CORPORATION OF LONDON (BLACKFRIARS AND OTHER BRIDGES)BILL. [BY ORDER.] (Hansard, 30 July 1906)

§ *MR. BARNARD (Kidderminster)
explained that the clause which gave protection to the Metropolitan Water Board had for some years past been inserted in the tramway Bills of the London County Council. He pointed out to the House that his Motion to-night was not contrary to the dictates of good taste in spite of the action which Lord Welby had taken in another place, because the action was taken under a misapprehension. It must be remembered that this clause was placed in the Bill when it went through Committee of the House of Commons, and it passed its Third Reading in the House without alteration. After that it went through Committee of the House of Lords with the clause inserted. The Lord Chairman subsequently struck it out, and on the discussion on Third Reading on Lord Welby's Motion to reinsert the clause the Lord Chairman quoted precedents to show that its insertion was contrary to precedent. On those statements of the Lord Chairman Lord Welby withdrew 566 his proposition. He now understood from the advisers of the Metropolitan Water Board that the Lord Chairman was misinformed and the conclusion which had been come to was to invite the House to reinsert the clause. With regard to the position of the Board of Trade in the matter he could only say the Board of Trade last year not only allowed similar propositions to go through dealing with other subjects, but took upon itself the responsibility of proposing and carrying them in a provisional order. It might be said that the Board of Trade regulations in regard to this subject were ample and sufficient for the purpose. All that he could say was that they were practically no safeguard, even if the regulations were acted up to, to any other persons beyond those interested in the electric current. This protection had been granted in electric power Bills on more than one occasion. If it were granted in the case of electric power Bills, it appeared to be very strange that it should be withheld in connection with a tramway scheme. There were other precedents in addition to the London County Council Tramways in which a similar protective clause had been inserted, viz., the South Wales Electric Power Distribution Company's Act, 1900; the Sheffield Corporation Tramways Act, 1901; the Clyde Valley Electric Power Act, 1901; the Dublin St. James's Gate Brewery Tramways Act, 1901; the Manchester Southern Tramways Act, 1903; the Exeter Corporation Tramways Act, 1903; the Brighton Corporation Tramways Act, 1903; the Preston, Chorley, and Horwich 567 Tramways Act, 1903; the Somerset and District Electric Power Act, 1903; the North Western Electric Power Act, 1903; the Lothians Electric Power Act, 1904; the Altrincham Tramways Provisional Order, 1904; the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company's Act, 1905. The Water Board had about 7,000 miles of pipes in London and were practically responsible for the water supply of 7,000,000 people. They served out on a busy day some 250,000,000 gallons of water. It was therefore essential that proper protection should be given. It was not merely a money question, but the safety of the water supply of London, which he could not help thinking would be seriously imperilled. It was a reasonable insurance that the clause provided. It had been passed by a Committee of this House, by this House itself, and by a Committee of the House of Lords. A big question was opened up as to whether on the dictum of the Lord Chairman they should accept the position without considerable investigation.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Barnard.)

§ MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)
seconded.

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,) Devonport
said first of all he should like to point out the historical aspect of the matter. In 1893 a joint committee, presided over by Lord Cross, went exhaustively into the whole subject, and the result of the deliberations of the Committee was that a set of model clauses was drafted. Those model clauses were adopted and had been inserted in all Bills since. They were in this Bill, and under the clauses the promoters were bound to comply with the Board of Trade regulations, which were adequate to protect all interests. The regulations had been in force for thirteen years, and during the whole of that time there had not been one single case brought to the attention of the Board of Trade of any ill results from electrical contact.

§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)
Was there not a case at Leeds?

§ MR. KEARLEY
said no evidence had ever been produced to show that the corroding of the pipe to which the noble Lord alluded arose from electrical action. At any rate, the electrical adviser of the Board of Trade denied that it could be established. The Board of Trade regulations had been revised several times and were again under consideration. It could not, therefore, be said that they were not up-to-date. The Board of Trade objected to the insertion of this clause, because an arrangement had been arrived at whereby for some years they had secured uniform procedure in Parliamentary practice. They objected to the clause because it was unnecessary and because it created the impression, undeservedly, that the model clauses of the Board of Trade were not adequate.

§ *MR. MORTON (Sutherland)
said he desired on the part of the Corporation to say that they were entirely satisfied with the protection which the House of Lords had given them by striking out the clause referred to. The Corporation, for the sake of peace and quietness agreed, to the insertion of the clause, and not because they believed in it as being necessary at all. In this matter they were merely bridge-wideners and they ought not to be troubled, even if it were necessary, by any such clause as this. Moreover, they were told on good authority that the Board of Trade regulations were quite sufficient for the purpose. The Corporation hoped to have the works in progress soon after the Autumn session, and he trusted the House would agree that this clause was not necessary, and that the Corporation had acted fairly and even generously in voluntarily finding from two to three hundred thousand pounds to enable the tramway to be taken over Blackfriars Bridge.