§ COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTI beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if, having regard to the widespread inconvenience caused in many districts of London by the recent freezing of water pipes and deprivation for several weeks of the supply of water to many houses, he will appoint a small departmental Committee of experts to ascertain by what means such an occurrence can best be prevented in the future, and how it has been met by the several Companies?
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREI am fully sensible of the inconvenience which has been caused in many districts of London by houses being deprived of water owing to the recent frost; but I feel great difficulty in instituting an inquiry of such a general character as that suggested, especially as there would be no means of enforcing the conclusions arrived at. I must point out, however, that, on the assumption that the failure of the supply of water is due to the fact that the water has been frozen in the companies' mains, and that this has been due to the pipes being laid at an insufficient depth to guard against frost, the Legislature appears to have provided a course which may be adopted by those affected. The Metropolis Water Act, 1852, enacts as follows:—"If at any time complaint as to the quantity or quality of the water supplied by any company for domestic use be made to the Local Government Board by memorial in writing, signed by not less than 20 inhabitant householders paying rents for and supplied with water by the company, it shall be lawful for the Board at any time within one month after the receipt of such complaint to appoint a competent person to inquire into and concerning the ground of such complaint, and to report to the Board thereon. If, after the receipt of such report, it shall appear to the Board that the said complaint is well founded, the Board shall give notice in writing thereof to the company. After the receipt of such notice, the company shall, and they are hereby required within a reasonable time to remove the ground of such complaint." I am advised that the provisions which exempt the water companies from penalties where the failure of a supply of water is due to frost do not affect the 1253 provisions above referred to. If, therefore, a complaint is made to me by 20 householders in any district in London, I shall be prepared to entertain it, subject to the opinion of the Law Officers, which in so grave a matter I should think it my duty to take.
§ COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTasked, whether a memorial, if addressed to the right hon. Gentleman, would entail any expense on the part of the 20 persons?
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that the expenses of the person whom the Department would appoint would be paid by the Local Government Board, but the complainants would have to make out their case before the person was appointed.
§ MR. J. AIRD (Paddington)asked whether the inquiry would be extended to all other cities where great inconvenience had been felt?
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVRENo; as far as I know, the section I have referred to applies only to London and not to the parishes outside the Metropolis supplied by the London water companies.
§ MR. M. BIDDULPH (Herefordshire, Ross)asked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the allegation that ratepayers in London who had paid their water rates in advance had no remedy against the New River and other Companies which had failed to supply them for 55 days during the late frost, and since, he proposed to take any steps to remedy this state of things?
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREI think, if the premisses of the hon. Member are accurate, that the question is well worthy of consideration in any future legislation affecting the water companies.
§ MR. J. H. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in some, districts of London no water had been supplied for over a period of six weeks, and that intimation had been given that no water need be expected for another month?
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREI have already dealt with the subject in answer to a previous question.