HC Deb 03 August 1882 vol 273 cc714-23

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

MR. RITCHIE

said, as there had been no discussion at all with reference to this Bill, he took the opportunity now afforded for making a very few observations upon a particular point which it contained. He must say generally that he approved what appeared to him to be the two main objects which the promoters of the measure had in view—namely, the modification in the number of people displaced for which accommodation had to be provided, on the one hand; and, on the other, the enabling of the local authorities to purchase houses for the purpose of opening alleys, &c. Those were, in his opinion, very proper objects, and they were based upon the recommendation of the Select Committee which sat to consider the subject of artizans' dwellings. But there was a point on which the Committee made no recommendation, but which the Bill proposed to deal with; and the way in which it proposed to deal with it appeared to him to be open to very great objection. He alluded to the question of the cost, in certain localities, of putting the Bill into operation. By Clause 6, when the improvement related to not more than 15 houses, the expense of carrying out the scheme was to be borne by the locality; whereas, when more houses were concerned, the expense had to be spread over the whole Metropolis. And so with reference to Clause 8, which gave power to purchase houses for opening alleys, the cost of this had to be borne by the locality, although the authorities might have to pull down good property in order to carry out a scheme which would improve the value of other property. He thought the cost in this case ought to be borne—at least in part—by the proprietors of the properties that were thus improved, and not confined to the locality, as the Bill proposed. He was aware that it would be contended that under the Act of 1868 it was incumbent on the local authorities to bear the expense of carrying out improvements in small areas. That, no doubt, was true; but since the larger Act of 1875 had been passed the Act of 1868 had not been acted upon, so that the improvements which had taken place since the passage of the Act of 1875 had been practically spread over the whole Metropolis. Now, he could not tell on what principles the provision of the Bill was based that the cost of large schemes should be distributed over the whole Metropolis, and that the cost of smaller schemes should be borne by the localities. He could not understand why it should be that an improvement which affected 15 houses and less should be paid for by the locality, and that one which involved a larger number of houses should be distributed over the whole Metropolis. In matters of this kind, the tendency of legislation for a long time past had been to treat the Metropolis as a whole, and he thought rightly so. The localities which would be affected by the Bill were those least able to afford the expense of the im- provements, and, as such, stood in need of help on the part of their richer neighbours. He contended that it was most unjust to the poorer parts of the Metropolis, where Clause 6 would take most effect, that they should have to bear the whole cost of effecting the smaller improvements. He thought the ratepayers in those localities had a right to maintain that the cost should be distributed over the Metropolis in the same way as the cost of the larger improvements; and unless he heard some very good argument indeed in support of the proposal in the Bill, he should be compelled to put the House to the trouble of dividing upon the Amendment of which he had given Notice, and which he now begged to move.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the cost of carrying out all improvement schemes in the Metropolis under this Act should he defrayed by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and not charged wholly upon the locality,"—(Mr. Ritchie,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, the Question just put from the Chair was one of considerable interest; but he thought it would be more properly raised by way of Amendment in Committee when they reached Clause 6, upon which the whole matter turned. With reference to the object of the clause, it had been found by experience, since the passing of the Artizans' Dwellings Act of 1875, that in some cases improvements had not been effected, because neither the local authorities, on the one hand, nor the Metropolitan Board of Works on the other, would carry them out under the existing Acts. The Committee which sat to inquire into the subject recommended that this question should be dealt with; the clause was, therefore, practically recommended by them, and it proposed to put a limit below which it should be the duty of the Vestry to deal with cases under the Artizans' Dwellings Act of 1868, and above which it should be the duty of the Metropolitan Board of Works to deal with them under the larger Act of 1875. There might, of course, be some difference of opinion amongst hon. Members as to the numerical limit of houses fixed by the clause; but that could be adjusted in Committee. He hoped the hon. Member would not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon his Amendment, and that any further remarks upon the question raised might be reserved until the clause to which it particularly related was reached in Committee.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

suggested that the 6th clause of the Bill should be left out. He thought the Report of the Committee was singularly defective in dealing with the cardinal difficulty involved in the question—that was to say, how this point of cost should be settled. As long as the distinction between districts or localities and the Metropolis as a whole existed, he thought it would be impossible for the House to be satisfied with the result of legislation in this direction. It was in the little courts of the Metropolis that the principal mischief occurred; and if it was intended to tax the localities in which they existed, it was only to be expected that they would shirk the duty of getting rid of them. He thought the proper thing would be, as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had pointed out, to look upon the Metropolis as a whole, so far as this matter was concerned, and to say that the interest of the rich should contribute to the cost of the improvements, as well as the interest of the poorer classes. He, however, preferred that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets should withdraw his Amendment, and take a division on the clause in Committee.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was aware that the point brought forward was one of great importance, and that it had been the subject of considerable discussion by the Committee. He hoped, however, the hon. Member would not press his Amendment on that occasion; at all events, he trusted they might be allowed to go at once into Committee on the Bill. If, in course of time, it appeared that any hardship was inflicted by the local authorities, he said by all means let the matter be reconsidered hereafter. He had no doubt that everyone would feel that the improvements effected by the local authorities ought to be small improvements only; but the real question to be solved was, how to avoid a limit that would place them in danger of falling between two stools. He was not pledged to the limit of 15 houses proposed by the Bill, and was willing that it should be altered in order to relieve the localities if necessary. It must, however, be borne in mind that the areas were improved by getting rid of the little courts, and it was only fair that those whose property was improved in this way should contribute something to the cost.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Amendment of 38 & 39 Vict., c. 36, s. 5, as to the provision of accommodation for the working classes).

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, he had an Amendment to propose, with the object of giving definite instructions to the local officer in making his report of the proceedings and of the special circumstances of the locality, and enabling him to give effect to what was the intention of Parliament.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 12, after "locality," insert "and to the number of artizans and others belonging to the labouring classes dwelling within the area or being employed within a mile thereof."—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, these words carried out the spirit of the clause, and were in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, would it not be better to say "the number of the working classes," instead of using the words "artizans and others"? This was the phrase used elsewhere in this class of Bills.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, he took the words he had proposed, because they were in accordance with the very title of the Bill.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he would look into the propriety of using these or equivalent words when the Report stage was reached.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, he proposed to substitute the words "of those" for the words "as may be," for, as it would be seen, the presumption would be against re-housing.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 24, leave out the words "as may be," and insert "of those."—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)

Question, "That the words 'as may be' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. LYULPH STANLEY, Amendment made, in page 1, line 27, after "authority," by inserting "on a report made by the officer conducting the local inquiry."

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Limit of area to be dealt with on official representation).

MR. RITCHIE

said he wished to substitute "ten" for "fifteen," in line 25. The course he proposed was to endeavour to minimize the clause by reducing the number; but, having done that, he should ask the Committee to strike out the clause altogether; but, first, he proposed to make it as innocuous as possible.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 25, to leave out "fifteen," and insert "ten."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause."

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he was about to offer this Amendment as a compromise; but he did not think the hon. Member ought, after such a concession, himself to move the rejection of the clause thus amended.

Question put, and negatived.

Word "ten" substituted accordingly.

MR. BRYCE

said, he wished to add a Proviso to the end of the clause, that half the expenses should fall upon the Metropolitan Board of Works. The clause itself could not be dispensed with, and he thought there was a good case for throwing the whole expense upon the population of London. But if a part were thrown on the local authority, then there would be no reason to think the local authority would abuse the discretion given it to proceed in this way. It would have sufficient regard for the in- terests of its own ratepayers not to proceed where it ought not to do so; while, at the same time, it would be relieved of a part of the expense that might deter it.

Amendment proposed, At end of Clause, add—"The expenses incurred by the local authority in so dealing with such oases shall be defrayed as to one moiety by the local authority, and as to the other moiety by the Metropolitan Board of Works."—(Mr. Bryce.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said he could not assent to this proposal. He had endeavoured to meet the views expressed by reducing "fifteen" to "ten;" but the proposal now made introduced an entirely new principle, the division of cost between the Board of Works and the local authority, and that was so wide a question that it could not be dealt with in the discussion of a sudden Amendment to a clause in Committee. It would be introducing a very serious danger in the proceedings of the local authority, for if they found they could enter into speculations by throwing half the cost on the Board, he confessed he felt some alarm as to what, in some cases, the result might be.

MR. RITCHIE

said, there was one aspect of the case he would like to point out, and that was that by the words of the clause it was not possible for the Board of Works, even if they were desirous, to contribute at all to the expenses. Would the right hon. Gentleman consent to insert words that would enable the Board of Works to pay a portion of the expenses?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he would consider that on Report.

MR. BRYCE

said, he would not press his Amendment; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consider on Report not only the suggestion just made, but suggestions generally as to payments under the clause.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, he did not see how the system proposed would be likely to lead to speculative jobs.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Power to local authority to purchase houses for opening alleys, &c).

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, he had an Amendment which raised the point of throwing part of the cost of repairs on the persons whose property would be benefited. The effect of his Amendment would be that, whereas generally the authorities would demolish buildings for sanitary purposes, their doing that might render other buildings in themselves equally objectionable, and, therefore, liable to demolition, perfectly sanitary, enabling the owners to keep them. The improvement in the value of standing property should not be made at the expense of the ratepayers; part of the expense should be borne by the owners of the property which would be improved by the alterations.

Amendment proposed, At end of Clause, to add another sub-section (9) as follows:—"Where in the opinion of the arbitrator the demolition of an obstructive building adds to the value of other buildings, the arbitrator shall provide that so much of the compensation to be paid for the demolition of the obstructive building as is equal to the increase in value of such other building as the result of such demolition, such sum shall be paid by the owner or owners of such remaining building accordingly."—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he approved of the principle of the Amendment; at the same time, such an Amendment required very careful consideration of the wording. If his hon. Friend would put it down for Report, he would consider it. As to the principle, he approved of it.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, perhaps the words might be inserted, and the draftsman might be consulted, and any alteration made on Report.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, no; they had better be allowed to stand over.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 (Amendment of 42 & 43 Vict. c. 64 s. 12, as to enforcement of Act by Metropolitan Board of Works).

MR. BRYCE

said, before this clause was passed, there was another subject to mention. It was with regard to the exemption which the City enjoyed from contributing to the cost of improvements under the Artizans' Dwellings Act. If the House were not so near the end of the Session, and in Committee upon so short a notice, he would have proposed Amendments altering portions of the Artizans' Dwellings Act of 1875 in this respect, and making the City contribute to the cost of Metropolitan improvements of this kind throughout the whole Metropolis. That seemed a matter of plain and simple justice. It was discussed in the Select Committee, and there was a division on the proposal, and the proposition was lost only by the casting vote of the Chairman. But it did not matter very much; there were evidences that before long the House would have to deal with the question of Municipal Government for London altogether, and then would be a better time to take up this subject. But he could not let the Bill pass without giving expression to the strong feeling there was on the point.

MR. RITCHIE

said, with reference to the remarks just made, when the Bill of 1875 was passing through the House, he moved an Amendment in the direction indicated by the hon. Member; but he could not induce the Committee to accept it. He quite agreed with the principle that it was unfair that the wealthy neighbourhood of the City should not contribute. Before the clause was put he would like to point out that the clause was grammatically incomplete; and, looking at the original clause in the Act of which this clause was a recital, he found the same mistake there. The words read thus— Whereas it is provided that in the event of a local authority declining or neglecting for a space of three months after notice from the Metropolitan Board of Works to put in force such notice or report upon any premises described in such notice, and so on. But it did not say what they declined to do. Should not there be the addition of the words "decline to give effect to?"

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, there was no omission, it was a mere recital.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, as being in part responsible for the Act of 1875, he thought the City would be willing to take up the Act and work it. He trusted to the City to do this, and the Committee had evidence before them that the Corporation would, if left to themselves, work the Act thoroughly within the City. But he was bound to say they had done nothing of the kind. It was too large a question to deal with now; but as part of a larger subject it would have to be considered.

Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.