HC Deb 08 December 1902 vol 116 cc295-332

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 15:—

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 35, after the word 'Board,' to insert the words, 'The Water Board shall exercise their powers of charging water rates in such manner as to produce within three years from the appointed day throughout the limits of supply an equalisation of such rates as between all parts of the area, both in respect of charges on ratable value of the premises supplied and special services rendered.'"—(Mr. Herbert Robertson.)

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

(9.0.) MR. LOUGH,

resuming, said he desired to know whether it was the intention of the Government to effect the equalisation which was to take place by means of the water charges, and whether it was intended that no call could be made on the rates under any circumstances whatever. He thought it would be absolutely necessary to insert in the Bill some provisions wider than those suggested by the President of the Local Government Board, for if equalisation was to take place at the expense of the water consumer alone, it must be unsatisfactory. What was really needed was an equalisation of the rates, which varied greatly in different districts. For instance, in Hackney the charge for a £30 house was £1 4s. and for a £45 house £2 10s., while in Bermondsey the figures were £3 7s. and £4 6s. respectively. In provincial cities and towns the charges were much lower.

CAPTAIN JESSEL () St. Pancras, S.

said the Corporation of the City of Westminster had been somewhat unduly abused for getting this Clause inserted in the Bill. They had acted not only on behalf of Westminster, but on behalf of other areas in London. The Clause was agreed to unanimously by the Joint Committee, which had expressed itself satisfied that Westminster, acting on behalf of the various boroughs, had made out a good case. The Clause had been condemned by the London County Council because they had alleged that by it equalisation of rates was prevented, but, as a matter of fact, if absolute equalisation of rates came into operation the charge upon the districts west of the Lea and north of the Thames would be increased in order to reduce the charge in the other parts of the Metropolis. It must be perfectly plain to everybody who had studied this question that they could not go on charging on a different basis in different areas. There must be a uniform scale of charges throughout London, and it seemed to him that the course the Government were pursuing in leaving matters as they were for three years and then directing that the Water Board should bring in a Bill to make the charges uniform was a very wise one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments were proposed by Mr. WALTER LONG, and agreed to, which left sub-Sections 6 and 7 as follows— (6) The Water Board shall not, until Parliament otherwise determine, reduce the rates charged for the supply of water below those in force during the quarter ending the twenty-fourth day of June one thousand nine hundred and two, unless the Board are satisfied that such a reduction would not cause a deficiency in the water fund; but the Water Board shall, within three years after the appointed day, introduce into Parliament a Bill providing for uniform scales of charges applicable throughout the limits of supply. (7) Within three years after the appointed day the Water Board may prepare and publish in the London Gazette, a scheme enabling their charges for the supply of water to be collected together with any local rate. Any local or rating authority within the limits of supply may transmit to the Local Government Board their objections to any such scheme within forty days after the scheme is published in the London Gazette.

MR. LOUGH

moved a further Amendment that the equalisation should be secured on a scale not exceeding that of the West Middlesex Water Company, and that the deficit thereby caused should be made good out of the county rate.

MR. WALTER LONG

said it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CLAUDE HAY () Shoreditch, Hoxton

had on the Paper an Amendment to add the following sub-Section:— (7) Within three years after the appointed day the Water Board shall prepare a scheme enabling their assessments and charges for water supplied for domestic and trade purposes to be assessed, levied and collected half-yearly to the thirtieth September and thirty-first March respectively, together with the general, poor, or general district rate. Each constituent authority and rating authority within the area of the Water Board shall transmit their objections to the Local Government Board within forty days after the scheme is published in the London Gazette. The Local Government Board shall insert such modifications as they deem necessary to the scheme, and, after confirmation, fix the time for it to come into operation, and shall prescribe the form of rate book and demand note, and shall make such necessary or proper regulations for purpose, which shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act.' The hon. Member said the Amendment explained itself but he would ask leave of the Committee to alter the word "shall" in the first line to the word "may," and to withdraw the last paragraph, having ascertained from the authorities that the Local Government Board had no power to enforce the provision set forth in the last paragraph of the Amendment. Though there was much to be said in support of the Amendment he felt that it would be unnecessary for him to go at length into the subject.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 40, at end, to add. 'Within three years after the appointed day the Water Board may prepare a scheme enabling their assessments and charges for water supplied for domestic and trade purposes to be assessed, levied, and collected half-yearly to September 30 and March 31 respectively, together with the general, poor, or general district rate. Each constituent authority and rating authority within the area of the Water Board shall consider and transmit their objections to the Local Government Board within forty days after the scheme is published in the London Gazette.'''— (Mr. Claude Hay.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GRANT LAWSON

said that a similar proposal stood in the name of the hon. Member for Haggerston as a new Clause, and, as it seemed to meet the wishes of both sides of the Committee, the Government were prepared to accept it.

MR. CREMER

said it was several months since he put down on the Paper a new Clause in terms identical with the Amendment which the hon. Member for Hoxton had just moved. The hon. Member for Hoxton had done him the honour to borrow in every word his Clause, and if imitation was the most sincere form of flattery he supposed that he might consider himself very much flattered in having his new Clause moved as an Amendment to Clause 15. It seem to him that the proposal of the hon. Member for South Hackney was not at all necessary, for the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have swallowed them all up. He thanked the President of the Local Government Board for the spirit in which he had met them on this question, because this matter appeared to him to be the most vital principle of the Bill. What they were all anxious for was to secure equality of assessment in the Metropolis. The Amendment secured this object, and in three years time they would have that which they all hoped to have, namely, something like an equality of assessment throughout the Metropolis. In regard to the uniformity of collection, that was not met by the Amendment, and he asked the right. hon. Gentleman to consider whether it was not possible to introduce something into the Clause that would secure uniformity of collection. At the present time they had a rate collector, a water rate collector, and a collector of King's taxes. In some boroughs they managed to collect all these taxes with one man, and he did not see why it should not be compulsory on the new water authority that one collector should collect all the taxes to which he had referred. He thought the right hon. Gentleman could easily achieve this object by adding a few words to this Clause. Personally he thanked the President of the Local Government Board for the graceful concession he had made to them, and if there was anything calculated to make this Bill popular he believed it was the concession made upon this subject.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said the Amendment which was now before the House was placed on the Paper not a few weeks ago, as the hon. Member for Haggerston had alleged, but some months ago.

MR. CREMER

Yes, but long after my new Clause appeared on the Paper.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said that the reason that his Amendment took precedence to that of the hon. Member for Haggerston was that he had taken the trouble to conform to the Rules of the House, while the hon. Member had placed his Amendment before the House without taking the trouble to consult the ordinary practice of the House, and therefore the hon. Member came last on the list.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he was glad that the Government had accepted the principle of the Amendment. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman accepted the words as they stood on the Paper. His hon. friend the Member for Haggerston had this Amendment on the Paper many months ago, and it seemed to him something like kleptomania that the hon. Member for Hoxton should now put this Amendment forward and claim it as his own.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

Will the hon. Member say when my Amendment first appeared on the Paper?

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said all he knew was that his hon. friend's Amendment was on the Paper some time before the one which had now been proposed, and that was enough for his argument. It was a most extraordinary coincidence that the hon. Member for Hoxton should have adopted the same words.

CAPTAIN JESSEL

said that whoever might have been the father of this particular Clause, he congratulated him upon it, because he thought a great deal of money would be saved by it.

It seemed to him that there was no difficulty in the matter whatsoever, because other towns had adopted this method of procedure. He thought the hon. Member, or perhaps the hon. Members, who claimed this proposal might both be congratulated upon having this Amendment on the Paper.

MR. CREMER

said he should like to ask whether the proposal contained in the Amendment as regarded uniformity of collection was contained in the Amendment now before the House upon which they were going to vote.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that what the Government accepted was the Amendment as originally proposed with the omission of the last sub-paragraph, and the substitution of the word "may" for "shall." The hon. Member was aware that there were practical difficulties in the way of any compulsory uniformity. They all desired that there should be uniformity of collection and an avoidance of the constant repetition of collections for rates and taxes. As the hon. Gentleman was aware, there were practical difficulties in the way, because the charges did not always fall upon the same individual, and, in the second place, it might not be convenient, and might actually be more expensive to have to employ the collectors of the local authorities. Uniformity, however, was made possible, although not compulsory, by the Amendment of his hon. friend.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. LOUGH

said he desired to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Swansea. At the present time the Water Companies did give exemptions, and he admitted that some exemptions should be made in the case of persons who did not use much water. This, however, could be settled by making one charge for all dwellings and for all dwelling-houses and shops combined, and for workshops which were separated. In Manchester and all the great cities these exemptions were made one uniform charge throughout the whole area. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept this proposal.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 40, at end, add, 'In levying the water rate the Water Board shall not give preference or exemption to any person or property, unless such preference or exemption be extended to all persons and property similarly situated.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

*COLONEL BOWLES

said that he did not think there was any necessity for this Amendment, and he would remind the Committee that it was to the London hospitals that the Water Companies gave these preferential rates.

MR. WALTER LONG

said it was not alleged that the concessions made by Water Companies to particular consumers of water were the result of any collusion between them and the users of water. Hitherto he thought as a rule the charges had been that the Water Companies were too exorbitant in the demands they have made upon the consumers, but it should not be forgotten that the Water Companies were ordinary commercial concerns. The Water Companies have made these charges in the past because they believed it was in their interest commercially to charge in this fashion. It would be the duty of the Water Board to consider whether they should continue this system or not. If they thought it was in the long run to their interests commercially of course they would do so. Did the hon. Member opposite mean by his argument that the Water Companies in the past had discriminated in their charges between certain ratepayers? He thought in the past the companies had done their best to make profit. Surely they ought to give the Water Board at least the same power and discretion as the Water Companies had enjoyed in the past, but as a matter of fact this Amendment would place the Water Board in a worse position than the companies were at the present time.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

thought that, if the Attorney General would tell the Committee whether or not these words were really necessary, the discussion would come to an end.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:—

*Sir FREDERICK BANBURY

said the object of the Amendment he wished to move was to abolish the Sinking Fund. He thought a Sinking Fund was unnecessary and would press very heavily upon the ratepayers. He might say without exaggeration that the amount which would be necessary for the Sinking Fund would be about £300,000 a year. What was the object of levying this £300,000 a year upon the present ratepayers of London? The only object of establishing the Sinking Fund appeared to him to be that their grandchildren would be able to have water for nothing, because the capital charges would all be extinguished, and the only charge upon the future generation would be the actual charge for the maintenance of the water supply. He was aware that this was a commercial enterprise, but as far as he was aware, from the beginning of the world to the end of it, water would always be necessary, for no substitute could be found for it, and therefore if the works were kept in repair, and depreciation of machinery provided for, there would be no need for this Sinking Fund. It might be said that a fresh supply from such places as Wales, or from other parts of the country, might be necessary, but even in such a case the present supply would not cease to exist, and the new supply would be remunerative. This had been the case during the last twenty years. Water companies had extended their reservoirs, but nevertheless their incomes had always increased, and therefore he thought the establishment of the Sinking Fund was entirely unnecessary. It might be held that the municipalities would come down and require that their Sinking Fund should be abolished. He wished to point out that the difference between municipalities and an undertaking of this sort was very great. Municipalities spent money on sewers and town halls and streets, which were not remunerative and which deteriorated. As he desired that this Bill should be a success, and that it should not cast undue burdens upon the ratepayers, he hoped the Government would receive this proposal with favour.

Amendment proposed— In page 13, to line 29, leave out sub-Section (3)."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)

Question proposed, ''That sub-Section (3) stand part of the Clause."

MR. WALTER LONG

made an appeal to the hon. Baronet not to press this Amendment. His hon. friend had said that this was not a municipal undertaking, but a commercial one. He was not sure that that was necessarily the case. If he sought to differentiate between the two he would remind the hon. Baronet that in the commercial undertaking the people interested had not got the advantage of the rates behind them. In this particular concern the rates of London would be behind the Water Board. He asked the Committee to realise what they were doing. His hon. friend had stated that there was no precedent for this extraordinary commercial undertaking. Surely the hon. Baronet was aware that no municipality came to this House for powers to undertake gas or water supply, and to borrow money for that purpose without being called upon to create a Sinking Fund. A great concern was being initiated by this Bill for the greatest municipality in the world, namely, the Metropolis of London, and was this great Metropolis going to set for the first time an example of profligate municipal expenditure? A greater mistake could not be made. He was very reluctant to enter the list against the hon. Baronet in any financial dispute, but he did not think he had accurately described the effects of this provision. He did not think that the Sinking Fund would cost £300,000 a year, for at the outside he did not think it would be more than £200,000 or £250,000. He had not shown that this money would necessarily come out of the rates at all. The Bill provided that this fund was to be created by a gradual process, and it provided also for an extended period during which there would be no necessity to use the Sinking Fund, and he did earnestly appeal to the Committee, not from any motive of economy, or from the fear of throwing a burden on the rates, to sanction such a departure from sound municipal finance in the case of the new London Water Board. He did not think there was any necessity to make a call upon the rates to form this fund. There would be an interval of twenty years before they would have to deal with this question. By that time the Water Board would know what their position was, and they would know what was likely to be the pressure on the London ratepayers. He asked the Committee not to decide on this side issue a question which might be of far reaching importance not only to London, but to other parts of the country.

Amendment negatived. Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 amended, and agreed to.

Clause 19:—

Amendment proposed— In page 16, line 6, to insert the words, 'and that the stamp duty charged on the Water Board for the purposes of The District Auditors Act, 1879, shall be such as the Treasury, after consulting with the Local Government Board, and having regard to the cost of the audit, may determine. ' "—(Mr. Walter Long.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. LOUGH

moved an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Camberwell. As the new Board was a sort of municipal combination, he thought it was reasonable that the constituent authorities should have the right which the Amendment proposed to confer upon them.

Amendment proposed— In page 16, line 9, at end, to add, 'The constituent authorities shall have an independent right to be present at the audit of the accounts of the Board, and to appeal with regard thereto. Copies of the accounts shall be furnished to each of the constituent authorities who shall be entitled to make representations to the Local Government Board with regard thereto, and that Board shall be empowered to give directions to the Water Board on the subject.' "—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "Those words be there inserted."

MR. WALTER LONG

said there was no necessity for the first part of this Amendment, because the local authorities would, of course, be represented at the Water Board. In regard to the second part he could not possibly assent to the proposal that copies of the accounts should be furnished to each of the constituent authorities. That was a proceeding which would involve a great deal of unnecessary labour and expense which would do no good to anybody.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 20, 21, and 22 agreed to.

Clause 23:—

*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

moved to add the following to sub-Section (4) which provides for the payment to the Arbitration Commissioners and to any officer or person appointed and employed under "this section such salaries or remuneration as the Local Government Board may assign," Provided always that before the amount of any such salaries or other remuneration is fixed the Water Board shall have an opportunity of submitting its views to the Local Government Board." It seemed to him a somewhat strange provision that the authority which was to pay the Commissioners and their employees should have no voice in determining the amount to be paid. It Was contrary to the principle that where there was taxation there ought to be representation. This was a matter important not only in itself, but because it might be used afterwards as a precedent. Surely the salaries ought to be fixed by agreement between the Local Government Board and the Water Board.

Amendment proposed— ' In page 17, line 41, at end, to insert 'Provided always that before the amount of any such salaries or other remuneration is fixed, the Water Board shall have an opportunity of submitting its views to the Local Government Board.' "—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. WALTER LONG

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to press this Amendment. If there was one part of the Bill which had found general acceptance it was that dealing with the appointment of the arbitrators He thought they were all agreed that the names of the Commissioners were altogether beyond comment. Better men could not have been selected, and to suggest that in regard to the salaries or remuneration to be paid to them there should be some sort of consultation with the Water Board was to introduce a feature which was altogether undesirable. He believed that the three gentlemen who had agreed to undertake the duties of arbitrators would, if they had followed their own wishes, have preferred not to act in the matter. He ventured to say that there would be no difficulty whatever in fixing remuneration that would be reasonable.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

advised his hon. friend, after what the right hon. Gentleman had said, to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

moved to amend sub-Section (5), by leaving out all after "to," in line 2, to end of paragraph, and inserting "the ascertainment, determination, and declaration by them of the fair and reasonable value of each Metropolitan Water Company, and the court of arbitration in order to ascertain such value shall inquire into and shall consider all the circumstances of the ease." He said some hon. Members, on the Opposition side of the House at all events, thought that the reference to the arbitrators was not sufficiently extended and open, inasmuch as it did not instruct them to deal with each company separately. Under the Clause they would he able to give a lump arbitration in regard to all or some of the companies together. He thought it ought to be made clear that each company should be taken on its own basis, and that each arbitration ought to refer to one company alone. The reference proposed did not necessarily enable the arbitrators to go into all the circumstances of the case. Not only should they be able to take into consideration anything favourable to the company, such as the condition of the main water supply and the state of the reservoirs, but they should also take into account questions of the likelihood of future liabilities had the undertaking remained in possession of the company. It was quite clear from the increase in the population in many parts, and from the deficiences in the water supply, that the Water Board would be involved in large capital expenditure, and that if matters were left as at present would fall on the companies. That was an element which ought to be taken into account in estimating the price at which the companies ought to be bought out. What he was afraid of in regard to the whole question of arbitration was that the Water Board would be very much prejudiced in stating their case before the arbitrators. The Board would have to get new officers who would not understand the work, as the officers of the water companies were to be taken over later on. Practically all the first-class counsel had already been engaged by the water companies, and the Water Board would be in a very prejudiced position. The fullest possible instructions ought to be given to the arbitrators to take every matter into account, so that it might not be said to them that such and such matters were excluded from the scope of the arbitration.

Amendment proposed— In page 18, line 2, to leave out all the words after the word ' to,' to the end of the sub Section, and insert the words' the ascertainment, determination, and declaration by them of the fair and reasonable value of each Metropolitan Water Company, and the court of arbitration, in order to ascertain such value, shall inquire into and shall consider all the circumstances of the case.' "—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

AYES.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bigwood, James Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire
Anson, Sir William Reynell Blundell, Colonel Henry Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Bond, Edward Chamberlain, Rt Hn. JA(Wore.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Chapman, Edward
Arrol, Sir William Bousfield, William Robert Charrington, Spencer
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex) Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Brassey, Albert Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Balcarres, Lord Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Monch'r. Brookfield, Colonel Montagu, Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Bull, William James Cranborne, Viscount
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Burdett-Coutts, W. Crossley, Sir Savile
Bignold, Arthur Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Dickson, Charles Scott
MR. WALTER LONG

said he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, for the reason that this Arbitration Clause was in some respects the most important in the Bill. It gave very large powers to the tribunal, which was most carefully constituted. The Clause was most carefully examined by the Joint Committee, and very much altered by them after they had heard all the pros and cons. He was not inclined to be drawn into a discussion as to what were the questions the arbitrators ought to consider. The London County Council had from the beginning made clear their views on this question, and there was no doubt what their views were He did not hesitate to say that if the London County Council had taken slightly different views on this question they would probably have had no difficulty in passing a Bill years ago. But this was the rock on which they had always split. They had always held that certain things ought to be taken into consideration against the companies, and the Government could not accept their view. He would earnestly ask the Committee not to put into this Clause words which were very vague, which might be interpreted either for or against the interests of the companies or of the general ratepayers, and which might mislead the arbitrators and place them in a position of considerable difficult. At present they had full powers under Clause 23 to consider all the circumstances of the case, and give the award which they believed would be just as between the companies on the one hand and the London ratepayers on the other.

(10.13.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 117; Noes, 31. (Division List No. 618).

Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Round, Rt. Hon. James
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Royds, Clement Molyneux
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S Samuel, Harry S. (Lime house)
Fisher, William Hayes Lucas, Col, Francis (Lowestoft) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Sharpe, William Edward T.
Flower, Ernest Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Forster, Henry William Macdona, John Cumming Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Galloway, William Johnson Maple, Sir John Blundell Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H(City of Lond. Mildmay, Francis Bingham Spear, John Ward
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Godson, Sir August us Frederick More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire Thornton, Percy M.
Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts Morgan David J.(Walth'mstow Tomlinson, Sir Wm, Edw. M.
Goulding, Edward Alfred Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Valentia, Viscount
Greene. W. Raymond-(Cambs. Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Guthrie, Walter Murray Muntz, Sir Philip A. Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William II.
Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G(Midd'x Murray, Rt. Hn. Agraham(Bute Webb, Colonel William George
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE(Taunton
Harris, Frederick Leverton Nicol, Donald Ninian Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Percy, Earl Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E,R.)
Hay, Hon. Claude George Plummer, Walter R. Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Hoare, Sir Samuel Pretyman, Ernest George Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Howard, John(Kent, Fav'r sham Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col, Edward Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Purvis, Robert
Kemp, George Pym, C. Guy
Kenyon. Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
King, Sir Henry Seymour Remnant, James Farquharson
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Lawson, John Grant Robertson. Herbert (Hackney)
NOES.
Atherley-Jones, L. Griffith, Ellis J. Spencer, RT. Hn. C R(Northants
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Scale Tomkinson, James
Burns. John Layland-Barratt, Francis Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Burt, Thomas Levy, Maurice Tully, Jasper
Buxton, Sydney Charles Lough, Thomas Weir, James Galloway
Caldwell, James M' Arthur, William (Cornwall Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Cameron. Robert Pease, J. A. (Saffron, Walden Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Causton, Richard Knight Rea, Russell
Cremer, William Randal Rigg. Richard
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) TELLERS FORTHE NOES— Captain Norton and Mr. Herbert Samuel.
Robson, William Snowdon Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Amendment proposed— In page I8, line 8, after 'settlement,' to add any of the constituent authorities shall be entitled to attend and give evidence before the Court of Arbitration.' '' (Mr. Laugh.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GRANT LAWSON

said it was quite unnecessary that these words should be put in, and therefore he opposed the Amendment.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said the question really arose in reference to the London County Council. As the Bill was drawn up he gathered that the London County Council had no locus standi before the arbitrator. The Council had a mass of information on the questions to be determined, and efficient officers who could place that information before the Court. The object of the Amendment was to make it quite clear that the London County Council should not be ruled out as witnesses, and that they should be able, as a constituent authority, to give the evidence they desired.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that the London County Council would not have a locus standi independently on their own account. The two parties to the arbitration would be the Water Board as the intending purchaser, and the Water Companies as the sellers. It would rest with the Water Board to call what witnesses they thought fit in support of their case. There would be on the Water Board ten members of the London County Council, and the additional numbers he hoped to add on the Report stage. Surely the presence of these members of the London County Council on the Water Board was sufficient security that if the Water Board required the evidence of the officials or members of the London County Council they would call them, and he had no doubt they would call them. He could not possibly assent to the Amendment.

MR. LOUGH

said he was very sorry that his hon. friend on the Front Opposition Bench had mentioned the London County Council, which seemed to have the same effect on the right hon. Gentleman opposite as a red rag on a hull. In moving the Amendment, he was not thinking of the London County Council, but of those unfortunate places in the outside areas which had only a tenth of one man to represent them on the Water Board and who would not be in the least able to affect the judgment of the Water Board, as to the calling of witnesses whom they might desire to have examined, in order to prevent some decision being come to that might be prejudicial to their locality. He thought the Amendment would have been accepted without discussion, and it ought to be pressed to a division.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed— In page 19, line 6, after the word 'any,' to insert the words, 'costs, charges, and,' "—(Mr. Lyttelton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. JOHN BURNS

said he trusted that the President of the Local Government Board would adhere to the words in the Bill. If there had been any strong reason for inserting the words of the Amendment that would have been done by the President of the Local Government Board in drafting the Bill.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that the words of the Amendment were not unreasonable. They were introduced to make it clear that anything in the nature of cost and charges would be included as well as expenses, though he had no doubt that costs and charges incidental to the transfer would be included under the word "expenses."

Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he thought that the Amendment should be resisted, if no better reason could be given for it. The apprehension they had in regard to those words was the same apprehension as they had in regard to the word "compensation," viz., that there was a desire on the part of certain persons to make it more and more clear that the arbitration was to be under the Lands Clauses Act. He really did not understand, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, how possibly the ands Clauses Act could apply.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he really thought that the hon. Gentleman was unduly alarmed. If the hon. Gentleman would look at sub-Section 8, Clause 23, he would see that this question of expenses was subject to the Court of Arbitration; while in sub-Section 9 the word used was "costs." It was desirable to remove the difference and prevent any injustice being done to the Water Companies. Hon Gentlemen opposite had, all through this Bill, been extremely anxious that no injustice should be done, even to the Water Companies. All that was intended was that the legitimate costs of purchasing these properties for London by London should be borne by London, so that the legitimate expenditure in prosecuting the case of the Water Companies should not fall on the shareholders.

DR. MACNAMARA

said they had been told earlier in the day that the President of the Local Government Board would, under no circumstances, alter the decision of the Joint Select Committee.

Mr. WALTER LONG

said that he had stated that Clause 10 was one of those Clauses that dealt with private interests. But there was no private interest in the Clause under discussion; it was a general principle.

DR. MACNAMARA

said that Clause 10 had reference to the Staines reservoirs; and the only argument used for it was that they should not touch this sacrosanct Clause because it had been argued before the Joint Select Committee. The Plunkett Committee had arrived at substantially the same phraseology as the Joint Select Committee in regard to Clause 23, sub-Section 8; and he asked the President of the Local Government Board not to depart from the principle he had laid down so admirably in the earlier part of the day. He sincerely hoped that in the interests of fair play there would be no modification of the words of the Clause.

*Mr. LYTTELTON () Warwick and Leamington

said he should like to say a few words in justification of his Amendment. The word "expenses." in sub-Section 8, was intended to coverall the expenses which were incidental to a transfer. Everybody admitted that reasonable expenses should be given at the discretion of the arbitrators. The word "expenses" was claimed by the Government to have a most general and wide meaning, yet, as sub-Section 9 made special provision for costs, it night fairly be argued that the inference was that the word "expenses." in sub-Section 8, did not carry the significance intended. Any doubt on the matter would be removed by his Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24:—

CAPTAIN NORTON

said that he wished to give the Water Board full power over its own affairs, and he saw no reason to bring in the Local Government Board to give its consent to the alienation of any land or buildings transferred to the Board.

Amendment proposed— In page 19, line 39, to leave out the words 'with the consent of the Local Government Board.''—(Captain Norton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. WALTER LONG

said that there must be some outside authority to decide in such cases.

CAPTAIN NORTON

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26:—

MR. LOUGH

moved to leave out sub-Section 1. This sub-Section, he said, was a very curious one. If they gave the Local Government Board power, by reason of difference of population, to alter the representation of the Board, there might be, as he understood it, a great influx of members at one time, and at other times the number might be reduced. That would be a most unfortunate power to give to the Local Government Board, and there was no necessity for it. At present the representation was distributed in regard to population in the most extraordinary way the wit of man could conceive of. There were some districts with a population of 50,000 which had one member, and there were other districts, like Islington, which had a population of 340,000, and which had only one member. If there was a variation like that at present, why on earth should they give power to the Local Government Board to vary the representation on a very little variation of the population? Nothing was more inconvenient than that the number should be changed. The greatest controversy in connection with the Bill arose in connection with the number of the new Board; and it was even denounced by a light hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition Bench, when he was present. The only great assembly in the world where the number was subject to change was the Chamber of Deputies in Paris; and Frenchmen who had studied the question agreed that that was a very great drawback, and that it would be better that the number should be fixed, as in this House, and in other assemblies. He, therefore, hoped the Local Government Board would consider the matter at that stage.

Amendment proposed— In page 22, line 5, to leave out sub-Section (1)''—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed. "That sub-Section (1) stand part of the Clause."

(10.50.) Mr. WALTER LONG

said he did not think the matter was of a very important character; but the sub-Section would enable a change to be made by Provisional Order, which was the simplest course, if a change were desirable. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.

Mr. WHITMORE () Chelsea

said he should like to have it quite clear that if the Local Government Board had this power, it could only be exercised subject to ratification by Parliament.

MR. WALTER LONG

said it would be exercised through a Provisional Order promoted by the Department.

Mr. WHITMORE

said he had every confidence, in the present Local Government Board, but he could conceive a Board differently constituted: and all he wished was to impress that the exercise of this power should be subject to ratification by Parliament.

Mr. WALTER LONG

said that as it would be exercised by a Provisional Order, it would have to be confirmed by Parliament. However, if there was any suspicion in the matter, he would be quite willing to drop the sub-Section.

Mr. LOUGH

said he would really advise the Committee to give a little more thought to the matter. He had given substantial reasons against the sub-Section. The best rule for hon. Gentlemen opposite to follow was, whenever they saw the President of the Local Government Board in doubt, to support the withdrawal of the proposal. On the one or two occasions on which the light hon. Gentleman was pressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, they had to retrace their steps.

Mr. BOUSFIELD

said he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not lightly abandon the sub-Section.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. LOUGH

said he desired to move the omission of sub-Section 2. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had not had time to consider these points. These were the in-and-out Clauses, which enabled the President of the Local Government Board to increase or diminish the area of supply. That seemed to him to be a very drastic power, and one which it was not usual to give to the Local Government Board.

Amendment proposed— In page 22, line 15, to eave out sub-Section (2)."—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That sub-Section (2) stand part of the Clause."

Mr. WALTER LONG

said he did not think it was a question of precedents. As was constantly stated during the debates on the Bill, provision was made enabling the Local Government Board to give a rural district, which had become an urban district, representation. The principle of the Bill was that London and the urban districts should constitute the new Board, but that if a rural district became an urban district, there should be power to include it. Similar powers were already enjoyed by the Local Government Board.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made— 'In page 21, line 21, after 'general,' to insert 'or local.'" "In page 21, line 22, after 'companies,' to insert 'or any of them.'" "In page 21, line 22, to leave out 'them,' and insert 'those provisions.'''—(Mr. Walter Long.)

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27:—

Mr. CREMER

said he wished to move the rejection of the Clause, in order to get an explanation from the Minister in charge of the Bill with reference to sub-Section (3). The Committee ought to discourage inquiries, and to prevent, as far as possible, the expenditure they entailed. It seemed to him that the expenses provided for witnesses at inquiries were very heavy. Sub-Section (3) provided that they should not exceed three guineas per day. Such a provision appeared to him to be calculated to induce officials of the Local Government Board to inst lute frivolous inquiries, which would lead to very considerable expenditure to be taken from the funds of the Water Board, and might also induce them to spin out an inquiry to the greatest possible length. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to safeguard the interests of the ratepayers by preventing lavish expenditure on prolonged inquiries. If a man were to be paid three guineas a day, in addition to a salary, he might be induced to manufacture a grievance, and spin out an enquiry to investigate it.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the explanation was very simple. In all cases where an inquiry was held by a Government Department, practically at the request of a locality, the rule was for the locality to pay the cost of the inquiry. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken in thinking that the three guineas a day was to be in addition to salary. It was merely the limitation of the charge which the Department could impose on the locality. The hon. Gentleman might rest assured that the inspectors were not in the least likely to prolong inquiries. They had more work than they could do at present, and were only too glad to finish an inquiry as soon as possible. The object of the sub-Section was that the Exchequer should not be called upon to pay for work undertaken on behalf of the localities.

Mr. JOHN BURNS

said he accepted what the right hon. Gentleman had said in reply to his hon. friend, and he would only ask him to discourage too many inquiries.

Mr. WALTER LONG

Hear, hear!

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clauses 28, 29 and 30 agreed to.

Clause 31:—

Mr. LOUGH

said some explanation should be given of the Clause, which was that local authorities should be allowed to appear in Parliament in opposition to Bills promoted by the Water Board. That seemed to him to be an extraordinary provision. Surely the proper way would he for any authority represented on the Board to make its views felt through its representatives. The Clause appeared to him to be designed to stimulate expensive legal proceedings against the Board, and to encourage the various authorities represented on the Board not to proceed in an amicable way, but to develop a hostile feeling against it.

Mr. WALTER LONG

said the Clause was intended to prevent possible litigation hereafter. The right of the local authority to oppose legislation was protected, and the Clause was only introduced to make it quite clear that that right was not interfered with. Doubt might arise otherwise, which would lead to fruitless expense.

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clause 32:—

Mr. LOUGH

said they were now dealing, in five or six successive Clauses, with five or six different water companies around London. The areas of these companies overlapped the area to be controlled by the Water Board. Four or five of the companies, more voracious than the rest, came to the Local Government Board in the most audacious manner—

Mr. WALTER LONG

said the hon. Gentleman was mistaken. The companies did not come to the Local Government Board. All the Clauses were introduced before the Committee upstairs, and the only responsibility he had in connection with them was that he had undertaken to present the ease in the House as it was presented to the Committee.

MR. LOUGH

said the Bill was presented to the House by the Local Government Board, and no Clause could appear in it which was not approved by that Department. In the areas covered by these small companies, the companies to be purchased by the Water Board had also the right to supply. Three effects would be produced. In the first place, the Water Board would have to acquire and pay for the right of supply in these districts; secondly, having bought it, they would be prevented from using it; and thirdly, these little suburban companies would get rid of their most powerful competitor, and would he able to charge whatever price they pleased. The first Clause dealt with the Colne Valley Water Company, the district being also served by the West Middlesex Company. The West Middlesex Company supplied small houses at 13s. a year, whereas, for the same class of house, the Colne Valley Water Company charged 29s. Other prices were in the same proportion. The effect of the Clause would be that the Colne Valley Water Company would get rid of its strongest competitor; and the consumers would be left to its tender mercies. If the Clause were not deleted altogether, it should certainly be amended.

Amendment proposed— In page 23, line 12, at end, to add the words—'Provided that the sum to be paid by the Water Board to the Company of Proprietors of the West Middlesex Waterworks for their right to supply in the part of the parish of Hendon aforesaid shall be separately determined by the court of arbitration and shall be repaid to the Water Board by the Colne Valley Water Company.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. VICARY GIBBS () Hertfordshire, St Albans

said the hon. Member had not stated the facts correctly. It would not be the case that the Colne Valley Water Company would be relieved of its most formidable competitor. The fact was that part of Hendon was so high, that the West Middlesex Company could not supply it, except at great expense for pumping, and by arrangement the Colne Valley Water Company supplied that district, and had supplied it ever since it got its Act.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

asked if the Committee was not to have an explanation from the Treasury Bench?

MR. GRANT LAWSON

said his explanation was identical with that which had been given by his right hon. friend. These Clauses were put in by the Grand Committee after hearing counsel on both sides, and going thoroughly into the matter. All the responsibility the Government had was that they promised to state the reasons to the House. There were certain agreements between the water companies within the area and water companies outside the area, and it did not seem fair that they should be broken to the detriment of the smaller companies; nor did it seem fair that the smaller companies should be compelled to pay again to the Water Board for rights to sell water which they had already acquired. The Water Board would only pay for what it got, and if the West Middlesex Company did not supply the particular district mentioned, then the Water Board would not have to pay for it.

Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he thought the hon. Member for St. Albans had not read the Amendment.

Mr. VICARY GIBBS

said he had.

Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON

said it seemed to him that no injustice could be done if the Amendment were accepted, although, without it, injustice might be done. It was quite clear if the Water Board bought out the rights of the West Middlesex Company, and subsequently found they were of no value, that there ought to be a repayment to the Water Board.

Mr. LOUGH

said he did not think that counsel had been heard on the matter before the Committee upstairs. The Clauses were agreed Clauses, which the Local Government Board accepted at the request of these companies. The hon. Member for the St. Albans Division did not really touch on the matter at all. He indicated the difficulty of getting water up to Hendon, and suggested that the Colne Valley Water Company should be paid for it. He quite agreed, but did the hon. Member mean to say that the West Middlesex Company had no right to supply any part of the Colne Valley area? Of course they had that right. He suggested that the arrangement was a bad arrangement, but that, if it were desirable to maintain it, some Amendment should be introduced with regard to it. It was a foolish arrangement, which had not been properly considered, either before the Committee upstairs or in the House.

AYES.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Mcnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Buxton, Sydney Charles M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R(Northants
Caldwell, James M'Kenna, Reginald Tomkinson, James
Causton, Richard Knight Norton, Capt. Cecil William Tully, Jasper
Cremer, William Randal Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Pirie, Duncan V. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Rea, Russell Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Griffith, Ellis J. Rigg, Richard
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Robson, William Snowdon TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Lough and Mr. Johns Burns.
Layland-Barratt, Francis Samuel. Herbert L. (Cleveland
Levy, Maurice Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Fisher, William Hayes Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Murray. Rt. Hn. A. Gra'am(Bute
Arkwright, John Stanhope Flower, Ernest Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Forster, Henry William Nicol, Donald Ninian
Arrol, Sir William Galloway, William Johnson Percy, Earl
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Gibbs, Hon A G. H(City of Lond. Plummer, Walter R.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans) Pretyman, Ernest George'
Balcarres, Lord Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets Purvis, Robert
Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W(Leeds Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Goulding, Edward Alfred Remnant, James Farquharson
Bentinck Lord Henry C. Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Richards, Henry Charles
Bignold, Arthur Greville, Hon. Ronald Ritchie. Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson
Bigwood, James Guthrie, Walter Murray Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Bond, Edward Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x Round, Rt. Hon. James
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Bousfield, William Robert Harris, Frederick Leverton Samuel, Harry S. (Lime house)
Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex) Hay, Hon. Claude George Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Brassey, Albert Hoare. Sir Samuel Sharpe, William Edward T.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Howard, John(Kent, Fav'rsh'm Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Bull, William James Kemp, George Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand
Burdett-Coutts, W. King, Sir Henry Seymour Spear, John Ward
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire Lawson, John Grant Thornton, Percy M.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A.(Wore Loder Gerald Walter Erskine Valentia, Viscount
Charrington, Spencer Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.
Clive, Captain Percy A. Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S Webb, Colonel Wm. George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.(Taun'n
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.).
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Macdona, John Cumming Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Cranborne, Viscount Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Crossley, Sir Savile Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Wyndham Quin, Major W. H.
Dickson, Charles Scott Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Disraeli, Conings by Ralph More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Morgan, David J.(Walthams'w TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Mount, William Arthur

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clause 33:—

(11.13.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 29; Noes, 121. (Division List No. 619.)

Mr. LOUGH

said he wished to move the Amendment standing in his name. The case was even a more audacious one than that which they had just discussed. His proposal simply was that the sum to be paid by the Water Board to the proprietors of Lambeth Waterworks for their right to supply water within the statutory districts of the South - West Suburban Water Company should be separately determined and repaid to the Water Board. If the President of the Local Government Board would tell the Committee that nothing was paid for these rights, then he would not persevere with his Amendment; but if these rights were paid for, and if the Water Board were prevented from exercising them, he thought the Clause was an iniquitous one.

Amendment proposed— In page 23, line 22, at end, to add— 'Provided that the sum to be paid by the Water Board to the Company of Proprietors of the Lambeth Waterworks for their right of supplying water within the statutory districts of the South - West Suburban Water Company shall he separately determined by the court of arbitration and repaid to the Water Board by the South-West Surburban Water Company.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GRANT LAWSON

said that the Lambeth Company had nothing to do with the matter. It was the Grand Junction Company, and, there again, an agreement had been entered into which ought not to be broken.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he regarded the last division as deciding the principle of these cases, and therefore he thought it would not be necessary to put the House to the trouble of another division.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 33 agreed to.

Clauses 34, 35, and 36 agreed to.

Clause 37:—

MR. JOHN BURNS

said he would move his Amendment in order to give the President of the Local Government Board an opportunity of making an alternative suggestion.

Amendment proposed— In page 24, line 30, to leave out from 'means,' to 'one,' in line 31, and insert 'the first of January.' "—(Mr. John Burns.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. GRANT LAWSON

said he understood that if the hon. Gentleman withdrew his Amendment his right hon. friend would be prepared to propose another date, namely, the 24th June, 1904.

MR. JOHN BURNS

said he was not unreasonable enough to insist that the date mentioned in his Amendment should be accepted; but it was exceedingly important that as early a date as possible should be fixed, and that there should be simultaneous unification of management and control over all the companies. The experience of the County Council and other bodies was that when they took over tramways or Water Companies, and allowed a too long period to elapse before the date of actual possession, the companies permitted their maintenance standard to diminish and their repairs to fall off. There should be effective occupation, unified control, and simultaneous possession as soon as possible. He really thought that eighteen months was a longer period than the circumstances of the case warranted.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he thought he could satisfy the hon. Gentleman. The date in the Bill, the 24th December, 1903, was fixed when they hoped that the Bill would receive the Royal Assent in August, or September last. That meant eighteen months forward; but the Bill could not now receive the Royal Assent until the end of the year, and he was accordingly putting the date forward an almost equivalent period to that by which the passage of the Bill was postponed. The election of the new authority could not possibly take place before March or April, and, therefore, in putting the date as the 24th June, 1904, he was not putting it forward eighteen months, but only fourteen months. He thought that that was not an extravagant time to fix for the completion of the transactions in connection with the purchase of eight Water Companies.

MR. JOHN BURNS

said he only wanted the thing done decently, and if the right hon. Gentleman assured him that fourteen months was a reasonable time, he would assent.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he understood that in addition to the period now fixed, a further period of eighteen months might be given beyond the appointed day, at the discretion of the Local Government Board. That would be a period of almost three years, which would practically cover the life of the first Board. He thought that would be the result if the words "not being more than eighteen months later" were retained.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he intended to putan Amendment on the Paper altering the date to the 24th June, 1904, and another Amendment to leave out the words referred to by the hon. Gentleman. That would enable the Local Government Board to appoint an earlier date, assuming the companies and the Board agreed. On the other hand, if there was a general agreement, consequent on some unforeseen difficulty, that the date should be extended, it would be well that that power should be given.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47, agreed to.

Clause 48:—

Mr. LOUGH

moved to omit sub-Section (3), which, he explained, proposed to compensate water directors who were members of the Staines Reservoir Joint Committee for loss of their position. The object of the whole Clause was to compensate the directors. There was no precedent for such a course, while this particular sub-Section was simply atrocious, because the Gentlemen on the Staines Committee were already directors of the Water Companies, and would be compensated as such. He contended, therefore, that they ought not to be compensated twice over.

Amendment proposed— In page 31, line 42, to leave out sub-Section (3)."—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That sub-Section (3) stand part of the Clause."

Mr. WALTER LONG

said this proposal was not in the original Bill, but was inserted by the Committee upstairs, apparently for good reasons. He would remind the hon Member, however, that usually when a corporation bought up private property in the public interest a considerable additional sum was paid for what were called "etceteras," and he was informed that compensation in some shape or form was payable to those who had been habitually connected with the undertakings. That did not seem unjust, but at the same time the Government did not feel justified in introducing the proposal in the original Bill. The Joint Committee inserted the provision, and he was prepared to stand by their decision, though he did not intend to influence the decision of the Committee in the matter.

In reply to an hon. Member who asked how long the members of the Staines Reservoir Joint Committee had held their positions, and whether there were any members of that Committee who were not also directors,

Mr. WALTER LONG

said he could not give the information asked for, but, in his view, if a director was entitled to compensation it made no difference to the principle whether he had held his position for five or fifteen years.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said the question before the Committee was not whether directors as a whole should be compensated. Sub-Section 3 proposed to compensate the members of the Staines Committee, who were also directors of Water Companies, so that if the sub-Section were agreed to, they would be compensated twice over.

MR. WHITMORE

thought that while the Committee generally were willing to uphold the decision of the Joint Committee with regard to the compensation of directors, they could not see why practically the same men should be compensated twice over. He, personally, was inclined to agree that the sub-Section should be eliminated.

Mr. JOHN BURNS

hoped the Committee would be unanimous in rejecting the sub-Section. On no grounds whatever were the Staines directors, who were directors of some of the other eight Water Companies, entitled to compensation. He reminded the Committee that when the Staines Reservoir Bill was before the House four or five years ago, and the celebrated sterilisation Clauses were passed, the concern of these gentlemen was not allowed to count for compensation.

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Mount, William Arthur
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Alters- Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r Murray) Murray Rt Hn. A Graham(Bute
Anstruther, H. T. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fisher, William Hayes Nicol, Donald Ninian
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Percy, Earl
Arrol, Sir William Forster, Henry William Plummer, Walter R.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Galloway, William Johnson Pretyman, Ernest George
Bailey, James (Walworth) Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(CityofLond Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans Purvis, Robert
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gordon. MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Gosehen, Hon. George Joachim Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Bignold, Arthur Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Bigwood, James Grenfell, William Henry Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Guthrie, Walter Murray Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Bond, Edward Halsey, Rt. hon. Thomas F. Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Mid'x Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Bousfield, William Robert Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Spear, John Ward
Bowles, Cant. H. F. (Middlesex Harris, Frederick Leverton Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Brassey, Albert Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Thornton, Percy, M.
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Kemp, George Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Burdett-Coutts, W. King, Sir Henry Seymour Valentia, Viscount
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire Legge, Col. Hon. Honeage Webb, Colonel William George
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A(Wore. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Clive, Captain Percy A. Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Compton, Lord Alwyne Macdona, John Cumming Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Cranborne, Viscount Moon, Edward Robert Pacy TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Harry Samuel and Mr. Bull.
Crossley, Sir Savile More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)
Dickson, Charles Scott Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow)
*COLONEL BOWLES

said the members of the Staines Reservoir Committee were paid for their special services, and he could not see why they should be paid after those services had ceased.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. LOUGH

said he had nothing further to say, and would content himself by taking a division against the principle.

(11.54.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 26. (Division List No. 620.)

NOES.
Allhusen, Augustus H'nryEden Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Rigg, Richard
Burns, John Layland-Barratt, Francis Robson, William Snowdon
Buxton, Sydney Charles Levy, Maurice Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Caldwell, James M'Kenna, Reginald Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Causton, Richard Knight Norton, Capt. Cecil William Tomkinson, James
Charrington, Spencer Pearson Sir Weetman D. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Pease. J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John Pirie, Duncan V.
Griffith, Ellis J. Rea, Russell TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Lough and Mr. Cremer.
Hay, Hon. Claude George Reckitt, Harold James

Remaining Clauses agreed to.

First, Second and Third Schedules agreed to.

*MR. BIGWOOD

asked whether, in the event of a Bill being introduced by the Water Board, the Middlesex County Council would be prejudiced in their right to oppose that Bill, by reason of having a representative on the Board? If so, they would rather have no representative at all.

Mr. WALTER LONG

said it was specifically provided in the Bill that the local authorities should retain their power.

Fourth Schedule:—

Amendment proposed— In page 35, line 5, after 'shall' to insert 'not.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'not' be there inserted."

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said that, inasmuch as the Board was admittedly a large body, it might be worthy of consideration whether, in the event of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman being chosen from members of the Board, it would not be well to allow the body to be practically reduced by two.

Mr. WALTER LONG

said the Government were following the usual course with regard to corporations, so that the particular districts should not lose the services of their representatives if elected to these positions. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman were necessarily removed from the ordinary debates, and were unable to take the same part in them as ordinary members, so that their constituents were practically deprived, of representation.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. LOUGH

moved an Amendment which, he said, would have the effect of limiting the membership of the Board to persons who were members of the constituent authorities by whom they were elected.

Amendment moved— In page 35, line 7, to insert '(a) is not a member of the constituent authority affecting him.' "—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. GRANT LAWSON

said the Amendment was very undesirable, as it was hoped that the local authorities would vie with one another in the effort to get the best men possible to represent them on the Water Board, and it would not be right to limit their choice in the manner proposed.

Mr. LOUGH

said the statement of the hon. Member was very important, as the members might have no representative capacity whatever. However, he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CREMER

moved an Amendment to disqualify from being Chairman and Vice-Chairman, or a member of the Water Board, a person who "has any pecuniary interest in any of the existing Water Companies." His object in moving the Amendment was to prevent any such scandals in future as unfortunately arose in the days of the Metropolitan Board of Works. If the Amendment was likely to prove contentious now, he would reserve it for the Report stage.

Amendment proposed— In page 35, line 7, at end, to insert '(a) has any pecuniary interest in any of the existing water companies.'"—(Mr. Cremer.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. WALTER LONG

said he thought he could give the hon. Gentleman a good reason for not pressing the Amendment, assuming that instead of the views of the Government the views of the hon. Gentlemen opposite had prevailed and that those duties had been imposed on the London County Council, would the hon. Gentleman then have proposed that no member of the Council should be interested, directly or indirectly, in a Water Company, and that no director or shareholder in any Water Company should be qualified to act as a member of the Council? Did he not think that there were some of the directors of the present London Water Companies whose services would be of immense value on the new Board? Of course it was obvious that they could not be elected at first, because they would be in the position of vendors in a going concern. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.

Mr. JOHN BURNS

said he should be the last man to disqualify any water director who wanted to place at the disposal of his fellow-citizens the experience he had collected in the region of private enterprise, but he should like to point out to the President of the Local Government Board that that was an entirely different matter from what his hon. friend suggested. This Water Board would be the buyer of the properties of the Water Companies, and it seemed to him undesirable that any person should at the same time be a member of the Board and the holder of an interest in any of these properties.

Mr. WALTER LONG

said it was obvious that a water director could not be a member of the first Water Board.

Mr. CREMER

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment, and stated that he would bring up the matter on the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Fourth Schedule and remaining Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 307.]

Mr. SPEAKER,

in pursuance of the Order of the House of 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes after Twelve o'clock.