§ * THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Lord JAMES OF HEREFORD), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, remarked that at the commencement of last Session the Government presented a Bill very different from the present dealing with the water supply of London. It proposed to create a water trust composed of representatives of the London County Council and of the outside areas, which were supplied by eight metropolitan water companies. The Government believed that Bill would have produced a good effect. But there was not time to deal with it in the House of Commons. When the subject had to be reconsidered by the Government at the commencement of the present 57 Session they found that much had occurred during the Recess. Representatives of the London County Council, or rather of the majority of that body, had approached the representatives of the outside areas. The County Councils of those areas had no power in relation to water supply within their own area, but, approached by the legal representatives of the London County Council, they had made certain agreements with the latter. The London County Council being a water governing body, while the County Councils outside had no control over water supply, the agreements were not legally valid without the approval of Parliament. But by means of these agreements the outside areas secured terms so advantageous, if carried out, that they would never be likely to oppose any Bill the London County Council might promote for the purchase of the undertakings of the water companies. The Government offered to protect the interests of the outside areas, but the latter, having secured advantages by informal and invalid agreements, preferred not to be protected. While the Government felt that the control of the water supply should be in the hands of the local authorities, it had the great duty cast upon it to see that in the formation of a body representing those authorities the interest of the water consumer should be carefully guarded. Looking at the matter practically, if the London County Council introduced Bills to acquire the property of the water companies, all the agreements entered into with the outside areas would have to be scheduled and considered by Parliamentary Committees, but that would not safeguard the public interests. The London County Council would appear on the one side and the water companies on the other. A locus standi would, no doubt, be given to the representatives of the outside areas, but their support to the plans of the London County Council would have been secured. Technically a locus standi might be obtained for individual ratepayers to oppose, but where was the patriotic ratepayer who would bear the enormous expense of appearing in the interests of the rest of the rate paying community and say, "I protest against this Bill as casting undue expense upon us?" If the Government consented to the Bill going 58 before a Committee, it could not be represented before it. Under these circumstances the Government felt they ought to see that a full inquiry into the proposed arrangements for the distribution of water should take place, and they had decided that the best and most impartial inquiry would be effected by means of a Commission. Such a Commission would not technically have the contending parties—the promoters of Bills and the water companies, who had contended so often in respect of the metropolitan water supply—before it, but would have only to consider the public interest. The Commission would inquire into matters which would never be inquired into by a Parliamentary Committee. It would consider what were the best governing bodies for the London County Council area and the surrounding areas; the most economical method of distributing the water supply; and the practical feasibility of distributing the water. This would involve important engineering questions, and the consideration of how far, with eight companies to deal with, having central works belonging to them, water could best be distributed in the eight different areas. A strong Commission had been appointed, presided over by a Member of this House, and having many experts upon it who would bring their knowledge impartially to bear on these points. The Commission had already been sitting. The appointment of the Commission did not quite conclude the duty cast on the Government. The inquiry, and the legislation which would be founded upon the Report of the Commission, would take time, but he hoped no very long time. Complaints—whether well founded or not he could not say—had been made from certain localities of insufficiency of supply and neglect on the part of the water companies. The Bill sought to deal with any complaints that might be justly made, and to provide the public with a convenient practical remedy. It placed in the hands of the Railway Commissioners, who had had great practical experience in the discharge of somewhat similar duties, the power of hearing any complaint against the water companies which might be brought before them, and they would have power, if the complaint proved well founded, to order the company in default to fulfil within a certain 59 time its duty or pay a penalty for its non-fulfilment, and the great legal power of the Railway Commission—power of attachment against the property of the company—could be put in force until the duty had been fulfilled. This was a new provision, and it was hoped it would cause the water companies to fulfil their duties to the utmost. It was proposed to give to the local authorities, which would be the London County Council within its area and the county councils outside that area, power to make complaint on behalf of the public at the expense of the respective areas, to see that the causes of complaint should be entirely removed, and to advocate the cause of the public before the Railway Commission until there could be no matter of complaint against the water companies. There were other provisions of a minor character in the same direction, but these were the two main proposals of the Bill. The Government submitted the Bill as a practical measure of utility, and one which should be productive of great benefits to the water consumers of London.
§ * LORD TWEEDMOUTHthought the subject was worth some discussion, because it afforded a proof of how great a difference there might be between promise and performance even in the case of a powerful Government with a big majority at its back. When the Government came into office they took up the subject and were determined to carry it through, and accordingly a Bill was introduced by his noble Friend opposite to effect this purpose. He was afraid he could not quite accept his noble Friend's Utopian description of that Bill. He should have said that even when that Bill was before the House it had the curious distinction of pleasing nobody, and when before the Commons he did not agree that it was simply lost for want of time, but rather that it went unwept to its grave. Even in the autumn of last year, to a deputation of Conservative London Members, Mr. Balfour said there was urgent necessity of dealing with this subject during this Session of Parliament, and they were led to believe that the Government would introduce a Bill dealing with the subject in the House of Commons, and carry it through. They 60 were, therefore, astonished to find that the subject had once more been relegated to a Commission. He had always supposed that the device of sending subjects like this to a Commission was that which was adopted by weak and tottering Governments, and yet the four subjects of water, liquor, old age pensions, and the Irish financial relations had been sent to Commissions by Her Majesty's Government, which they understood to be the most united and best supported of the present century. Of course, having been relegated to a Commission, the Government were prevented from dealing with the more important aspect of the question until the Commission reported, but he believed that even in the temporary Measure now before them, they might have gone somewhat further. He admitted that there was something to be gained by this Bill. There was, for instance, a new Court, before whom persons having complaints against the water companies, could go. He should, however, have liked his noble Friend—than whom none had had greater experience of litigation—to have told them something as to the probable cost of the proceedings before the Court, and the celerity with which the cases would be conducted. Again, there was an important provision which enabled local authorities to come to the monetary aid of litigants before the Railway Commissioner in these water cases. But he thought that when dealing with important questions something should be done to reduce the extraordinary and peculiar privileges at present enjoyed by the water companies. The companies were allowed to have a monopoly of the element which next to air was most wanted by the inhabitants of the metropolis, and to make large profits out of which to pay large dividends, and yet at the same time they were allowed privileges which he did not think were enjoyed by any other public company.
§ * LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid the water companies were allowed to increase the charge for their water rate according as the value of property increased without giving one single extra gallon of supply to the people inhabiting particular houses. Parliament allowed the companies to pre-charge for their 61 supplies, and if the water was not paid for at that pre-dated period, to cut off the water from the inhabitants at the particular dwelling. Again, the companies were allowed to exact payment for water which never had been supplied at all, such as in the case of the great failure in the winter of 1895 (January and February), and during the drought of the same summer. In this Bill steps might have been taken to mitigate these evils, and to limit the power of the companies to cut off water for non-payment of the rate before really the charge became due for the supply of water. Again he thought the Government might have provided that one of the subjects that was to be brought before the Railway Commission should be that of deciding whether there had been a failure of supply of water to consumers during certain periods, and if there had been they should be enabled to step in and say for that period they should not be entitled to make a charge. He would appeal to the noble Lord even now to make these concessions, which were not asked for alone by violent Radicals or Progressive members of the County Council, but were strongly pressed for by Members of their own House and household. These were the provisions that were pressed for by the distinguished son of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), whose career in the House of Commons both friend and foe alike now admired and congratulated him upon. Again, there was a son of a water Lord in that House, Mr. Lionel Holland, who also pressed for concessions of this sort in the House of Commons. He hoped that even yet the noble Lord might be able to see his way to offer some concessions on these points, and by doing so he would make the Bill infinitely more valuable and do something to console the water consumers of London for the long wait they were experiencing in having a matter so closely allied to their health and prosperity, dealt with by the Government.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSobserved that it had always been a wonder to him how the water question had been brought up by the present Government last Session and this when, because for the two whole years Lord Balfour, who was 62 a member of the Cabinet, was at the head of a Commission which inquired into this very subject and which reported that the water was excellent, that the supply on the whole was sufficient, and with very little addition to the present system of the water companies there was water enough for 12,000,000 people for 40 years. No doubt the position of Lord Tweed mouth was intelligible, for in his heart he wished to municipalise water. The noble Lord, he believed, was still a County Councillor, and the County Council wanted to get everything they possibly could—tramways, water, and everything else municipalised. He ventured to think it was not by municipalisation, not by borough administration—for even under the administration of a corporation there had been danger of water famine—but by private enterprise should this question be settled. By private enterprise, by the establishment of water companies had London obtained its water supply, and but for this private enterprise Londoners would be drinking Thames water with all its impurities, whereas London had water certainly as good and probably better than any other town. He was at a loss to understand what all this talk about legislation meant, unless it meant that County Councils or Municipalities were to have entire control of the water supply. That appeared to be the main intention. He would like Lord Balfour to tell the House whether, in his opinion, there was necessity for fresh legislation, and if he was convinced that the Report his Commission issued some two or three years ago was without foundation, and that some great change was required? What ground was there for these predatory proposals? The water companies undertook to find water upon certain terms, and those terms were ratified by Parliament, and what right was there without compensation, as his noble Friend proposed, to take from the companies rights and privileges accorded by Act of Parliament? At the bottom of the whole thing, there was the desire of the County Council to take the control into their hands.
LORD BALFOURsaid there was really nothing inconsistent in the Bill with the Report of the Commission.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSBut is it necessary?
LORD BALFOURsaid the reference to that Commission was simply to inquire whether there was water enough in the Thames and Lea for the London district, having regard to the growth of population. There was nothing referred to the Commission in regard to what authority should have administration and this Bill dealt with the authority which was to administer the supply whether County Council or other body. There was therefore nothing inconsistent between the Report he had the honour to present and the further stage now represented by this Bill. So far as he had been challenged, he still believed that the Report was as true to-day as it was on the day it was signed and, further he contended that no Report on a subject of equal importance had better withstood the cohesion to which it had been subjected.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS)said the noble lord had remarked upon how the Government might have done this or that or something else, and he might be allowed to say that if Parliament had passed the Bill he introduced in 1880, by this time everybody would have been perfectly satisfied with the water supply.
§ Bill read a Second time, and Committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.