HC Deb 31 May 1889 vol 336 cc1544-82

Order for Second Reading, read.

Motion made and question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen)

I would have been extremely glad. if the Government had given such an indication of their views in the sense desired unanimously by the Scotch hon. Members as would have dispensed with the necessity of making a single observation on the Second Reading of this Bill. When the first Bill was under the consideration of the House, I abstained from making any remark upon Bill No. 2, because I contemplated that an opportunity would be afforded in Committee of the whole House for the Scotch Members to deal with the very important points which were contained in the measure. We were told by the First Lord of the Treasury that he had made an arrangement with a Gentleman on the opposite side of the House, and arrived at what he calls an understanding. That is only another illustration of the old adage, that understandings are the cause of misunderstandings, because very few Members on this side of the House would for a moment have waived their right to discuss the Bill on the Second Reading except with the view of its being discussed by a Committee of the whole House. The course taken last night entirely alters the situation of affairs. The debate on the first Bill, which came in like a lamb, went out like a lion. I had hoped the Government meant to deal with the Scotch Members in an amiable spirit, that they would avoid all Party issues. and that they were prepared to frame their Bill in its detail as well as in its outline in accordance with Scotch opinion and not in accordance with English opinion. But the Irish Secretary's speech last night was an open declaration of war on the Scotch Members. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the proposal of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Munro Ferguson) on the ground that it would enable the majority of Scotch Members to express their opinions, and thereby put the Government in a difficulty. Under those circumstances, whatever might have been the terms of the understanding between the First Lord of the Treasury and the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), I cannot believe that understanding contemplated or provided for the state of facts that has now arisen. The Government have told us that the moment the Bill is read a Second time they intend to withdraw it from the control of the Scotch Members.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I may remind the hon. Gentleman that it is impossible for the Government to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee without a Motion in the House. That Motion will be made after the holidays. The Government still adhere to their intention to send the Bill to a Standing Committee.

MR. HUNTER

We cannot discuss the merits of the provisions of the Bill on such a Motion. That is the difficulty in which we are placed, and it is entirely due to the wholly un- necessary and misplaced obstinacy of the Government. Why do they not tell the House frankly that, having refused the proposal to refer both Bills to a Special Committee, they will take them before the Committee of the whole House? By the course the Government have taken I am placed in a somewhat difficult position. If, as a Scotch Member, I desire to enable my constituents to know the views I hold on the Bill, the only opportunity I have is on the Second Reading. The First Lord of the Treasury said the Bill contains no principles, but deals only with machinery; but, I think, if the right hon. Gentleman had read the measure, he would not have used the language he has employed. The Bill starts by saying that the Act should be construed as an Act with the Local Government Act, 1889, and that the two Acts may be cited as the Local Government Act, 1889. There is no more fruitful source of controversy and expense in the construction of Acts of Parliament than the habit of referring an Act to a previous Act, and asking the Courts to read the two Acts as one. The difficulty arises from this circumstance, that the Acts were passed by different persons at different times. They were passed under the influence of different ideas, and the inevitable result is that there is a strong conflict between the provisions of the two Acts; and consequently a series of legal conundrums are placed before the Judges. Against this the Courts of Law are continually protesting. Now, Sir, when the Government have to deal with an Act of a previous year it is, undoubtedly, almost necessary that they should adopt the form followed in this Bill, and incorporate the provisions of the former Act. The alternative is the re-enactment of the whole of the old Act. That would be a desirable course if the time of this House were sufficient for the purpose, but we know that, with our time so limited,no Government would undertake to submit to the House a proposition which has already been embodied in an Act of Parliament. The only reason which justifies such bad draftsmanship and bad legislation is wholly wanting in the present case, because these two Bills are going to be passed in the same Session, and ought to be considered by the same body. With -respect to the Boundary Commissioners, I think before this measure passes, we ought to hear from the Government the names of the gentlemen who are to exercise the very important and difficult powers contained in it on that subject. Could anything be more inconvenient either to the Courts of Law which have to construe these Acts or to the people of Scotland who have to read them than to find that, when they imagine they have made themselves acquainted with the powers of the County Council in Bill No. 1, there is another Act which introduces entirely new powers? The powers which are provided for here with respect to the appointment of medical officers and sanitary inspectors, contain one provision which will not, I believe, give satisfaction to many people in Scotland. It is provided that, "Except where the Board of Supervision, for reasons brought to their notice, may see fit in particular cases specially to allow, no person shall hereafter be appointed the Medical Officer of any county or district unless he be legally qualified for the practice of medicine and surgery. Now, Sir, why should the Board of Supervision be brought in? Surely the County Council, which will have the interests of its constituents most at heart, ought to be entrusted with the power of nominating its own officers without reference to a Board in Edinburgh, more especially when the constitution of that Board has been a matter of constant complaint. There is, indeed, no-body to which the people of Scotland look with less confidence than the Board of Supervision. I cannot understand what could have been in the mind of the draughtsman when, in dealing with the powers of the County Council in Bill No. 1, he relegated such important provisions to Bill No. 2 as those relating to the power of the County Council to oppose or promote Bills in Parliament. The Bill gives the County Council a limited power of opposition, but it gives it no power of initiation. I would ask how can it be alleged that these are matters of mere machinery and detail? They are matters of the very greatest importance, and of equal importance with any of those enumerated in the first Bill. In Clause 45, which deals with the Joint Committee, I find a singular omission. Assuming that the Joint Committee is called into existence, we are told that the costs of the Joint Committee shall be defrayed by the Councils by whom any of its members were appointed, in the proportion agreed to by them. But the clause makes no provision for a case which may easily occur, that is to say, where no agreement is made for the proportion of these expenses. Then, Sir, we come to a very important clause, dealing with the constitution of the District Committees. In one respect the Government deserve credit for their Scotch Bill as compared with their English Bill, because the English Bill made no provision for District Councils. But why the constitution of the District Councils should be relegated to a Bill which is said to deal only with details and machinery, I cannot conceive. There is one provision in regard to the constitution of the District Councils which is of the most obnoxious character. It is provided that two representatives of the Parochial Board in each parish shall have seats on the District Councils. Looking at the present constitution of the parochial boards, no proposition could be brought before the House which would be less calculated to obtain the support of any section of the Scotch people than this. Here, again, is a matter exciting the greatest interest throughout Scotland, and a matter of the highest importance, and we are told it is to be sent upstairs to a small Committee because the Bill deals merely with machinery and details. When I come to Clause 50, which deals with the position of the officers of the County Council, I find propositions of the greatest importance. I find one provision authorising—I am not sure that it does not compel—the County Council to pay pensions not exceeding those which may be awarded to the civil servants of Her Majesty under the like circumstances. Now, Sir, the question of giving pensions or not is one which has been frequently debated in this House, and every Member is aware that there exist the very gravest objections on economical and other grounds to the granting of pensions. The introduction of the pension system into the County Councils by this Act, is a subject in which a very large number of people in Scotland will take a very great interest, and I think the Government will have some difficulty in persuading the great majority of the Scotch Members that those gentlemen who are employed as clerks or otherwise by the County Councils ought not, like all other people, to make provisions for sickness and old age, and that it is not the worst and most objectionable mode of paying a servant to pay him partly in salary and partly in pension. In Clause 55 I find a comparatively small matter, which would seem, however, to indicate that this Bill was drawn by Englishmen for Englishmen, and not by Scotchmen for Scotchmen. I find amongst the days put down as dies non, Christmas Day and Good Friday, which are not observed in Scotland as dies non. I am certain that considerable inconvenience may, and probably will, arise from a provision of this kind, which is so at variance with the general customs of the people. We are Presbyterian people in Scotland, and I believe the great majority of the people in Scotland would not know what Good Friday meant. The insertion of these words is, therefore, significant, as indicating that this Bill has been drafted in the same way as was the English Act, without regard to the peculiar circumstances of Scotland. On Section 59 there arises another matter on which I shall be glad to have some information. It is specially provided that nothing in the Act shall alter any rate, or affect the tenure under an ecclesiastical arrangement or jurisdiction. Now, what I wish to ask is, whether this provision is meant to apply to ecclesiastical assessments, or whether it merely relates to arrangements of ecclesiastical parishes. Of course, if it is a matter relating purely to ecclesiastical parishes, it is not a matter of importance, but I should like to know whether the expression is intended to cover and include ecclesiastical assessments. Then we come to a matter most important to this branch of the Bill, a matter which, in relation to all local government, is of the highest importance—I mean the clauses relating to borrowing powers. It has been shown by long experience that while Local Authorities strain every nerve to diminish and not increase the rates, they never exhibit the same reluctance to borrowing, and there is nothing more remarkable in, he whole statistics of Local Government, n Scotland and in England, than the rapid increase of local debt. That is a subject which, I venture to think, is worthy of the most careful attention of this House in Committee. To my mind the provisions in this part of the Bill are insufficient, and yet, at the same time, excessive. They are insufficient because they limit the powers of borrowing by reference solely to the purpose or object for which the money is borrowed, not with reference to the power of the ratepayers to meet their obligations or the amount of money that has to be expended. On the one hand, I think a Local Authority cannot be left too free in respect to the objects for which they should exercise this jurisdiction; but, on the other hand, I do not think it is possible to hold Local Authorities too tightly in respect to the amount of money they are authorized to borrow on the security of the rates; and I venture to think that when this Bill goes into Committee, it will be well worthy the consideration of the Government and of Members on both sides of the House as to whether some severe limit of borrowing should not be introduced into the Bill, a limit either with reference to the ratable value of property or to that coupled with a reference to the Secretary for Scotland, because I think there is no use to which a Central Authority may always be put with greater advantage. We do not expect initiative from a Government Department; we do not expect a Government Department to be so intimately acquainted with the details of a particular locality as to form satisfactory schemes for their government; but what we do look for in a Government Department, is knowledge, impartiality, and skill. We look to a Government Department as best qualified to act as a Court of Appeal between the Local Authority and the ratepayers in many cases of doubt.

MR. W. H. SMITH

rose in his place and claimed to move "That the question be now put."

* Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member may conclude his speech. I did not consider it my duty to interrupt him, though I must say he is taking a somewhat unusual course in going through the Bill clause by clause, because I thought he wished to show that some of the clauses are of equal importance with those contained in the principal Bill—though they are styled "Supplementary Provisions." But I think he is exceeding the latitude usually allowed to a Second Reading debate.

MR. HUNTER

What you have indicated, Sir, was precisely the object I had in view. The point I was upon was the borrowing powers, a subject of such large scope that it cannot be considered a mere detail of the Bill; it is a question that touches the root of all sound local government and economical administration. I will conclude my observations with a reference to this point. Among the objects the Government introduce as proper for the exercise of borrowing powers is that of giving money to any persons, or body of persons, corporate or incorporate, in aid of emigration or colonization. True, it is a permissive power; it is left to the County Council to determine whether any money shall be applied, and personally, if I were a Member of a County Council, I should be opposed to the exercise of such power. But what I wish to point out to the Government is this, that if they are going to give general powers of this character to County Councils, why not go a step further and extend the powers to purposes of education? I do not see how we are to provide for secondary education in Scotland unless through the instrumentality of Local Authorities and County Councils to be created by this Bill, and I think the Government would be well advised either to introduce an Amendment to their Bill, or accept an Amendment that may be proposed from this side, to give County Councils the power with regard to secondary education and technical education such as they allow for purposes of emigration. State-aided emigration is at present but a disputed matter of policy, but there is no question or dispute as to the expediency of assisting technical and secondary education, especially in counties. The burghs of Scotland are not inadequately provided with the means of secondary and technical education. Let us give some method by which counties may be put in an equally favourable position, giving the authorities that permissive power it is proposed to give in respect to emigration.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling)

I regret very much that when I addressed a question to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a few minutes ago I was answered in a tone which was not only severe, but almost angry. My question did not certainly deserve such a response from the right hon. Gentleman, because it was honestly intended to convey a friendly hint to the Government of the state of feeling among my colleagues who represent Scotch constituencies on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that although he cannot refer this Bill to a particular Committee without a special order of the House, and, therefore, such a proposal may be voted upon, he must remember also that he commands a majority in this House. We, on the other hand, cannot forget, and this adds point to our claim, that we represent an actual majority of the Scottish people and are a decided majority of the Scottish Members, and, therefore, we claim from the right hon. Gentleman more than ordinary consideration of the course we suggest as best for the improvement of these Bills. I quite admit the agreement that these Bills should be read a second time last night, and I am entirely in favour of the stage of Second Reading being granted to the Government, but since we have been considering these Bills so closely, we find more and more that the two Bills are so interwoven, not only in matters of detail, but of principle—I could name one or two cases where I find it difficult myself to deal by Amendment with the larger Bill with reference to the supplemental Bill—that we have become convinced that a great mistake has been made, in the first place, in dividing this one Bill into two parts, and, in the second place, that a fatal mistake will be made, not only in the interests of good legislation, but in the interest of the time of the House if the two Bills are to be dealt with in distinct and different manners. There is no question whatever, and I wish to impress this on the right hon. Gentleman, that time will be saved by the Government if they would do as we ask, because what will happen? Inevitably in our dealing in Committee of the whole House with the larger Bill, there will not only be a temptation, arising from some mischievous motive, but a necessity really from the best of motives on the part of Scotch Members and those who share our views, to introduce amendments having reference to the provisions of the smaller Bill. For we shall not, under the Government proposal, have the same power over the second Bill as over the first; it will not be subject to the same public examination by the whole body of Scotch Members. On this account I make the strongest possible appeal to the Government to make to the Scotch Members this concession and allow the two Bills to be dealt with in the same way, and I can assure them that in doing so they will facilitate the progress of business, abridge discussion, and have as the result a much better measure.

* MR. W.H. SMITH

I rise at once to reply to the temperate and, I might say, friendly observations of the right hon. Gentleman. If he is under the impression that there was any heat in the answer I gave him just now, I can only express my regret if such appeared to be the case. I thought it necessary in the interests of the House to insist on the performance of engagements which are necessary, I think, to the proper conduct of business in the House. If we are unable to rely on understandings which have been arrived at, then the House itself will get into an impossible condition for the transaction of business. On that account I desired to insist on the exact performance of the engagement entered into, and in that spirit I made my reply. I fully recognize the right of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to express their views as to the tribunal to which this particular Bill should be referred for consideration, and I have not precluded the Government from reconsidering the course we think the best; but I take the House to witness that from the very first moment we stated our view that it would conduce to the progress of business and to the proper dealing with this particular Bill if it were dealt with by a Standing Committee with Scotch Members added. That, from the first, we said we thought would be the better tribunal, and the House has, therefore, not been taken by surprise. I think it is obvious that we cannot proceed to consider Bill No. 2 until Bill No. 1 has made considerable progress in Committee. Before any step of the kind is taken I will undertake to consider the matter with my colleagues, and if it is" possible by communication with Gentlemen opposite to make arrangements by which time can be saved no one will be better pleased than myself. My only object is to frame a Bill which will satisfy the people of Scotland and obtain their approval, and not in any way to affront or annoy any section in the House. I hope we shall arrive at an understanding which will satisfy the great majority of the House.

MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)

I only desire to say I think we should be lacking in our duty did we not make manifest the very strong opinion of Scotch representatives that the tribunal for the one Bill should be the tribunal for the other. I hope, therefore, the Government will in the spirit the right hon. Gentleman has displayed defer to what I may say is the universal wish of Scotch Members, to make these Bills as satisfactory as it is possible to make them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time and committeed for Monday, June 17th.

Forward to