§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Amendment of Section 193 of the Public Health Act, 1875).
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out "sale." He understood the object of the Bill to be to allow officers or employés of Corporations or Town Commissioners reasonable facilities, in small matters, for having business transactions with those Corporations. He objected to the power given in the Bill to officers of those Local Boards to make purchases of lands from the Boards; and he, therefore, moved the omission of the word "sale." A small hiring of those lauds might take place from year to year; but that was very different to giving full power of sale. Those officers, as hon. Gentlemen were aware, were electioneering agents, and, as such, nothing would be easier than for members of those Boards to endeavour to enlist their support by giving them valuable property at a nominal value. He knew that that was done in Ireland. It was not desirable that public bodies in a more or less obscure position in the country should have those powers.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the word"sale."—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'sale' stand part of the Clause."
§ SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, this Bill had nothing to do with Municipal Corporations, who possessed these powers at the present moment. It only referred to Local Boards, which had to do with these transactions on a much smaller scale. This was one of the difficulties experienced under the existing law— supposing there was a piece of a street which a Local Board wished to acquire, which belonged to a clerk or other officer of the Board, there were no means by which possession of it could be secured. But for fear there should be such collusion as the hon. Member (Mr. 789 Biggar) seemed to look upon as likely, there were special provisions and securities in the latter part of the clause to guard against it. For instance, full publicity would be required, and it would be necessary that transactions should not take place without due notice, and then only with the consent of two-thirds of the Board. As the absence of such a power as would be conferred by this clause had given rise to serious difficulty and inconvenience, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he was aware that the Bill only applied to small bodies; but the safeguards which the hon. Baronet alleged to exist in the Bill were no safeguards at all. In small places the members of these Boards all belonged to one particular party, and, under such circumstances, it would be no safeguard to the ratepayers to have publicity given to these transactions. The publicity would not be to the interest of the ratepayers, but to members of the Local Authority. In all probability, when one of these transactions came up for consideration, there would be very few-members of the public body present, and the sanction of two-thirds of these would be sufficient. He held that that was not sufficient; and though he knew that Corporations in England had similar powers, it would be a dangerous power to give these small local bodies. There could be nothing more objectionable than to allow them to buy and sell amongst each other, and amongst their officers, and he should certainly take the opinion of the Committee upon his Amendment. He did not know whether the Government were in a position to oppose or defend the principle laid down in the clause; but he should be very much surprised if they did not support him in his attempt to strike this obnoxious theory out of the Bill.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. In the first place, the Bill did not apply to Ireland; therefore, the experience the hon. Member had given of the state of things in that country was really irrelevant. If the Amendment were carried the Bill would lose a great deal of its utility. Cases often arose where land was required for public pur- 790 poses, such land belonging to officers of the Local Boards. In such a case, either the land could not be obtained, or the officer would have to relinquish his appointment, or render himself liable to a penalty of £50 and be deprived of the power of ever again serving the Board. The hardship of that was greatly enhanced and made much more manifest by the fact that no such restrictions existed with regard to the dealings of members of Boards with each other. He hoped the hon. Member would not think it worth while to press his Amendment.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he failed to see any force in the argument that the Bill did not apply to Ireland. English Members were never chary of interfering with Irish matters, and Irish Members had an equal right to interest themselves in measures which only applied to England. But to say that because it was competent, according to law, for members of a Board to trade with each other as a Board—he did not say it was competent according to morals—that, therefore, Boards should have power to trade with their officers was to use an argument which could not carry weight. He still thought that the power contained in the Bill was very objectionable, and that it was his duty to go to a division. The right hon. Gentleman said that jobbery was not so likely to take place in England as in Ireland.
§ THE PRESIDENTNo, no!
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that he had stated that a great deal of plundering had taken place by reason of such transactions as were legalized in this Bill; and the right hon. Gentleman had said that this was an English Bill, and, therefore, what took place in Ireland could not be quoted in regard to it. It was not very long since the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) brought in a Bill to reform a whole lot of English Corporations. What was proposed by this Bill was to enable a lot of small Corporations in England to put themselves into such a position that some future President of the Local Government Board would be required to introduce a measure for reforming them again. He (Mr. Biggar) thought it desirable that the reform should take place now. They should not wait until the local bodies had misconducted themselves.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he must confess he looked on the Bill with a great deal of jealousy, and very much sympathized with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). He was sure, however, there was no intention to institute an unfair comparison between England and Ireland in the matter. There seemed to him to be a method by which the objection of the hon. Member could be met—namely, by strengthening the Proviso at the end of the clause. As it existed at present it was scarcely sufficient. It stated this—that the contract entered into should be sent to each member of the Board, giving him notice. If, in addition to that, the intention of the Board to enter into the contract were advertised, so that the people of the neighbourhood might know what was being done, and be familiar with the terms of the arrangement as well as the members of the Board, that would secure that the matter would be properly handled in the interests of the locality.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he was not disposed to comply with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney).
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 38; Noes 9: Majority 29. — (Div. List, No. 229.)
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he had several other Amendments on the Paper of a character similar to the one just disposed of; but after this decision of the Committee it would be useless to proceed with them. The principle involved in each was the same. The question was whether or not these bodies should have power to sell, purchase, or lease from their officers; and as the point of sale had been determined, and the difference between that and the others was very slight, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a further division. He had, however, another Amendment to propose in page 1, line 18, after the word "authority," to insert the words—
Provided the price agreed on be a fair market price; and, in case it is not so, the members of the board who voted for the contract shall be liable to make good to the ratepayers the amount of loss to the ratepayers, from the fact that the price was not a fair one. Amount to be ascertained by means of an action brought by any ratepayer, either in County Court or High Court of Justice.792 He wished by this Amendment to give an opportunity to test the question as to whether or not transactions under the Bill were bond fide by enabling ratepayers to bring actions in respect of them in the County Court or the High Court of Justice. Evidence would in this way have to be given as to the genuineness of the bargain, and to show whether the gentlemen engaged in it had acted in the interests of the ratepayers, or in their own interests.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 18, after the word "authority," to insert the words—"Provided the price agreed on be a fair market price; and, in case it is not so, the members of the hoard who voted for the contract shall be liable to make good to the ratepayers the amount of loss to the ratepayers, from the fact that the price was not a fair one. Amount to be ascertained by means of an action brought by any ratepayer, either in County Court or High Court of Justice."—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, he did not believe the hon. Member could be serious in moving this Amendment. It was difficult to get men of good standing to serve on these Local Boards as it was, and if this were passed it would be still more difficult. If these gentlemen did their best to make good bargains, they would still be at the mercy of every common informer who might choose to go against them and declare that the bargain was faulty. However good their intentions might be, they might be punished in a Court of Justice for what proved to be an unsatisfactory arrangement. He could not accept the proposal.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not think it was right to call "a ratepayer" a "common informer" if he desired to make sure that a transaction under the Bill was a bond fide transaction or not. They knew from observation and experience that nothing was more common than for underhand transactions to take place in connection with these public bodies, and he thought it would be extremely valuable to give the ratepayers the power of bringing these transactions to the test of a decision of a Court. It might be moved as an Amendment to his proposal that the ratepayer who brought an action against one of these public bodies must give security for costs. In this way a man who could 793 not substantiate his case, instead of making the Local Board suffer through his prosecution, would suffer himself. He did not think the promoters of the Bill should object to his Amendment.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, it would be undesirable to countenance such litigation as was proposed by the hon. Member. Those transactions would not be large matters; the question at issue in one case might be the hiring of a room which the Local Board might desire to have the use of for some public purpose. Due notice having been given, and a majority of two-thirds of the Board having assented to the transaction, there might be litigation at the suggestion or instance of anyone who might be dissatisfied with the vote of the Board—it might be at the instance of a member of the Board who did not agree with the vote of the majority of his colleagues against him. To allow parties to be brought into Court in this way from a bad motive or no motive at all would serve no useful purpose. The object the hon. Member had in view was to give a proper public safeguard, and he (the Attorney General) believed that if the clause in the Bill were passed in its present form that object would be attained.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, there would be no safeguard whatever. There was nothing deserving the name of public opinion in these small places managed by Local Boards, and no means of obtaining an expression of opinion from the ratepayers. Some small lots of shopkeepers in these country villages got themselves nominated and put on these Boards, and unless there were some means of investigating their conduct in a Court of Law, there would be nothing to prevent them from grossly abusing the powers contained in the Bill.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in the intention he had declared of carrying this Amendment to a division, for it was obvious he had no chance of gaining anything by it. At the same time, he (Mr. A. O'Connor) thought the Committee had failed to appreciate the importance of much that the hon. Gentleman had urged. It was a matter of notoriety that in certain parishes in Birmingham—and, no doubt, it was even worse in small Provincial places where 794 there were a couple of Local Boards, the members of which were precluded from entering into these business transactions with the Boards—the contracts and little jobs which the one authority had to do were given to the members of the other. If, for instance, there was a Vestry in one place and a Board of Guardians in another, this plan might be, and in many cases was, adopted. The members of these Local Boards were, as a rule, a lot of small tradesmen who met in a public-house parlour once a-week and arranged the contracts for the parish. The work of the Vestry would be handed over to the members of the Board of Guardians, and the work of the Board of Guardians would be handed over to the members of the Vestry. In this way every little thing would be arranged for from time to time. There was nothing in this Bill, so far as he could see, to prevent an extension of this system; and he thought it would be only reasonable to allow some independent ratepayer in a parish an opportunity of having transactions of this kind, which he might consider fairly open to attack, made the subject of investigation before a legal tribunal. He remembered hearing of a case in London in which a certain amount of property had been transferred to a Board of Guardians by one of the members of the Board. Everyone knew that this gentleman had himself been instrumental in arranging the transfer; and it was matter of notoriety that he had been by no means a personal loser by the transaction. That sort of thing was reproduced by dozens and scores, and what was done in London was probably done in a great many other centres in the country. There was, he thought, a great deal to be said for giving an independent ratepayer an opportunity of challenging a proceeding of this kind. It was obvious, however, that if the Amendment were pressed to a division, those in a favour of it would only be half-a-dozen in one Lobby against five or six times as many in the other. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Biggar) would not effect anything useful by taking the opinion of the Committee on the question.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that what he desired to do was to put on the Government the responsibility for this new law, which would give Local Boards the power of plundering the ratepayers 795 in this unblushing manner. If the Government were content to accept the responsibility, well and good. He should, however, press his Amendment to a division.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 9; Noes 36: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 230.)
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not propose to move the Amendments standing in his name; but he would propose another to carry out the suggestion he had made to the Committee a short time ago. He wished to provide, not that notice should be sent to the members of the Board, but that it should be publicly given. He would propose, after "notice," in line 27, to insert—
Shall have been published in some newspaper circulating in the neighbourhood, and.The clause would run—At a meeting held after seven days' clear notice shall have been published in some newspaper circulating in the neighbourhood, and shall have been sent in writing to every member, "&c.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 27, after the word "notice," to insert the words "shall have been published in some newspaper circulating in the neighbourhood, and."—(Mr. Courtney.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the ratepayers, as a matter of fact, would get no notice at all, because the notice would appear in a newspaper that no one ever read. He did not see that there was much use in the Amendment.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Restriction on recovery of penalties).
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that under the Act it was competent to any person to bring an action for the recovery of the penalties; but this clause of the Bill proposed that no action should be brought except with the consent in writing of the Attorney General. He was aware that there were many cases in which the consent of the Attorney General was required; but he did not think that in this case the Attorney General should be charged with the delicate power of determining whether 796 a person should be charged in cases which often involved political considerations. Among other cases, there might be actions with respect to newspaper rights, and the action of the Attorney General in consenting or not consenting might be criticized as being the result of political friendship or otherwise. He did not think the Attorney General should be made a party to the bringing of actions under the Act. He was prepared to accept the substitution of the words "Public Prosecutor" for "Attorney General." The former was a public officer, and he thought his judgment in matters of this kind might be trusted. He should therefore begin by moving the omission of the words "Attorney General," in order to make the substitution he proposed.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 3, to leave out the words "Attorney General," and insert the words "Public Prosecutor."—(Mr. Courtney.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, that the consent of the Attorney General had already been imported into the Act of last year. There was, therefore, nothing new in the Bill, so far as that provision was concerned. He did not think it would be well to introduce into this measure the consent of the Public Prosecutor. There was a possibility of members and officers being liable to heavy penalties, even when they acted in good faith; and therefore, for obvious reasons, he said they ought to retain the words which made the Attorney General a consenting party to the bringing of an action for the recovery of such penalties.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that with regard to cases under this Bill, the mere certificate of counsel would be all that was necessary; but he thought that the substitution of the Public Prosecutor for the Attorney General would make the bringing of actions more difficult. The activity of the Public Prosecutor had certainly not been manifested in any degree, and sometimes his consent could not be got at all. In practice, therefore, he thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) would defeat the very object he had in view.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would not go into the merits of the two officers. He wished to point out that cases of this kind often gave rise to discussion on the character of the action of the Attorney General. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) had argued on the position of the Office of Public Prosecutor as it was last year; but it should be remembered that it now stood in quite a different position. He thought it was an error to intrust the initiation of an action to the Attorney General in these cases, and so much so that he was desirous of taking the sense of the Committee on the clause, although he was quite ready to make the compromise he had suggested. The hon. Member opposite had said that a large sum might be recoverable in case of action in this matter; but he (Mr. Courtney) did not see why it should not be permissible to the Judge to rule that the damages should not exceed £50, so that, if necessary, that sum should be awarded in all cases. If the Government did not agree to the compromise he had suggested, he should feel it his duty to object to the clause altogether.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he had had considerable experience of actions brought in cases of this kind, and he recollected that in two or three instances the Judges at the trial had stated that there had been no moral offence of any sort or kind, or any improper conduct on the part of the defendant, and that they regretted there was no authority whose consent was necessary before proceedings could be taken. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor), he did not think there was anything to warrant the belief that an amount of jobbery would go on as the hon. Member had suggested. He could not consent to the Public Prosecutor being substituted in this case for the Attorney General; he desired to call the attention of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) to the fact that Section 25 of the Act of last year provided that proceedings for recovery under the Act should not be taken without the consent of the Attorney General. As to the ruling of the Judge in these cases, the suggestion which the hon. Member had made was, he said, inapplicable. There must be something in the nature of a penalty to be suffered 798 by the defendant who had been guilty of an offence. He thought it would be very desirable not to divide the authority responsible for proceedings being taken, and he did not believe there would be the slightest difficulty in obtaining a thoroughly impartial decision in cases of the kind from the Attorney General, whatever Government he might represent. Although it was possible that in some rare cases political feelings might come in, he should think the result, in such a case, would rather be in favour of giving permission than withholding it. He could not accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liskeard, because he had the strongest feeling that the Attorney General in years gone by had always acted in the most impartial manner, and had always decided the cases submitted to him on their merits. Inasmuch as this was a small matter, and inasmuch as the general question was going to be raised hereafter on a larger Bill, he asked the Committee to confirm the view that the Attorney General was the proper person to authorize these proceedings.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Remaining clause agreed to.
§ Bill reported, as amended; to be considered upon Monday next.