Clauses Act absolutely. That is the appeal to me. His memory, I am sorry position the Government take, and it is to say, is short in reference to the a position directly in conflict with the whole subject. I beg to call to his mind recommendation of the Committee over which Mr. Plunket presided. They are, a memorandum I prepared at his request which he has, no doubt, among his papers now-in which I advised him to take a totally different course from that which, in his greater wisdom and entire therefore, in these two matters, in conflict with two Committees, the one over which the Home Secretary presided in 1891, and the one over which the right hon. Gentleman, whose absence from discretion, he ultimately took. [Laughthis House we all deplore-Mr. Plunket ter and cheers.] I am not complaining ["hear, hear!"'-presided in 1880. It of the right hon. Gentleman for neglect18 a strong thing to ask us, in conflict ing my advice, but I do think it is rather with such authorities, either to throw strong, after having rejected my advice, out these Bills because they would give to claim me as a supporter and joint colan authority to the County Council, as laborateur of the Report which was ultirecommended by the Home Secretary, mately adopted in entire antagonism and because they contain a deviation with that advice. ["Hear, hear!"] from the Arbitration Clause, which was What happened in 1880? The Members recommended in principle by the Com- of the then Government believed, I think mittee over which Mr. Plunket presided. with reason, that the terms which had ["Hear, hear!"] That is the reason been arranged by Sir Richard Cross, now why I do regret that the Government Lord Cross, with the Water Companies are determined to take the responsi- were exorbitant terms, and accordingly bility and I think it is a very great re- we persuaded the majority of the Comsponsibility of throwing out these Bills. mittee to that effect, and we destroyed For my part, I shall vote for the Second Lord Cross's Bill. My advice to the Reading of the Bills, believing they are right hon. Gentleman was to put somefounded on sound principles, however thing in place of that, not to be destrucmuch their details may be varied, and tive merely, but constructive also, and are likely, in the future, to give a better I very much regret, and I think London system of water supply to this great has to regret, that he did not take my Metropolis. [Cheers.] THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The present House of Commons is in possession of the whole of this question of the water supply of London, and I do not think they are likely to allow their decision to be entirely controlled by the Reports of Committees which sat in 1880 and 1891, especially if those Reports, as I shall show, are in themselves inconsistent. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down claims me as being jointly responsible with him for the Report of 1880, and it is quite true--in the sense that I was a Member of that Committee, and voted for the Report-that I had a certain responsibility. But he does me altogether too much honour when he says, in effect, that I was his joint collaborateur in the preparation of that Report. I should not have alluded to this matter-I should have thought it hardly worthy the attention of the House-if the right hon. Gentleman had not been constrained to make this direct advice. Because, what is the fact? That for the 16 years since that day not one step has been taken in advance in the purchase of the Water Companies, and now the price you will have to pay, under any fair arbitration, will be some millions more even than the exorbitant price which, as we thought, Lord Cross was prepared prematurely to offer. ["Hear, hear!"] I say, then, I cannot claim any special responsibility for the Report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but I think I can claim an equal right with himself to interpret it. ["Hear, hear!"'] I think I know what that Report meant, even although I may not have been so enthusiastic an admirer as the right hon. Gentleman, its author. The Report meant this, that in dealing with the subject a representative authority should be constituted, and by a representative authority we said and meant representative of the water consumers, we meant and said not only the water consumers of London, but the water consumers of the whole surrounding districts. ["Hear, hear ''] It is I perfectly absurd, and an entire inaccu- 'case of the gas purchase especially, that racy of the right hon. Gentleman to con- we were put to an enormous expenditure tend we had in view then, if there had because of the opposition to the Bill been a single municipality in London, which we brought forward, and, further, the intrusting to that single municipality we had to give to them powers of separate in London the interests of the water con- administration and purchase, the effect sumers. We never meant, or said, any of which was undoubtedly the multiplicathing of the kind, but exactly the re- tion of comparatively small gas-producing verse, as I find in looking up a letter. I authorities, with the result that the find a Motion was made on an Amend- proceeding was not as economical as it ment to the Report of the right hon. might have been. If we had constiGentleman by Mr. Sclater-Booth, who tuted, as we ought to have done, a gas proposed to strike out the words "to- trust, giving a fair representation to outgether with the representatives of the side bodies, all this would have been outside districts." This was supported avoided, and large sums of money saved. by the late Mr. Firth, who was an ad- ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore, I say, in vocate of a single municipality for Lon- my opinion, at any rate it is to the indon, but the whole of the Members of terests of all parties concerned that outthe Government present opposed that siders should feel themselves to be fully Amendment and adhered to the original represented in the water trust, and their proposal of the Report, which was that interest will then be exactly the same as this matter should be dealt with by a that of the metropolitan authority. trust which represented the water con- do not believe that it would be found sumers outside London as well as in. that they would be a hostile element, or ["Hear, hear!"] That is exactly what a source of any kind of conflict, and on the Government Bill is, and under these the other hand I am quite convinced circumstances it is somewhat strange there would be very much less friction. that the right hon. Gentleman should ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Genget up now, 16 years later, and repudiate tleman expresses his regret that a greater the imitation, which ought to be the sin-advance has not been made, and that cerest form of flattery, which the Govern- these Bills which promised some apment have made of his own proposal. proach to a settlement are being rejected ["Hear, hear!"] It is quite true that and the Government Bill substituted. in 1891 a proposal somewhat different I regret that very much, because I bewas made. But I think the House is lieve it is really an unnecessary result. in possession of the whole facts and may There are practically what I call three decide the question upon the merits, and contentious interests in this matter-the I would put this specially before the interest represented by the London London County Council and others who County Council, the interest represented take a great interest in this matter. As by the outside authorities, and the ina result of my experience, I was con- terest represented by the Water Comvinced you could not adopt a more un-panies. As regards the London County wise course than to seek to keep the Council, I am not one of those who have whole of this business of the water sup- ever attacked the London County Counply of the whole of the metropolitan area cil as a great representative municipal in the hands of the London County authority. On the contrary, I have the Council without representatives of the greatest sympathy with their work. I local authorities outside. I have had a do not suppose that they are good deal of experience in this matter. fallible than other municipal authorities, I was chiefly instrumental in purchasing and I have blamed them when they have the water companies and gas companies been wrong; but I have never, either in of Birmingham. In both cases we had this House or anywhere else, made anyto deal with outside districts, and we thing like a general condemnation of made the mistake of not sufficiently their proceedings. In this matter, so taking into account-I won't call it the far as the main principle goes, I am eninterests because we thought we could tirely in agreement. I do believe that, be answerable for the interests of the after the fullest inquiry, you will always districts but the sentiments of the out- come back to this, that the water supply side localities, and the result was, in the of a great city ought to be in the hands Secretary of State for the Colonies. more in of a representative authority. I admit, been obstructive in this country. They there is something to be said for the have always said :— The water companies have always said "We admit that the public interest is supreme, and, provided that private rights are respected in the same sense in which they have always been in the transactions of the House, and that those for whom we are trustees will be fairly treated in any purchase arrangements, we are prepared to dispose of our property." a greater control which might be given "You have not approached us as persons without actually purchasing. But, if anxious to make a fair commercial arrangement, you can make the purchase on a fair but as persons desirous of confiscating our property." basis, it is desirable in the interest of everybody that what is absolutely a necessary of life, of what is one of the most important adjuncts to the sanitary condition of a great population, should be under the control of the representatives of the people. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore I agree with the County Council in what I believe to be their main object, and I agree with them also that it would be a most regrettable thing if now, when we are, as you may say, on There you have the three contentious the eve of a settlement once more, the interests, and I maintain that they can whole matter should be thrown open, all be conciliated. The water companies that it should be left to a new body to are conciliated if you give them the same commence, probably at some length, on Arbitration Clause that has been given altogether new inquiries, and, having in every other case in which a water come to precisely the same conclusion, company has been purchased by then to find they had got again to go Municipal Corporation. The hon. Memthrough all these stages which have been ber for Bethnal Green said that under partially accomplished already by the this arrangement Municipal Corporations County Council. I think that would had claimed exorbitant prices. I do not be very regrettable, and if that is the re- know to what Corporation the hon. sult of our proceedings very considera- Member refers. It is not true of Birble responsibility must lie upon those mingham. There we had the Arbitrawho have brought it about. ["Hear, tion Clause asked for by the London hear!" It is because of that feeling water companies, and, though we did that my right hon. Friend has gone to not find it necessary to put that clause the extreme limit of making offers to all into effect, because we made a private the interests concerned for the purpose agreement, we never contended that that of bringing about a general agreement. clause imposed on the ratepayers any I must say (though I do not want to exorbitant price; and, so far as my speak in a controversial spirit) that, in knowledge of similar undertakings goes, my opinion, the whole fault lies with the there is no case in which more than a London County Council or those who fair price has been paid. I ask the hon. represent it. As regards outside authori- Member for Shoreditch and others reties I have already spoken. I believe presenting the London County Council their interest is satisfied when they are whether they contend that it is their fairly and fully represented, as they duty, representing the ratepayers, to get have been in the Government Bill. It hold of this property at a price less than is quite true that these outside authori- its fair value? That is not the duty of ties have been over-represented if you any representative body, and, that being have regard simply to population and so, they should be content to give to the rateable value. But that is a necessity, water companies what they ask. If because you could not restrict them ab- the terms on which they shall be pursolutely to representation in proportion chased is to be settled by arbitrationonly to their present population and which I hope will not be resorted to, rateable value. You have to consider because I should advise the parties to whether they are distinct and separate come to an amicable arrangement-they interests, and I believe those interests should have the same price that other are sufficiently safeguarded by the re- companies in similar circumstances have presentation proposed in the Government had. I say that even at the eleventh Bill. The water companies have never hour I believe an agreement might be VOL. XXXIX. [FOURTH SERIES.] B come to if the London County Council arrangement with the companies or to would frankly agree that the Government go to arbitration. ["Hear, hear!"] Bill should go on and without opposition, on the understanding that the ordinary Arbitration Clause should be put in, and with the understanding, at the last stage, that the new Water Trust shall be substituted for the London County Council. In that event the position of the County Council would be that they would have-as they would be justified in claiming, having regard to MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar) thought the speech of the Colonial Secretary would do much towards a settlement of this matter. With regard to the conditions as regarded the Government Bill that the right hon. Gentleman had laid down, no one would give a pledge not to criticise the Bill if they objected to it in principle. the MR. CHAMBERLAIN said any acceptance of the principles of the Bill. But that would not bar criticism of detail. superiority of their representation as arrangement would involve previous regards numbers and rateable value-a majority on the Water Trust. But I do not believe there would be, once this Water Trust were established, any sharp line drawn between the representatives of the metropolitan and the outside area. The interests are not conflicting, and I do not believe there would be any party or any permanent dividing line. The County Council would be fully and fairly represented. They have asked that this body should be a Statutory Committee of the Council. That would give the County Council an lutely overbearing voice and on MR. BUXTON said that he had not yet studied the text of the Bill, and until he had done so he could not undertake to accept its principle, which, to many of them, was not based on proper municipal authority. The second condition of the right hon. Gentleman was one which he did not see why, if there really was a desire for concession on both sides, some agreement might not be abso- come to. The right hon. Gentleman vote forgot that Clause 6 of the Bill of last year had been withdrawn by the London County Council, as they proposed instead of it to introduce an Arbitration Clause, founded on the Report of the Plunket Committee, and which, in their opinion, carried out the proposals of the Committee. The hon. Member for Shoreditch had said, if it could be shown that the proposals of the Committee were not properly carried out, the London County Council, when that question was discussed upstairs, would be quite willing to accept any words which would carry out the proposals of the Committee. Therefore the County Council had already offered a compromise on the question of Arbitration. They did not wish to do injustice to either shareholders or rate every proceeding of the Water Trust. We may as well hand the matter over to the County Council. It is an absurdity to ask local authorities from outside to discuss the matter, and then find the decision arrived at by the Committee, which has heard the whole proceeding, is to be opposed by the majority of the London County Council. That is not reasonable. The conclusion rests entirely with those who represent the County Council. They are blocking the way to a settlement. If they say, "We will not have a settlement unless you enable us to extort terms which have never been asked for in any previous case by a municipal authority," "We will not deal with this matter unless you make us absolute master of the conclusions at which the Water Trust or authority will arrive" -then they are asking terms so exorbitant and unreasonable that they could not be conceded by the Government or the other interests concerned. But, if they were willing to accept the arrangement offered by my right hon. Friend, we might, even now, maintain these Bills, and by the end of the Session the new Water Trust would be constituted, with out an amicable power to carry Secretary of State for the Colonies. or say, full payers. He asked the House to listen to the clause it was proposed to substitute for Clause 6; it read as follows: "And whereas (failing agreement as to sale and purchase) in order to determine the fair and reasonable value of the Undertaking, it is intended to provide that the Arbitrators should, in determining such value, have regard to all the circumstances of the case, and should hear and consider all matters, whether past, present, or future, laid before them by either party, relating to any such circumstances, and should not be precluded by any legal objection from entertaining the same: {24 MARCH 1896} "There shall be paid by the Council for the transfer of the Undertaking such a sum of money as the Arbitrators determine to represent the fair and reasonable value of the Undertaking, together with such further sum as the Arbitrators may award, to meet the cost of reinvesting such money (in the event of no arrangement being made by the Council under which such money may be re-invested without cost) and the Arbitrators, in order to ascertain such sum, shall inquire into, and consider, all the circumstances of the case, and the contentions of the Council and the Lambeth Company respectively, and may deal with the same, or any of them, in such manner as they in their absolute and unfettered discretion think fit, on such terms and in such manner, in all respects, as they think fair, reasonable, and expedient, and as fully and effectually as could be done by Act of Parliament. "The Arbitrators may, at any stage of the proceedings, under the reference to them, and shall, if so directed by the Court, or a Judge, state, in the form of a special case, any question of law arising in the course of the reference and any question of law so stated shall be for the determination of the Court, subject to all rights of appeal as from a Judgment or Order of the Court." they could not, as they did last year, The *SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University) said, they had heard nothing yet in reference to the districts outside the metropolis. Many of them opposed the County Council Bills on different grounds from those which had been stated. No doubt it was true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had stated, that more would have to be paid for the works of the companies now, than would have had to be paid under Mr. Smith's agreement: but that was because the water companies had since that agreement spent a great deal on new Works; and this money would have had to be spent by the public if they had bought the waterworks at the time. Anyone listening to the hon. Member for Shoreditch would have supposed that he was speaking for almost the whole of the London County Council. When their Parliamentary Committee proposed an arrangement-totally different from this, the hon. Member moved as Amendment that the present Bills should be proceeded with, and that Amendment was defeated in the London County Council. The fact was that opinions were almost equally divided. If the House went to a Vote on these transfer Bills, it would be found that, not only a *MR. W. F. D. SMITH (Westminster, large majority of London Members, but a Strand) said, that the Members on the majority of those representing outside Ministerial side of the House had heard areas were opposed to the Bills, because with satisfaction the speech of the it was believed that, if they were passed, President of the Local Government there would be an increase in the water Board. The position now occupied was rates that consumers would be called It would hardly be possible to devise words which would give the arbitrator more absolute freedom to do what all wanted to have done to arrive at the fair value of the Water Companies' property for purchase. He did not see how the County Council could offer fairer terms to the companies than those recommended by a Committee of the House. He was afraid they could not at the present moment accept the other proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, which was that they would not offer opposition to his Bill in the future; but he did hope that one consequence of the Debate of that evening would be that the two parties would have made a nearer approach than on any previous occasion, and that this would help towards attaining what they all had at heart, namely the purchase, at a fair price, of the works of the London Water Companies by some municipal authority whatever it might be. an |