SECOND READING. (Hansard, 4 August 1879)

§ MR. MONK

did not think that the second reading of this Bill should be taken without some remark. The Bill was one which imposed taxes on the ratepayers to the amount of £2,500,000. He did not wish to oppose the progress of the Bill; but he rose for the purpose of asking for some explanation with regard to it from the Government. In the first place, it was a matter of very doubtful policy whether the Government ought to have brought in this 'Bill at all. It seemed to him that the Bill ought not to have been brought in by the Government, but by the Metropolitan Board itself. As he had said before, the Bill asked for £2,500,000 to be raised upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis. He wished to draw the particular attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to Clause 10, by which it was provided that the powers of the Board should extend to a sum not exceeding £1,500,000, "or such other sum as the Treasury may approve." He did not know how those words had crept into the clause; but he should certainly oppose their introduction in Committee, unless some satisfactory explanation were given. The clause seemed to him rather loosely drawn, and he thought the whole of it should be left out after the words "one million five hundred thousand pounds," otherwise, the Metropolitan Board would have power to raise any further sum 177 without the sanction of Parliament, provided the Treasury should signify its approval. No doubt, there might be some difficulty in obtaining the sanction of the Treasury; but he did not think that those words should appear in a Bill of that nature. Clauses 26 and 28 also certainly required some explanation. He wished to know if the Metropolitan Board of Works had power to raise more than the £2,500,000 authorized by the Bill? These clauses seemed to him very objectionable; but, perhaps, some explanation could be given which would remove those obligations.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that he did not introduce the Bill with any remark, because it was simply a repetition of a Bill which the Treasury had used several times lately. The Bill was a safeguard to the House, because it really represented powers scattered over a number of Private Acts—some Management and some Private Acts. It would have required very considerable time for the Treasury to have brought them into one Act and to have submitted them annually to the purview of Parliament. The powers which were given by the Bill were those Contained in various Acts, and were now exercised by the Metropolitan Board without the know-lodge of the House at all The Treasury had insisted on all those powers being included in this Bill, and had thus brought the whole transactions of the Metropolitan Board under the eye of Parliament. With regard to the power given by Clause 40 to raise £1,500,000, to be increased if the Treasury should sanction it, that was really a similar power to that possessed by the Local Government Board in borrowing, sanctioned by that Office. He need hardly say that the Treasury would not exercise the power of permitting larger sums to be borrowed without very good cause, and he did not think there was any danger from its being placed in the Bill. It might be that a particular work might have required rather more than was contemplated and the Board had power to borrow; and then, perhaps, a case might be made out for the Treasury sanctioning their borrowing powers. He trusted to be able to make a more detailed explanation with regard to the Bill when they came to Committee and Report. He hoped that the House 178 would hesitate before it did away with what really brought under the knowledge of Parliament and under Parliamentary control, borrowing powers which had before been increased without the control or knowledge of Parliament.