LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.—(No. 388.) (Hansard, 31 July 1890)

§ *(12.5.) MR. KELLY (Camberwell, N.)
I beg to move the omission of Sub-section (2). I wish it to be understood that in making this Motion I am not actuated by any hostility to the London County Council, though I am bound to admit that I think in some respects the Council has disappointed us. I remember distinctly that as candidates a great majority of the members of the London Council spoke very freely about economy. They told us there was 1458 to be an era of proper and reasonable economy; there was to be no paid Deputy Chairman and no palatial residence or Council Chamber. The first promise was, however, very soon forgotten, and this is not the first occasion on which we have seen this mysterious clause as to the acquisition of a site for a Council Chamber. With the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton). I hope and believe the day is rot far distant when London will be one when we shall not have a Council for the City and another for London, but one Council for the whole Metropolis. I believe so completely that this will be the case that I think it would be absolute insanity to build a Council Chamber for the present London County Council. In time the County Council will have the Guildhall, a finer meeting place than anything they can build. I am reminded that this clause is guarded by the words "with the approval of the Treasury," but I think the Council would be well advised to postpone the question of a Council Chamber until they have learned what their constituents have to say upon the subject. Their constituents will not be likely to give them their votes again if they talked of spending £500,000 upon a palatial Council Chamber. I trust the Committee will omit this sub-section.

§ *(12.12.) MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)
I do not think the Committee will consider that, in the observations I am about to make, I have the slightest hostility to the London County Council. On the contrary, I very cordially support the general policy of that body. I feel, however, there is a great deal of force in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kelly). With him, I am of opinion that the County Council need not take power to raise a large sum of money for the purpose of acquiring a site for a new Council Chamber and offices. The Council have expended a very considerable sum of money—some thousands of 1459 pounds—in adapting the old Metropolitan Board Room and offices to their requirements, and I am told by members of the Council that the Board Room meets the reasonable requirements of the Council. I hear there are also lobbies, tea rooms, and every other convenience and accommodation for the members. It is suggested that the offices are dispersed; but the offices of Her Majesty's Government are dispersed. The business of the country is far more important than that of the County Council of London, and yet I do not understand that any inconvenience arises from the public offices not being all under one roof. I am sorry the County Council make this proposition, because it is a sort of admission that their present position will continue. I did hope they looked forward to the time when, by friendly union with the Corporation of the City, there would be one great Municipal Authority for the whole of the Metropolis. The necessary consequence of that would be, that the County Council would go to the centre of London: they would go to the Guildhall, and there merge the old traditions of the Corporation in the aspirations of the younger municipal life. I look forward to the time when this House will unite the two bodies. The County Council would be very unwise to spend a large sum of money upon a site involving as it would the expenditure of another large sum upon a meeting house, because, in that case, London would have more municipal offices than it could use. We do not want two sets of great buildings in London for municipal purposes. I trust the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock), who so ably represents the County Council, will withdraw this section of the Bill, so that the House may indirectly express its opinion that the time is not far distant when we shall have one authority for the whole of London. I know that the other night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) suggested that it was proper we should leave the matters dealt with by this Bill to the representative body of London; but at present the responsibility of approving of this Bill lies with us, and we ought to fulfil our obligations as intelligent men. 1460 I believe I represent the feeling of a large number of the people of London—I certainly represent the feeling of a good many members of the County Council—-[Sir J. LUBBOCK: [No, no.] —when I say they are not at all disposed to spend money in the erection of a new Council Chamber and of new offices. This point was only carried in the Council after discussion and division, and many of the best men on the Council are of opinion that the proposed outlay is unnecessary. Therefore, while I do not desire to assume any hostile attitude towards the County Council, I beg to support the proposition of the hon. Member for Camber well.

§ *(12.18.) SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)
I quite appreciate the friendly spirit in which both my hon. Friends have addressed the Committee, and I entirely recognise that in the Motion they have no hostility to the County Council. With them I indulge the hope that our relations with the City may at no distant period be different to what they are at present; but, at the same time, those who most wish that a change should be effected will hardly advise us to wait until then, and it must be remembered that the Guildhall and the other offices belonging to the City will always be required for City purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell (Mr. Kelly) laid great stress on the provision of a Council Chamber. That is not what we are anxious about. We have a Council Chamber, which I quite admit is suitable for the purpose: if it is not beautiful, it is very convenient, and we do not wish for any change on that score. But at the present time our staff is scattered over a number of separate buildings at some distance from one another. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. T. H. Bolton) says that the different Departments of the Government are in different buildings. I am sure the Government have always felt it is most desirable and almost necessary for the economical conduct of business that each Department should have one building for itself. Nobody who has a large business of his own to transact can possibly do it effectively or economically if his clerks are distributed up and down several buildings. At the present moment, the 1461 County Councils have clerks in the attics of houses built as dwelling houses. In the interest of the ratepayers, it is desirable we should have a space of ground on which we can build offices for the accommodation of all our officers. Now, if I have occasion to consult the Comptroller, I have to send across the street to another house asking him to come and see me, or I have to go across to him. That is not a way in which business can be satisfactorily conducted. We believe the proposal we make in this Bill is one that will conduce to economy, and, therefore, I hope the Committee will assent to it. Surely in such a matter as this we must regard the County Council as the governing body of London, responsible to the ratepayers for the manner in which it discharges its duty. It is most difficult to go on with the work of the County Council with our offices scattered in several houses. There is nothing more wasteful than the distribution of clerks in small buildings, and it is clearly to the interests of economy to concentrate the work as much as possible. I would also call attention to the fact that nothing can be done without the special assent of the Treasury. I think the Committee might trust the Treasury not to sanction anything in the nature of extravagrant expenditure.

§ (12.25.) MR. HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)
I only rise to make a suggestion to my hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell (Mr. J. Kelly), namely, that he should be content with the omission of the words "Council Chamber," so as to let us get our clerks together. I think the vast majority of the Council are satisfied with the present Chamber, but it will be generally felt we are under great disadvantage with regard to our staff.

§ MR. TATTON EGERTON (Cheshire, Knutsford)
If the present County Council had only attended to the business carried on by the Metropolitan Board of Works they would not have required their present exorbitant staff. There is really no work done by the County Council, except that of the Asylums Beard, which was not carried on by the Metropolitan Board of Works. The offices of the County Council are at 1462 present perfectly sufficient for the work the Council has to do, and I think this is not the time to ask the House to grant powers for the expenditure of more of the ratepayers' money.

§ *(12.26.) MR. CAUSTON (Southwark, W.)
I hope we shall hear a few words from the President of the Local Government Board. On these County Council matters I like to hear his voice, and I like to see him support by his vote the views he expresses at the Table. With regard to this particular Amendment, I shall vote against it. I am in favour of giving the Council power to spend the money they think necessary. I do not say I am in favour of their spending the money, but I have confidence in the Representatives of the people of London. Members opposite seek to thwart the action of the County Council in every possible way. There was considerable disappointment felt by hon. Gentlemen opposite at the result of the last election, and they now think that if they hold the Council up to ridicule and decline to give them necessary powers, they will succeed in making them unpopular. I hope the President of the Local Government Board will have the courage to say whether he thinks it right or wrong that the Council should have the powers asked for, and that he will support his opinion in the Lobby. We have had many instances lately of the right hon. Gentleman making a brave speech at that box, and then either walking out of the House or voting against the County Council. The right hon. Gentleman justly attains considerable credit for forming the County Council, and I think it is very hard on him to be placed in the position in which he has more than once been placed by his colleagues in this House with reference to the proposals of the London County Council.

§ *(12.29.) CAPTAIN VERNEY (Bucks, N.)
I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman who spoke just now (Mr. Tatton Egerton) could not have intended to mislead the Committee when he stated that the County Council did no more work than was done by the Metropolitan Board of Works. The London Council not only does a deal of work in connec- 1463 tion with the Asylums, but its Fire Brigade work has something like doubled since the extinction of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Then there is the licensing question to deal with, and the inspection of buildings, while the area of the parks is about doubled since the Council came into existence. I would point out that even if we do take over the offices of the City at some future time, we shall have to provide more buildings. The work of the County Council is very much greater than anything the Board of Works had to do; and buildings that are ample for the City, and that would have been sufficient for the Metropolitan Board of Works, are entirely inadequate for the County Council. If in years to come it is necessary to buy a site, the I ratepayers will look back to the present time and ask why we did not acquire one when the price was comparatively low compared with what it may be then. If the site were not required it could always be sold, and in the meantime it would be continually increasing in value.

§ *(12.33.) MR. CAUSTON
I would really ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to give us his views on the subject.

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
Two appeals have been made by Metropolitan Members to the President of the Local Government Board. I think he might, at all events, have respectfully and courteously declined to reply. There is another official directly interested in this matter, and that is the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Treasury. I think we ought to know what the Treasury think about this clause, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson), upon whose courtesy we can always rely, to give us his views on the subject.

§ (12.34.) MR. JACKSON
Ithinkthe hon. Member must forget that this Bill has been approved by the Treasury, and is introduced by the Treasury.

§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)
As an humble Irish Member who has Captain Verney 1464 listened to the Debate, I think it would be wise, judicious, and advisable on the part of the responsible and paid Ministers of the Crown to get up and remonstrate with their supporters for the obstruction they have been practising.

§ (12.37.) MR. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge)
I beg to move the omission of this clause, which proposes to lend money to the London School Board; and I do it on the ground of the carelessness of the London School Board in the matter of passing unsatisfactory school buildings. I hold that the carelessness of the Board itself is not less than that of its architects and surveyors, and the case I am about to present to the Committee I have made out from the Reports of the School Board itself.

§ MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)
As a point of order, I would ask whether it is competent for the hon. Member to discuss the conduct of the London School Board?

(12.38.) THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member appears to be out of order, but I should have liked to hear him a little further before giving a definite ruling.

§ MR. DIXON-HARTLAND
I wished to draw attention to the fact that many of the schools under the London School Board are badly built, and that a charge of ¾d. in the £1 will be levied on the ratepayers by the Board, all of which money will be advanced by the London County Council under this clause.

(12.39.) THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member's observations are no relevant to this clause.

§ MR. DIXON-HARTLAND
Part of this money is to be used for the repair of existing schools, but I will not persist in the matter against the ruling of the Chair.

§ *(12.40.) SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)
The hon. Member is under the impression that if he carried his Amendment he would prevent the School Board from spending money, but that is not so. What the clause does is to give the London County Council power to lend money to the School Board. If it were not for loans through the County Council, the Board would have to pay a higher rate of interest, and the ratepayers would suffer.

§ (12.40.) MR. DIXON-HARTLAND
My idea was, that if I brought forward certain facts, the ratepayers might recover money of which they have been defrauded from certain contractors.

§ (12.43.) MR. BAUMANN (Camberwell, Peckham)
I see here that the London County Council makes loans to Vestries and District Boards, but this Bill is introduced by the First Lord of the Treasury for the express purpose of giving Parliament a control aver these borrowing powers. The Metropolitan Board of Works used to circulate with Money Bills the statements of accounts of Vestries and District Boards, and it is obvious that if the House is to exercise control, somesuch statements of accounts ought to be presented. The County Council does not give us these statements.

§ *(12.45.) SIR J. LUBBOCK
I would point out to the hon. Member that this Bill is not introduced by the London 1466 County Council, but by the Government and it must be assumed that the Government are satisfied with the information contained in it. The Bill does not give to Local Authorities any spending powers they do not possess at present. It gives the London County Council power to borrow, and enables the County Council to lend to the Local Authorities at a low rate of interest.

§ (12.46.) MR. LAWSON
In the first table that accompanies the Bill there is a minute statement of the loans advanced.

§ (12.46.) MR. BAUMANN
These particulars were given in the last Money Bill of the Metropolitan Board of Works.

§ *(12.47.) MR. T. H. BOLTON
Some of these loans are borrowed with the sanction of the London County Council, but others are not. In the case of money borrowed by Boards of Guardians the public are protected, as there is an investigation by the Local Government Board; and I would put it to the Government whether similar precautions should not be taken in the case of all these loans. There was no proper investigation under the Metropolitan Board of Works, but there ought now to be one under the London County Council [Cries of" Agreed !"]

§ *(12.49.) SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
Though the hon. Gentleman opposite may have correctly explained the procedure of the Metropolitan Board of Works, he has not been so accurate as regards the proceedings of the London County Council. The applications for loans are carefully looked into by our Finance Committee, which is presided over by Lord Lingen, who is justly regarded in this House as a great authority. Loans are not granted on the recommendation of any particular member, but on the recommendation of the Finance Committee as a whole.

(12.51.) MR. WEBSTER
It is not correct to say that no inquiry took place under the Metropolitan Board of Works in reference to loans. I remember on 1467 more than one occasion loans being refused to Vestries. On one occasion a Vestry wished to build a kind of music hall, and then application for a loan was refused.