MR. BRANDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government intend to in- 776 troduce a Metropolis Waterworks Purchase Bill, with a view to refer the terms of purchase under the Water Purchase Bill in the last Parliament to a Select Committee; and, if not, whether the Government will take any steps to maintain the basis of valuation upon which the Water Purchase Bill was framed, or to prevent the Water Companies from augmenting the nominal value of their property by charging extra rates upon any increase in the assessment of property by the new valuation now in progress under the Act of 1869, or by their own assessment other than new houses coming under supply?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTSir, as the Question of my hon. Friend involves large pecuniary interests, which might be prejudiced by a postponed or imperfect statement of the intention of the Government, I shall ask the indulgence of the House, if what I have to say extends somewhat beyond the ordinary limits of an answer at this Table. It may, possibly, be deemed convenient that I should take this opportunity of stating with precision the course which the Government intend to pursue with reference to the measure called the Metropolis Water Purchase. It is within the knowledge of the House that a Bill was introduced into the last Parliament to give effect to certain agreements which had been negotiated with the Water Companies with a view to their purchase. That Bill came to an end at the Dissolution, if not before. Most hon. Gentlemen present are probably acquainted with the circumstances which have cast grave doubts on these agreements, in regard to their prudence and the advantages to be derived by the public in carrying them into effect. It seems to Her Majesty's Government quite impossible to take any steps to give validity to these agreements without a public and searching inquiry into the real character of these documents, and their actual relation to the value of the property to be acquired under them. The Corporation of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works, the two most important representative bodies of the Metropolis, have addressed to me Memorials, desiring such an investigation, and have undertaken to render the requisite assistance in conducting it. In my opinion, that is a most wise and reasonable request. Nothing short of 777 such an investigation will satisfy the public mind us to the true character of these agreements, and of the property with which they deal. The Government will, therefore, ask the House to appoint a Select Committee to carry out this inquiry. The exact terms of the Order of Reference is a matter of some difficulty. It is obviously not expedient to give the inquiry too large a scope, so as to hang up this urgent question indefinitely. The inquiry into the agreements can be brought into a moderate compass, so as to be disposed of in the present Session. An investigation of the whole question of water supply would, evidently, extend to far wider limits; at the same time, it would not be possible or desirable to exclude from the mind of a Committee appointed to consider the proposed terms of purchase the consideration of the question whether the purchase of the undertakings of the existing Water Companies is, in itself, the only or the best possible alternative, and whether it might not be more desirable to obtain from other sources a better supply at a cheaper rate. There is another question which the Corporation in its Memorial points to as a fitting subject of inquiry—namely, the basis of the charge for water—that is to say, the basis on which the powers of the Companies are founded, and which enable them to raise their water rents without limit in proportion to the growth of value in houses, without themselves expending any further monies or rendering any additional services. That likewise seems a matter deserving of inquiry and redress. In conclusion, I wish only to say one word as to the attitude of the Government towards this question. As respects the agreements, they accept no responsibility in regard to them. As they are to form the subject of a public inquiry it is not desirable that I should even express at this moment the opinion I entertain of them. The Government will lay them impartially before the Committee, neither as attacking nor as supporting the agreements, but prepared to deal with them as may seem best, after their true value has been ascertained. I presume they will be explained to the Committee by the gentleman who negotiated them, and who will not be the witness of the Government. They will be criticized, tested, and sifted by the repre- 778 sentatives of the Corporation and the Board of Works. What course the Water Companies may think fit to take with regard to them I cannot at this moment say as I have received no communication from them. But, of course, every facility they may desire will be placed at their disposal in order to state their case as they may think; but by this means the Committee will be enabled to form a sound judgment on the matter of the agreements. With reference to the whole question of the water supply of the Metropolis, I would observe to the House that it is not primâ facie an Imperial question which belongs strictly to the province of the Executive Government. It is, and ought to be, if the proper machinery were available, a question of local metropolitan administration. On this, as on many other subjects, we have to deplore the want of a central metropolitan authority for the general government of London. That is a great and urgent question, and I hope that this Parliament will not close without making an earnest attempt at its solution. But, in the meanwhile, it is the duty, as it is the wish of the Government to assist the inhabitants of London in supplying the defects of their local organization. I have thought that the best available means in the present instance was to invito the co-operation of the Corporation and the Metropolitan Board to aid the Government in a solution of the difficult matter we have to deal with. I am happy to say that that appeal has been cordially responded to. Both these great bodies, representing the inhabitants of London, have expressed their willingness to co-operate with the Government and with one another before the Committee. This seems to me a good augury for the future; and it is in such a combination that I see the best hopes for dealing hereafter in an adequate manner with a matter which so deeply concerns the health and wealth of this great Metropolis.
MR. BRANDMy right hon. and learned Friend has not answered the latter part of the Question. The House is probably aware that the option of purchase under the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) lapses on the 1st of July; and my object in putting this Question was to get an answer from my right hon. 779 and learned Friend as to whether the Government would, by negotiation or otherwise, endeavour to obviate the action of the Water Companies which they may take under their statutes—that is, of raising their rates to a considerable amount.
§ LORD ELCHOI rise simply to say that I did not quite catch whose statement it was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman read to the House.
§ MR. RITCHIEThe right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his very discursive answer, has replied to a Question which I had placed upon the Paper. I would only ask him when it is likely that the Select Committee will be appointed?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI shall give Notice of the Committee to-day or to-morrow.
§ Subsequently—
MR. BRANDsaid: Sir, I am sorry to interpose for a moment between the House and Public Business; but I really think I have some right to claim from my right hon. and learned Friend an answer to the Question which I put to him. I gave public Notice of the Question, and I think it was a reasonable one, and one of some little importance. At any rate, I hear that one of the Water Companies has already given notice of an intention to raise its rates. I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend to have the courtesy to say, at all events, whether he declines to answer, and, if so, why?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTSir, I should be exceedingly sorry to think I had been wanting in courtesy to my hon. Friend. I thought I had answered the Question of the hon. Member at great length. I will, if the hon. Gentleman desires it, read it again. The answer I gave to the Question to which the hon. Member refers is this:—
There is another question which the Corporation in its Memorial points to as a fit subject of inquiry—namely, the basis of the charge for water—that is to say, the basis upon which the powers of the Companies are founded, and which enables them to raise their water rents without limit in proportion to the growth of value in houses, without themselves expending any further monies or rendering any additional services. That likewise seems a matter deserving inquiry and redress.I intended that as a full answer to the hon. Member's Question—namely, that at the request of the Corporation that 780 question would be referred to the Committee. I did not wish to trouble the House by repeating it; but, at the request of the hon. Member, I have done so.