SECOND READING.

HC Deb 17 March 1893 vol 10 cc359-71

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. I do so on behalf of colleagues, many of whom represent districts affected by this Bill, and also on behalf of the London County Council, which, by a resolution passed on the 7th inst., negatived a proposal not to oppose this Bill. This Bill is opposed not because of any minor detail which can be amended in Committee. No doubt it contains many important details to which we very much objected, and some of which have been very imperfectly met in the statement sent round by the promoters to-day agreeing to certain modifications. But I oppose the Bill because of its substance and its essence. The Bill proposes for certain purposes to raise an additional capital of half a million by Debenture Stock of the East London Water Company, and it does that on the eve of the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission which was appointed specially to determine certain very important questions with respect to the water supply of London. We say that at this moment there are only two considerations which could possibly be urged in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill. The first is that its provisions do not in any way traverse in any sense the matters with which the Royal Commission has to deal, and the other is that there are special circumstances in connection with the East London Water Company so peculiar and so urgent that the Report of the Royal Commission may very well for a moment be set aside. I shall contend, in the briefest possible manner, that in no sense does either of these conditions exist. In the first place, the Bill directly, in every particular in which this £500,000 is to be applied, cuts clean across all the points with which the Royal Commission has to deal. The Bill proposes an enlargement of the capital of the Company at a moment when the consideration of its financial relations with the public are in concern, and it proposes that the capital shall be spent in one of three directions—in finding a greater supply of water either from the Thames or the Lea, or from wells. Every one of these points is before the Royal Commission at the present moment. I know that the East London Company do not say in the Bill from which source they intend to take the supply; they merely ask for this money in order to strengthen their hands, and it is therefore not possible to say beforehand at what point they desire to extend their undertaking. In order to secure support in Hertfordshire they have indicated that they do not intend to ask for power to make any more wells in that county. I should like to call attention to the evidence given on behalf of this Company before the Royal Commission. One of their witnesses stated that 9 millions more gallons a day could be pumped from existing wells in the valley of the River Lea without adding a single well. But it was also proved that by abstracting water from the chalk at a lower level the whole district would be actually denuded of the water necessary for keeping a due supply in the River Lea. Every one connected with the East End of London knows the terrible condition to which the Lea has been reduced, and therefore an undertaking not to sink any more wells amounts to very little in this matter. The question of the sinking of new wells is one of the most important points on which the Royal Commission will have to report. Similarly with respect to taking water from other sources, there is nothing so urgent as to make it, necessary that this Bill should be pushed forward at the present moment. In the paper which has been circulated there are hints that we may have a cholera epidemic in the East End of London; I do not think that such hints are worthy of a public company. But, after all, what are they worth? I will show the House presently; but before I do so I will deal with another point. A suggestion is made that the Company require more storage power. Is the East London Company in a peculiar or backward position in this matter? I find that while the average supply in London in 1891 is 32 gallons per head per day, the supply by the East London Company is 35.90 gallons, or close upon 36 gallons per head. In the year 1892 the population supplied by the East London Water Company was 1,184,000 persons; since then it has gone up fully 20,000 persons, while in the same period the supply per head has risen to 37 gallons per head per day. Again, while the total storage of the other Water Companies is equivalent to 7.9 days' consumption, the storage of this Company is equal to 14.9 days' consumption. That being so, there is no case for that urgency which alone can be a reason for pressing the Bill through the House of Commons immediately before the Royal Commission reports upon the whole question. Let me point out what the position really is. This company wants power to borrow £500,000. They say it will not raise the market price of the shares. I very much doubt that. If it is to be borrowed at 3¼ per cent. and well applied, the dividend on the existing shares will soon be augmented, and this will occur at the very moment when the people of London, through the County Council, may be proposing to acquire the undertaking. A more important thing than the quantity of the water supplied by this company is the quality—that has more reference to the cholera epidemic, as to which they hold out such an unworthy threat. The Royal Commission will report as to what sources of supply are to be condemned, and what sources are to be encouraged. The expenditure now proposed runs the risk of being condemned; and, therefore, if the Bill passes, London will have to face the purchase of the company's interest with a dead limb. I, therefore, ask the House not to send this Bill to a Committee, and thereby put the ratepayers to heavy expense in opposing it.

Amendment proposed, to leave out, the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. James Stuart)

Question proposed, "That the word ' now ' stand part of the Question."

Mr. WOOTTON ISAACSON moved, "That the Debate be now adjourned," but Mr. SPEAKER being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the House.

Debate resumed.

MR. BOULNOIS (Marylebone, E.)

I desire to say a few words on behalf of the minority in the London County Council, who when this question was discussed raised no objection to the Bill being opposed, but held that the opposition should be offered before the Select Committee. Let me state how this matter stands as regards the London County Council. Hon. Members of this House have, no doubt, read the statement which has been circulated on behalf of the London County Council against the Second Reading. Accompanying that statement is an elaborate exposition by the Parliamentary agent of the County Council. One would imagine, from the observations which fell at the outset of his speech from the Hon. Member for Shoreditch, that the County Council had decided to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill on the grounds set forth in the circulated statement. But the County Council when it decided to take that action had before it the Report of the Parliamentary Committee, which stated that they had had under consideration a Petition from consumers of the Company's water, strongly objecting to Clause 17, which imposes a penalty on persons fixing and using water-fittings which have not been stamped by the Company. The Committee also stated that they had had before them a letter from the Company to the effect that it was not intended that the clause should have any retrospective effect, and that it could be amended in Committee so as to make that perfectly plain. But they had come to the conclusion that that clause and other circumstances justified further opposition, and therefore recommended members of the Council who were also Members of the House of Commons to oppose the Second Reading. The Report of the Parliamentary Committee of the County Council in fact contains not one word in reference to the matters dealt with in the speech of the hon. Member for Shoreditch, and not one word against the principle of the Bill. We are told by the hon. Member for Shoreditch that the real ground for opposition of the County Council is that the Report of the Royal Commission has not been issued. I will undertake to say that the real ground is that the County Council never loses an opportunity of making an attack upon the Water Companies with a view to depreciating their Stock. The London County Council casts its eye upon the property of the Water Companies as it has on other property in the Metropolis. It thinks that by depreciating the property of the Companies it will one day be able to acquire it for next to nothing—as it looks forward to being able to purchase the tramways at the price of old iron. I hope we shall hear something this morning from the President of the Local Government Board, who, to my mind, will incur great responsibility if he supports the London County Council in preventing this Bill from going to a Committee upstairs. The statement made by the East London Water Company refers to the danger of cholera coming to this country, and the supply of water being inadequate for the inhabitants of the Metropolis during the visitation. Well, over and over again the Local Government Board has made representations as to the insufficiency of the filter beds and reservoirs in London, and the Board fear that none of the Metropolitan Water Companies have a sufficient reserve of water. The hon. Member for Shoreditch thinks that 14 days' supply is sufficient. There may be two opinions about that. For my part I question whether in the summer time, when people are using large quantities of water, 14 days' supply is sufficient for the Metropolis. I do ask the House to pause before summarily rejecting this Bill on the flimsy pretext referred to by the hon. Member for Shoreditch. As a matter of fact, the London County Council are trying to make it impossible for the Companies who cater for the wants of London to carry out their obligations; but so long as Parliament imposes these obligations I hope they will give fair play to the Companies, and instead of snuffing out their Bills at the outset will allow them to be considered upstairs in the usual manner.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. MELLOR,) York, W.R., Sowerby

I hope the House will pardon mo for intervening thus early in the Debate; but I have only a few words to say. It is not necessary for me to dispute anything said by the hon. Member for Shoreditch, nor, on the other hand, will I dispute what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, because the point I wish to press on the House is that it will incur considerable responsibility if it refuses at this early stage to send the Bill to a Committee upstairs. I think it is quite possible that the promoters of the Bill are unreasonable, and are asking for more than they have a right to ask for; but, on the other hand, I think there is considerable force in the contention made that after all there should be a sufficient supply of water for these populous neighbourhoods, and that the object of the Bill is to provide that sufficient supply for a very large district; and, further, that if an outbreak of cholera occurs, and the supply of water in the district is shown to be insufficient, grave responsibility will rest upon those who reject the Bill. These are all matters for consideration in Committee. The very object of the institution of this tribunal of Select Committee is that facts can be ascertained which on Second Reading cannot be put before the House. A Committee would hear the evidence and find the preamble proved or not proved in the ordinary way, and would then go through the details. I intervene now in order to express a hope that that is the course which will be taken on the present Bill. It is by far the most satisfactory course. If it should turn out that the County Council are right, then the Committee will reject the Bill. If, on the other hand, the promoters are right, the Bill will go through; but I cannot help thinking that the probable result of the contest, if the Bill goes before a Select Committee, will be that the Committee will suggest a reasonable compromise between the opposing interests, and that some short Bill may be approved and passed through Committee, and ultimately passed through Parliament in the ordinary way.

MR. BANBURY ( Camberwell, Peck-ham)

The hon. Member for Marylebone has stated that the opposition of the County Council is based on Clause 17 of the Bill. Now, I am authorised by the Company to say that they are practically prepared to withdraw that clause altogether. That was a clause enabling the Company to stamp all the fittings in their district. It was never meant to be retrospective, and I must say I consider it rather to the advantage of the consumer that the fittings should be stamped. It is against the jerry builder who puts bad fittings into houses. It also prevents waste. But the Company are perfectly prepared to withdraw that clause altogether. Something has been said about a constant supply of water, and on that point I may say that the East London Water Company was the only Company that originally complied with that provision in the Act which bears upon a constant supply; and at the present moment the whole of its district, with a small exception, has a constant supply. The London County Council have sent out a Memorial, a copy of which I received this morning, setting forth the reasons why this Bill should be rejected on the Second Reading. The second paragraph says that— It seems tolerably clear from the Bill itself that no immediate or imperative necessity for the expenditure of capital upon works properly chargeable to revenue exists. Now, are the County Council not aware that there exists a Government official appointed by the Board of Trade—Mr. Stoneham—whose duty it is to see that the Company charge what they ought to capital and what they ought to revenue; and the Company cannot pass their accounts to their shareholders unless this official authorizes them to do so, having seen that the proper amounts are charged in the proper way. I do not think it is necessary to interfere on that score when there is a Government official who is able to do so. The next paragraph says— The Company was asked more than a month ago on behalf of the County Council to define the various works on which they consider expenditure immediately necessary, to give an estimate of the amount required for those works; and subsequent applications have been made to the Company for information, but up to the present time they have declined to state whether the works contemplated are in respect of the River Thames, the River Lea, or streams underground. That statement I am informed is entirely incorrect. On the 2nd March, the Company supplied a statement to Mr. Cripps, the Parliamentary Agent to the London County Council, giving the following information:— A rough estimate of expenditure on additional storage reservoirs on the Company's land in extension of existing reservoirs to meet increasing demands, £150,000. And I may say here that General Scott, the Water Examiner appointed by the Government, an engineer officer, has advised the Company to erect these additional reservoirs. He says the Company has the laud, and that if they erect these additional reservoirs there will be no occasion to fear any deficiency of supply. The next item is— Additional filter beds £30,000, engines £45,000, extension of wells and duplication of pumping machinery, £60,000. As to the extension of wells, I am authorised by the Company to say that no wells will be sunk in Hertfordshire— Extension of main service for seven years, £140,000; extension of high service reservoirs, £25,000; general purposes of undertaking to which capital is properly applicable, £50,000. That, I think, shows that the County Council cannot have studied this question very well when they sent out this paper, because the information they required was already given to them a fortnight ago. Then one of their reasons for moving the rejection of the Second Reading is, that on the 30th April, 1892, the Company stated to the Royal Commission— The Company submit that after making every allowance for a possible increase of supply within their district, they have shown their ability to furnish water adequate in quantity, and excellent in quality, for a period of 40 years with a large surplus margin. Some people seem to think that if you want water all you have to do is to turn on the tap. The London County Coun- cil apparently are of that opinion, because what the Company meant was not that they had already for streets that were not yet made, and houses that were not yet built, mains and pipes, and engines to pump up water, but that if they had capital to lay their mains and pumps, and provide pumping power, they had plenty of water to pump into the houses. It is impossible before a district is laid out, or houses are built, to have everything prepared for laying water on. It is absolutely necessary that in an increasing district the Company should have the powers they seek. In order to show the way in which the district is increasing, I will quote some figures. In 1881, the population of Walthamstow was 21,715; in 1891,it was 46,000. The population of Wanstead was 5,000, and it is now 7,000; the population of West Ham was 128,000, and it is now 240,000. In 1881, the districts the Company are seeking additional capital to supply had a population amounting to 200,000, whereas now it is 364,000, or an increase of 164,000. The whole of this district is outside the area of the London County Council, which is, I think, rather an important point. The hon. Member for Shoreditch said something about enlargement of capital, but it must not be forgotten that powers are sought to raise Debenture Stock and not ordinary capital, that it will be raised at under 3¼ per cent.—which is a low rate of interest— and that it will be issued to the public. With regard to the purchase of the companies to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I should like to call attention to Sir Thomas Farrer's remarks before the Labour Commission, in which he said he had completely changed his views as to the London County Council purchasing the company's undertakings.

MR. BENN (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

I am sure that the London County Council would not oppose this Bill for a moment if such a course would be in any way likely to endanger the supply of water to the East of London. I think the best evidence on this question is to be found in the statement of the company itself. On the 30th April, 1892, the company summarised their position to the Royal Commission in the following way:— The company submit that, after making every allowance for a possible increase of supply within their district, they have shown their ability to furnish water, adequate in quantity and excellent in quality, for a period of 40 years, with a large surplus margin. That is not a statement by the London County Council but by the company, and in order to show that the evils feared by the Chairman of Committees are without foundation, I will quote the statement made by the engineer to the company with regard to the very district to which the hon. Member for Peckham has just referred. Mr. Bryan, engineer to the company, said before the Commission— As regards the future, you will observe that our increase is now very minute compared with what it was live or six years ago, and not only that, but the increase is all in the Essex district. The average population per house in the London district is about 7.62. In our Essex district it is only 6.l. Consequently, the whole of our increase must be in the Essex district in the future, all the sites being built on within the area of the London district. I have taken 6.1 people per house, and I have made an estimate on that. The Chairman asked — "In your supply last year, did you include uninhabited houses?" "It would include them," said the engineer. Further on, in reply to a question as to whether the company could produce more water if required, the same engineer said—"We take from about 1,750,000 to 2,000,000 gallons of water a day from the springs at Hanwell, and we can get 3,000,000 gallons a day, but we are not doing so." I am sorry that the Member for Marylebone taunted the London County Council with its motives. I may say, in reply to the hon. Member for Peckham, that we do not base our opposition on Clause 17. We accept the statement of the company—that they are prepared to abandon the clause, and we are glad of it. But now, on the eve of the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission, to add this financial burden to the purchase, which must come sooner or later, we say is very unfair. We, therefore, press the opposition to the Bill to a Division, and we hope the House will support us.

MR. HUNTER

I beg to move that the Question be now put.

MR. SPEAKER

I have no means of knowing whether it is a fair proposition or not to put to the House that the Question should be now put. I think that hon. Members might with advantage compress their observations, but I cannot say that the Debate has been so unduly prolonged as to justify putting the Question.

MR. ABEL SMITH (Herts, E.)

As my constituents in East Hertfordshire are deeply interested in this question, I beg to say a word. We find in Hertfordshire that our streams and springs are reduced in their flow. We think that the inhabitants of East Hertfordshire ought to have the first use of the water, and we cannot spare any further supply to London. The whole question has been referred to a Royal Commission, which is about to report, and I think we ought to await their decision before anything is done. I had intended to offer opposition to this Bill, but, as important concessions have been made, it is no longer necessary to do that.

MR. WARNER (Somerset, N.)

In Essex the opinion is that this Bill is thoroughly bad. I have absolutely no connection with the London County Council, and I am a member of a Body which is very often opposed to it— namely, the Essex County Council. I can assure the House that the feeling throughout the Essex part of the district is even stronger than it is on the London County Council itself. I have been connected with that locality all my life. I can tell the hon. Member for Peckham that this Bill will not interfere with jerry-builders in any way, and as it will not benefit the ratepayers, but will only benefit the Company, I hope the House will reject it.

MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

As an East End Member, I have some claim to say a few words with regard to this Bill. In my own district, being in daily touch with my constituents, I feel that this Bill is very premature. It is premature, because we are all looking forward to the Report of the Royal Commission to say what is to be done in the East of London in order to give that densely populated district a constant supply of water. We desire to see the old-fashioned water butt done away with, and I do not think we shall be doing our duty if we support a Company which is trading in an everyday commodity, and paying dividends of 8 to 10 per cent. The Company, of which the hon. Member for Peckham is a Director, pays 8 per cent., and I think that, for a commodity of which we require the daily use, is an immoral dividend. I maintain that if these Water Companies were conducted on a different principle the poor people would get their water cheaper, and would also obtain a much larger supply. But I will not oppose the Bill. I would rather follow the advice of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and let the Bill go before a Select Committee, if it is not possible to withdraw it in order to await the Report of the Royal Commission. I would rather see the Bill deferred for another month until we obtained the Report of the Commission. If it is not convenient to do that, I will go with the Chairman of Ways and Means and support the Second Reading, in the hope that it may be possible to so alter the Bill in Committee that the poor may derive some benefit from it.

MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

I do not wish to intervene for more than a moment between the House and the Division. On the contrary, I would respectfully urge that after all that has been said on both sides the question should be at once disposed of, and we should proceed to the public business of the evening. Before doing so, however, I must express regret at the fact that the hon. Member for Somerset thought it right to level charges at the head of this particular Water Company, a course which was, I am glad to say, not adopted by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill. May I bring the House back, before it goes to a Division, to the ground occupied by the Chairman of Ways and Means? It is the case, if we accept the assurances of this Company, that they require more capital in order to supply the demands of the district in the area over which they have the supply of water. It is suggested that we should wait for the Report of the Royal Commission. May I remind the House that, the Commission will only report on two points—namely, the quantity and quality of the water. The purchase of the undertakings of the Company by the public will still have to be inquired into, reported on, and settled. As the Chairman pointed out, it will be a serious thing for the House at this stage to take the unusual course of refusing to allow the Bill to go to a Committee upstairs where the objections to it can be heard in detail, and where there will be ample power to alter or reduce the demands of the Company. I hope we may now go to a Division.

COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)

If the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill had followed the advice tendered to him from his own side it would have been unnecessary for the House to interfere. But notwithstanding that advice a Division is to take place. The right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means stated that the Committee upstairs would decide what amount of capital is absolutely necessary. This £140,000 is only to supply new mains during the next seven years. Surely we are not going to deprive these extensive districts that adjoin the borough I represent of the water they want or prevent this Water Company from fulfilling its obligations until some new arrangement is made. The Great Eastern Railway, owing to its admirable service of trains, has brought about an enormous extension of West Ham. New streets are being opened up every year, and it is impossible to say that the County Council is to control not only London, but also Essex. If a majority of Irish or Welsh Members are to represent Ireland or Wales, surely a majority of the Metropolitan Members should represent the Metropolis. Lot the Bill go before a Committee, and I am sure every point in it, whether as to capital or anything else, will be well considered.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 176.—(Division List, No. 32.)

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months.