View report page

79
part of Camberwell the consumers would be able to get the better water provided by the Kent Company
at about the same charges; and if the company ceased to supply Battersea, Putney and Wandsworth,
the consumers would be able to get water supplied by the West Middlesex Company drawn from the
same portion of the Thames as if it were taken by the Southwark and Vauxhall Company, at 25 per
cent. less charge, and in some cases at a more considerable reduction.
The effect of the bill would therefore be permanently to exclude the consumers in those portions of
London from the chance which they now have under the existing law of obtaining better water at lower
prices; while in the event of a purchase by a local authority the Southwark Company might probably
claim double the present value of their undertaking, because they would get under this bill a statutory
concession of taking a supply from the Thames of upwards of 40 million gallons per day instead of, as at
present, 20 millions or 24,500,000 gallons as the case may be.
At the opening of the proceedings before the Committee the company proposed some considerable
modifications in their original scheme. The Committee seem to have been impressed with the evidence
of Sir Frederick Dixon Hartland that the Thames Conservancy would take steps to enforce their
injunction unless an Act were passed. The Committee passed the bill on the day on which the House
rose, without hearing the case for the opponents.
Mr. Cripps intimated to the company that if they were prepared to accept a temporary measure
under which, notwithstanding the injunction, they might temporarily draw what water they required
from the Thames subject and without prejudice to any existing legal rights on either side, he would feel
justified in not further opposing their bill before the Committee, although, the Council being in recess,
no formal authority could at the moment be obtained. This was declined by the company's advisers,
who intimated their intention to press for their bill. But it appears from the result of the discussion in
the House of Commons this afternoon that the Committee to whom the bill was referred accepted it on
the statement of the company that it would do no more than have the effect above indicated. We are
satisfied, however, that the effect of the bill would not be so limited.
We think the Council will agree that if Parliament permits the appropriation of further water from
the Thames for distribution in London by the commercial companies, it should be taken and supplied by
those companies whose supply is most efficient, and whose rates of charge are lowest, rather than by a
company whose water is often delivered in an unsatisfactory condition, and whose rates of charge are
higher; or, at least that this company ought not to have a new concession of taking and supplying water
from the Thames, unless its rates of charge are reduced to the lower level at which any other company
is already authorised to supply within the same parishes.
We propose, however, to repeat our offer to this company to the effect above indicated, namely—
that if the bill be limited to a temporary measure, and if it be made quite clear that the passing of the
bill does not affect existing legal rights on either side, it will not be further opposed.
The bill as framed would imply that—which is contended on the part of the company, but which the
Council is advised is without foundation—that the company are under statutory obligations to supply
water in any part of this district. Other companies have long ago been authorised by Parliament to
supply throughout the whole area of this company in London.
With regard to the last-named bill in the Committee's report, it may be stated that the opposition
of the Council eventually resulted in a bill being passed legalising for a period of one year the
appropriation of water which the company had been making from the Thames.
Royal Commission on London Water Supply—At the time of the rejection of the Council's Water
Purchase Bills on the 11th of March, it was intimated that it was the intention of the Government to
appoint a Royal Commission to consider certain specified points in connection with the water supply.
On the 14th May, 1897, the water committee reported the following to be the terms of reference to
the Commission—
"(1.) To inquire and report whether, having regard to financial considerations and to present and
prospective requirements as regards water supply in the districts within the limits of supply of the
metropolitan water companies, it is desirable, in the interests of the ratepayers and water consumers of
those districts, that the undertakings of the water companies should be acquired and managed either (a)
by one authority, or (b) by several authorities, and, if so, what should be such authority or authorities ;
to what extent physical severance of the works and other property and sources of supply of the several
companies, and the division thereof between different local authorities within the limits of supply, are
practicable and desirable, and what are the legal powers necessary to give effect to any such
arrangements.
"(2.) If the undertakings are not so acquired, whether additional powers of control should be
exercised by local or other authorities, and, if so, what those powers should be.
"(3) Whether it is practicable to connect any two or more of the different systems of supply now
administered by the eight metropolitan companies, and, if so, by whom and in what proportions should
the cost of connecting them be borne, and what are the legal powers necessary to give effect to any such
arrangement."
The Council subsequently decided that the following opinions should be expressed to the Royal
Commission—
(a) That in the opinion of the Council the water supply of the metropolis should not continue in the
hands of private companies.
(b) That in the opinion of the Council the undertakings of the metropolitan water companies should
forthwith be purchased at the fair and reasonable value of the same, regard being had to the rights,
special circumstances, and obligations of the companies.
(c) That the management of the water supply should be effected either (1) by the London County
Council supplying its own area directly and outside authorities in bulk at a fixed price; or (2) by the
London County Council supplying its own area only, and the outside authorities supplying their areas.
(d) That, in any case, as the County of London contains 87 per cent, of the rateable value and over
79 per cent. of the population of the whole area supplied by the metropolitan water companies, and will
thus be liable for more than four-fifths of the purchase money, it is desirable that the London County
Council should, in the first instance, be the purchasing authority on behalf of the population of the
whole area concerned.
(e) That if the undertakings of the water companies are not acquired, it is essential that effective
powers of control should be given to the County Council, aud further that the position of the companies
should be reconsidered and the law amended, particularly as regards their power to make and recover
rates and charges and divide profits, and their obligations respecting the supply of water.
Welsh scheme of water supply—On the 16th of March the Council resolved that the engineer be
instructed to proceed with the plans and sections of the Wye portion of the Welsh scheme of water
supply.