MR. HALDANE said he wished to move an Amendment to extend the period in which the water authority was compelled to redeem its securities from eighty to 100 years. No doubt eighty years was a very considerable period, but, having regard to the fact that the amount to be redeemed would amount to forty millions at least, the result would be rather a heavy charge on the Sinking Fund. He thought he was right in saying that the Llandaff Commission contemplated 100 years as the possible period, and he suggested to the Government that it would be well worth their consideration to adopt 100 instead of eighty years. Amendment proposed Soames, Arthur Wellesley Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan) Wason,JohnCathcart (Orkney Yoxall, James Henry TELLERS FOR THE NOESMr. George Whiteley and Mr. Lough. the best information in regard to the New River Company's undertaking should be at the disposal of the new Board, but he preferred the words in the Bill to those of the Amendment. MR. LOUGH asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.) said he understood that the present debenture stock of the New the New River Company extended to all their property, including property other than that which would be acquired for the purposes of the Water Trust, and the extent to which that property would be relieved from the burden of these debentures would be the measure of the increased value of these debentures. He wished to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it would be within the power of the arbitrators to apportion the debenture stock between the land which remained to the New River Company and the land which was required to be taken by the Water Trust, or whether the arbitrators would deduct such amount of the value of the residue land as was created by the debentures being freed. Amendment proposed "In page 5, line 28, after the word 'secured,' Question proposed, "That the word to insert and the court of arbitration shall 'also' stand part of the Clause." estimate the amount by which the capital value of such estate, houses, and property will be enhanced in consequence of such freedom and discharge, and shall deduct the same from the value of the undertaking of the New River Company as determined under Section 23 (a) of this Act. ""—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.) MR. WALTER LONG said that this Amendment was moved in order to alter the Clause a little further down by inserting the words "for the most part." The phrase proposed to be inserted was extremely be there inserted." vague. This proposal had been very Question proposed, "That those words carefully considered by the Joint MR. WALTER LONG said that it was Select Committee. The object was that a fair assumption of the hon. and learned MR. HALDANE said, on the point of order, that it was well known that shares in the New River Company were an exception to the ordinary rule that shares were personal estate; they were real estate. Therefore he submitted that it was open to the Committee to deal with these shares under this Bill as an anomaly in the law, and that it was right to make this change. Gentleman that the landed property of the New River Company which remained after the new board took over that part of their undertaking which was required would be increased in value, but whether it would be right that there should be any deduction for the value of that estate was another matter. There could be no doubt whatever that this question, in whole or in part, would come before the arbitrators, and they had full powers to decide whether any allowance should be given or not. MR. ATHERLEY-JONES said that under these circumstances he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment. "In page 7, line 8, after the word 'passed,' to insert provided always that such shares shall not be deemed to be freehold property for the purposes of the Parliamentary or any other franchise.'"-(Mr. Corrie Grant.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." MR. GRANT LAWSON said that this was not a Bill dealing with the Parliamentary franchise, but dealing with the transfer of an undertaking from one public body to another. He submitted, as a point of order, that the Amendment was inadmissible. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN said it was not in order on this Bill to alter the Parliamentary franchise. Mr. Walter Long. *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN said that it was not competent within the scope of the Bill to deal with the franchise. MR. HALDANE said that they should not be dealing with any question of the franchise, but with the nature of hereditaments which, by virtue of the had carried the franchise against the peculiar character attached to them, general rule. If it were necessary to put it in any clear form, that could be done by altering the Amendment, and by saying, after line 33, "shall continue to be of the nature of land to the like extent, and in like manner, as hereinbefore, except so far as to carry any privileges with regard to voting which would not attach to personal estate." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs) said that the shares of the New River Company at present carried a vote because they were real property. That was to say, any share or portion of a share, in the New River Company gave a person who held it an interest in the land covered by water. That interest was to be transferred to the Water Board. This Clause merely dealt with what was substituted for that interest in the land. The words of the Amendment were altogether alien to the matter with which the Committee were dealing. *MR. CORRIE GRANT said that the Attorney General's argument was the strongest which could be used in favour of his Amendment. The shareholders of the New River Company owned land covered by water, and because of that they had a vote. But now it was proposed to transfer that land to the Water Board, and yet they were to keep the vote. *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN said the Amendment was in order. *MR. CORRIE GRANT said he had, on [ MR. WALTER LONG said that this the point of order, stated his argument. question had been very carefully conHe contended that the shareholders, sidered by the Joint Select Committee. having parted with the land to the The New River Company had asked to Water Board, ought not to continue to insert words in the Bill which would have the vote. compel the Water Board to pay their costs, but this had been keenly opposed; and the decision of the Joint Select Committee was that this was a question which ought to be left to the arbitrators. COLONEL BOWLES said he could not see how the franchise would remain after the transfer of the undertaking of the New River Company to the Water Board, as the shares would become Water Stock, and he deeply regretted it, because the shareholders were mostly electors of his own Division. MR. WALTER LONG said that nobody suggested for an instant that the right to vote as now enjoyed by the shareholders of the New River Company would be transferred to the members of the new Water Board. But when they dealt, in the way suggested by the Amendment, with the franchise in a Bill for a totally different purpose, it was, as the Attorney General had pointed out, very dangerous. He believed that the words of the Amendment were unnecessary, and he doubted whether they ought to be inserted; but if the hon. and learned Member would allow the matter to remain over till the Report stage, he would consult with the Attorney General and see what could be done. MR. RICHARDS (Finsbury, E.) said that the Amendment was an attack on the ownership vote. When the water undertaking of the New River Company was conveyed to the Water Board, there would be still qualifying property left to the shareholders of the Company which ought to be entitled to the franchise. The Amendment was an underhand way of shutting out the 40s. freeholder. *MR. CORRIE GRANT said he would be very glad to leave the question in the hands of the President of the Local Government Board, and he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MR. LOUGH said he begged to move, on behalf of the hon. Member for Torquay : "In page 7, line 9, after the word shall,' to insert at their own cost.' He thought this was a particularly reasonable proposal. MR. LOUGH said, upon that understanding, he would withdraw his Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 9 agreed to. Clause 10 (5.35.) DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.) said the right hon. Gentleman would see, from the general scope of this Clause, that the words he proposed by his Amendment to leave out of this Clause relating to the Staines Reservoirs were mere surplusage, because the claim for any expenditure the companies made would be left in. Amendment proposed "In page 8, line 8, to leave out from for,' to' any,' in line 10."--(Dr. Macnamara.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." MR. WALTER LONG said this was one of those cases for which a Bill of this kind was invariably sent to a Committee upstairs. This case had been very carefully considered before that Committee. Although it was very difficult to imagine what claims would be made with regard to the Staines reservoirs, all this Clause did was to say that any rights the Company had at the present time they should be able to claim before the arbitrators. Under all the circumstances he should be very sorry to take these words out. MR. SYDNEY BUXTON said he was very glad to hear the words of the right hon. Gentleman, because there were no rights under the Staines Reservoirs Act. Under the circumstances it seemed to him that these words were unnecessary, to treat the Tottenham district not as and in fact it would be dangerous to put them in the Clause. the Tottenham Company or the East London Water Company would have treated it. They were compelled to take DR. MACNAMARA: I beg leave to the lowest scale of charges, which was withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn Clause 10 was agreed to. Clause 11: Amendment proposed "In page 8, line 39, after the word accordingly,' to add and not only to the parts so supplied, but also to the remainder of that district, except the portion supplied by the East London Waterworks Company.""(Mr. Joseph Howard.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." MR. WALTER LONG said all this Amendment did was to make it perfectly clear that when the Water Board supplied the area in the urban district of Tottenham, at present supplied by the New River Company and the Urban District Council, it should also supply all that of the New River Company. The Water Board should not be treated in this way. It ought to be allowed to succeed to the rights of the Company. This Amendment was unfair to the Water Board, because it would compel them to pay the higher price and charge on the lower scale. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this matter and allow the Clause to remain as it was. MR. JOSEPH HOWARD (Middlesex, Tottenham): This Amendment has been on the Paper ever since early in the summer. MR. LOUGH: It is a very wrong thing indeed. Amendment agreed to. Clause 11, as amended, agreed to. Clause 12 Motion made, and Question proposed, the remainder except the part supplied"That Clause 12 stand part of the Bill."by the East London Water Company. (Mr. Walter Long.) He hoped the Committee would accept it. MR. LOUGH did not think the Committee ought to consent to this proposal. The Tottenham district was at present supplied by three Water Companies. Tottenham's object in coming in under this Bill was obvious; it would secure a very great reduction in the price of its own water supply, because the Tottenham Company charged a far higher price for its water than the East London Water Company or the New River Company. But this new Water Board was going to buy up the Tottenham district supply on the basis of its present price, and in return for that it should be secured in all the privileges which the Tottenham district enjoyed. This Amendment was brought forward to prevent them succeeding to these rights of the East London Water Company. Why should the new Water Board be bound to reduce their charges to the limit of the New River Company rates? The new Water Board was compelled by this Bill Mr. Sydney Buxton. MR. LOUGH expressed the opinion that this Clause ought not to be rushed through like this. It illustrated exactly the principle upon which the right hon. Gentleman treated all the outer areas. So far as he could see, the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to do nothing that London wanted, but everything for the urban and rural districts. Clause 12 dealt with Richmond and Croydon, and the proposal was that water should be supplied to those places in bulk. Why should not this provision with regard to these places be made general to all the urban districts? MR. WALTER LONG said the proposal in the Clause, by which the new Water Board were relieved of the obligation of supplying Richmond, Croydon, Cheshunt, and Ware, was in conformity with the recommendation of Lord Llandaff's Commission, and had been approved by the Joint Committee He had only heard one opinion as to the justice of the proposal. MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)pointed bulk to Croydon, Richmond, Cheshunt out that under Clause 13 it would be and Ware, and certain rural districts. possible for outside areas to abandon The Government ought to pursue some their present systems of supply and definite plan in the matter, and if they compel the Board to supply water in did a thing in one place they should be bulk. That was obviously unjust. If prepared to do it in another. His Amendthese bodies cut themselves adrift they ment would enable other urban districts ought to be compelled to stand by their to make the same arrangements with the decision, or, if they wanted relief, to Board as were made by the particular apply to Parliament for it. It seemed to districts named. No explanation had him, therefore, that if Clause 12, as been given of why this severance was defined by the right hon. Gentleman, were permitted, especially in the rural districts, passed, the conditions under which these where it would be extremely expensive bodies could obtain water in bulk would and not very useful. He, therefore, have to be modified begged to move. MR. HUDSON (Hertfordshire, Hitchin) was understood to point out that when these authorities to which reference had been made originally applied to the New River Company for a supply of water it was absolutely refused. They therefore set up at great expense waterworks of their own. All they now asked was that in! the event of the new water authority draining their wells dry they should have a right to be supplied with water in bulk at a reasonable price. That was simply common fairness. new MR. JOHN BURNS said that if these outside boroughs had supported the County Council six years ago in its desire to secure the water supply and to obtain a source of supply in Wales, there would have been a sufficient supply to enable the Council now to be generous. He was inclined to think that those authorities had been pursued by a nemesis, and that they would not now get the water they wanted. MR. HALSEY (Hertfordshire, Watford) reminded the hon. Gentleman that the Question put, and agreed to. MR. LOUGH said the object of the Amendment he desired to move was to place the supply of water in bulk on some intelligible and consistent basis. In July last the President of the Local Government Board said, in effect, that he would not compel the Board to supply water in bulk anywhere. This Clause, however, compelled the Board to supply water in Amendment proposed "In page 10, line 9, to leave out the second word the,' and insert the word 'any.'". (Mr. Lough.) Question proposed, "That the word 'the' stand part of the Clause." MR. WALTER LONG said the effect of the Amendment would be to extend the provisions of the Clause to all the urban districts outside London. That was the policy of severance-a policy which had been discussed before Royal Commissions and both inside and outside the House, and which for reasons he need not again go into had long ago been abandoned as a practical method of dealing with the London water question. The cases of Croydon, Richmond, Cheshunt and Ware stood by themselves; they desired to be taken out, and no objection was urged against it. The case with regard to the rural It was districts was quite different. felt there that while it might be necessary to give a supply in bulk it was undesirable to bring them in, because in the majority of the rural districts within the water area there were only a small number of consumers supplied by the existing Water Companies. To have given them representation on the new Board because of those few consumers would have made that body even bigger than was now proposed, and now proposed, and unnecessarily add to the difficulties of its work. He hoped the Committee would adhere to the plan of the Clause. MR. SYDNEY BUXTON said that, while it was true the Royal Commission did not see its way to recommend |