over large, and also having within itself seeds of divergent opinions and conflicting interests. He said this without any hesitation, that if they were to have the principle of representation—and he supposed in these days that was inevitable—the Board should represent the whole of the London water area directly, and should be able to treat London in the matter of the water supply as one undivided whole. It should not be representative of local, sectional, and conflicting interests. That was the main argument he wanted to address to the House. The Board was over large, and was so constituted that it would be absolutely unable to obtain the advantages which ought to be derived from the transfer of the undertakings of the Water Companies. Notwithstanding what his noble friend Lord Balfour said on the Second Reading, he contended that the action of the Government had been directly against the weight of evidence, and, more than that, it had been directly in opposition to the opinions of every impartial body that had considered the question, and even against the opinions of a quasi-impartial body, if be might be allowed the expression—namely, the Joint Committee. He was perfectly accurate in the statement he had made. For instance, Lord Cross's Bill proposed a Board of 21; Lord James of Hereford's Bill a Board of 30; and Viscount Llandaff's Commission a Board of thirty. The counsel who represented the Local Government Board before the Joint Committee stated in his opening speech that since the report of Lord Llandaff's Commission, the Borough Councils had come into existence, and therefore it was necessary that they should have representation. That being so, it was impossible to exclude the Urban Councils, and so they had the whole of the Water Board doubled in numbers at once. Not one word was said about administrative machinery, or the efficiency of the administration, but only that the Borough Councils should be represented. It was a curious fact that no claim had been made by the Borough Councils for representation 1147 before the presentation of the Government Bill, and no evidence was adduced by the Local Government Board until the Joint Committee requested them to submit evidence in support of this request. Therefore this was entirely an afterthought. The minority of the Borough Councils protested against their being included, and the Borough Councils that did appear before the Joint Committee gave, he thought, the most childish reasons for their inclusion in the Board. The fact was mentioned by Viscount Llandaff, on the Second Reading, that some of these Urban Councils protested that the pipes of the Water Companies went through their land, arid that they did not get sufficient profit from that fact.
If this question was to be understood, they must study its history. He did not want to weary their Lordships by going back any length of time: he would only go back as far as Lord Llandaff's Commission, which sat for two years and exhaustively studied the question. Although the members of that Commission at first began their inquiry with divergent views, so strong was the evidence brought before them that they came to a unanimous report. One of the Commissioners had stated that the Commission had been treated by the Government in a most unreasonable way; they had given a very long time to the study of this question, and had come to a unanimous report, but the Government had put their report in the waste-paper basket. He must say that the proceedings of the Joint Committee constituted an extraordinary piece of history. The Government took action in this matter which would not have been allowed to any other promoter. No other promoters would have been allowed to put a chairman of their own body in the chair of the Committee. No one knew better than he did how equitable and just in all relations of life was Lord Balfour, but he was in an impossible position on that Committee. He would remind the noble Lord that a man could not serve two masters; he could not serve the cause of administrative efficiency in regard to this Bill and the cause of the Government. It was impossible, and so, when the Committee 1148 came to a decision which was in opposition to the views of the Government, the sittings were suspended, or, at any rate, the counsel appeared before the Committee and expressed the profound regret of the Government at the decision of the Committee, and there was then a reconsideration. He imagined, though he could not say it as a fact, that there had been some lobbying, but in some fashion or other the decision of the Committee was spirited away, and they came to an equality of votes. The noble Lord had been attacked in that House for the method in which he put the question. He did not attack him on that point. He thought that when he got to the position of an equality of votes he was justified in the action he took, but what struck him as clever was not the method of putting the question, but the noble Lord's ingenuity in turning a minority into an equality of votes. That was the achievement most to be admired.
If they wanted to arrive at a knowledge of what the constitution of this Board should be, they had to inquire what was to be expected of it, what were the duties that the Board would perform. Lord Llandaff's Commission had set out the advantages to be derived from a transfer of the Water Companies' undertakings. Those advantages were a unity of management, uniformity of arrangements, the extension of a constant supply to the highest houses, a more rational and economical system of distribution, prevention of waste by the co-operation of the community, and the abolition of the existing arbitary divisions of the London Water area into districts. The whole of this might be summed up in one expression—unity of management. That was to say, they must treat the whole area of London in the matter of water supply as one undivided whole. Bearing this necessity in mind, Lord Llandaff's Commission made certain propositions. They proposed that the Board should be a permanent Board, and not a fluctuating one; that it should be of not more than thirty members, and, further, that no preponderance should be given to conflicting interests. What were those conflicting interests that Lord Llandaff's Commission spoke of? They were the conflicting interests between the districts of distribution—viz., London—and the 1149 districts of supply, Kent and Hertfordshire. Obviously, when Mr. Long, the President of the Local Government Board, came to look into this matter, it was impossible to reconcile those interests. It was impossible to give Kent and Hertfordshire such a preponderating voice as to protect them, and so he evaded that question and gave what was very proper, a preponderating influence to London. But he did so, not by giving the authority to the London County Council, but by the inclusion of the Borough Councils, and consequently, also, the Urban Councils, and so, in that manner, he created conflicting interests of a much graver kind, not between London and the other districts, but between different parts of London itself. That always must be the had local representation. For instance, look at London and its different districts. North London and West London were supplied at a lower rate, speaking generally, than East and South London, and therefore, if they had local representation, they were sure to have divergent views, certainly on such questions as the equalisation of rates and the incidences of charge.
The Bill, as he understood it, enacted that the Water Board might at the end of three years, bring in a Bill to equalise rates. He would like to ask noble Lords how that was going to be done? If it was to be done at the expense of the individual consumer—that was to say, by raising the rates of one consumer and lowering the rates of the other—he would advise the Government not to do that at the time of a General Election, or they would have a lively time in London. If it was to be done at the expense of the local rate, the Board they proposed to constitute would never do it as the interests would be divergent. They had evidence of this up to the hilt before the Joint Committee. The local rate based on ratable value would produce a larger amount in Westminter, perinhabitant than the same rate would produce in South or East London although it was probable that the Westminster ratepayers would be better able to beat the higher rate than the residents in South or East London would be able to bear the lower one. What was the City of Westminter's attitude before the 1150 Joint Committee? It asked the Committee to make it incumbent on the Water Board to exhaust the whole rating power of the present Companies—namely, to perpetuate the existing differences—before coming on the rates at all. He held that that was clear evidence of what would happen on the Water Board. They would have all these conflicting interests fighting one against the other. Did they suppose the example of Westminster Borough Councils? They would have everyone nor be followed by the advantage of London as a whole such as an authority like the County Council would be able to do, but looking at London from a parochial view as representing their own constituents. Could they expect effective administration from a Board constituted in this fashion? What were tha duties, after all, that the Board would have to perform? They would have, for instance, such questions as the sources of supply, the distribution, the purification, and the rates of charge—questions which it would not be easy to treat from a local standpoint. The Borough Councils were elected to cleanse the streets and perform other duties which affected merely the local area; the County Council was elected for matters which affected the whole area of the county, and the distribution of water was essentially one of them. The conflictiong interests of this Board would entirely prevent the Bord from obtaining the main advantages of transfer, without which they had much better have left things alone. The Board was too large, members would not attend regularly, and they would not have any continuity of policy. The statement of Lord Balfour on the Second Reading, that it was a necessity for this Board to have committees, astonished him. He felt nearly staggered when he heard the number of committees the noble Lord proposed. After all, did not that show that the Government had not got a correct idea of what the duties of the Water Board would be? He thought the object of the Bill was to combine the eight companies into one whole, so that the Water Board could administer the business of the Companies from the centre. If that was so, what did they want with all these committees? The 1151 Board would have under its control the Water Companies' officials, who were well trained, and the whole work would go like a piece of well-oiled machinery. He believed a committee of the London County Council would be able to do the whole work, and do it admirably, when they had combined the Companies into one administrative whole.
The size of this Board and the conflicting interests in it would militate against its work, and prevent, as he believed, although he hoped not, any agreement between the Companies and the Board. He was afraid that the size of the Board would almost force arbitration upon the Companies, and the costly expense that would accompany it. He quite failed to understand the action of the Government, unless they had been impelled by political motives. They had to deal with the transfer of forty or fifty millions of money, and of vast undertakings involving the control of an army of officials and labourers. What they wanted was a small, compact, experienced body, having within itself the promise of unity of management. Instead of that, they appointed a large Board having within itself the certainty of conflicting interests and jarring discord; and for no other reason, so far as he could see, than to trick the London County Council. Whatever could be said against the aggressive tactics of the London County Council, this much could be said for them, that they had experienced officials. They had studied the question thoroughly and understood it; and if they were to have the principle of representation in London applied to the water question the London County Council undoubtedly ought to have had the dominant voice in the matter.
§
Amendment moved—
In patre 1, line 19, to leave out sub-Section (3) and to insert '(3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Water Board shall consist of a chairman, a vice-chairman, and thirty-three other members, the chairman and vice-chairman shall be appointed by the Water Board, and the other members shall be appointed as follows:—Fourteen by the London County Council, two by the common council of the City, two by the County Council of Essex, two by the council of the borough of West Ham, three by the County Council of Kent, four by the County Council of Middlesex, three by the County Council of Surrey, one by the County
1152
Council of Hertfordshire, one by the Conservators of the River Thames, one by the Lee Conservancy Board.' "—(Viscount Hampden.)
*THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH)My Lords, I have certainly no reason to complain of the tone in which the noble Lord has moved this Amendment, but I am afraid that I am entirely unable to agree with the great majority of the arguments he has put before your Lordships in favour of the change which he advocates. I have no doubt that he honestly thinks that the Government are making a mistake in proposing this Board, or he would not have moved the Amendment which appears on the Paper in his name. I equally honestly, having had something to do with the early preparation of the Bill, though not much, and having spent some twenty-four days in considering it with the assistance of the able counsel upstairs, have come to the conclusion, that having regard to all the difficulties of the situation, this is, upon the whole, the best solution which can be devised. If you pass over all the considerations on the other side, and only criticise this Board on account of its size, and the divergent interests which it represents, and on account of the fact that it will be new and inexperienced in its work, undoubtedly you can make a prima facie case against the proposal in the Bill; but when you come to consider any other proposal which has been put forward, either before any of the Committees or Commissions, or if you take the proposal of the noble Lord on the Paper, it is easy, I think, to show that the disadvantages of that proposal are greater than those of the Government's proposal.
Just let us clearly understand the issue as presented by the noble Lords' Amendment. The Government scheme is to give representation to the six County Councils concerned, which cover the whole of the area represented in what is known as "water London." In addition to that we give representations to the County Borough of West Ham and to all the other boroughs and urban districts within the area concerned, and to the two Conservancies which I will leave out of consideration for the moment. The proposal of the noble 1153 Viscount opposite is to delete all the representation from the Metropolitan Boroughs, the non-county boroughs outside the Metroplis, and the urban districts, and to take what I may call a County Council basis, making a Board of thirty-three in number, with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. I will also leave out of consideration the Chairman and Vice-Chairman from each scheme, because they find a place both in the Government scheme and in that suggested by the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount said in his speech that the London area must have a dominant majority on this authority. The noble Lord's scheme does not give a dominant majority to London. It gives sixteen out of thirty-three, which is a minority. It gives fourteen to the other County Councils, and two to the City. The great area of London—two-thirds, at least, if not three-fourths greater in area, population, and ratable value—would be absolutely in the minority on the new Board.
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHThe representation would be sixteen out of thirty-one; the noble Lord himself has left the Thames Conservancy and the Lea Conservancy out of the question.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHNo doubt without the other elements it would have a bare or narrow majority. The point I wish to make is this, it in no way gives adequate representation to London, either in respect of area, population, or ratable value, and if it is a majority, it is in no sense a carrying out of the decision of the Joint Committee, of which so much is made, because that Committee distinctly said in its resolution that no one County Council was to be in a majority over all the other interests concerned. The position of the Government is this, that London, with all its interests on the three grounds I have mentioned, ought to have, and must have, a majority, and the only way in which, in the opinion of the Government, you can give it that majority, is to bring in the representation of these other bodies which are so much condemned by the noble Viscount opposite. They were not in existence at the time of Lord Cross's proposal, nor was the County Council, so that I think I need hardly go back so far as that. I 1154 do not know whether—I am not entitled to presume—the noble Lords who are Members of this House and of the London County Council are going to support this Amendment. [Lord TWEEDMOUTH assented.] That relieves me of some difficulty. Speaking generally, this Amendment proposes very much the same sort of Board which was proposed in Lord James's Bill in 1896. That Board was absolutely defeated by the operation of the outside Councils at that time, and I go further than that and say that there was no proposal ever made by the Government, certainly by no Government which I can recollect, which was so ridiculed and so entirely condemned as that proposal by noble Lords opposite. I will not weary your Lordships with extracts from the speeches made by Lord Tweedmouth, Lord Monkswell, Lord Welby, or Lord Rosebery. But he document prepared by the Parliamentary agent, under the direction of the Parliamentary Committee of the London County Council, contains abundant material for condemnation of the particular scheme proposed by the noble the Viscount out of the mouths of the noble Lords who are also members ot the County Council I will not quote, because I do not want to rest my case upon any charge of inconsistency.
I suppose noble Lords opposite would prefer that the London County Council should be the authority instead of the new Water Board. I am not surprised that it should be so, but the London County Council is alone amongst all the authorities in desiring that. The representatives of the County Council before the Joint Committee last summer did submit some sort of proposal similar to the one which is now before us in the Amendment of the noble Viscount, and that proposal was rejected on an equality of votes. I am not entitled to put it higher than that. At any rate, it did not get a majority of the Committee, and it did not get support from any one of the other County Councils which were represented, and it only received support from a very small inventry of the local authorities which appeared before us. Failing that proposal, I understood at that time that the County Council wished to propose a still smaller authority, such as that suggested in the Report of Viscount 1155 Llandaff's Commission, but an essential part of the proposal of that Commission was that the body should be an expert one, and that every member of it should be paid. Whatever may be said in the abstract of such a suggestion as that, at any rate it has found no supporters in the other House of Parliament, and, so far as I know, none in this. Therefore, I shall not detain your Lordships by arguing against it until I hear it put forward as a substantive proposal.
The first point I make is, therefore, that unless you are content to give London an insufficient representation upon the new Board, you are absolutely reduced to some such scheme as that proposed by the Government. I do not think I need go further into the procedure before the Joint Committee. The noble Lord said he would not challenge my personal action in that matter. He told me that I was in an impossible position, and that I could not serve two masters. I was a Member of the Government at the time I was appointed to the Chairmanship of that Committee. I told the House the other day that the position was not one of my seeking, and that I understood it was unanimously desired that I should occupy the position. I believe that if I had been in the position absolutely of a free agent, as an ordinary Chairman of a Joint Committee, I could not have brought the proceedings to any other conclusion. The fact is, Party feeling ran too high, and the moment it was suggested that the Boroughs were to be struck out, or that the London County Council was to be the sole authority, it was absolutely impossible to adopt the means sometimes attempted by a Committee of saying—"You must produce some sort of a compromise amongst yourselves." That was impossible. In the end we were obliged, owing to having to deal with one or two areas not contemplated by the Bill as introduced, to increase the numbers of the Board from sixty-seven to seventy-one. In the Committee in the House of Commons a certain compromise was made which resulted in the reduction of the number from seventy-one to sixty-six, and a considerable alteration was made in the relative proportions which were to come from the County Council and the boroughs and urban districts outside 1156 London. The London County Council's representation was increased by four, and those outside London diminished by a like number. I am very far from either complaining about that, or saying that it was a compromise made in such a way as to prevent raising the question in this House. Undoubtedly, it was agreed to by both parties, and there the matter must rest. As I have said, the noble Lord's scheme is identical with the scheme rejected by the Joint Committee on an equality of votes.
I am bound to tell the House that I think it is an essential part of the Bill that representation should be given to these sanitary authorities as well as to the London County Council, partly on account of the necessity for the administration of their own work and partly, as I have said, because I believe it to be the only means by which London can be given adequate representation. It is unjust to London to give it less than its proper representation on this body, and you may depend upon it that it was as clear as possible before the Joint Committee, and before the other Committees, that the outside authorities would not consent to the London County Council having a preponderant majority on the Board. I am not going to say whether they are right or whether they are wrong, but I state the fact, and as a fact, taken by itself, it cannot be disputed, that to give the London County Council such a majority on this Board as would adequately represent the interests of London would be to make confusion worse confounded, and to stir up an amount of opposition to the Bill which, I believe, would be fatal to carrying it through its subsequent stages. I am entitled, I think, to say this, that the constitution of the new Board as proposed by the Bill is practically accepted now by all the authorities concerned, except the London County Council. Without it London would not be adequately represented, and I am entitled to make this point, although I do not in this House wish to lay too much stress upon it, that the proposal of the noble Lord not only failed to get a majority in the Joint Committee, where we were equally divided, and that when brought before the House of Commons the scheme was rejected by a majority of 1157 105, only forty-eight Members being found to vote in favour of it. I did not understand what the noble Lord meant when he spoke of conflicting interests in London. Of course, there are divergent views, and of course the richer districts of London will dislike anything in the nature of an equalisation of rates, but I do not think that is a sufficient reason for rejecting this Board. Surely, even those who object to having their rates raised are entitled to state their views. If I were asked my opinion, I should say it was eminently desirable that, for the purposes of the water supply, London should be regarded as one entity, and the charge made similar for the whole area. So long as there were eight different companies, you could not get equalisation of charges; it could only be got by and through some such process as this Bill will arrange for. There must be an authority to acquire all the interests concerned, and then to distribute the burdens as they ought to be distributed. The reason why there is no proposal for an equalisation of rates is that this Bill is intended to be simply a transfer Bill. It is to put a Joint Water Board in the place of the eight companies, with distinct, and in some respects, if you like, conflicting interests, but to transfer the whole of the obligations of the one party to the Board, and to leave the obligations of the different authorities concerned exactly as they are at the present time. The noble Lord made great play with the Westminster proposal. That proposal was a perfectly fair subject for consideration. I am not surprised that Westminster sought to look after its own interests, but, at any rate, its proposal was unanimously rejected by the Joint Committee as entirely inadmissible, and I do not believe that in the future Westminster has much chance of getting it accepted.
VlSCOUNT HAMPDENI thought the Joint Committee had partially accepted it—at least that they had made some change in the Bill on the representation of Westminster.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLElGHI rather think we refused to increase the representation of Westminster. But the 1158 point I was on was that Westminster proposed that there should be no equalisation of rates until every other district had been charged up to the hilt on the present powers. We rejected that because we did not think it right that any advantage should be given to one district over another until the new Board was constituted. Certainly, the Westminster proposal was rejected by the Committee. As to that I think there can be no doubt at all. While I am far from saying that the proposal in the Bill is perfect and that you cannot state objections to it. I do say that, looking at the whole question. I have come honestly and entirely to the conclusion, that conclusion that upon the whole it is the best scheme which has yet been proposed, and the only scheme which has any chance at the present time of being carried into effect. Therefore I sincerely hope the House will not give effect to the Amendment.
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHI know your Lordships' House is not a lover of vain repetitions, and I shall therefore not repeat what I said on the Second Reading on this subject. The arguments of the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment seemed to me to be strangely convincing, and the noble Lord who has just sat down has to my mind entirely failed to meet them. Lord Balfour found fault with the Board proposed by my noble friend because it was to a large extent similar to that proposed by Lord James, and which, he said, was ridiculed by noble Lords who represented the London County Council. I have no doubt we did severely criticise that Board and I think we should be prepared to criticise it again if it was proposed. Whatever objection we might have thought that Board was open to, we think it immensely increased in the case of the Board proposed in this Bill, and if Lord James's Board was ridiculous we think this one most ridiculous, and if we have to choose between the two evils, we would rather take the lesser evil. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill stated that this authority was accepted by all the bodies concerned. Yes, accepted by all the bodies except the London County authority, which is the principal authority to be considered.
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHSurely, if there is one authority which may claim to represent London it is the London County Council.
§ VISCOUNT KNUTSFORDThe only objection to the proposed Board comes from the London County Council.
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHOther bodies have objected as well. But, surely, it is a big exception to say that the constitution of the Board has been accepted by all the authorities except the one which more represents London than any other. The noble Lord says it has been accepted by the Borough Councils. I quite agree that many of the Borough Councils, when they were memorialised and stirred up, did pull themselves together sufficiently to pass Resolutions in favour of this proposal, but there are no less than nine Borough Councils which have passed Resolutions against this Bill. Then it comes to this that it has been accepted by all the authorities except the London County Council, which is the principal authority in London, and at least one-third of the Borough Councils. The Borough of Chelsea, in spite of all your memorials, will not express an opinion one way or the other, and I am told that on that Council the Conservative Party are in a majority of two to one. I will endeavour to compare the two authorities—the one proposed by Viscount Hampden and the one in the Bill. I leave out the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and the representatives of the Thames and Lea Conservancies because they are common to both Boards. In the case of the Government Bill you have sixty-two Members, representing no less than seventy-eight different authorities, which to a very large extent overlap one another, and whose districts are, in many cases, contained one within the other. In the proposal of Viscount Hampden you have thirty-one members representing eight separate authorities which cover the whole ground to which the Bill applies, and which do not overlap in any way whatever. Surely that is something of an advantage. I would venture to press this point, that the supply of water is essentially a thing 1160 which it is desirable should be undertaken on the responsibility of central bodies which really have the interests of large areas at heart, and should not be governed by the considerations of the smaller areas. I would venture to remind your Lordships that these Borough Councils are nothing more nor less than the old London Vestries. You may put any gloss you like on them; you may decorate their Mayors with the longest of chains and clothethem with the furriest of robes, but they are the old-fashioned London Vestries, with all their prejudice and smallness of mind. By no possible means can you turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. If you were to take the plan of my noble friend you would secure that there should be represented on the Water Board only those authorities which are likely to look upon the supply of water from a broad basis, from a basis on which the interests of considerable districts will be considered. My noble friend's proposal is that the London County Council shall have fourteen members; the Common Council of the City, two members; the County Council of Essex, two members; the Council of the Borough of West Ham, two members; the County Council of Kent, three members; the County Council of Middlesex, four members; the County Council of Surrey, three members; and the County Council of Hertfordshire, one member. I think the House will agree with me that that covers the whole of the London area that is interested in the Supply of Water. The noble Lord made a great point that by the Amendment the London County Council, as representing London, which was entitled to have a big majority on this Board, would not have sufficient representation. I have no doubt the London County Council would like to have a larger representation, but it is willing to accept the representation proposed in the Amendment. It believes that with this share it will be able to do its duty to the people of London, and that it will secure sufficient support from the representatives of the outside areas to deal in a large and broad-minded way with this great subject. In the Government's proposal only one representative is given to each of the County Councils of Essex, Surrey, Kent, 1161 Middlesex and Hertfordshire, and I certainly think those authorities have every reason to object to the amount of representation that is given to them. You have two members given to the City, and two each to Westminster and West Ham; that leaves thirty-seven members to represent the Borough Councils and the District Councils. Therefore in this Bill you give an absolute majority on the whole Board to the representatives of the smaller areas, to the very men who are least capable of dealing with this subject in a broad-minded way in the interests of
EARL CAREINGTONmoved to provide that the Board should consist of forty-three members (instead of forty-two as stated in his Amendment on the Paper) besides the chairman and vice-chairman. He had altered his figures from forty-two to forty-three, so as to take no representation away from the City of London. He desired to compliment Viscount Hampden on the able speech he had made. The noble Lord had put the whole case in a nutshell. The County Council did not want the dominant power on the Water Board, but they wanted the dominant voice. If duplicate representation on the County Council and the local authorities 1162 the larger area, and who will look upon the question as affecting their own particular borough rather than London as a whole. From that point of view the proportion in the Government's proposal is not likely to work satisfactorily. I earnestly hope that Viscount Hampden's Amendment will receive very considerable support from your Lordships.
§ On Question, "That sub-Section 3 stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided. Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 16.
1161| CONTENTS. | ||
| Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) | Romney, E. | Colchester, L. |
| Devonshire, D. (L. President.) | Selborne, E. | Congleton, L. |
| Stamford, E. | Dunboyne, L. | |
| Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) | Stanhope, E. | Ellenborough, L. |
| Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) | Forester, L. | |
| Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.) | Verulam, E. | Gage, L. (v. Gage.) |
| Ailesbury, M. | Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] | Kenyon, L. |
| Bath, M. | Kinnaird, L. | |
| Hertford, M. | Churchill, V. [Teller.] | Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) |
| Lansdowne, M. | Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | Lawrence, L. |
| Macnaghten, L. | ||
| Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.) | Knutsford, V. | Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.) |
| Denbigh, E. | ||
| Doneaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) | Addington, L. | Ormathwaite, L. |
| Allerton, L. | Redesdale, L. | |
| Hardwicke, E. | Balfour, L. | Robertson, L. |
| Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.) | Belhaven ans Stenton, L. | Somerton, L. (E. Normanton) |
| Belper, L. | Windsor, L. | |
| Leven and Melville, E. | Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) | Zouche of Haryngworth, L. |
| Lucan, E. | Brougham and Vaux, L. | |
| Onslow, E. | Chelmsford, L. | |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Carrington, E. | Brassey, L. | Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.] |
| Spencer, E. | Burghelere, L. | Sandhurst, L. |
| Coleridge, L. | Tweedmouth, L. | |
| Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) | Denman, L. | Wandsworth, L. |
| Hampden, V [Teller.] | Monkswell, L. | Welby, L. |
| Llandaff, V. | Reay, L. |
§ was desirable, it was essential that there should be equality, and the district representation should not outweigh the county representation. He claimed to know something of the wishes of the people of London. He and other noble Lords on the Progressive side fought the last County Council election entirely on the question of housing and water, and they spoke several times a night for nearly three weeks before the election, in every part of London. He could therefore confidently assure the House that this was the wish of the people of London. He hoped the noble Lord would accept his Amendment.
1163
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 20, after and' to insert 'forty-three'; in line 24, to leave out 'two' and to insert 'one'; and in page 2, to leave out lines 1 and 2 and to insert, 'one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Poplar and Hackney, one by the Council of the metropolitan boroughs of Stepney, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Stoke Newington and Islington, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Bethnal Green, Shoreditch, and Finsbury, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Holborn, St. Pancras, and Hampstead, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of St. Marylebone and Westminster, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Paddington and Kensington, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Wandsworth and Battersea, one by the Council of the metropolitan borough of Lambeth, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Southwark and Bermondsey, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Camberwell and Deptford, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Greenwich, Lewisham and Woolwich'; in line 14 to leave out 'two,' and to insert 'one,' and to leave out lines 5 to 10, and to insert: 'One by the Councils of the urban districts of East Ham and Leyton, one by the Councils of the urban districts of Walthamstow, Buckhurst Hill, Chingford, Loughton, Waltham Holy Cross, Wanstead, and Woodford.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI take note of the intimation made by the noble Lord that he would alter his number to forty-three instead of forty-two and allow two representatives to the City of London. I say no more on that, because I think the City of London is entitled to two. The noble Lord proposes to reduce the representation of the City of Westminster from two to one. Personally, I think the City of Westminster is entitled to two, not only on account of its extraordinarily high valuation, but on account of its considerable population. I am surprised that the noble Lord should not think Islington, on account of its population, worthy of a member. I believe it to be the largest in population of the metropolitan boroughs which the noble Lord opposite proposes to place in a group with Stoke Newington. Taking rather a larger view of the matter, what is the difference in principle between a Board of some sixty-six members and one of forty-three? They will both have to work through committees, and I cannot see, unless there is some great advantage to be got by reduction, that there is any reason for 1164 making the change. I do not think this system of grouping the metropolitan boroughs would do at all. The noble Lord proposes to put side by side the boroughs of Wandsworth and Battersea; but the noble Lord behind me commented on the occasion of the Second Reading on the extreme antagonism which was displayed before the Joint Committee by these two boroughs. They would lead a cat-and-dog life if associated with each other, and I am absolutely certain that the grouping of metropolitan boroughs would be objected to by the boroughs themselves. You would displease everybody and please nobody. I think it to be a scheme which has really no friends. It was thinly supported in another place. There is no sort of reason that I can see for taking away a member from the county borough of West Ham, which has a population of 267,000 and a ratable value of nearly £1,250,000. I hope that after the discussion we have already had, the House will not agree to make the change.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI see that London has no friends, and therefore I shall not put the trouble of dividing on my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave of the Committee withdrawn.
§ EARL STANHOPEmoved an Amendment to provide that there should be one member on the Water Board representing the Councils of the urban districts of Beckenham, Bromley, and Chislehurst, and one member representing the Councils of the urban districts of Penge, Bexley, Dartford, Erith, and Footscray, instead of one member representing all these urban districts. Until the previous Wednesday, when it was changed by the President of the Local Government Board, the Bill enacted that there should be one member for the County Council of Kent and two for the populous and increasing areas of the Urban District Councils of Kent; but suddenly the representation of the Urban District Councils had been reduced to one. He thought it was especially hard that this large water-supplying area should have been deprived of proper representation. He 1165 asked the House to accept his Amendment on the ground of population, the population of the urban districts being at present 145,000. The other outside authorities in the London Water area had not been deprived of their representatives in the way Kent had been. Lord Avebury felt most strongly that they were in Kent in a different position altogether from the other areas. Whereas the quantity of water which might be taken from the Thames was limited, in Kent it was all pumped out of the chalk formation at a depth of some ninety feet, and the chalk formation was being gradually denuded of water. In one district twenty-two miles from London, the wells were greatly diminished in capacity, and many farmers who depended for their water supply to their farms on wells had found their water running short. Lord Avebury was of the opinion that chalk formation only held water in suspense, and that if it was squeezed like a sponge, as it was by deep well pumping, the supply of water might be absolutely taken away. At the present time the supplies of water taken out of Kent amounted to 18,000,000 gallons a day. He urged the necessity of the provision contained in his Amendment on account of the depletion of the water supplies of Kent in order to supply South London water.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 2, line 13, after 'Chislehurst' to insert 'and,' and after 'Pengu' to insert 'one by the councils of the urban districts of.' "—(Earl Stanhope.)
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I think that the plaintive appeal which the noble Earl has just made to the House entitles him to our sympathy, but I am afraid I can offer him nothing more solid than that on this occasion. He entered into the large question of the water supply being taken from Kent for the use of London. That was a question which was raised before the Joint Committee, and we held it over for future settlement and arrangement. I must remind the noble Lord that this is merely a transfer Bill, and that London has a right to draw from the large water-bearing strata in question, and 1166 if that right is to be taken out, it can only be after full consideration of all the interests and rights involved. The noble Earl is in error in thinking that Kent has been less fairly treated than any other area. I have had prepared the number of population in the various counties which have representation on the Water Board. The Kent County Council and Urban District Councils are to have two representatives, which is one for every 74,000 inhabitants. The only county which is in a more favourable situation than that is Surrey, which has one for every 66,000 of its population. Essex has one for every 85,000, Middlesex one for every 90,000, and London, even as we propose it, one for every 100,000. Therefore, there is no case on the merits for giving Kent more representation. I think it is fair that at the present time the outside areas should have in proportion more than the inside areas. In all the circumstances, I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Clause 2:—
§ LORD WELBYmoved an Amendment providing that the Water Board shall pay to each Company, as compensation for the transfer of their undertakings, such sum as may be agreed on between the "London County Council on behalf of the" Board and the Company. He thought their Lordships would agree that this was one of the greatest transfers of undertakings that had ever been entrusted to a public body, and he thought, therefore, that it was above all things important that the new body should be in a position to state the case of the ratepayers and the water consumers as fully as possible bo the arbitrators who would have to decide on the price of the undertakings. He could not help thinking that the new Board would be at a very great disadvantage as compared with the Companies in the time allowed them to prepare their case and the circumstances in which they would prepare their case. The Companies had been studying this question for years. Every year the question had been in 1167 some form or other before either Parliament or a Commission or Committee, and before all these tribunals the Companies had appeared. They, therefore, had their whole case at their finger ends, and their able and expert officers were in a position to set it forth almost at once. Further than that, they had been aware, for the last fortnight at least, that this Bill was certain to pass, and they had been able to begin their work at once, and to engage the counsel who were to represent them. But what was the position of the body who were to represent the water consumers? It was to be an entirely new body. Some twenty-four different authorities were to appoint members to the new Water Board, and some of those authorities had to elect joint authorities to be brought together in order to discharge the function of electing a representative. Their Lordships knew how difficult it was to get bodies, especially newly constituted bodies, to come together; he did not think he was exaggerating when he said they would not be in a position to meet before February, and in fixing that date he was giving the authorities who would elect the Joint Committees credit for a considerable amount of promptitude which they might not display. When the Water Board met it would consist of between sixty and seventy men, the larger part of whom would never have studied the subject before or approached it in any way. This body would be without officers and without previous experience, and the first thing it would have to do would be to learn its lesson. He felt that the new Water Board was therefore put into a very difficult position. How, under the circumstances, was it possible for them to hold their own before the arbitrators against the eight Companies, and how could they be expected to secure justice for the ratepayers and the consumers? The Government was not entirely without warning in the matter. It was now over twenty years since the celebrated scheme of 1880 was brought forward, and competent financial authorities had examined that scheme in the light of subsequent experience. Their calculation was that if the seheme of 1880 had taken effect, by 1901 the ratepayers would have lost 1168 no less than £2,865,000. The fact that such a statement could be brought forward on reasonable, financial grounds showed at once what a very tremendous case for the ratepayers was at issue, and if that was so when so much care was taken, as in 1880, in the investigation, there was greater danger in the present case when the matter was to be entrusted to a new and inexperienced body. What security was His Majesty's Government taking that in this case justice would be done to the ratepayers and the water consumers? The remedy he suggested appeared to him to be not an unreasonable one. Why not let the London County Council be the agents of the new Board? The London County Council was, at all events, in as good a position as the Companies, for its members had been studying the question for years, and it had expert officers whom it could place against the officers of the Companies. The London County Council would frankly accept the position, if it were assigned to them, of acting as the agents in conducting the purchase and preparing the case, and would then hand the matter over to the Water Board. He ventured to think that if that arrangement were made there would be some security that justice would be done to the ratepayers, who, under the present arrangement, would run considerable risk of not having their case properly presented.
§
Amendment moved—
In page3, line 11, after the first 'the' to insert 'London County Council on behalf of the'; and in line 12, after 'Act' to insert 'as between the London County Council on behalf of the Board and the Company.' "—(Lord Welby.)
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI can say quite frankly that I do not share in the least degree the apprehensions to which the noble Lord has just given expression, and I think there is one very strong reason why this course should not be taken. Surely it will be a very unwarrantable slight to put on the new Board to tell them, even before they are constituted, that Parliament thinks they will be so incompetent to manage their work that they must be put in leading strings and under the 1169 control of another body, and a body which, however eminent and excellent its services may be, represents a smaller constituency than that which the Water Board will represent.
§ LORD WELBYBut the same interest.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHIn a great, part the same interest, but not altogether. My reason for thinking the apprehensions of the noble Lord exaggerated is this. If the Bill now stood exactly as introduced, there might possibly have been some cause for the noble Lord's apprehension; but in its passage through another place a Clause was added which prevents an agreement taking effect until it has been confirmed by the arbitrators. I think that is a perfectly sufficient guarantee that all interests will be fully considered. I will not dissent in one syllable from the praise which the noble Lord gave to the officers of the County Council as to the excellent manner in which they can get up a case, or the way in which that case is presented. As I said on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill, I know of no body who can get up its case from its own point of view so well. There will be fourteen members of the London County Council on this new Water Board, and I have no doubt that most of the expert brains of the County Council on this particular subject will be represented. Moreover, the new Board need not make an agreement until they have got sufficient experience and knowledge to enable them to make a proper one. When they go before the arbitrators they will be able to draw on the experience of the County Council, and will be able to call any witnesses they choose, whether members of the County Council or their officers, who have experience in these matters. Taking all these considerations into account, I think it would be very unfair to the new Board to insert this Clause, and I hope your Lordships will not agree to it.
§ LORD WELBYdid not think the fact that an agreement must be confirmed by the arbitrators before it became valid quite touched his point. The whole 1170 question turned on the information laid before the arbitrators, and he was afraid the new body would not be in a position to run the case properly. He accepted, on behalf of the County Council, the compliment which the noble Lord had paid it, but he must say that the County Council had been treated with distrust by His Majesty's Government. He was glad to hear that His Majesty's Government thought that on the new body being constituted they could rely on the public spirit of the County Council, and on the members of that body giving the best of their ability to the carrying out of the scheme in spite of he slight which had been put upon them. He thought the noble Lord might rely with confidence that they would be so. But the noble Lord had not touched the point that the Companies would be able to place their case before the arbitrators in a more complete form than a new body which must start its work under considerable difficulties.
§ Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
§ Clause 2 agreed to.
§ Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
§ Clause 5 amended, and agreed to.
§ Clause 6 agreed to.
§ Clause 7:—
§ LORD WELBYmoved an Amendment to provide that the amount of water stock issued to a debenture-holder should be such an amount "as in the opinion of the arbitrators will be equivalent in value to an equally good security producing the same income." The Amendment was one to which considerable importance attached. It was proposed under the Bill that a large amount of irredeemable stock held from the Companies be taken over by the new Board, water stock being given in return. There could be no question that the security must be very much improved when there was added to it the security of the rates. The present irredeemable stock varied in amount, and was in different Companies, and was not stock 1171 that had a very ready market. When the holders received water stock in lieu of their present securities it would form part of a large amount of stock which ought to have a fair market. These two considerations led him to the conclusion that benefit would be given to the holders of these irredeemable securities when they were taken over; and it was a benefit which was shown to be marked by the stock market returns. The amount of these irredeemable securities was £4,500,000, and as much stock was to be given as would produce the same amount of income. The new stock to be given would probably be a three per cent, stock at par, and would be rather over £6,000,000. The market price of the irredeemable debentures at the close of last year was £5,650,000, showing a difference between the value of the three per cent, stock to be issued by the new Water Board and the value of the irredeemable securities of about £350,000. That was a boon given to the owners of irredeemable debentures which they had not earned, and would be given at the expense of the ratepayers. The price to be paid on the transfer should be settled by the arbitrators. He thought the arbitrators, in fixing the price, ought to eliminate as far as they could, any enhancement caused by the addition of a new security in the shape of the rates, and add on the other side what might be fair for a reinvestment of the money. The public ought to be protected by an arrangement under which the price should be settled by the arbitrators.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 5, line 10, to leave out from 'as' to 'debenture' in line 11, and to insert 'in the opinion of the arbitrators will be equivalent in value to an equally good security producing the same income as the'"—(Lord Welby.)
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI am sorry I cannot meet the noble Lord, but I think Ican make out a very good case against him. It is an important point to bear in mind that this Clause only deals with irredeemable stock. It does not touch the question of redeemable stock, or that on which the noble Viscount opposite has an Amendment in a different direction. The point for holders of irredeemable stock is much more one of income than the actual value of their security. I do not deny 1172 for a moment that in certain circumstances it is possible that the holders of irredeemable stock may, under the Clause as it stands, get a certain bonus, but I do not admit that the bonus would come to anything like the amount the noble Lord indicates. I think the failure in his argument arises here, that he assumed the water stock must be issued at par. I believe that is not necessarily the case. The regulations under which the stock will be issued will be carefully considered by the Local Government Board. I think the 3 per cent stock is at this moment at 98 or 98 1/2.
§ LORD WELBYIt was up, not long ago, to 112.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI am a ware that it has been higher than at present, but I am giving the actual figure which was given to me at the time of our discussion upstairs. The noble Lord is not justified in assuming that at the moment it is given to the holders of irredeemable debentures the stock will be above or even at par value. This is a matter which will remain for discussion. The effect of this Amendment would be to leave the arbitrators to determine the amount of water stock to be issued to the holder of irredeemable debenture stock, and to make the amount of water stock to be issued not necessarily such an amount as would produce the same income as the debenture stock, but such an amount as the arbitrators considered to be the equivalent in value of an equally good security producing the same income. The noble Lord bases his contention on the ground that the water stock, being secured on the rates, will be of greater value than the debenture stock of the Companies. I think that will probably be the case, and that upon the whole there will be a certain rise in the capital value of the security, but, if the Amendment was inserted, it is conceivable that the debenture-holders might get an amount of water stock which would produce less income than they receive at present. This irredeemable stock is almost entirely held by trustees who do not wish to realise their securities, and to whom the whole value of this stock lies in the fact that it is 1173 irredeemable. They look to the income they will get, and not to the fluctuations of capital value. In the majority of cases the trustees cannot afford the luxury of high security at the risk of loss of income. If there is a small rise in the capital value of this stock, it will not be more than will compensate the debenture holders for having to take a redeemable stock in place of an irredeemable stock.
*VICOUNT HAMPDENmoved to provide that water stock should not be redeemable. He did not anticipate that his Amendment would receive much support. Its object was to enact that irredeemable debenture stock should not be converted into redeemable debenture stock without the consent of the holders. That seemed to him a simple proposition of justice in dealing with public creditors, who, after this Bill became law, would become the creditors of the State. He ventured to think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill could find no precedent for the course adopted. The Clause provided that the amount of water stock to be issued to a holder of debenture stock should be such an amount as was sufficient to produce the same sum by way of income as the debenture stock in substitution for which
LORD MONKSWELLsaid Parliament had decided in its wisdom that the arbitrators were to give nothing whatever in respect of compulsory purchase; but this Clause was by way of giving them something in respect of purchase.
§ On Question, "That the words porposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 14. it was issued. As long as the income was paid, and the capital was not realised, he admitted there was no cause for complaint, but a great many of the debenture holders bought their stock five or six years ago when prices were very high, and they purchased it because it constituted a gilt-edged security and was irredeemable. It was certain that a considerable number of their executors or assigns when they came to realise the stock would suffer a considerable loss. Under the Bill the holders of redeemable stock, which was a security of lower value, were given the same terms as the holders of irredeemable stock, but inasmuch as the former had almost always bought their stock at a discount, they would get a great advantage by receiving full value, and, perhaps, a bonus in addition. In taking over the 1175 undertakings of the Water Companies, the new Water Board would assume their liabilities, assets, and contracts, and one of the contracts with the Companies was that this stock should be irredeemable. The holders bought their stock on the faith of an Act of Parliament, and this was just as much a State contract as that which existed between the Government and the holders of Consols. The precedent set up in the Clause was an extraordinary one to emanate from a Conservative Government. He saw no difference in principle between the case of the holders of irredeemable stock and the holders of Consols.
1173| CONTENTS. | ||
| Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) | Romney, E | Congleton, L. |
| Devonshire, D. (L. President.) | Selborne, E | Dunboyne, L. |
| Stamford, E | Ellenborough, L. | |
| Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) | Stanhope, E | Forester, L. |
| Vane, E (M. Londonderry.) | Gage, L. (V. Gage.) | |
| Ailesbury, M. | Vernlam, E | Kenyon, L. |
| Bath, M. | Waldegrave, E [Teller.] | Kinnaird, L. |
| Hertford, M. | Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) | |
| Lansdowne, M. | Churchill, V. [Teller] | Lawrence, L. |
| Hampden, V. | Macnaghten, L. | |
| Clarendon,E. (L. Chamberlain.) | Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more) | Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.) |
| Denbigh, E. | ||
| Doncaster, E.(D. Bucclcuch and Queensberry.) | Knutsford, V. | Oranmore and Browne, L. |
| Addington, L. | Redesdale, L. | |
| Hardwicke, E. | Allerton, L. | Robertson, L. |
| Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.) | Balfour, E. | Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.) |
| Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Stewart of Garlies, (E. Galloway.) | |
| Lucan, E. | Belper, L. | |
| Morley, E. | Chelmsford, L. | Windsor, L. |
| Onslow, E. | Colchester, L. | Zouche of Haryngworth, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Carrington, E. | Burghclere, L. | Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.] |
| Spencer, E. | Coleridge, L. | Sandhurst, L. |
| Denman, L. | Tweendmouth, L. | |
| Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) | Monkswell, L. | Wandsworth, L. |
| Brassey, L. | Reay, L. | Welby L. [Teller.] |
§
Amendment moved—
In page 5, line 33, to leave out from 'redeemable' to the end of the Clause."—(Viscount Hampden)
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI will begin by admitting that I am not able to produce a precedent on all-fours with this proposal; but I think the reasons of public policy which make it necessary are of very serious importance I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that no real injury is done to any of the holders of this irredeemable stock. If you have a part of the water stock irredeemable and a part redeemable, it will prevent the possibility of the new Water Board ever consolidating the whole of its debt. I am sure the noble Viscount will not contradict me when I say that the income is assured to the holders. They will have the same income and they will have, if they choose to realise it, which I dare say they will not choose to do, a security of greater value. That, of course, is a matter of opinion. We had a very long discussion on this matter upstairs, and, so far as prophecy is worth anything, the universal test money we received was that the stock would stand higher in capital value than the stock possessed by the holders at the present time. A considerable concession is thus made to the holders of irredeemable stock. The noble Lord seemed to imply that they were no better treated than owners of redeemable debenture stock, but they cannot be bought out compulsorily for sixty years, and the Water Board is not bound to redeem the stock for one hundred years. When you talk of loss, 1176 it is not enough to say that sixty years hence a loss will be so much if you do not realise it in the meantime; the fair way to calculate it is, what is the present value of the loss of £100 sixty years hence? Calculated in that way, the loss must be infinitesimal, and I do not believe that it will exist at all. Here we have the opposite side of the case. The point of Lord Welby's speech a few minutes ago was that we were treating these holders of irredeemable stock too well. Now it is contended by the noble Viscount that we are not giving them enough. I have said that this was one of the points that we most carefully considered. Except for the fact that you are forcing holders of irredeemable stock to take stock redeemable sixty years hence, there is no injury done to them at all. I think that in the interests of public policy, considering how very slight the risk is, the Clause ought to be passed, and I hope the House will agree to it.
§ Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHproposed the insertion of a new sub-Section in Clause 7 providing that the water stock under this section substituted for any irredeemable debenture stock should be held in the same rights, on the same trusts, and subject to the same powers, provisions, charges, and liabilities as the debenture stock before the substitution, and so as to give effect to testamentary or other dispositions affecting the debenture stock. He said the object of his Amendment was to prevent the failure of a specific bequest of irredeemable debenture stock owing to water stock being substituted for it. If a holder left irredeemable debenture stock in his will, and in the meantime it had been turned into water stock, it might be held that the bequest would fail. This provision followed the Clause inserted in railway bills when one company bought up another and substituted a certain amount of its own stock for the stock of the purchased company.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 5, line 35 ('three') to insert as a new sub-Section. (7) The water stock under this
1177
section substituted for any irredeemable debenture stock shall be held in the same rights, on the same trusts, and subject to the same powers, provisions, charges, and liabilities as those on or to which the debenture stock was held immediately before the substitution, and so as to give effect to, and not to revoke, any deed, will, or other instrument, or testamentary, or other disposition, disposing of. or affecting the debenture stock, and every such deed, will, instrument, or disposition, shall take effect with reference to the whole or a proportionate part, as the case may be, of the substituted water stock.' "—,(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ LORD COLERIDGEdrew attention to the expression "in the same right," and asked whether that applied to the New River water shares, because, if it did, it would confer upon the holders of the new water stock the franchise which was now enjoyed by the holders of the New River water shares.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThis section will not apply to the New River Company shares. The noble Lord knows better than I do that the question of the remaining rights of the New River Company is exceedingly complicated and we have endeavoured to adjust a Clause so as to get rid of the difficulties, especially in regard to the franchise. But I was informed yesterday that a doubt had arisen as to the efficacy of the Clause, and the Local Government Board are so anxious that there shall be no doubt about it that they have taken the special advice of the Attorney General on the subject. A slightly altered Clause has been submitted today to the New River Company and will appear on the Paper tomorrow, when I hope to be in a position to convince the noble Lord that I have met the particular point which he has raised.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 8 agreed to.
§ Clause 9, amended and agreed to.
§ Clause 10 agreed to.
§ Clause 11, amended and agreed to.
§ Clause 12:—
1178*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThe Amendment standing in my name to Clause 12 deals with the special circumstances of Croydonan Richmond. There is no point of substance in it, and unless some noble Lord takes objection I will not occupy the time of the House in explaining it.
§
Amendment moved.
In page 10, line 28, to leave out 'such day after,' and in lines 28 and 29 to leave out 'as the Local Government Board may fix.' "—(Lord Balfour of Barleigh.)
§ On Question. Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 12, as amended, agreed to
§ Clause 13 amended and agreed to.
§ Clause 14 agreed to.
§ Clause 15:—
LORD MONKSWELLsaid he had received a communication with regard to this Clause from the Borough Council of Shoreditch, who were very anxious that the scheme under sub-Section 7 should be as soon as possible put into operation by the Water Board with a view of saving the expense of collecting a separate rate and having a separate body of rate collectors. He had mentioned the matter to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and the noble Lord's view was that it might possibly pass the wit of man to devise any scheme that would enable the charges for water to be collected together with the local rate.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid that if the Water Board could not put forward a scheme in the first year of its existence, it ought certainly to be able to do so within three years, and this should be made compulsory. He mentioned that the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882 provided that the borough rate should be collected with the poor rate, and by the same set of collectors. In that case the matter was extremely complicated, because the Act dealt with 1179 parishes partly in and partly out of the borough, and it was far more difficult, he should have thought, to have carried out such a scheme in that case than in the case of the water rate under this Bill.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI think it would be inexpedient to make the preparation of the scheme compulsory. I am informed that it would be quite impossible to do it immediately. It would not be safe to make this compulsory for fear of some unforeseen difficulty arising. I entirely agree, and I speak on behalf of the Local Government Board, with the noble Lord as to the extreme desirability of carrying this reform into effect. We believe it would tend to economy, and would be greatly to the advantage of all concerned. I am able to give the noble Lord this assurance, that no effort will be lost on the part of the Local Government Board to put pressure on the Water Board to prepare the scheme, and on the local authorities to agree to it. I hope the noble Lord will accept the assurance that the Local Government Board will do all in their power to bring this expedient reform into operation.
§ Clause 15 agreed to.
§ Clause 16 amended and agreed to.
§ Clause 17 amended and agreed to.
§ Clauses 18 to 25 agreed to.
§ Clause 26:—
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsubmitted an Amendment to sub-Section 3, which read as follows—
The Local Government Board may by order make such adaptations in the provisions of any general or local Act relating to the metropolitan water companies or any of them as may be necessary to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Act.He moved the deletion of the words "to make those provisions conform with the provisions," and the substitution of the words" in consequence of the passing." He said: All the changes that are to be made by the Local Government Board must be done by provisional order, and must come Parliament for 1180 confirmation. The alteration I propose makes no change in the substance of the Bill, and I am sure it is a power which everyone will admit ought, under the circumstances, to be given.
§
Amendment moved,—
In page 22, line 23, to leave out 'to make those provisions conform with the provisions,' and to insert 'in consequence of the passing.' "—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 27 to 36 agreed to.
§ Clause 37:—
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThe Amendment standing in my name provides that in valuing the undertakings, the debts, liabilities, and obligations of the Company are to be taken into account. It is obviously right that that should be done, but some ingenious person has suggested that unless such a provision is made it might be thought that the arbitrators were to value the undertakings and free them from their debts and liabilities. The object of this Amendment is to remove all possible doubt in the matter.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 25, line 29, after 'thereto,' to insert 'but subject to all debts, liabilities, and obligations of the company by this Act transferred to the Water Board.' "—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ *VISCOUNT HAMPDEN, who had an Amendment standing in his name to the effect that the expression "appointed day" should mean "such day or days after the terms of purchase have been settled by agreement or arbitration," asked for an assurance that, subject to good faith on the part of the Companies in furthering, as far as they could, the arbitration proceedings, the Government would avoid fixing the appointed day before the terms of purchase had been settled by agreement. If the noble Lord would give him that assurance he would not move his Amendment.
1181*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThere was a considerable amount of discussion on this subject in the Committee, and it was one of the points which my noble friend Viscount Llan-daff mentioned on the Second Reading. He was most anxious that no company should be subjected to the disadvantage of having its undertaking transferred to the new Water Board until the agreement or the arbitration as to the terms of purchase was concluded, and, if possible, the money paid. At first the scheme of the Bill was to fix a certain appointed day, with power to the Local Government Board to extend it. Arguments were put before us on both sides. The Companies to some extent mistrusted the Water Board, and the County Council, acting in the interests of the Water Board or the ratepayers of London, suggested that the Companies, or some of them, might unduly delay the arbitration and prevent the transfer at a proper time. Upstairs we gave a greater discretion to the Local Government Board as to the fixing of the appointed day, and, as part of the arrangement come to in another place, the President of the Local Government Board accepted an Amendment which made it cleat that no earlier day than June 24, 1904. could be fixed as the appointed day, except with the consent of the Companies and the Water Board. The point on which the noble Viscount wants an assurance is, I understand, that even after June 24, 1904, the Local Government Board will not fix an appointed day to the detriment of a company unless they arrive at an opinion that the company has unduly delayed the proceedings before the arbitrators. I am able to give the noble Viscount the assurance that unless it is distinctly the opinion of the President of the Local Government Board, that undue delay has taken place, the appointed day will not be fixed so as to put the Companies under any disability. I am quite sure we shall feel on both sides of the House that the President of the Local Government Board, whoever he may be, will be sure to do his duty fairly and honestly, and, if he does not, either House of Parliament can call him to account.
*VISCOUNT HAMPDENsaid the statement of the noble Lord was satisfactory, and he would not move his Amendment.
§ Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 38, and 39 agreed to.
§ Clause 40, amended and agreed to.
§ Clause 41 to 46 agreed to.
§ Clause 47:—
§ Drafting Amendment agreed to.
*VISCOUNT HAMPDENmoved an Amendment to bring an officer whose salary was reduced within the scope of sub-Section 10. He said the Bill was so drafted as to make the position of these officers rather difficult. Sub-Section 4 seemed to be quite clear, it gave compensation to the officers, but it was qualified by sub-Section 6, which dealt with those officers who might be dismissed or whose services might be dispensed with by the Water Board within five years alter the appointed day. He was afraid the construction of sub-Section 6 would rather limit the application of the previous sub-Section; and when they came to sub-Section dealing with superannuation allowances, the same words were not put in as appeared in sub-Section 6—the words "or whose salary is reduced." He was advised by legal experts that there was some doubt in the drafting of the Bill whether these officers would be included in sub-Section 10. The words in his Amendment were to make it clear.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 32, line 28, after 'misconduct,' to insert 'or whose salary is reduced.'"—(Viscount Hampden)
*LORD BALFOUE OF BURLEIGHThe exact position is this. The case that the Amendment is intended to meet is that of an officer who has been in the service of the Water Board for five years, and then has his salary reduced. The noble Viscount's proposal is that he should then be entitled to retire on a pension. For the first five years he is perfectly safe, and even after the expiration of the five years he would be 1183 entitled, under Clause 6, to compensation. But if, after five years, the salary is reduced, it is quite possible that the officer might refuse to accept the reduced remuneration, and if he did he might be dismissed. In that case, if he had been in the service of the Water Company for five years he would be entitled to a superannuation allowance under this sub-Section. I think the Bill sufficiently provides for every reasonable case of difficulty. It deals with the officers on a liberal scale, and I do not think it is possible to put a large number of individual officers under a public body with the security that during the whole of their period of service they are never to have their salary reduced. It might be better for them to take a reduced salary and do less arduous work. It seems to me it would be impossible to carry on any large undertaking if the authority was to be prevented from reducing upon fair consideration the salary of any one of its officers. I think you may trust a public Board on such a matter as this. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
*VISCOUNT HAMPDENsaid that if that was the intention of the Government no more need be said. But he thought their object was the same as his, and that there had been a mistake in the drafting of the Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
§ Drafting Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 47 agreed to.
§ Remaining Clauses agreed to.
§ First and Second Schedules agreed to.
§ Third Schedule:—
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHmoved an Amendment to provide that any person should be disqualified for appointment to the Water Board unless he were a member of the constituent body appointing him. He could quote the speeches of the noble Lord opposite in favour of his proposal. Over and over again the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had 1184 insisted that the superiority of the Board as contained in this Bill was that it would be a representative Board, and he had told the House that the smaller Board only received acceptance from Viscount Llandaff's Commission because it was to be a Board of experts and not a representative Board. The object of his Amendment was to make the Water Board a really representative Board by providing that each member of it should belong to the particular body which sent him to the Board. As the Bill stood, they might have the whole sixty-six members of the Water Board elected, and not one of them members of the authorities which elected them. He could not think that that was what was intended. If they were to have a representative Board then the representatives, however indirectly they might be elected, should be brought into direct connection with the ratepayers. To do that they must insist that the various members should belong to the bodies which returned them. He quite admitted that a single member, say, of the Finsbury Borough Council, was not brought into any very close connection with the ratepayers of that borough, but he was with the ratepayers of the particular ward which he represented, and to that extent he had the influence of the ratepayers brought to bear upon him. If they pretended that this was a representative Board they ought to accept his Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 35, line 2, after 'Board,' to insert as a new paragraph:—1. A person shall be disqualified for being appointed a member of the Water Board by any constituent authority unless he is a member of the body or one of the bodies forming that constituent authority.'" —(Lord Tweedmouth.)
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThere is, no doubt, some strength in the plea for absolute direct representation, and in the case of such a body as the London County Council I think it is very unlikely that they will appoint anyone who is not a member of their own body. Therefore the suggestion of the noble Lord that you might have a Board of sixty-six representatives, none of whom were members of the bodies electing: them, is impossible.
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHI did not say that. I said it was possible, though I did not pretend that it was probable.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHKnowing my County Council as I do, I do not think it is possible. It seems to me a very great advantage that the groups of bodies who are to elect by a committee one man to represent them should be able to choose whom they like. There should be absolute freedom of choice, and no restriction whatever. I am willing to put in an Amendment to provide that if a constituent body chooses one of their own body, and that gentleman ceases to belong to the constituent body, he should cease to be a member of the Water Board.
§ EARL CARRINGTONsaid that under the Schedule as it stood men might be put on the Water Board who represented nobody and were trusted by nobody. This proposal was not originally in the Bill. The principle of the Amendment was one he had very much at heart, and he hoped his noble friend would go to a division.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThe noble Lord is correct in saying that this proposal was not originally in the
§ Drafting Amendments agreed to.
§ Lord COLERIDGEmoved to insert the words "or shareholder" after the word "director" in the Section which provided that a director of a Metropolitan 1186 Bill. Although we had every authority represented—the County Councils and the other local authorities—no objection was taken to the proposal by the representatives of the bodies who appeared before the Committee, and after discussion it was accepted by my Committee by six to two. I cannot see that it is a very important point, but, on the whole, I do think it would ho an advantage to the outside bodies to be able to appoint experts who would have weight on the Water Board. I think we shall be more likely to secure a business-like Board if we give that freedom. Therefore, if the noble Lord divides the House, I shall vote against the Amendment.
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid he thought that one effect of this, in the case of the Borough Councils, would be that they would probably appoint their clerks to represent them on the Water Board.
§ On Question, "That the new paragraph be here inserted," their Lordships divided.—Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 41.
1185| CONTENTS. | ||
| Carrington, E. | Coleridge, L. | Sandhurst, L. |
| Spencer, E. | Denman, L. [Teller.] | Tweedmouth, L. |
| Monkswell, L. | Wandsworth, L. | |
| Hampden, V. | Reay, L. | Welby, L. |
| Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.] | ||
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) | Morley, E. | Colchester, L. |
| Devonshire, D. (L. President.) | Onslow, E. | Congleton, L. |
| Romney, E. | Dunboyne, L. | |
| Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) | Selborne, E. | Ellenborough, L. |
| Stamford, E. | Kenyon, L. | |
| Bath, M. | Stanhope, E. | Kinnaird, L. |
| Hertford, M. | Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) | Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) |
| Lansdowne, M. | Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] | Lawrence, L. |
| Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.) | ||
| Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.) | Churchill, V. [Teller.] | |
| Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | Redesdale, L. | |
| Denbigh, E. | Robertson, L. | |
| Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) | Kuntsford, V. | Somerton, L (E. Normanton.) |
| Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) | ||
| Hardwicke, E. | Addington, L. | |
| Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.) | Balfour, L. | Windsor, L. |
| Belhaven and Stenton, L. | ||
| Lucan, L. | Chelmsford, L. |
§ Water Company should, until the compensation payable to the Company was determined, be disqualified from being appointed or being a member of the Water Board. He said it might often happen that a director only had a 1187 qualifying share, whereas a large shareholder might be appointed on the Water Board and negotiate the purchase.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 35, line 25, after 'director' to insert 'or shareholder.'"—(Lord Coleridge.)
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThe Amendment strikes me as going rather far. Of course, the supposition is perfectly accurate that some shareholders might hold more stock or shares than a director, but I do not think it is likely they would stand for election. It is extremely improbable, if they did stand, that they would be elected, and I do not think a man should be disqualified from being appointed a member of the Water Board if he only holds a single share in a Water Company. As this Amendment has not been placed on the Paper, I have had no opportunity of consulting those who are more responsible for the Bill than I am. If the noble Lord will place his Amendment on the Paper, I will promise to consider it between this and the next stage of the Bill.
§ LORD COLERIDGEintimated that he would put the Amendment down, in order to give the noble Lord an opportunity of considering it.
§ Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
§
LORD RIBBLESDALE, who had given notice to move the insertion of a new paragraph providing that—
Any member of the Water Board shall cease to be member of that Board, if and when he ceases to be a member of the body or of one of the bodies forming the constituent authority by which he was appointed a member of the Water Board.
—said the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had placed a new paragraph in his hands which he thought met the case. It was to insert, after the word "Board," the following:—
If a person appointed to be a Member of the Water Board is a Member of the Council or one of the Councils by whom he is appointed, he shall, if he ceases for two months to be a member of that Council, at the end of that period vacate his office as a member of the Water Board.
§ He accepted those words, and begged to move the Amendment in that form.
1188
§
Amendment moved—
In page 35, line 27, after 'Board,' to insert the above new paragraph."—(Lord Ribblesdale.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Drafting Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid everything was provided in the Bill except the term of office of a member of a Joint Committee, and as three years seemed to be the period generally accepted, he moved that that term be fixed.
§
Amendment moved.
In page 37, line 6, after 'thereon' to insert as new paragraphs: 10. The term of office of a member of a Joint Committee shall be three years. 11. On the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and seven, and on the first day of January in every third year hereafter, all the members of a Joint Committee shall go out of office, and their places shall be filled by new appointments, but a person going out of office may, if otherwise qualified, be reappointed."—(Lord Ribblesdale.)
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI think three years will be the period of office, but the noble Lord's Amendment will not do in its present form. The first Board will go out of office probably in June, 1907; at any rate, the appointment will be a triennial one. Most of the constituent bodies that will elect members to the Water Board come into office about the month of April. If January 1 is fixed for the retirement of the members of a Joint Committee, as proposed in the Amendment, it will mean that the new appointments will be made by dying bodies.
*LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid he recognised that January 1 would be a very inconvenient date. He therefore desired to substitute May 15 for January 1 in his Amendment. As the new bodies came into existence on or about April 15, that would allow them a month to get into working order.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI do not think that will do either, because all these bodies will not come into existence at the same time. It is very expedient that careful and detailed regulations should be made for the conduct of this election. That can best be done by the Local 1189 Government Board after carful inquiry. This method of election does not touch bodies like County Councils and Borough Councils, which elect members themselves without reference to other authorities, but only the Joint Committee, which has one duty only, that of appointing the representative to the Water Board. I am sure it will be better, in the interests of all concerned, that the Clause should remain as it is, rather than put stereotyped provisions in the Bill which would not work.
§ LORD RIBBLESDALEDo I understand that the retirement of a Joint Committee is to be fixed by Parliament, or left to the option of the Local Government Board?
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI understand that the Joint Committee will expire after having elected the member to the Water Board. There will be no further use for it. There is no object in keeping it alive, because, having once sent its member to the Water Board, it will not be required again till a vacancy occurs.
§ Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
LORD MONKSWELLmoved an Amendment providing that the term of office of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman should be one year instead of three years. He said it was entirely contrary to all precedent that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of a body of this kind, which would be for the most part inexperience, should be elected for more than one year. He did not mean to say that if they had a good Chairman or a good Vice-Chairman they should not re-elect him, but he thought it was desirable that the term of office should only be for one year.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 37, lines 10 and 11, to leave out 'Chairman and Vice-Chairman, or' and to insert 'the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Board shall be one year, and the term of office of.'"—(Lord Monkswell.)
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI think the noble Lord has himself given an extremely good reason why the period of three years should be adhered to. He said the Board would be large and inexperienced, and argued that therefore they ought to have and annual election of chairman. I venture to think that the more inexperienced the body is the more it requires experienced guidance, and it would be better that the chairman should be a man of experience with a certain tenure of office. I know that it is the case in England that mayores and chairmen of local authorities are appointed for one year only. I may be, perhaps, excused for preferring the Scottish custom, which allows a Provost to hold office for three years. This Amendment was raised on Report Stage in another place, was discussed at certain length, but was opposed by the Government and negatived without a Division. I hope, in the circumstances, the noble Lord will not press it.
§ EARL CARRINGTONhoped the noble Lord would reconsider his decision.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI can hold out no hope of the Government changing its opinion on this matter. It has been very deliberately considered and agreed to, and if a precedent is wanted I would refer to the chairmanship of the School Board for London, which is not changed during the three years' tenure of office of the Board.
§ On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 11.
1191| CONTENTS. | ||
| Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) | Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.) | Onslow, E. |
| Devonshire, D. (L. President.) | Romney, E. | |
| Denbigh, E. | Selborne, E. | |
| Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) | Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) | Stamford, E. |
| Stanhope, E. | ||
| Bath, M. | Hardwicke, E. | Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) |
| Hertford, M. | Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.) | Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] |
| Lansdowne, M. | ||
| Lucan, E. | Churchill, V. [Teller.] | |
| Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | Congleton, L. | Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.) |
| Dunboyne, L. | ||
| Knutsford, V. | Ellenborough, L. | Redesdale, L. |
| Kenyon, L. | Robertson, L. | |
| Addington, L. | Kinnaird, L. | Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.) |
| Balfour, L. | Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) | Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.) |
| Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Lawrence, L. | Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) |
| Colchester, L. | Windsor, L. | |
| NOT-CONTENETS. | ||
| Carrington, E. | Coleridge, L. | Sandhurst, L. |
| Morley, E. | Denman, L. [Teller.] | Tweedmouth, L. |
| Spencer, E. | Monkswell, L. | Wandsworth, L. |
| Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.] | Welby, L. |
§ Drafting Amendments agreed to.
§ Standing Committee negatived; the Report of the Amendments to be received Tomorrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 203).