§ Order for Committee read.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he had some doubt whether the Bill, in its present shape, would strengthen the hands of the sanitary authorities in Ireland. He was inclined rather to think that it would diminish the power of these authorities to deal with the evils of overcrowding and unhealthy dwellings for the poor. However, he confessed he had not given to the Bill sufficient consideration to induce him to seek to impede in any way its progress; and he had only to express a hope that the next stage would be fixed for a period sufficiently distant to afford time for communication on the subject with some of the sanitary authorities in Ireland.
§ MR. MONKsaid, he should be glad to know what were the intentions of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens) with regard to proceeding with the Bill that night, because he intended to oppose the 5th clause, which might give rise to some little discussion? That 410 clause would compel the local authorities to purchase tumble-down houses, or houses which were unfit for habitation, if the owners should require them to do so. He did not know whether that clause had attracted the notice of the Government; it was an important clause; and he wished to ask his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, whether he intended to move to report Progress after the House had gone into Committee, or to press the Bill through that stage?
§ MR. W. M. TORRENSremarked, that it had been found, by practical experience, that without the compensation for which the Bill made provision it was wholly impossible to work the other powers given by law. He trusted that his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) would not persevere in his opposition to progress being made with the Bill, since it would be open to him on the Report to move either to amend or to expunge the clause to which he had referred. He hoped that, as the Government had had this matter under their consideration for weeks, and he might say, for months, and as there was no general opposition in the House itself to the measure, it might be allowed to pass through Committee that night.
§ MR. ISAACreminded the hon. Member for Finsbury that he had not told the House whether he was willing to accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Tipperary County (Mr. Gray), and to fix a distant day, say 10 days hence, for the further consideration of the Bill. Unless the hon. Member was prepared to do that, he must oppose Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair.
§ MR. W. M. TORRENSthought it must be quite evident that, at this period of the Session, to name 10 days hence for the further progress of the Bill was virtually to discharge the Order. He must remind the House that the measure had yet to go up to the House of Lords. It had been six months before the House of Commons, and as, therefore, ample time had been afforded to every hon. Member to make up his mind as to what course he ought to take in regard to it, he did trust that the House would not think it was an unreasonable request that they should now be allowed to proceed with it. As to the appeal of his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary County, he must say 411 that, at the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government, the Bill was now limited very much to the case of the Metropolis. Its promoters had intended that it should be a general Act; but, in many cases, they had found that the Government were not prepared to extend what was termed the building clauses to the whole of the United Kingdom; and sooner than allow the Metropolis to remain in its present terrible state of overcrowding, those in charge of the Bill had deemed it their duty to take what they could get. Therefore, as the Government intimated their willingness to allow the building clauses to be retained for the Metropolis, leaving the compensation clauses to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, the promoters thought it better to accept that compromise than to do nothing at all. To that arrangement he adhered, though he should be very glad, personally, to extend the whole of the provisions of the Bill to Dublin and other large towns in Ireland. SIB HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON hoped the House might allow the Bill to go into Committee. At the same time, he trusted that the hon. Member for Finsbury might also see the reasonableness of allowing at least a week to elapse before the Report was taken, in order that hon. Members might have an opportunity of considering the Amendments which they might wish to propose. He wished also to say, on the part of the Government, that there was one clause which, until his attention had been called to it that night, had escaped his notice—he referred to the terms on which it was proposed to borrow. He should himself like to consider that matter before it was finally ageed upon; and, therefore, he hoped his hon. Friend would consent, if the Bill were now allowed to pass through Committee, to the postponement of the consideration of the Report for at least a week.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 (Short title and construction of Act).
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he had a formal Amendment to propose to this clause. The clause defined that the officer of health should be the Medical Officer of Health in England, appointed by the urban sanitary authority of the district 412 under the Public Health Act of 1875. In Ireland, it should be the corresponding officer under the Act of 1878. He, therefore, begged to move, in line 22, after "1875," to insert:—
And as respects any urban sanitary district in Ireland, shall be the Medical Officer of Health appointed by the urban sanitary authority of the district, under the Public Health Act of 1878.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 2, 3, and 4 agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Owner may require local authority to purchase premises).
§ MR. MONKremarked, that the clause proposed to throw a very heavy burden on the ratepayers, by compelling the local authorities to purchase any houses which might be considered as unfit for habitation. If an individual purchased house property which was in a bad state of repair, he ought—and under the existing law he was obliged—to rebuild, or put it in a fit state for habitation. He saw no reason why the ratepayers should be called upon to purchase such property; and yet, if the owner of it pleased, he could, under this Bill, compel the local authorities to take it off his hands. He did not know what view the Government took of this clause. He certainly thought it deserved their very serious consideration, and he should himself say "No" to the question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
§ MR. DILLWYNthought the Committee ought to have some explanation respecting this clause. He quite agreed with what his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had stated. It seemed to him that if this clause were passed it would operate in the direction of preventing the local authorities from undertaking the smallest improvements, owing to the fear they would have that if they were to give notice of any buildings being in a dangerous state it would be necessary to purchase the whole of them.
§ MR. MONKrepeated, that there could not be the slightest reason why an owner of a site should force the ratepayers to buy it; and, in order to raise that question, he moved to leave out all the words after "premises," to the end of the clause.
§ Amendment .agreed to.
413§ On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
§ MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, that experience had shown that in the Metropolis it was impossible to effect any improvement in the over-crowded districts, unless the local authorities were enabled to compensate the owners of property. He had presented Petitions from various local bodies, all asking that this Bill should pass. The practical effect of taking away that power which the ratepayers themselves had asked for would be to destroy the whole chance of the Bill working. He left it to the Government to say whether it was worth while defending the clause.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped that the Committee might not assent to the removal from the Bill of what, practically, was the soul and body of the measure. A former Bill of the hon. Member had proved a dead letter in consequence of its containing no such power as this clause proposed to give. The Government had been induced to give the measure their support, because it sought to deal with a class of buildings not dealt with in a more recent Act of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and supplied a link in a very useful class of legislation by removing a difficulty which had hitherto stood in the way of the local authorities in dealing with many of those terrible eyesores and nuisances which existed in the midst of their large towns, and especially of the Metropolis. Under these circumstances, he did hope that the Committee would not, at the eleventh hour, deprive the measure of the provision which alone would make it a useful one.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 6 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 20 (Power of local authority to make bye-laws for regulation of dwelling-houses).
§ MR. SALTsaid, that on behalf of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, he had an Amendment to move at the end of this clause. The clause gave power to local authorities to make bye-laws; but it was not usual to give such power to the local authorities without some control or authority from the Central Department, and the words he had to propose 414 on behalf of his right hon. Friend at the end of the clause were these:—
A bye-law under this Act, and any alteration made therein, and any repeal of a bye-law, shall not be of any validity until it has been submitted and confirmed by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, in the case of the Metropolis, or by the Local Government Board in the case of all other places.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Clause, to add the words "A bye-law under this Act, and any alteration made therein, and any repeal of a bye-law, shall not be of any validity until it has been submitted and confirmed by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, in case of the Metropolis, or by the Local Government Board in the case of all other places."—(Mr. Salt.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. LEEMANcharacterized the Amendment as centralization to the utmost extent, and hoped the Committee might not agree to it.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 17; Majority 15.—(Div. List, No. 165.)
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 21 (Expenses of local authority).
§ MR. PELLmoved, in page 7, line 37. to leave out the words "three pence," and to insert the words "a penny." He thought they had already had several warnings on the subject of expenses chargeable on the rates under Acts of this description, and that it would be wise to limit the amount of money to be expended.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 37, to leave out the words "three pence," in order to insert the words "one penny."—[Mr. Pell,)—instead thereof.
§ Question put, "That the words 'three pence' stand, part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 32; Majority, 18.—(Div. List, No. 166.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'one penny' be there inserted."
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he did not like to interfere, as the hon. Member in charge of the Bill had 415 made no appeal to the Committee; but he really would like to ask whether hon. Members were really in earnest—["Yes, certainly!"]—in wishing to put in this sum? The limitation to a penny, in London, at any rate, would render it impossible, practically, to carry out any work under this Bill. He would remind his hon. Friend he had quoted the expenditure of the hon. Member.
§ MR. PELLwas referring to the Artizans' Dwellings Act. In that Act the amount was unlimited, while here they had a fixed sum. He hoped the Committee would give their decision against adopting 2d. instead of 1d. in order that they might improve away this measure, the further progress of which seemed to him undesirable.
§ MR. DODDSreminded the Committee that the Act applied to the whole country; but if the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would confine its operation to the Metropolitan district, he would just as soon have 2d. inserted as 1d. In these times of intense depression he strongly objected to this increased taxation.
§ MR. BARINGsupposed that the Committee had not voted without knowing what they were about. Festina lente was a motto which it would have been better if some hon. Gentlemen had remembered, and then they would have done more good, probably, in the end.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, the Artizans' Dwellings Act was by no means a failure everywhere; for, in his own borough, it it had been put into operation very successfully. His objection to the Bill was that it enabled owners to get rid of what was very likely worthless property to the Boards. That Proviso, he thought, would very likely impede the progress of the Act, because it would prevent authorities from giving notice, and so putting themselves into the power of the owners, and being forced to purchase properties, whether or no.
§ MR. W. M. TORRENSreminded the Committee that under the 5th clause compulsory power was given. He thought it was rather hard to raise this objection again, after what had been conceded. This Bill, by doing a little work here and there would save a great amount of other work under the Artizans' Dwellings Act. This was an alternative plan; but if the Committee would not adopt it he could not help it.
§ MR. PELLthought his Amendment was entirely consistent, for under the Bill money was only required for the purchase of tumble-down buildings, and surely a penny rate would be enough for that.
§ MR. GRAYdoubted whether the Act would apply anywhere outside the Metropolis. At the same time, he did not see the good of passing it, and in the same breath rendering it inoperative. As the Committee had come to a conclusion not to allow 3d., he thought, at least, it might allow 2d.; otherwise, it would be far better not to load the Statute Book with inoperative Acts.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 31: Majority 16.—(Div. List, No. 167.)
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONmoved to insert "two-pence."
§ MR. PELLasked whether they could not split the difference, and say 1½d. At first they were all in favour of 1d.; but the suggestions from the Front Bench had inclined some hon. Members to change their minds.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 22 (Loans from Public Works Loan Commissioners).
§ MR. PELLmoved, in page 8, line 16, to leave out the words "and also all mortgages of the local rates." The sites should be sufficient security on which to raise the sum required for the construction of the new premises. It seemed to him very dangerous to pledge the rates for purposes of this sort.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 16, to leave out the words "also by a mortgage of the local rate."—(Mr. Pell.)
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 28; Noes 16: Majority 12.—(Div. List, No. 168.)
§ MR. LEEMANmoved to report Progress. He appealed to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill not to press it further. It was then 3 o'clock in the morning. The opposition to it was evidently bonâ fide; and as there were only just the number of Members in the 417 House sufficient to transact Business, he hoped his Motion would be accepted.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Leeman.)
§ MR. W. M. TORRENSreplied, that they were very nearly through, and they might as well go on.
§ Motion negatived,.
§ MR. GRAYthought the limitation of the period of repayment of loans of seven years was too small. That would involve a repayment yearly of 15 per cent. In order to raise the question, he moved to substitute the words "twenty-one."
§ MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, this limitation was introduced by arrangements with the Government in order to prevent money being borrowed for an excessive term. He himself, personally, entirely concurred in wishing to extend the period.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. PELLdesired to point out that they were getting into some little confusion. The Amendment made in Clause 5 evidently showed that it was the opinion of the Committee that power should be given only to purchase structures; yet they were now proceeding to give power to mortgage the site which would not belong to the Board. He, therefore, thought they had better report Progress, in order that those in charge of the Bill might consider the matter.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 23 agreed to.
§ Schedule A.
§ MR. SALTmoved (for Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG) to insert in the third column, line 17, the word "or."
§ MR. W. M. TORRENSexplained that the effect of the clause was to give the Metropolitan Board of Works alternate jurisdiction, so that if the Vestries would not undertake the work they might. He entirely agreed with the Amendment.
§ MR. DILLWYNasked if the clause gave additional power to the Board of 418 Works! ["Yes!"] Then, certainly, this clause should be thoroughly explained.
§ MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, there was a belief in some districts that the Vestries would hang fire, and not put this Act into force. In that case, they proposed to give a discretionary power to the Board of Works to overrule them. It was not proposed that that work should be out of the general rate of the Metropolis, but that the Board of Works should come in and do the work, and charge it on the rates of the Vestry.
§ COLONEL MAKINScould not see why, if the Vestrymen, who might be presumed to know all the requirements of their own district, did not choose to carry out the Act, that it was a proper thing for the Board of Works, composed of men from other parts of London, who did not know very much about the district in question, to come in to interfere.
§ MR. PELLsaid, the effect of the clauses would be to put the Vestrymen between the upper millstone of the Local Government Board and the nether millstone of the Board of Works, with a medical officer of health turning the handle. Surely these gentlemen were entitled to form an opinion whether work was necessary to be done, and he did not see why they should give a new authority power to overrule them. The Board of Works, with designs for streets and quays, and great works generally, might be influenced by considerations which would not influence the Vestry. He trusted they would be allowed proper time to consider this Amendment.
§ MR. SALTsaid, that he was not in charge of the Bill; but, referring back to Clause 12, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) would find that the Amendment proposed not to create any new power of rating, but, on the contrary, to prevent the possibility of raising a certain rate; but he should prefer to leave his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) to deal with the matter on Report, and, therefore, he would withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ House resumed.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.