CHELSEA WATER (TRANSFER) BILL. (Hansard, 28 February 1895)

§ SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge)
said, he objected to the postponing of this Bill. He saw no reason why the County Council should be empowered to use one company in order to invade the district of another. He did not hold a share in these Water Companies, but he had the honour to be Chairman of the Thames Conservancy, which looked on these water Bills as a very serious question. He and those who thought with him were strongly of opinion that these water Bills should proceed pari passu. He had no objection to a central authority taking charge of the water supply, but he objected to the County Council being enabled to work one company against another. He wanted all these Bills to be considered by the same Committee. He begged to move that the Bills be now read a second time.

§ SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)
said, he was surprised at the line taken by the hon. Member for Shoreditch, who was responsible for the Motion to defer the Second Reading of these Bills till May 3. When he himself moved last week that the whole of the Bills should stand over until the opinion of the ratepayers had been expressed, the hon. Member offered a most determined opposition. These Bills must inevitably lead to a very great increase in the rates, even if the London County Council worked the water undertakings as economically as they were worked at present, which he very much doubted, because the present ratepayers would have not only to pay for the water but for the redemption of stock. To that argument no answer had been attempted by those who supported the Bill. The analogies drawn from the case of other Municipalities were entirely misleading, 5 as there were no other Municipalities to which the Water Companies stood in the same relation as did the London Water Companies to the Metropolis. Another argument which had been put forward was that the authority having the control of the streets should also have the control of the Water Companies, so that there should not be two bodies with the power of opening up the streets. But in the case of London the power of opening up the streets did not rest with the County Council, but generally with the Vestries, so that the argument did not apply.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the question before the House was whether the Second Heading of the Bill should be deferred or now taken.

§ SIR J. LUBBOCK
said, he would not pursue the argument further, but he had desired to explain to the House why he did not keep down the Amendment standing in his name before. He hoped that the Committee would take into consideration the views, not only of those who represented the Metropolis, but also of those representing districts outside.

MR. J.STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)
said, the Motion which was now made for deferring these Bills was made for the purpose of carrying out a distinct understanding which had been arrived at. Last Thursday he said:— We cannot consent to withdraw Clause 6, but we are prepared to give a locus standi to the other Companies on the first Bill, on the under-standing that the other Bills will he postponed. He would not press the understanding if hon. Gentlemen felt that it did not exist, but the 3rd of May was the earliest possible date, he thought, at which the Second Reading of these Bills could be taken. He should put down for Monday a Resolution which would give a locus standi on the two Bills to all the Water Companies, and also move for the postponement of the Second Reading of the other Bills until this Bill was gone through. It had been suggested that County Councils should have a locus standi, and they had put that also into their proposed Resolution.

§ MR. F. G. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)
thought that the hon. Member had not answered the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Uxbridge. The point was this, did the County Council really intend to proceed with all the 6 eight Bills, or did they intend to post pone the last six for an indefinite period, and having purchased two Companies use those Companies as a lever with which to depreciate the property of the remaining Companies.

§ MR. STUART
said, the only reason for the proposed postponement was that it was impossible to deal with the Bills simultaneously. The County Council could not compete against any Water Company, even if they wished to do so, except with a most minute portion of the Kent Company.

§ MR. BANBURY
said, he understood that it was the distinct intention of the London County Council to proceed with the remaining six Bills, and he understood, also, that the hon. Member for Shoreditch had practically told the House that he would not use the two Bills which had already gone to the Committee in order to exercise any pressure on the remaining six Companies. He understood that that was not the object at all, but that it was simply and solely because it was more convenient to take the first two together.

§ MR. STUART
said, that was so, and they were about to move for a locus standi for the other Companies in order that, if their interests were prejudiced in any way, they might have an opportunity of presenting their case before the Committee.

§ MR. BANBURY
said, he was quite satisfied. It was not his wish that the London Water Companies should receive a farthing more than they ought to receive.

§ SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND
said, that on the clear understanding which had been expressed he would withdraw his Amendment.