HC Deb 20 May 1887 vol 315 cc790-802

Order for Second Reading read.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)

I am extremely glad that I have at last obtained the opportunity of asking the House to give a second reading to this Bill, and I hope there will be no opposition to it. At the same time, I feel it is right that I should very briefly state to the House what the object of the Bill is, and what it is proposed to do. The object of this Bill is to give effect to a promise which was given last year when the Estimates were being discussed, and when considerable objection was taken to a continuance of the payment of the expenses of the Parks of the Metropolis by the taxpayers of the country. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), amongst others, objected strongly to this, and there was a Division adverse to the Vote on that occasion—that is to say, adverse to the maintenance of the Parks at the cost of the taxpayers. On a subsequent occasion, it was agreed that the Vote would not be opposed, as to the Parks which are known as Royal Parks, on a pledge being given that the other Parks were excluded from the Vote, and accordingly a Bill was brought in last year for the purpose of giving effect to that pledge. Unfortunately, that Bill miscarried, and did not become an Act of Parliament; and this year, as early as we could, the Bill which I have now to ask a second reading for was introduced in this House. The objects of the Bill are, very shortly, as follows. They are to transfer certain Parks and other works to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and to provide that in future they shall be maintained at the expense of the ratepayers of the Metropolis, instead of at the expense of the taxpayers of the country. The Parks and the works which it is proposed to transfer in this way are set out in the Schedule of this Bill, and they are Victoria Park, Battersea Park, Kenning-ton Park, Bethnal Green, Westminster Bridge, and the Thames Embankment at Chelsea, These are the Parks and works which it is proposed by this Bill to transfer to the Metropolitan Board of Works, so that in future the expense of maintaining them shall be borne by the ratepayers of the Metropolis, and no longer by the taxpayers of the Kingdom. I do not know that the principle of this Bill will be disputed in any quarter of the House; but I know that objections have been taken to the fact that one of these Parks—that is to say, Battersea Park—is charged with a considerable sum of money—a sum of £133,000 of debt. But, on the other hand, we propose in this Bill to transfer to the Metropolitan Board of Works along with this debt an estate which at the present time produces £4,500 a-year from ground rents, and which will, we believe, in a few years produce the much larger sum of £6,800 a-year. We believe that this would not be a bad bargain for the Metropolitan Board of Works to make. At the same time, as I have informed the House, in answer to Questions which have been put to mo on the subject, if those who represent the interests of the Metropolitan Board of Works should prefer to have it in the other way—that is to say, that we should simply hand over the Battersea Park to the Metropolitan Board of Works, discharged of the debt, and without the estate, we should amend the Bill in that way, and the natural result would be as follows:—that is to say, we keep the estate from which a very large income is derived, and we keep the debt; but we hand over the Park without the estate and without the debt. We believe that the way in which it is proposed by the Bill—that is to say, to give the Park with the debt to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the estate which produces the income I have mentioned—-would not be a bad bargain for the Metropolitan Board of Works. On the other hand, if they prefer to take the other way—to take over the Park without the debt, and without the estate which produces the income I have mentioned, we shall not resist such an Amendment if it is proposed. Therefore, the Metroplitan Board of Works will have its own way. I have only to state that the natural result of the Bill will then be as follows. There will be properties transferred which, in order to place them in their present position, would involve a capital expenditure of £493,500, against an annual expenditure of £19,300—that is to say, an annual expenditure for keeping up and maintaining these works. I do not know that the House would wish me at the present time to go through more particularly the section of the Bill. I think I have stated generally the provisions of the Bill, and when we come to discuss the matter in Committee, it can be more fully gone into. Sir, I hope that on the present occasion the House will allow the second reading of this Bill. I move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now road a second time."—(Mr. Plunket.)

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG (Middlesex, Hornsey)

I do not wish in any way to oppose my right hon. Friend's Motion; but I must say that I am taken very considerably at a disadvantage. I did not think that this Bill would be brought on just now, and it is my misfortune that I have not brought any notes down to the House with me. With regard to what advantage the Metropolitan ratepayers may get, I may just remark this—that it is rather hard on the ratepayers of the Metropolis to say they get a very good bargain. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he would accede to the Motion I have put down, that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. [Mr. PLUNKET indicated assent.] Very well, that being so, I think I shall not waste the time of the House, but agree to the second reading of the Bill, on the understanding that it shall be referred to a Select Committee.

MR. PLUNKET

I have no objection to that course.

MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

Before the Bill is disposed of in the very agreeable manner suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James McGarel-Hogg), I think there should be an expression of opinion from the general body of the House as to the position in which the whole question stands. I may point out that parks are not peculiar to London. There is now hardly a town of any magnitude or enterprise in the United Kingdom which is not provided with parks quite as large in proportion as those in the Metropolis. Now, Sir, what are the means out of which, these parks have been provided? Unless it be by the private munificence of individuals, there is only one method available whereby the ratepayers can provide themselves with the necessary funds. Recourse is had to the practice of borrowing on the rates of the town, and the ratepayers are made liable for the repayment of principal and interest. I suppose it will scarcely be contended in any part of the House that these parks are worth the money that they have cost; and if the whole charge of the London Parks was thrown upon the Metropolis, the Metropolis would be in precisely the same position as any other town or city in the United Kingdom wishing to provide itself with similar advantages. No doubt the error in the past has been that Parliament has taken upon itself to provide the Metropolis, free of charge, with these enormous advantages. But, fortunately, the representatives of the general taxpayers of the country have risen to protest against a continuance of the practice. I do not see any necessity why an estate to the value of £178,000 should be handed over to the Metropolis in order to induce the Metropolis to take over these Parks. What is the fund to which the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) refers? I suppose it is really now a national estate; and, because Parliament is handing over to the Metropolis property which is costing the Board £493,000, I do not see any necessity for the additional gift of an estate now bringing in over £4,000 a-year, and which will shortly be bringing in over £7,000 a-year. It is true that these Parks will require an annual charge on the Metropolis for their maintenance; but there is no peculiarity in that. There is an annual charge on every Provincial Park in the country, and I do not see why the Metropolis should have exceptional privileges in this respect. After the transfer of these Parks and the annual charges in relation thereto, there will still remain several Parks in London in regard to which the Metropolis will enjoy exclusive advantages, and in regard to which the annual charge will remain upon the taxation of the country at large. The Metropolis has the exclusive benefit of the Royal Parks, and I do not see why the cost of their maintenance should be a general charge upon the taxpayer. The ownership of the Royal Parks might remain with the State as at present; but, so long as they are for the sole benefit of the Metropolis, I think the least that can be done is to make the Metropolis liable for their maintenance. I do not hesitate to say that any other city in this country would be only too pleased to take over any public property on the same conditions. At any rate, as representing a Provincial constituency, I wish to enter my protest against handing over this additional estate in order to sweeten the gift to the Metropolis.

SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE (Kensington, N.)

I do not propose to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice, because I am of opinion that the suggestion of the right hon. Member for the Hornsey Division of Middlesex (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) will answer the purpose I had in view. I wish, as a Metropolitan Member, to protest against additional burdens being placed upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis in consequence of what was little else than a snap Division taken at an unreasonable hour last Session. The ratepayers of London are already notoriously overburdened, and I think it is hard, under these circumstances, that they should be made responsible for additional charges. If new burdens are to be imposed on the ratepayers in London, I think any fund so raised might be applied to the purpose of obtaining new open spaces for the benefit of the poor. It must be remembered that the circumstances of London are entirely different from those of most of the Provincial towns. I venture to submit to the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) that in the case of any ordinary Provincial town the ratepayers are within easy reach of the suburbs, and are not called upon to find any rates to keep up those suburbs. Even in the larger Provincial towns the poor are not so entirely shut out from access to the suburbs as they are in London. I took part only last week in the opening of a recreation ground in the borough which I have the honour to represent. This recreation ground is at a considerable distance from any one of the existing Metropolitan Parks, and it was universally agreed on that occasion that until this open space was provided, the poor of the neighbourhood were absolutely precluded from taking advantage of those green spaces which are the lungs of London. I trust that Members who sit for Provincial constituencies will consider the peculiar circumstances of the ratepayers and of the poor of London; and that they will, at any rate, consent to the very moderate proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Hornsey Division of Middlesex (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

MR. JAMES ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

Speaking as one of the Metropolitan Liberal Members, I may say that, inasmuch as the Government have consented to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, I have no intention of opposing the second reading. I do not quite understand the drift of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth). Either we have no right to be burdened with the cost of Battersea Park, or if we have a right to be so burdened we have a right to any source of income which appertains to it. The estate to which reference has been made distinctly belongs to Battersea Park, and I, for one, shall fight against any proposal to throw the charge on the rates, unless we also have the estate or some equivalent for it. I should also like to point out that London is in an entirely different position from Provincial towns in reference to the control which the ratepayers exercise over local affairs. If the Metropolis had the same kind of municipal authority as Bradford or Manchester, we might be more ready to assume responsibilities of this kind. I do not intend to trouble the House further at this late hour of the evening, except to say that I hope the ratepayers of London will be given an opportunity of expressing their views before the Select Committee suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

I entirely agree with the principle of this Bill; and I should like to know whether, under the terms of the Reference to a Select Committee, it will be open to the Metropolitan Board of Works to object to that principle? If so, I shall strongly oppose such. Reference. If it is proposed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee for the consideration of details, assuming the principle to have been agreed upon by this House, then I shall have no objection to the course proposed. With regard to the suggestion of my hon. Friend and Colleague the Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), that the Metropolitan Board of Works should be charged to the original cost of these Parks, or at all events, should not, on the other hand, take the estate which the Government proposed to transfer to the Parks, I cannot agree with him. No doubt, by this Bill we are going to impose a burden of a considerable character upon the Metropolitan Board; but my hon. Friend does not recollect, or does not know, that the City of London does not receive its contribution of half the cost of its police. If the Metropolis had its local government, the same as Provincial towns, that contribution would have to be paid; and the amount would not be far short of the charge we are now imposing. Another question that occurs to me is, whether this would not be a good opportunity for handing over to the Metropolitan Board that very inconvenient property—Brompton Cemetery. It is obvious that the income of that cemetery will drop through before long, and some authority ought to be in a position to buy land to replace it when it is filled. I cannot but think that this would be a good opportunity for settling the question on a more satisfactory basis.

MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

I wish to ask whether it would be competent for the Committee, if appointed, to take into consideration the excising from the Schedule of any of the Parks, or the adding of parks which are not included in the Schedule? The constituency which I represent includes Wimbledon Common, an open space dedicated to the public at large; but the expense of maintaining which is borne entirely by the district of which it is a part. If this Bill is passed in the form in which it is proposed, it will have the effect of throwing upon my constituency a portion of the maintenance of the parks scheduled, in addition to the burden we now have to bear in respect of Wimbledon Common. It seems to me that we have an equitable right to set off the special burdens already imposed upon us by legislation affecting the Common against the charge which the Bill would throw upon us in regard to the Parks generally, and if we are not to be admitted before the Committee to raise this case, I shall feel it my duty to oppose the measure. The Bill has taken its rise from an objection urged in the time of the late Government to two or three Votes for the expense of the maintenance of these Parks; and it seems to me that when it is committed, powers ought to be given to the Committee for the consideration of special circumstances affecting any particular part of the Metropolis.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Kimber) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) are not quite accurate in their historical recollection of this question. They assumed that when the question was raised in Parliament in 1885, that was the first occasion on which this matter had been raised, and that it was the decision of that evening which has produced this change of policy on the part of the Government. It was nothing of the sort. This question has been raised for many years in the House of Commons on the Estimates, and there has been a growing feeling year after year that the time has arrived when London ought to defray the cost of its own Parks in the same manner as Liverpool, Manchester, and the other large towns of the Kingdom defray the cost of their Parks. The question was not decided on a snatch Division. I was responsible for the Vote on that occasion, and I believe it was one of the largest Divisions that has over taken plane in Supply. Moreover, the feeling in the House was so strong, that they not only rejected the Votes for the ordinary London Parks, but attempted to put pressure on the Government in the same way in reference to the Royal Parks. It was impossible to assent to the rejection of the Vote for the Royal Parks, as that would have been a breach of the contract made with Her Majesty when she ascended the Throne; but the Government only obtained the Vote on the distinct pledge that the cost of what might be called the London Parks proper should be thrown upon the ratepayers of London. London is not only the wealthiest city in this Empire, but one of the lowest rated. The burden proposed to be put on the Metropolitan Board of Works is one-sixth of a penny. Now, I ask any hon. Gentleman who represent English, or Scotch, or Irish municipalities if they know of any Park which is kept up at a cost of one-sixth of a penny? I think the proposition of the Government is fair and just, and I think the good sense of the Metropolitan Members will cause them to see that the time has come when this burden should be put upon the proper shoulders. I agree that there are matters of detail connected with the Bill which a Select Committee is the proper tribunal to deal with, and I would go further and say that the position of the Battersea Debt and Estate is also a question for the Committee; but I object strongly to the question of public policy involved in the Preamble of the Bill being referred to a Select Committee of five Members. That is a question of Government policy. Two administrations have now declared in this House that the time has arrived for transferring the cost of these Parks from the State to the Metropolis; and it should be distinctly understood that in assenting to this Motion for a Select Committee we are only assenting to the reference to the Committee of the details by which this scheme can be carried out.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

The position in which we stand in the North of London is that we are farther from the Parks than most people. I look, however, upon the maintenance of the Parks as a matter of local taxation, and I think London is rich enough to pay for its own Parks. At the present time, when all parts of the country are overburdened with taxation, we in London should set the example to other districts of bearing our own burdens in the way proposed by the Bill.

MR. LABOUCHEEE (Northampton)

I suppose it will be made quite clear that the question of principle in regard to the Bill will not be raised before the Select Committee. I should also like to know whether the Board of Works will be entitled to appear by counsel before the Committee as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Board (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), who, I presume, would be represented by counsel as the promoter of the Bill. With regard to the Bill itself, I think it is a fair and legitimate compromise; and if the Metropolitan Members look into it they will see that they will do well to accept it in its entirety instead of raising points, because they must remember that points may also be raised on the other side. It has been suggested that the Committee should have power to strike out any of the Parks included in the Schedule. If that was the case, power should also be given to insert Parks. I presume this would be done.

CAPTAIN COLOMB&c.) (Tower Hamlets, Bow,

I wish to point to one defect in this Bill, and I should like to have some assurance that the matter will be dealt with by the Committee. The case to which I allude is that of Victoria Park, in the East of London. Victoria Park was created a Royal Park, and made over to the Crown in 1841. I will read a few words from the Act of that year relating to the subject, because they are important as showing that this was intended to be a Royal Park for ever— And such lands and hereditaments, when purchased, to be conveyed and assured to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, and when so conveyed, shall if ever thereafter be taken to be a Royal Park, by the name of 'Victoria Park,' and part and parcel of the possessions and land revenues of Her Majesty in right of the Crown; and all laws, provisions, and regulations now in force or hereafter to be in force with respect to Royal Parks, shall be taken to extend and apply to such Park, except that Her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works, and Buildings of the time being, may in such manner as by law is provided with regard to the hereditary reve- nues of the Crown (not being Royal Parks, lease any part of the said Royal Park,&c. That raises a very material point. I cannot myself perceive on what ground a Royal Park in the industrial portion of London is to be transferred to the rates, and I should like some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) that this is a subject which requires some investigation at the hands of the Committee, and that the Committee will have powers to deal with the point. I should not raise the question, but there is a very strong, and I think, justifiably strong feeling, that it is wrong to throw upon the ratepayers the cost of maintaining this Royal Park in a crowded part of London, while three Royal Parks in other and wealthier parts of London are chargeable on the Imperial Exchequer.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

I hope that we shall have an answer to the question which has been asked by my hon. and gallant Friend. There seems to be no difficulty with regard to the second reading. What we want to know is the scope of the reference to the Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman opposite appears to acquiesce in the proposal of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg); but if I construe this Reference correctly, it means that all Petitions are to be heard against the Bill, but none in its favour. If they may be heard against the Bill, I suppose they may be heard against any part of it or against the principle. Does the Government accept the Amendment on the Paper?

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREA-SURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

The right hon. Gentleman must know that when a Bill is referred to a Select Committee of this kind it is referred without restriction. The Select Committee will, no doubt, have the power, if it chooses to exercise it, to recommend the House to pass the Bill, or reject it, or to alter or amend it. But, of course, the whole matter will be in the discretion of the House. Four Members of the Select Committee will be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection. There are thus to be seven Members in all. The House, therefore, in the first place, has a control over the appointment of the Committee, and can take care that it fairly represents the general opinion of the House The opinion of the Government is that as the House has accepted the second reading it has approved of the principle of the Bill; but I may further remind the House that if the Committee were to take the course which has been suggested, and which would be most unusual, the House would have full power to deal with the Bill when it came back from the Committee. The House is not going to part with any of its powers. It has affirmed a principle, and the Government intend to stand by the principle. I hope, therefore, the Motion for the second reading will be agreed to. My hon. and gallant Friend spoke about Victoria Park being a Royal Park. Well, it is not a Royal Park in the sense in which the other Parks which are known by that title are Royal Parks. The other Royal Parks are parks that at certain times were exchanged for Royal property. Victoria Park is not in that position, and, therefore, I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend will consider that it is at all in the same category as the other Royal Parks.

MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

I should only like to say one word on behalf of the Metropolitan Members on this side of the House. We most readily assent to the second reading, subject to the conditions of reference agreed to by the Government. As to the statement made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), that in a sense the ratepayers of London are receiving a present of the capital expended on these Parks, that is only true to a very limited extent, and on the understanding that we had actually no voice in the spending of the money. We did not have even the slight and indirect control which we are able to exercise over the Metropolitan Board of Works.

MR. ISAACS (Newington, Walworth)

Will the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) kindly say whether the Committee will have power to enlarge the number of properties mentioned in the Bill, or to omit any from the list?

MR. JACKSON

As I understand the matter, the Committee will have no power to introduce into the Bill any other properties than those now mentioned in it, except on a special Instruction given by the House.

MR. KIMBER

Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for your direction as to whether, assuming that the ratepayers of Wands-worth wish to place their case before the Committee on the Bill, their locus standi could be objected to? I understand the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to intimate that he does not know, and I should like to hear from the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney) whether a Petition from thorn to the Select Committee would hold good? I only wish my constituents to be heard. I assent to the principle of the Bill, which, I admit, is reasonable; but I say that we in Wandsworth have an equitable claim.

MR. SPEAKER

In reply to the hon. Member's question, I can only say that the Committee will, of course, decide its own locus standi.

MR. KIMBER

Then do I understand that to make it clear I ought to move a special Instruction to the Committee?

MR. SPEAKER

It would be most unusual to fetter the Committee with an Instruction in the sense which the hon. Member refers to. It would be utterly without example.

MR. KIMBER

I am afraid I have not made myself understood. I wish in no case to object to the Preamble of the Bill. I only desire to get a hearing. I do not wish to fetter the Committee.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

I would advise the hon. Member not to persevere with his intention. This is a Bill to settle relations between the Government and the Metropolis. The question the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise is really foreign to this Bill altogether.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill, presented two clear days before the meeting of the Committee, be referred to the Committee that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be hoard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill. Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records. Ordered, That Three be the quorum.