Amendment agreed to. CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.) said the object of the Amendment he now proposed to move was to provide that all the areas supplied should be liable to the deficiency rate. That was only natural and right. It included in all thirteen districts, of which four were urban and five were rural. Among those urban districts they had such important growing districts as Hendon and Ilford, withan assessable value of £123,000 and £117,000 respectively. Of the rural districts the three most important were Bromley, Croydon and Dartford. jection was taken that these outside districts had no representation, but they had sufficient representation through their County Councils to justify the contingency of taxation. If these districts were placed on the same basis as that on which inner London was placed, they would still enjoy important advantages. He also wished to know whether these districts, which did not run any risk of purchase, were to share in the equalisation. He begged to move Amendment proposed Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." MR. WALTER LONG said he had already made a full statement on this subject at an earlier period. It was true that the rural districts would get the benefit of whatever work was done by the Water Board, and that they would not be liable for the rates. The reason was, there was a very small proportion in the area who were supplied, the water being, in fact, often found in those areas. Ob- MR. THOMAS LOUGH said the right hon. Gentleman's reply did not cover the position. The majority of the rural districts would be excluded from this Clause because they had no representation. The right hon. Gentleman had given severance in every case where he considered there were special circumstances, and he (Mr. Lough) thought that that concession should be given to all the rural districts. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. "In page 12, line 5, after the word 'urban,' (7.3) Question put. to insert the words and rural.'"-(Captain Noes, 136. (Division List No. 617.) The Committee divided:-Ayes, 37; Norton.) Cohen, Benjamin Louis Forster, Henry William Gibbs, Hn. AGH(City of Lond. Amendments made Hay, Hon. Claude George King, Sir Henry Seymour "In page 12, line 11, to leave out 'parish'; in page 12, line 14, to leave out parishes municipal'; in page 12, line 17, to leave out 'a parish in'; in page 12, lines 23 and 24, to leave out (if necessary) be raised out of, and as part of the local rate; that is to say,' and insert be paid '; in page 12, line 25, after 'city,' to insert out of'; in page 12, line 26, to leave out a parish in'; in page 12, lines 26 and 27, to leave out the general rate,' and insert as part of the expenses incurred by the council thereof'; in page 12, line 28, after 'district' to insert out of."-(Mr Walter Long.) Plummer, Walter R. Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) TELLERS FOR THE NOESSir Alexander AclandHood and Mr. Anstruther. limits of supply an equalisation of such rates as between all parts of the area, both in respect of charges on rateable value of the rendered.'"-(Mr. Herbert Robertson.) premises supplied and special services Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." MR. WALTER LONG said that sub- Section 6 was inserted before the Joint Committee at the instance of the City of Westminster, whose action had been most adversely commented upon. He was bound to say, however, that he thought those adverse comments were hardly justified, seeing that the city of Westminster had to bear a very large portion of the cost, whether they were dealing with the water charges or the general rates of the Metropolis. All parties agreed that as speedily as it could be brought about, there must be a readjustment of the water charges in London having for its main object their equalisation. One of the most unfortunate difficulties in connection with the existing condition of the water supply was that for the same quantity and quality of water you might have to pay one price on one side of a street and a totally different price on the other. That was an unsatisfactory feature which it was hoped the new authority would be able to alter. But while everybody was agreed that an equalisation of the water charges was desirable it ought also to be agreed that that equalisation should not be made at the expense of the general ratepayer of the Metropolis. Nobody would suggest that, unless unavoidable, the general rates of the Metropolis should be brought to the aid of the water supply. It might be necessary to deal with the matter at a later period by some equalisation of rates system, but all that was required at present was to make it clear in the Bill that there should not be an equalisation scheme at the cost of the general rates. Sub-Section (6) as it stood would be capable of a much wider interpretation, and he would suggest its amendment in two or three points, so that it should read "The Water Board shall not, until Parlia ment otherwise determine, reduce the rates charged for the supply of water below those in force during the quarter ending the twentyfourth day of June, 1902, unless the Board are satisfied that such a reduction would not cause a deficiency in the Water Fund." As the Committee would see, that was a material alteration of the wording, and he proposed further to add "But the Water Board shall, within three years after the appointed day, introduce into Parliament a Bill providing for uniform scales and charges applicable throughout the limits of supply.' He thought that, on the whole, would fairly meet the difficulties of the case. The Board would have a reasonable time in which to ascertain what it would be possible for them to do, and the case of Westminster and other heavily rated parts of the Metropolis would be amply protected, inasmuch as the obligation to bring in a Bill would. secure to them the opportunity of presenting their case before any arrangement was made. He hoped these altera tions would meet the views of Members on both sides of the House. MR. SYDNEY BUXTON thought that, so far as he could follow it, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would meet with general acceptance. As he understood it, the Board within three years VOL. CXVI. [FOURTH SERIES. would have to introduce a Bill opposing a uniform scale of charges. One of the great evils of the present system-indeed, one of the main reasons for this Bill-was the inequality of the charges. That London should be treated as a unit was the basis of the Bill, and on the ground that uniformity of charge would be secured he welcomed the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. MR. BIGWOOD (Middlesex, Brentford) said the people of Middlesex would be very grateful for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, as one of the things they suffered from was this inequality of charges. MR. CORRIE GRANT asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had also had before him the question of the inequality of assessments? At present much doubt existed amongst rating authorities as to who had the right of raising the question. Some years ago the London County Council attacked the question of the inequality of assessments, but after taking a great deal of evidence and going before the Court of Appeal, it was decided that the County Council had no locus standi in the matter. It might be reasonable to give the Water Board the right to interfere in the question. MR. WALTER LONG was afraid that the Amendment dealing with the point suggested by the hon. Member would involve an alteration of the law of valuation, and, as such, be ruled out of order. He was advised, however, that the Water Board, being ratepayers in the area concerned, would have the ordinary ratepayers' right to appear before the assessment authority and to appeal to Quarter Sessions. MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON thanked his right hon. friend for the concession he had promised to make, and asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. MR. LOUGH said the question was not so simple as it looked. A revolu tionary change was proposed to be made in the Clause. He desired to know whether, undes the equalisation, the high rate charged in some places would be reduced to the low rate charged in others, or vice versa. On a £20 house L in Islington the water rate was 24s., house £2 10s., while in Bermondsey the whereas in Camberwell on a similar figures were £3 7s. and £4 6s. respechouse it was £3 7s. If Camberwell tively. In provincial cities and towns were lowered to the level of Islington, the charges were much lower. Camberwell would be very grateful, but if Islington were raised to the level of Camberwell, there would be great complaints from Islington. It being half-past Seven of the Clock, the Chairman let the Chair to make his Report to the House. CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, S.) said the Corporation of the City of Westminster had been somewhat unduly abused for getting this Clause inserted in the Bill. They had acted not only on behalf of Westminster, but on behalf of other areas in London. The Clause was agreed to unanimously by the Joint Committee report Progress; to sit Committee, which had expressed itself again this evening. EVENING SITTING. LONDON WATER (RE-COMMITTED) BILL. Considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clause 15: Amendment proposed "In page 12, line 35, after the word 'Board,' to insert the words, The Water Board shall exercise their powers of charging water rates in such manner as to produce within three years from the appointed day throughout the limits of supply an equalisation of such rates as between all parts of the area, both in respect of charges on ratable value of the premises supplied and special services rendered.'". (Mr. Herbert Robertson.) satisfied that Westminster, acting on behalf of the various boroughs, had made out a good case. The Clause had been condemned by the London County Council because they had alleged that by it equalisation of rates was prevented. but, as a matter of fact, if absolute equalisation of rates came into operation the charge upon the districts west of the Lea and north of the Thames would be increased in order to reduce the charge in the other parts of the Metropolis. It must be perfectly plain to everybody who had studied this question that they could not go on charging on a different basisin different areas. There must be a uniform scale of charges throughout London, and it seemed to him that the course the Government were pursuing in leaving matters as they were for three years and then directing that the Water Board should bring in a Bill to make Question again proposed, "That those the charges uniform was a very wise words be there inserted." (9.0.) MR. LOUGH, resuming, said he desired to know whether it was the intention of the Government to effect the equalisation which was to take place by means of the water charges, and whether it was intended that no call could be made on the rates under any circumstances whatever. He thought it would be absolutely necessary to insert in the Bill some provisions wider than those suggested by the President of the Local Government Board, for if equalisation was to take place at the expense of the water consumer alone, it must be unsatisfactory. What was really needed was an equalisation of the rates, which varied greatly in different districts. For instance, in Hackney the charge for a £30 house was £1 4s. and for a £45 Mr. Lough. one. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments were proposed by Mr. WALTER LONG, and agreed to, which left sub-Sections 6 and 7 as follows "(6) The Water Board shall not, until Parliament otherwise determine, reduce the rates charged for the supply of water below those in force during the quarter ending the twenty-fourth day of June one thousand nine hundred and two, unless the Board are satisfied that such a reduction would not cause a deficiency in the water fund; but the Water Board shall, within three years after the appointed day, introduce into Parliament a Bill providing for uniform scales of charges applicable throughout the limits of supply. (7) Within three years after the appointed day the Water Board may prepare and publish in the London Gazette scheme enabling their charges for the supply of water to be collected together with any local rate. Any local or rating authority within the limits of supply a may transmit to the Local Government Board their objections to any such scheine within forty days after the scheme is published in the London Gazette.” MR. LOUGH moved a further Amend ment that the equalisation should be secured on a scale not exceeding that of the West Middlesex Water Company, and that the deficit thereby caused should be made good out of the county rate. MR. WALTER LONG said it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. Amendment negatived. MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton) had on the Paper an Amendment to add the following sub-Section : "(7) Within three years after the appointed day the Water Board shall prepare a scheme enabling their assessments and charges for water supplied for domestic and trade purposes to be assessed, levied and collected half-yearly to the thirtieth September and thirtyfirst March respectively, together with the general, poor, or general district rate. Each constituent authority and rating authority within the area of the Water Board shall transmit their objections to the Local Government Board within forty days after the scheme is published in the London Gazette. The Local Government Board shall insert such modifications as they deem necessary to the scheme, and, after confirmation, fix the time for it to come into operation, and shall prescribe the form of rate book and demand note, and shall make such necessary or proper regulations for the purpose, which shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act. ' The hon. Member said the Amendment explained itself but he would ask leave of the Committee to alter the word "shall" in the first line to the word "may," and to withdraw the last paragraph, having ascertained from the authorities that the Local Government Board had no power to enforce the provision set forth in the last paragraph of the Amendment. Though there was much to be said in support of the Amendment he felt that it would be unnecessary for him to go at length into the subject. Amendment proposed "In page 12, line 40, at end, to add, 'Within three years after the appointed day the Water Board may prepare a scheme enabling their assessments and charges for water supplied for domestic and trade purposes to be assessed, levied, and collected half-yearly to September 30 and March 31 respectively, together with the general, poor, or general district rate. Each constituent authority and rating authority within the area of the Water Board shall consider and transmit their objections to the Local Government Board within torty days after the scheme is published in the London Gazette.'". (Mr. Claude Hay.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." MR. GRANT LAWSON said that a similar proposal stood in the name of the hon. Member for Haggerston as a new Clause, and, as it seemed to meet the wishes of both sides of the Committee, the Government were prepared to accept it. MR. CREMER said it was several months since he put down on the Paper a new Clause in terms identical with the Amendment which the hon. Member for Hoxton had just moved. The hon. Member for Hoxton had done him the honour to borrow in every word his Clause, and if imitation was the most sincere form of flattery he supposed that he might consider himself very much flattered in having his new Clause moved as an Amendment to Clause 15. It seem to him that the proposal of the hon. Member for South Hackney was not at all necessary, for the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have swallowed them all up. He thanked the President of the Local Government Board for the spirit in which he had met them on this question, because this matter appeared to him to be the most vital principle of the Bill. What they were all anxious for was to secure equality of assessment in the Metropolis. The Amendment secured this object, and in three years time they would have that which they all hoped to have, namely, something like an equality of assessment throughout the Metropolis. In regard to the uniformity of collection, that was not met by the Amendment, and he asked the right. hon. Gentleman to consider whether it was not possible to introduce something into the Clause that would At the secure uniformity of collection. present time they had a rate collector, a water rate collector, and a collector of King's taxes. In some boroughs they managed to collect all these taxes with one man, and he did not see why it should not be compulsory on the new water authority that one collector should collect all the taxes to which he had referred. He thought the right hon. Gentleman could easily achieve this object by adding |