§ House in Committee according to Order.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSMy Lords, there are some Amendments which stand in my name on the Paper, and I wish in a few words to explain why they are there. I have no interest personally in Water Companies—my interests are as a consumer; but the Water Companies came to me and said that there were several provisions in the Bill which they thought would materally affect their interests, and which are unnecessary in the interests of consumers, and they have asked me, therefore, to propose certain Amendments.
§ Clause 3.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSMy Lords, the first Amendment that I have to propose is on page 1, line 12, after "Company" insert "and Local Authority"; to leave out the words, "which is a trading Company"; and in line 13 to leave out "for profit." My Lords, I do not propose to press that Amendment on this occasion; I shall reserve it for a later stage of the Bill. It is an important point in principle, for this Bill, as it at present stands, applies to Water Companies, and does not apply to Municipal Authorities or Local Authorities who deal in water. It appears to me a very important principle; but I merely wish to call your Lordships' attention to it, as I shall feel it my duty, at a later stage of the Bill, to move this Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNWhy should not the noble Lord move his Amendment at this stage of the Bill? He has given notice of it.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSBecause he prefers to do it at a later stage.
§ Question put, "That this Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ LORD HERSCHELLThe noble Earl has certainly raised a very important question, namely, why these provisions, which are intended for the protection of consumers, should apply only to Companies, and should not apply to Corporations who have taken over the power of supplying water. I should like to hear the views of the noble Lord (Earl of Camperdown) as to the reason for his having so limited the clause.
*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNIt is difficult for me to make a speech, because after the noble Earl has given notice of the Amendment and I have come down to answer it he does not move it.
§ LORD HERSCHELLBut I have asked the noble Earl for an explanation, on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, as the noble Earl does not move his Amendment at the stage for which he has given notice, I must give him notice that if he moves it in the Grand Committee, I shall object to it at that stage; because the House placed the Grand Committee stage of the Bill after the Committee of the whole House in order that Amendments of substance should be moved in this House; and therefore, if an Amendment of substance is deliberately postponed in this House after notice has been given that it was going to be moved, I certainly shall object to its being moved in an irregular manner outside the House. With regard to the answer to my noble Friend who was lately Lord Chancellor, and who wishes to know whether I should object to the provision, yes, my Lords, I should object, and for these reasons: In the first place, Corporations never have been comprehended within the limits of the Bill, and if they were to be comprehended it would be necessary that notice should be given to them, and that they should be heard like all the other parties have been heard who are comprehended. In the second place, Corporations differ from Water Companies, because they are public bodies who are elected, and whose 1411 consumers are the ratepayers by whom they are elected; so that, in the event of their doing anything improper in the way of cutting off water without due reason, they would be responsible to their constituents, and there would be a public means of obtaining a remedy as against them which private consumers have not against private Water Companies. In the next place, Corporations have no personal object to serve; they do not derive any profit from the supply of water; and they have not the same inducements therefore to cut off improperly, or to make improper charges, that private companies have; and further, no complaints have been made against them—they were not made to us in the Select Committee; and if hereafter any Corporation shall behave improperly in these respects then, on complaint being made, it will be competent to pass a Bill to place them under the same restrictions as I now propose to place private Water Companies under.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI do not wish to anticipate discussion hereafter on some Motion by the noble Earl; but, with regard to what your Lordships have heard from the noble Earl who has just spoken, I would say that some of those interested in the Bill have brought to my notice what occurred in the Borough of Cardiff. It appears there that the Corporation were in the habit of cutting off the supply in a manner objected to by those who bring forward the Bill; subsequently they determined that they would not cut off the supply, and they went upon the lines that this Bill provides, that Water Companies should be compelled to proceed upon a notice. They did not, however, find that satisfactory, and they have again determined to cut off the supply hereafter. Now it would be an awkward thing that that abuse, if it be an abuse, should be put an end to in the minority of large towns that are supplied by Water Companies, and left in those other large towns which are supplied by Corporations.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNCan the noble Earl tell me for what purpose the supply was cut off, because that determines the whole point?
§ On Question put:
§ Clause 3 agreed to.
§ Clause 4.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, I move as an Amendment on page 2, line 5 after "note" to insert "except when furnished in respect of water supplied solely under agreement or by meter." As the clause stands, it might be argued that persons supplied by agreement have the right to object under Clause 6. The purpose of this Bill is only to affect cases of supply under agreement to this amount: that persons supplied by agreement must receive a demand note. Further than that this Bill does not interfere between the Water Company and the consumer in that case; and to make it quite clear that persons, are not to have that right of objection I propose to insert those words.
§ Moved, in Clause 4, page 2, line 5, after "note" insert "except when furnished in respect of water supplied solely under agreement or by meter."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
§ On Question, agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSMy Lords, I fully admit that it is right and reasonable that the details of this demand note should be given, but, after the note has been given, as the Bill stands, a person liable for water rate to whom the note is sent has twenty-one days to consider the items of that note; and then, supposing he is dissatisfied, fourteen days must elapse before the water can be cut off, which makes a total of thirty-five days. The Water Companies say that there are many persons who hold on to the very last in their houses, and often bolt when they are obliged to pay. At present the custom is to send a demand for the water rate every half year; but this clause will entail their doing that, to the inconvenience of many, every quarter, and the Companies think the time given for consideration should be reduced. My Motion is to reduce it to seven days. I believe my noble Friend is willing to accept fourteen as a compromise between seven and twenty-one. 1413 I have also an Amendment afterwards, that instead of fourteen there should be only seven days allowed during which the Company cannot cut off.
*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, in considering any matter connected with this Bill your Lordships must always remember the present state of the law. The law does not require that the article shall be furnished beforehand. On the contrary, the law says that the debt shall arise before the article is furnished. Therefore even supposing thirty-five days were to elapse before the supply could be cut off, that lapse of time would only mean that an article might be cut off which should have been paid for for three months, but which had been supplied up to thirty-five days only. That is the utmost to which the complaint of my noble Friend could extend. With regard to the substance of his Amendment, namely, as to the duration of time of appeal, I have been considering whether I could shorten the period which was fixed by the Select Committee. Every line and word of the Bill was very carefully considered, and we arrived at these various times of twenty-one days and fourteen days; but still I do not see why a man who wishes to raise an objection might not be able to do it in fourteen days. I think seven days would be far too short a period—he might be away from home, or he probably would wish to consult his solicitor. On the whole I am content to go below the recommendation of the Select Committee, and accept fourteen days instead of twenty-one, provided that my noble Friend will also agree to leave the duration of fourteen days for the cutting off notice.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSSay ten days, for cutting off.
§ Moved in page 2, line 8, leave out "twenty-one" and insert "fourteen."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
§ On Question, agreed to.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYAs regards Sub-section 2, where the amount is defined as £20, I wish to ask the noble Earl whether a rather serious inconvenience will not arise in this 1414 case. It is often the fact that there may be a house where the water rate chargeable upon it is more than £20, but there are stables which are practically attached to the house, but are charged as separate premises. Will there not in that case be two demand notes, one half-yearly and one quarterly, for what is part of the same payment? At the present time in such cases the demand note is sent in including both sets of premises.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI am afraid in that case the inconvenience exists in the present arrangement.
§ LORD HERSCHELLNo, I think not.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNIf the premises are not separate—if, for instance, one is said to be in a certain street, and the other in a certain mews—I am afraid the difficulty must arise owing to the arrangements that the Eating Authorities, whoever they are, have made.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI can assure my noble Friend that I have personal experience that no such inconvenience does arise, because the Water Company, being under no stress to make a difference, invariably include the whole thing in one demand note, specifying that one part is for one set of premises and the other part for the other.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThat is a point that I should be perfectly ready to meet from a practical point of view. I rather doubt whether the question would arise. I imagine that the Company would follow its present practice—namely, to send in its claim in regard to your premises, and as those premises would be rated above £20, so there would be no claim in the same way as at present; but I will inquire into the point.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI think the practice must differ in regard to different parishes wherein the house is situated. My experience is not the same as the noble Earl's (the Earl of Kimberley). I receive separate rates for my house and for my stables, both in respect of gas, water, and rates.
§ LORD HERSCHELLMy experience is the same as that of my noble Friend. I never get but one note, specifying one single sum.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSMy Lords, I have to move to leave out lines 22 to 32 inclusive. The clause with those lines in draws a distinction that appears to be needless between houses under £20 and houses above £20. The protection which is given at present in the case of houses below £20 appears to be quite sufficient in the case of houses above £20. The Amendment would simply save needless trouble and expense to the Water Companies in the matter of demand notes. I hope my noble Friend will assent to the Amendment.
§ Moved, to leave out lines 22 to 32 inclusive.—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThis point was very carefully considered in the Select Committee. It was stated by the Water Companies that if they were required always to send in a statement of particulars to small houses it would throw upon them a very undue amount of labour; therefore after consideration we agreed to make a limit below which they should only be obliged to issue a statement of particulars at certain definite times. But I do not see that that is any reason why large houses should not receive their demand note with the particulars upon it regularly; and I think my noble Friend, instead of saying what reason is there for not accepting the Amendment, ought to show us some positive reason for accepting it.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSMy Lords, I move in line 37 after "the" to insert "amount charged as stated in the," simply to make the clause more intelligible. As it at present reads there would be no alteration made in the last statement,—it would be in the Amount. I do not think my noble Friend can object to that. It is a mere verbal alteration, to make the object of my noble Friend more clear.
§ Moved, in line 37 after "the" to insert "amount charged as stated in the."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
1416*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI think my noble Friend has not fully appreciated what the object is. It is to obtain a statement of the particulars of charge. If you say that an alteration shall be made in the amount, that will not meet the object of the Bill. What I wish should be made clear in the case of these small houses is that when any alteration is made in any particular a statement should be sent in to show to the person that change and what it is.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSMy Lords, the next Amendment I have is on page 3, at the end of the Clause to strike out lines 8, 9 and 10. If this Bill becomes an Act, it will apply mostly to trade, and all these matters are in the agreement, and I do not think it is desirable to interfere with agreements in matters of trade more than is necessary. I am told it is not really necessary, and will be more or less an unnecessary interference with trade.
§ Moved, on page 3, to leave out lines 8, 9 and 10.—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, this Sub-section (3) was deliberately added to the Bill for this purpose: that the water which is supplied under agreement or by meter is to come within this clause for the purposes of Clause 4, and in order that it should be comprehended it is necessary to state that the time at which the demand note in respect of water so supplied is to be delivered is "at any time after the Company is to be entitled to require payment thereof." It is absolutely necessary to put in that statement. I think those who have informed the noble Earl have not been able to understand the Bill.
§ LORD HERSCHELLI confess I have some sympathy with the noble Earl as regards this particular clause. I have been studying it for a considerable time, and I do not understand it.
§ On Question.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause 4 agreed to as amended.
1417§ Clause 6.
§ Moved: page 3, line 18, leave out "twenty-one" and insert "fourteen."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYMy Lords, I withdraw for the present the Amendment that stands in my name.
§ Clause 6 agreed to with Amendment.
§ Clause 8.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, understanding that the noble Lord (the Earl of Wemyss) withdraws the Amendment of which he had given notice, on page 4, line 4, to leave out "fourteen" and insert "seven," I propose in line 12 to omit "twenty-one" and insert "fourteen."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 8 agreed to as amended.
§ Clause 10.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSMy Lords, I have an Amendment here, on page 5, line 1, after "off" insert—
After service of notice in writing on the Water Company by the person aggrieved of the cutting off of such water supply.As the Bill stands, if the water is cut off, for every day there is a penalty of £5 attaching to the Company. There might be collusion and fraud, and notice not given to the Company; and I think it is fair that notice should be given to the Company, and that the penalty should only attach after such notice has been given. That is the only object of the Amendment.
§ Moved, in page 5, line 1, after "off," insert "after service of notice in writing on the Water Company by the person aggrieved of the cutting off of such water supply."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI am afraid it is my case now not to understand. The noble Earl will observe that the persons who cut off are the Company themselves, so that in the event of their cutting off the supply in contravention of this Act they 1418 are to be liable to a penalty. How can the consumer, or why should the consumer give notice to them in writing of the fact that they have cut off his supply?
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSIt might be done by collusion or fraud. It is to guard against such a possibility. I understand that there have been such cases.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSCollusion between a person who would get the penalty, and some other person who cuts it off for him—and not the Water Company. My Lords, I am told there have been such cases.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNSurely, if some other person had cut off the supply, the Water Company would appear in Court and say they had not done so!
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSThe Water Companies wish to have this security, and I do not think it would at all interfere with the working of my noble Friend's Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNSurely it is an absurdity that, when the Water Company has cut off the water, the consumer should write to the Water Company and inform them that they have cut off his water.
§ On Question.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause 10 agreed to.
§ Clause 11.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSHere it is proposed, my Lords, that the time instead of being twenty-four hours should be forty-eight hours, within which notice is to be given to the Sanitary Authority that the water is cut off, Supposing the water is cut off on Saturday, with Sunday and perhaps a public holiday intervening, there might be a difficulty.
§ Moved, Clause 11, page 5, line 8, leave out "twenty-four" and insert "forty-eight."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNIf this were a new proposal I should be rather inclined to consent; but the clause is a reproduction of a clause 1419 now in operation in the Metropolis in the Act passed last year.
§ On Question.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause 11 agreed to.
§ Clause 13.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSI propose, my Lords, here to strike out from the first line of this clause "except as regards clauses four, seven and nine." If those words remain in, the demand note for particulars will apply to all cases where water is supplied, and I think it is the intention of my noble Friend, according to the wording of the explanation on the back of his Bill, that it should only apply to trade purposes.
§ Moved: Page 5, lines 21 and 22 leave out "except as regards clauses four, seven and nine."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI will take the three clauses separately. With regard to Clause 4 it certainly is my intention that that clause should apply, in the interests of the consumers. As I stated when we were discussing the clause, it is desirable that the person who is supplied, whether under agreement or by meter, should have a statement of what he has to pay. With regard to Clauses 7 and 9 I cannot understand why my noble Friend proposes to omit them. Those are clauses inserted to protect the Water Companies. I do not know whether my noble Friend is representing their interests; but if so, all I can say is that they are proposing to do the most foolish thing that could be done. They are proposing to make these clauses not apply to them. At all events I do not think my noble Friend would wish to strike out Clauses 7 and 9. They are certainly not in the interests of the consumer, but in the interests of the Water Companies.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSI will not press it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 13 agreed to.
§ Bill with Amendments re-committed to the Standing Committee.