§ Bill as amended, considered.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (Chelsea)I beg to move the following new Clause:—
§
(Grouping of streets.)
When the sanitary authority intend to sewer two or more streets by a series of connected sewers, they may, if they think fit, group such streets together for the purposes of the construction of sewerage works under this Act, and such works shall thereupon be deemed to be one street for the purposes connected with the apportionment of the expenses of the sewerage works therein.
I move this clause to carry out the objections which were made by myself and another hon. Member when this Bill was in Committee. There are frequent cases of hardship arising where streets are sewered together, and when, in consequence of other streets draining down into a large sewer running through one particular street, it is found necessary to enlarge the latter. In those cases the cost is charged on the particular street in which the larger sewer is made, and that, of course, is exceedingly hard. I shall not insist on the exact words which I have on the Paper; but I believe my right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) has been advised that the principle is not necessary at all. I do not object to the words being left out; but as regards the principle, I wish to ask the House to consider it. The contention of the right hon. Member is that it would necessitate special rates in regard to each sewer, and that the Local Authority would get the cost of the larger sewers from the general rates. I do not think, however, that that will be done. My right hon. Friend thinks there would be great difficulty in the grouping which I suggest; but I have gone into that matter with competent surveyors, and I am bound to say that there is no great difficulty in the matter, because in all the various contracts the work in the different streets has already to be worked out separately. That is bound to be the
974
case, because no one man takes all the works. Therefore, they are separated already; and although there seems to be a clerical difficulty, it is not a real one. This matter is not an imaginary grievance; for I may mention that in the case of Chiswick there has been a cost of 10 per cent additional put on some of the streets above any benefit that they receive from the sewer in respect of which they are charged. That cost might have been put on the whole rate, but no Sanitary Authority is likely to do that.
§ New Clause (Grouping of streets,)—(Sir Charles W. Dilke,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVEENMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)My objection to the right hon. Gentleman's clause is that I think it would be impolitic and I think it would be unjust. The common sewer ought to be charged for out of the local rates; but my right hon. Friend says that will not be done. But I say that under this Bill there is great and peculiar facility given for resisting any increased charge that would otherwise be made. I think that the expenses chargeable against the owners of private property ought to be restricted to the exact amount of benefit that they derive from the works done. I think they are not without their remedy under the Bill as it stands, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)I desire to move the following new Clause after Clause 13:—
§
(Exemption of premises of Railway or Canal Company having no communication with street.)
No Railway or Canal Company shall be liable to any expenses under this Act in respect of any of their premises fronting, adjoining, or abutting on any street, if such premises are used solely for the purposes of their Railway or Canal undertaking, and have no communication with such street, but in the event of a communication being made with such street at any time after the expenses of any private street works in respect thereof shall have been apportioned under this Act, the Railway or Canal Company making such communication shall pay to the sanitary authority the amount which, but for the provi-
975
sions of this section, they would, in the first instance, have been liable to pay, and the sanitary authority shall divide such amount among the owners for the time being of the other premises, according to the proportions in which the original expenses were divided amongst them in the final apportionment made under this Act.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Stansfeld) will be able to accept it. It is for the purpose of excluding specifically certain railway property and canal property, which, under no possible arrangement, can have any advantage or derive any benefit from streets made either alongside or connected with the railways or canals, and to which the Companies have no access. I believe it has been said that Clause 7 makes provision for these cases. In fact, it gives the authorities the power in apportioning the expenses to take into account the greater or less amount of use that is made of the street. But I would point out that a great many cases of undoubted hardship have arisen, and many Railway Companies have been called upon to pay many thousands of pounds to defray the expense of street improvements from which they have received no advantage. It should be borne in mind that this is not a question as between the Railway Companies and the general public or the ratepayers, but it is really and only a question as between particular owners of property who have benefited by the laying out of particular streets. I think that the principle of the Bill is that private street improvements of this kind ought to be charged on the party who is benefited in the particular street. This clause will in specific terms carry out that which I believe the hon. Member who is responsible for this Bill (Mr. Dodds) intends should be carried out in regard to the power to be given to the Local Authority, and which, I think, it is not at all clear is carried out in the the Bill as it stands. I would remind the House also that the principle is admitted in the Bill that a greater or less degree of benefit should be taken into account; and I would point out that there are at least 17 Private Bills in which I know that this clause has been introduced. I would also inform hon. Members that quite recently the Police and Sanitary Committee sitting upstairs upon the Carlisle Police and Improve-
976
ment Bill admitted this clause. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] Somebody says "No;" but it is quite clear that the Committee did accept on that Bill a clause which, if not in the same words as this clause, is for all practical purposes the same. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no.] The hon. Member who says "No, no," will probably inform the House in what sense the clause introduced into the Carlisle Bill differs from that which I have proposed. I will not trespass further on the time of the House, but will content myself with asking the House to accept my clause.
§ New Clause (Exemption of premises of Railway or Canal Company having no communication with street,)—(Mr. Jackson,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ MR. FORWOOD (Lancashire, Ormskirk)Before the House consents to read this clause a second time, I hope the House will allow me to explain that, by accepting it, they will be reversing a principle already affirmed by the House through the Police and Sanitary Committee. The question came before that Committee, and it was pointed out that, if a factory were built adjoining the street, that factory would have to contribute to the expenses of the street; but if a Railway Company made large locomotive works, they would be exempt. A real grievance only arises where the Railway Companies have streets made beside their lines or sidings; and therefore the Sanitary Committee struck out the word "premises," and inserted the words "lines or sidings." Therefore, I hope the House will not accept this Amendment.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)I would point out to the hon. Member that Clause 4 provides for the contingency he has suggested. In Clause 4 it is provided that owners may object to the proposals of the Sanitary Authority if they allege that the premises ought to be excluded from the apportionment.
§ MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)I would remind the House that in the clause of my hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson) there is a direction which is commanda- 977 tory that these premises should be excluded; but in the clause in the Bill that is not so. If the clause in the Bill stands as it is, the Companies will find themselves rated in respect of streets from which they receive no benefit whatever.
§ Question put, and negatived.
MR. CARBUTT&c.) (Monmouth,I beg to move, in Clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end, to add—
'Owner,' in addition to having the meaning assigned to it by 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' shall, where the lands or premises fronting, adjoining, or abutting upon any street are held upon a building lease having less than twenty years to run, subject to a ground rent, include the freeholder or lessor, who shall become liable to be charged with the expenses of executing the private street works jointly with the 'owner,' as defined in 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' and in proportion to the benefit to be derived by him from such private street improvements, regard being had not only to the ground rent payable to him, but also to the number of years remaining unexpired under the building lease.
§ THE CHAIRMANIs the hon. Member moving a new clause?
§ MR. CARBUTTIt is on the Paper. The question deals with houses built on leasehold property where the houses are on very short leases. In such cases the expenses of street improvements come on the lessee, and the lessor has nothing to pay. What I say is, that the expenses should be proportionately divided between them.
§ THE CHAIRMANI understand the hon. Member is substituting another Amendment for that on the Paper.
§ MR. CARBUTTI am now moving the Amendment on the Paper; but if that is accepted, I understand the Government desire me to move certain words as an Amendment to it.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)This is not the Amendment which I understood my hon. Friend was going to move. It is one which was rejected in the Committee, and I also object to its introduction in the Bill.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 112: Majority 23.—(Div. List, No, 121.)
978§ On Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, the following Amendment made:—Clause 3, page 2, line 29, leave out "or made good or is not," and insert "made good and."
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 39, after the word "respectively," to insert the words—
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (Chelsea)The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member would undo what we did in Committee, and, therefore, I cannot support it. I had previously moved the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson). The hon. Member was not present, and I did so simply for the purpose of raising discussion. There are cases in which a single owner can object, and also cases where the majority of owners can raise an objection. The hon. Member for Leeds had put on the Paper an Amendment which would have in all cases allowed a single owner to make objection. I withdrew the Amendment. I pointed out in the Committee the very considerable hardships which would ensue if the clause were accepted in its original form. As I have said, the hon. Member is now seeking to undo what we did in Committee. I do not know whether the hon. Member agrees with me, but, certainly, I feel inclined to take a division.
§ MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)The transposition of the words suggested would make the matter subject to the majority of owners, whereas in the form they are in at present any owner may make an objection. I think that is a very material point.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)I do not see sufficient reason to hark back to the Amendment rejected in Committee, and, therefore, I shall support the view of the right hon. Baronet.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)I beg to move, in Clause 7, page 6, line 14, after the word "but," to omit the words— 979
The sanitary authority may, if they think it just, resolve that.The effect of this omission would be to render the clause much more definite than it is at present, and to express more clearly the intention the clause is designed to express. I believe the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, in Clause 7, page 6, line 14, after the word "but," to leave out the words "the sanitary authority may, if they think it just, resolve that."—(Mr. Jackson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)I have considered these words since my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Jackson) spoke to me on the subject, and I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. It would limit the power of the Sanitary Authority in the exercise of their discretion. I would point out that Railway Companies and others, if they do not approve of the apportionment of the expenses by the Sanitary Authority, have the power of appealing.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)The hon. Member behind me (Mr. Dodds) has not, I think, understood the proposal. It not only leaves the Sanitary Authority at liberty in settling the apportionment to have regard to the "considerations" contained in the clause, but it absolutely directs them to do so.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (Chelsea)Is the hon. Member in charge of the Bill satisfied with the way the clause reads now? If he is, well and good.
§ On Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, the following Amendment made:—Clause 10, page 8, line 40, at end, insert "except quit rents and Crown debts."
§ MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Nottingham, S.)I beg to propose to amend Clause 10, by adding, at the end—
This provision shall apply in all cases where notices or orders have been already given or made, or works executed under 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' in regard to all expenses which have not been actually already paid by the owner, as well as where they may hereafter be given, made, or executed under the Act.980 I move the addition in consequence of a decision given in December last in the case of "Wright v. Ingle." Prior to that it was assumed that the 151st section of the Public Health Act exempted chapels from the operation of the Statute; but since that decision it has been suggested that, though ministers are exempt, trustees are liable under the Definition Clause. The Bill has removed the doubt raised in that case. So far it is very satisfactory, and I am only asking that those persons on whom claims have been made shall be put in the same position as all other parties will be in when this Bill has become law.
§
Amendment proposed, in Clause 13, page 10, at end, insert—
This provision shall apply in all cases where notices or orders have been already given or made, or works executed under 'The Public Health Act, 1876,' in regard to all expenses which have not been actually already paid by the owner, as well as where they may hereafter be given, made, or executed under the Act."—(Mr. Carvell Williams.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)It seems to me that the proposed addition is rather retrospective in its character, and is one that the House ought to be careful in accepting. I should prefer that the words be not accepted.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ On Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, the following Amendments made:—Clause 16, page 10, line 36, leave out "temporarily;" Clause 17, page 11, line 1, leave out "whether;" line 1, leave out "or interest;" line 3, after "works," insert "the cost of which has been defrayed out of a loan;" line 3, leave out "and interest;" line 4, leave out "any loan borrowed for the purpose of such works," and insert "such loan."
§ CAPTAIN COTTON (Cheshire, Wirral)The next two Amendments which stand on the Paper in my name have for their object simply to render one of the new clauses added to the Bill of the same scope as the remainder of the measure.
§ Amendment proposed, in Clause 21, page 13, line 7, leave out "of the urban," and insert "of the sanitary;" line 16, leave out "urban," and insert "sanitary."—(Captain Cotton.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
981§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)As the Bill meets with the general concurrence of the House, perhaps it will assent to the proposal that the Bill be now read a third time.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time,"—(Mr. Dodds,)—put, and agreed to.
§ Bill passed.