HC Deb 29 July 1890 vol 347 cc1263-71

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [22nd July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

*(12.0.) SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)

The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Baumann) appears to have opposed the Second Reading of this Bill under a misapprehension. He seems to have supposed that it gives the County Council the power of spending a very large sum of money. That is quite a mistake; it gives no power of the kind. The Bill may be divided into two parts. So far as the expenditure of the County Council is concerned, the Bill gives no power of additional expenditure. The effect is to authorise them to raise money by loan spread over a certain number of years. They have already the necessary powers to spend the money, but if the Bill does not pass they will have to do so out of the rate of the year. As regards the second portion of the Bill, it enables the Council to make loans to local Metropolitan Bodies. It does not in any way increase their power of expenditure. The reason for the course adopted is that if each Local Authority raised its own loans it would have to pay a higher rate of interest. But they are allowed to borrow of the London County Council, and the London County Council, raising a large loan, is able to lend the money on better terms. The only effect, therefore, of throwing out this part of the Bill would be that the Local Authorities would have to pay a somewhat higher rate of interest, and, consequently, the rates would be raised. The hon. Member seems to be under the impression that the London County Council has raised the rates. But what are the facts? The last precept of the Metropolitan Board was at the rate of 10. ld. per annum. To this must be added the payment to the Guardians at the rate of 4d. per day per head for indoor paupers. That is in addition to the Metropolitan Rate, and a corresponding relief of the local Poor Rate, and amounts to l.88d. Again, there must be added the cost of services formerly provided for by County Justices in the old County Rate, amounting to l.72d. These items make up 13.7d., and the present rate is 12.53d. Of course, to complete the comparison the Government contribution and the loss of the Coal Dues would have to be allowed for, and the net result will be that there is an increase of the hundredth part of a penny, which is mainly due to increased expenditure on parks. The hon. Member also said that the debt of London was increasing at the rate of £1,000,000 a year. This, also, is entirely an error. The net debt is now £17,800,000. Five years ago it was £16,900,000. To that must be added £670,000, which was taken over from Surrey and Middlesex when parts of these counties were included in London, and which, therefore, is no new debt. These, then, makes£17,600,000,and as the debt is now £17,800,000 the increase has been £200,000 in five years. So far, therefore, from being an increase of £1,000,000 a year, the increase has really been under £50,000 a year. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree to the Second Reading of the Bill.

(12.6.) MR. BAUMANN (Peckham)

I rise, Sir——

* MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

I rise to order. The hon. Member has already spoken.

* MR. SPEAKER

The position of the hon. Member in this matter is somewhat peculiar. On the previous occasion he rose only to move the adjournment of the Debate. That Motion was eventually carried, although the hon. Member himself did not move it, and I think it would be rather hard if the House does not hear the hon. Gentleman now.

MR. BAUMANN

The right hon. Gentleman opposite has unintentionally misrepresented me. I did not say, as the hon. Baronet seems to think I did, that I objected to the Second Reading of the Bill. I merely objected to its being taken at a late hour of the evening, without notice. The right hon. Baronet has said that this Bill only asks for money for schemes which have already received the sanction of Parliament. That is entirely a misleading statement, because none of the schemes of the London County Council have yet received the sanction of Parliament, although some of them have already passed this House. Again, with regard to borrowing powers, they are not merely the renewal, but the augmentation and increase of previous borrowing powers, and, therefore, hon. Members are free to criticise the proposals before they sanction them. In the third place, the Bill asks for money to carry out the general powers conferred by certain Acts of Parliament in respect to which no specific schemes have been presented to Parliament at all. With regard to the local indebtedness of London, I must say, after the statement of the right hon. Baronet, that I consider that great and growing indebtedness is a serious fact, not only for the London ratepayers, but for the country and the Government. The total debt on December 31, 1889, stood in round numbers at £29,000,000, and when I tell the House that the total assessment of the Metropolis is only £31,000,000,I think they will allow that that is a very serious figure. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the net debt is only £17,000,000, because the Local Bodies owe £9,000,000, but if that were added to the assets of the London County Council the indebtedness would not be reduced to £17,000,000. Under this Bill large sums will be lent to Local Bodies. The right hon. Baronet states that the London County Council act as bankers to the Local Bodies. That is true, but the only way the House can control these large-borrowing powers is by criticising them when these Bills are brought forward. Nobody would object to lend £500,000 to the School Board if they knew that the money was to be expended on education, but, considering the large sums which have gone into the pockets of speculating contractors, builders, and lawyers, to run up all kinds of rotten buildings, hon. Members are entitled to ask for what purpose the School Board want this £500,000. I am opposed to the London County Council, not on account of its politics, which are a matter of perfect indifference to me, but because the members of the Council are such thoroughly bad men of business, and because they throw away the money of the ratepayers on preposterous Bills like the Overhead Wires Bill and the Betterment Bill. After the latter Bill had passed through the Select Committee, with the exception of the betterment clauses, it was abandoned by the County Council, simply because that body could not bend and tutor the House of Commons to its own will. The Council ostentatiously announced that it would not widen the Strand nor commence any other metropolitan improvement until it could get the House of Commons to swallow its preposterous Yankee notion of betterment. This is the body which we are asked to give a blank cheque to, and to respect as a body of business men. I refuse to do anything of the kind, and as long as I represent a London constituency I claim the right to fully criticise the financial and administrative policy of the London County Council, which has not yet commenced a single metropolitan improvement, which has given Parliament a great deal of trouble in checking its vagaries, and which has only succeeded in increasing the rates of the-already over-burdened ratepayers of London.

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

I was under the impression that hon. Members opposite were anxious to bring this Session speedily to a close. We have already devoted a considerable amount of time to the consideration of Imperial matters, but there is still a large amount of Imperial business to be got through, including a considerable number of Votes on Supply. If the House of Commons chooses to add to the enormous duties it still has to perform, the management of London, and the control of its Local Government, including the School Board of London, and the financial arrangements of all the Metropolitan "Vestries, we shall find Ireland a mere bagatelle compared with what we shall have undertaken. We have been endeavouring for many years past to develop Home Rule in London, and I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board found that the carrying of his Local Government Bill for London was not the least difficult part of the work he has had to do in bringing important measures before this House. If the right hon. Gentleman believes he was right in constituting the County Council, he must also think it right to leave to the Local Authority the management of its own affairs, the appeal against any misdoing, incapacity, or want of temper, on the part of the London County Council or the School Board being to the constituencies of the Metropolis. I agree with the hon. Member opposite that the ratepayers have a right to be dissatisfied with the action of the County Council in abandoning their scheme for the Strand Improvement, which, undoubtedly, is greatly needed. But I decline to admit that the House of Commons should be made a Court of Appeal from the County Council. I am quite sure that the County Councils of the large provincial cities, such as Birmingham, Manchester, Leads, and Glasgow, would object, and very properly object, to the interference of the House of Commons with their affairs. The House has entrusted them' with certain powers, and it is to their constituents alone that they are responsible for the exercise of those powers. I greatly regret that the President of the Local Government Board has not been able this year to introduce a measure in fulfilment of the promise made last year to obviate the necessity for these annual Money Bills. When any other municipality requires special Parliamentary powers the matter is submitted to the consideration of a Committee upstairs, every Member of which has to make a declaration that he has no personal interest in the objects intended to be promoted by the Bill. If such a Committee considers that the powers asked for should be granted, the House delegates to the Local Authority the power and discretion of carrying out the provisions of the Bill. But in this case the measure before us is practically a Government Money Bill, which comes to us with the stamp of the Treasury upon it. It will simply enable the London County Council to borrow money and expend it on purposes which have already received the sanction of the House. Why, then, should the House of Commons waste five minutes of its time in discussing such a question? The Treasury is satisfied, but if the Metropolitan Members, who are not Members of the London County Council, are to come here to oppose the action of the London County Council, we may be sitting here till Christmas. Reference has already been made to the scheme by which the London. County Council is to be made the banker of the other Local Bodies, so that if the School Board or any other authority requires to borrow money, it may be able to obtain it at a lower interest than if it went into the money market. This, I think, is an admirable financial arrangement, because money can be borrowed by the London County Council far more economically than by the smaller Local Bodies. Reference has also been made to the debt of the London County Council; but that, after all, is a matter of very small moment, because the debt is not more than one-half the annual value of the Metropolis. I challenge the hon. Member opposite to instance any large municipality in the Kingdom which has so small a debt, compared with its annual value, as this Metropolis.

MR. BAUMANN

It is £29,000,000.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I am comparing the debt of London with that of other large towns, and putting it at £25,000,000, I say that that is far short of one year's rateable value, but that, after all, is only a side issue. The real question we have to decide at this late hour, and at this late period of the Session, is whether we shall pass this measure authorising the London County-Council to borrow money for purposes that have already been sanctioned by this House, or whether we are to undertake a wide, discursive, and endless discussion into all sorts of questions as to the wisdom or folly of the acts of the London County Council and the London School Board. This I think a very unwise thing, and I appeal to the Government to endeavour to bring this discussion to a close, so that this purely formal and technical Bill may be allowed to pass.

(12.29.) MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

I think the House has hardly fully comprehended the great increase that has taken place in the rating of London. I find that at the present time the rating to be charged for the year ending the 31st of March, 1891, is no less than 13.25d., as compared with l.86d. in 1857. No doubt fresh duties have been put upon the London County Council, but I must point out that whereas in 1888 the rating was 8.39d., it has increased in the present year to 13.25d. I would point out to Her Majesty's Government that it is desirable that the whole question of rating in the Metropolis, and the incidence of local taxation, should be referred to a strong Parliamentary Committee or Commission. We should definitely arrange whether the County Council shall be allowed to charge the ratepayers beyond a certain sum, and whether the School Board of London should not be obliged to limit their demands for money. In every clause of this Money Bill additional funds are sought, and, amongst other things, money is asked for the erection of a new Council Chamber. I think it is the duty of a London Member to protest against this Bill, and to submit that, before these powers are given, we should have a strong Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry.

(12.35.) MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, East)

I only rise with one object, namely, to appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to introduce the Bill he has promised at an early period next Session, so that the London County Council will no longer be under the necessity of bringing these Money Bills before the House of Commons. It we were to take up the whole of the points referred to by the hon. Member for Peckham, and go into such questions as that of the money required by the Vestry of St. Pancras, we should find ourselves involved in a. very lengthy discussion.

(12.37.) THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,) Tower Hamlets, St. George's

I am not sure whether I can speak again.

* MR. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman only spoke on the question of adjournment, therefore, he is entitled to take part in the Debate on the Main Question.

* MR. RITCHIE

I can assure the hon. Member opposite that no one regrets more than I do the fact that I have been unable to introduce the Bill during the present Session. It has been prepared and considered. It has been the subject of much negotiation between the Local Government Board and the Treasury, and it is now in a complete state. Until within the last few weeks I had hoped to introduce it during the present Session It certainly is the intention of the Government to introduce it early next Session. London finance is by no means in a satisfactory condition. A Bill comes before the House of Commons, and passes every year, and passes as a matter of course. We necessarily pass it as a matter of course, because it is impossible for us to set ourselves up as a Court of Inquiry into every financial proposal made by the London County Council. I am one of those who do not raise the smallest objection to the course the hon. Member for Peckham has taken to-night. I think he and others are justified in criticising the proposal so long as the present procedure is maintained. At the same time it is impossible that the finances of the London County Council can be adequately inquired into and examined by the House of Commons, and I hope that, in view of the assurance I have given that the Government propose to introduce a Bill which, in their opinion, will put the finances of the London County Council on a much more satisfactory footing, and relieve the House from the responsibility which now attaches to it in the matter, the Debate may now close.

*(12.40.) MR. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge)

I do not wish to oppose the Second Reading, but I wish to point out that I have had a notice on the Paper all the Session, asking for a Royal Commission to inquire into the action of the London School Board, with regard to their jerry buildings. It is my intention, when the Vote for the London School Board comes on in Committee, to bring forward the whole of the question of the London School Board, and submit it to the House.

*(12.41.) MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)

As St. Pancras has been referred to by the hon. Member for Peckham, I would explain that the money for that parish is required for a very necessary purpose, that is to say, to enable some loans, which are bearing at the present time an unnecessarily high interest, to be paid off. I would suggest to the London County Council that they should seriously re-consider the proposal to spend a large sum of money on the building of a new Council Chamber and new offices. In a very short time, I trust, the London County Council and the Corporation of the City of London will be united. We shall then have one great Municipality for the whole of London, and the officers of the County Council will, necessarily, go to the Guildhall.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.