HC Deb 17 May 1892 vol 4 cc1153-67

Clause 115.

On Motion of Sir C. J. PEARSON, the following Amendment was agreed to:—

Page 47, line 8, after "The," insert "Commissioners shall keep properly swept and cleansed."

On Motion of Sir C. J. PEARSON, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Page 47, line 8, leave out all after "street" to end of clause, and insert "so far as is reasonably practicable, and shall collect and remove from the said foot pavements, so far as is reasonably practicable, all dust, ashes, rubbish, filth, and snow.

(5.30.) MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

I beg to move, Sir, the addition of the following words at the end of the Amendment just made by the Lord Advocate:— So much of any public or local Act as requires the occupier or owner of any premises in Scotland to cause the footways and watercourses adjoining the premises to be swept and cleansed is hereby repealed. This is a very important matter, because as the Bill stands the Sanitary Authorities will have the duty cast upon them of cleaning the pavements as well as the streets at the public expense all over Scotland, with the exception of five cities which have special Acts, and will not come under this Bill. In Glasgow the duty of cleaning the pavement will still fall upon the shopkeepers and occupiers of dwelling-houses. In London the duty of clearing the snow away has by a recent Act been thrown on the Public Authority. In these five cities, of which Glasgow is one, that duty will still devolve upon the shopkeepers and the occupiers of the ground floors of dwelling-houses, and they will have to act as scavengers; but whenever you cross a boundary, say to Govan, you will find that the work is done by the Local Authority. The duty of cleaning the pavements used to devolve on the occupiers in both England and Scotland, but in the recent Act the Government altered the law as regards London, and imposed the duty on the Public Authority at the expense of the general rate. The Lord Advocate in this Bill is doing exactly the same for all the burghs of Scotland except the five cities I have referred to. Now, in the case of these cities the shopkeepers and occupiers will still have to perform the duty of scavengers when a snowstorm comes, and the object of my Amendment is to provide that in these cities the duty shall devolve upon the Local Authorities, as in the burghs which come under this Bill. The shopkeepers have to pay heavily to the rates, and I do not see why they should have to clean the streets as well. In a matter of this kind we are not acting on behalf of the Town Councils of Glasgow and the other cities, but are speaking about a clause for the protection of the shopkeepers and occupiers of dwelling-houses, and we say that they are entitled to have this provision made as a matter of justice. As the Government have adopted the principle for London, they should be willing to extend it to these five cities of Scotland. The Government having decided that in all the burghs in Scotland which come under the Bill the duty of keeping the pavement clean shall devolve on the Sanitary authority, I maintain that there is an injustice in those cities where the duty is still made to devolve on the shopkeepers and occupiers of dwelling-houses. The refuse on the premises is taken away at the public expense, and why should not the snow and refuse outside on the street be taken away at the public expense? I cannot see why the Government should insist in taking a different view in reference to this matter with respect to Glasgow from what they take with respect to the rest of Scotland. I beg to move my Amendment.

Amendment proposed, As an Amendment to the Lord Advocate's proposed Amendment, page 47, line 8, at end, add, "So much of any public or local Act as requires the occupier or owner of any premises in Scotland to cause the footways and watercourses adjoining the premises to be swept and cleansed is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

(5.36.) THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

I think that the hon. Gentleman will see why the Government cannot accept his Amendment, and why we could not interfere with the distinct understanding which we have arrived at with regard to the five great central towns of Scotland. We should simply destroy the Bill if we were to attempt in this or any other clause to bring any one of these great towns within the meshes of this measure. I hope the hon. Member will not persevere with his Amendment.

(5.37.) MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)

I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. Glasgow, if it pleases, can adopt this clause the day after this Bill becomes law; and I think it would be better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Glasgow Corporation.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 116.

MR. CALDWELL

This clause relates to public health and cleansing, and if the Lord Advocate will look at Clause 316, he will find that most ample powers are given by it to the Local Authorities to make bye-laws for doing all the things mentioned in this clause. It empowers them to make bye-laws for removing the contents of ash-pits, dungsteads, drains, and all these other things mentioned in the clause. It seems to me that it would be much better and much more convenient to delete this clause in an Act of Parliament which will stereotype the law on this subject, and leave the matter to be determined by each Local Authority upon bye-laws; because you have another clause in the Bill which gives them the most ample powers to deal with these and other matters. By this Clause 116 you say that the Sanitary Authority may require the owner of a house in Scotland which shall be occupied for less than six months to whitewash "every part and pertinent" of it once a year; whereas by Clause 118 you make the most ample provision for dealing with the occupier of any dwelling-house which is in a filthy state. I venture to say that all you can ask is that it should be kept clean. I think that all these Clauses, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, and 122 might be omitted and that the matters to which they relate might much more reasonably be left to the operation of bye-laws.

*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,) Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities

I hope the hon. Member will not persevere in his line of criticism on this Bill. I have gone over the Bill very carefully since the last discussion in Committee, with the view of seeing whether I could not eliminate some of the clauses and leave the matters to which they relate to be dealt with by bye-laws, and these are not amongst the clauses which I thought it expedient so to treat. I hope, therefore, the hon. Member and other hon. Members will not follow this line of criticism.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 117 and 118 agreed to.

Clause 119.

MR. BARCLAY

I beg to move that the clause be omitted. By this clause the owners of "all private courts, yards, areas," and so forth, are obliged to keep them clean. In the first place, I think that it should be the duty of the Sanitary Authorities, and not of the owner, to see that this is done. In the second place, I do not see how the Burgh Authorities can enforce these regulations where there are a number of separate occupiers. I do not think there is any use in this clause at all, because what it aims at is already provided for under the Sanitary Laws. I hope the Lord Advocate will not consider it necessary to insert this clause, because I think it will be found to be unworkable.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "To leave out the Clause."—(Mr. Barclay.)

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

In the first place, this clause is practically a reproduction of a previous clause. In the second place, the Sanitary Authorities have not, in my opinion, the power to deal with what is contemplated by the clause, because the Sanitary Authorities rather deal with a thing after it has become a nuisance. I hope the hon. Member will not press his objection to this clause.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 119 to 126, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 130.

On Motion of Sir C. J. PEARSON the following Amendment was agreed to:—In page 51, line 1, leave out "takes up."

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

I beg to move, in page 51, line 5, to leave out all after "pounds," to end of Clause.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)

May I ask whether this clause is in the Police Act?

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

The word were objected to at the previous stage of the Bill. That is the reason why the clause was postponed. It seems to me that this matter may safely be left either to the Common Law or to arrangement between the magistrate and the person who takes up or removes "the pavements, flags, or other materials." I think the words are unnecessary.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 133 and 136 to 139, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 140.

(5.45.) MR. CALDWELL

I beg to move on behalf of my hon. Friend and insert "owners." This clause as it stands would make it obligatory on the Burgh Commissioners to maintain for the future pavements or footways after they were once put in order to their satisfaction by the owners of lands or premises fronting or abutting on any street. The effect of this provision would be, in towns like Glasgow, to involve the Commissioners in considerable expense. The way that the Lord Advocate has put it is open to objection, for this clause as it stands takes the responsibility for the pavement, of whatever kind, off the owner, and he is thereafter relieved of all expense in connection with it. I think the Lord Advocate will see that that is a very important matter. The Commissioners should not be bound to take up the burden of keeping the pavement in repair unless they also have the power of insisting that a pavement of a permanent character should be put down. This is how they have it in Glasgow. I move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 54, line 14, to leave out the word "Commissioners," and insert the word "owners."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'Commissioners' stand part of the Clause."

*(5.53.) SIR C. J. PEARSON

If his clause raised the question spoken to by the hon. Member it would indeed be important, but the hon. Member's "remarks are utterly wide of the object of the clause. It is not the case that the clause provides that the Commissioners are to take over the pavement, and to thereafter relieve the owner of all expense. It puts it in the discretion of the Commissioners to do so in the first instance; and, in the second place, that discretion is to be exercised in a way and manner which shall be determined. Those two restrictions make the hon. Member's remarks utterly inapplicable. This is a matter which was discussed in Committee at an earlier stage of the Bill, and various hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House voted for it. Under the law as it now stands the Commissioners cannot take over the footways of a town unless they take over the footways of the whole town. This virtually enables them to do that piecemeal, and street by street. I hope the hon. Member will not divide the Committee on this point.

MR. ESSLEMONT

This clause works very well in practice, and I think the difficulties which my hon. Friend has alluded to only exist in his imagination.

MR. CALDWELL

There is no question of the meaning of the clause. The pavement required might be mere causeway foot-paving, and the owner having provided that in terms of the requisition of the Local Authority, then, in the words of the clause, "The Commissioners shall thereafter, from time to time, repair and uphold such footways." That is to say, if an Order is passed on the part of the Commissioners that such pavement is to be made, thereafter the Commissioners are precluded from making any further Order, and in all future time the pavement is to be upheld by the Commissioners.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 140,141, 143, 149, 150,180, 182, 183, 192, 200 to 208 inclusive, 215, 216, 218, 222, 235, 238, 240, 242, agreed to.

Clause 245.

Amendment proposed, Page 87, line 39, leave out all after "shall," to "Commissioners," in line 17, page 88, and insert "subject to the provisions of any bye-laws made by the Commissioners, introduce water thereto, and shall fit up in some window, recess, or other well-lighted and ventilated place a sink sufficient to carry off the whole foul water; and after a like notice every such owner shall also, subject as aforesaid, provide for such house or part of a house occupied by a separate family, wherever practicable, a sufficient water-closet."—(Sir C. J. Pearson.)

Amendment agreed to.

On motion of Sir C. J. PEARSON, the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 88, line 20, after "may," insert "subject as aforesaid"; line 24, leave out "always," and insert "further."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 247 and 248 agreed to.

Clause 249.

On Motion of Sir C. J. PEARSON, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 89, lines 27 and 28, leave out, "after visiting the premises or."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 250.

On Motion of Sir C. J. PEARSON, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 90, line 24, leave out "Board of Supervision," and insert "Sheriff, whose judgment shall be final."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 251 to 256 inclusive, 259, 270 to 276 inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 284.

MR. R. T. REID (Dumfries, &c.)

I have put down two Amendments, at the request of the Town Council of Dumfries, with this object. A considerable sum—I believe £2,000—has been spent on slaughter houses in Dumfries under the two miles' protection of the present law, but the effect of this Bill will be to take away that protection after the money has been spent. I believe the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General for Scotland will propose other words, and I therefore do not wish to insist upon any Amendments. I shall, before Report, have an opportunity of seeing the framework of the amended clause, and of considering whether it meets our case.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

It has been agreed to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs (Mr. Shiress Will), slightly modified, so that it may read as follows:— Page 101, line 26, after "offence," insert—"And to prevent evasion of the use of such slaughterhouses, all persons who shall, after such slaughterhouses are provided, bring within the boundaries of the burgh, for sale or consumption therein, the carcass or part of a carcass of any cattle or beast slaughtered within the distance of two miles beyond such boundaries elsewhere than in slaughterhouses provided or duly licensed in pursuance of any Act of Parliament shall, on bringing such carcass or part of a carcass within the said boundaries, be liable in payment to the commissioners of the amount of the rates or sums then being levied for cattle or beasts slaughtered in such slaughterhouses provided by them, provided that where before the passing of this Act any burgh shall have erected slaughterhouses, no other slaughterhouse shall be erected within a distance of two miles from the existing boundaries of such burgh, unless either it is erected with the consent of the commissioners of such burgh, or is situated within the area of another burgh.

Question proposed, "That those words be added to the Clause."

MR. BARCLAY

I hope the Committee will consider well before they introduce this clause into the Bill, as it would have the effect of extending the jurisdiction of the burgh. The question has been discussed before, and the proposal has been rejected as placing a tax on an article of food, and as, therefore, being opposed to public policy.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,) Bute

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has misapprehended the effect of the clause. It will not in any way extend the jurisdiction of the burgh, and it will not have the effect of checking the meat supply.

MR. CALDWELL

This is a matter which requires very careful consideration, and the Committee should have further information as to the effect of the clause before deciding the question.

MR. ESSLEMONT

I cannot help thinking that this question is occupying a great deal of time unnecessarily. It is necessary, of course, to take every precaution to secure the wholesomeness of meat; but, at the same time, the question of jurisdiction has to be considered.

MR. BARCLAY

I certainly object to this protection of the burgh as regards the use of slaughterhouses.

DR. CAMERON

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider this question, especially as to the sanitary enactments with reference to slaughterhouses.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 286 and 290 agreed to.

Clause 300.

MR. MARK J. STEWART (Kirkcudbright)

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and my object in doing so is to prevent friction between the Local Authorities.

Amendment proposed, in page 106, line 11, to leave out from the words "and the bye-laws," to the word "boundaries," inclusive.—(Mr. Mark J. Stewart.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

It really does not seem to me to be a matter of much importance either one way or the other.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 301 to 305, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 316.

On Motion of Sir C. J. PEARSON, the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 111, line 37, leave out subsection (4); page 112, line 3, leave out sub-section (5); page 112, line 14, leave out sub-section (7).

Amendment proposed, Page 113, line 24, leave out sub-section (7), and insert,—"(7.) For providing that cattle, dogs, and poultry shall not be kept in such places or in such manner as to be a nuisance or annoyance to the inhabitants; for prescribing the situations or places in which swine may be kept, and for prohibiting, on cause shown, the keeping of swine. (8.) For requiring owners or occupiers of houses and buildings to keep clean closes, areas, courts, passages, stairs, roofs of outhouses, and common water-closets, and thoroughfares owned or occupied by them; and also for paving private courts, common passages, and common areas other than bleaching greens. (9.) For regulating the sweeping and cleansing of common stairs in accordance with the clauses of this Act relating to cleansing and fencing and keeping the same clear of obstruction. (10.) For carrying out the provisions of sections two hundred and thirty-seven to two hundred and fifty-six, both inclusive."—(Sir C. J. Pearson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CALDWELL

I merely wish to point out to the Lord Advocate that he is asking to confer power on the Commissioners to make these bye-laws for all purposes. In Section 117, however, he has laid down how these duties should be performed; but they might make bye-laws which would entirely alter the operation of this section.

MR. BARCLAY

I wish to point out that Clause 119 places upon the occupier the duty of cleaning out the areas. This bye-law seems to give power to the Commissioners to put that duty upon the owners. I do not object to that in the least, but I want to know how these two parts of the Bill are reconciled.

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

No bye-law will be able to place the duty upon any other shoulders than those on whom it now rests.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 326 to 330, inclusive, agreed to.

Clauses 340 to 382, inclusive, omitted.

Clause 383.

MR. BARCLAY

This is a clause which fixes the incidence of taxation of the boroughs entirely upon the occupier—one of the most important questions raised on this Bill. The rates to be paid for are the police, drainage, public health, and the maintenance of the streets. I am aware that under the existing Act the taxes have been laid upon the occupier; but since that Act was passed in 1862, this House has considered the incidence of such taxation; and if we compare the maintenance of streets in boroughs with those in the counties we find that as far back as 1878 the Government provided for taxation between the owners and the occupiers. The County Government Act goes still further; practically, the whole of the Police Tax is laid upon the owners, and other taxes are divided between the owners and occupiers. I think this is a fitting opportunity to consider the subject, and, therefore, I submit the Amendment standing in my name. This Bill proposes future taxation of the boroughs, and I think the subject ought to be dealt with as in the recent Acts referring to Scotland, and according to the principle adopted by the House—a division between owners and occupiers.

Amendment proposed, in page 134, line 23, after the word "assess," to insert the words "in equal proportions."—(Mr. Barclay.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

It would, I think, be very unfortunate in the interests of the progress of this measure if we were to enter into the question of, the incidence of taxation in boroughs. That is a question which ought not to be dealt with in a Bill consolidating the police law. This clause simply continues the system which has been in vogue many years in Scotland; and the analogies which the hon. Member drew do not hold, because even if we take the Local Government Act the division of certain rates between the owners and the occupiers was simply for the purpose of bringing in the occupiers in view of the increased representation they were obtaining under that Act. I have never heard the present practice called in question. The clause deals only with the assessment for general purposes, and its justification is that it preserves the status quo.

DR. CLARK

The right hon. Gentleman is scarcely accurate. The Bill does make considerable change, and that in the direction of relieving the owner of his liability. My hon. Friend the Mover of this Amendment (Mr. Barclay), and the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Rowlands), when the Bill was before the Committee were in favour of placing on the occupiers this burden of maintaining the pavements, and they did so deeming it better, instead of a two penny assessment, to place the pavement under the control of the Commissioners, and to compel the owners to pay half of the rate. If the Government are determined that the burden which has been borne by the landlords shall be transferred to the community, then the landlords should bear a portion of it. The Amendment of the hon. Member goes back to the condition of things before 1862. The Act of that year was hurried through the House very much as this is being hurried through; pressure was brought to bear, and the whole question was not fully considered. By that Act the whole burden was transferred from owners to occupiers, and very unfairly, I think, and that is what we are repealing. So far as any change was made by the Local Government Act, it was to transfer burdens to the occupiers. The rate was consolidated and paid a moiety by each owner and occupier, though until then it had been borne entirely by owners. It is only right that owners should bear their fair share, and we shall then have uniformity of rating throughout Scotland. At the present time the owner pays half of the poor rate and half of the education rate, and all we desire is that he should pay half of the police rate, the improvements, the lighting, and the general expenditure, which is defrayed from the assessment. It is only fair, now that you are placing an extra burden upon the occupier until now borne entirely by the owner that the owner should in this case bear a fair share of it. I have much pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend's Amendment. Let us have uniformity of assessment.

(6.43.) MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I am not much impressed with the value of the Bill. It is badly drafted, and the substance is not much better than the form. But now we come to a matter of real and serious practical importance, the division of rates between occupier and owner, and if the result of our discussion were to imperil or defeat the Bill it would be a real benefit to the people of Scotland. It would be disastrous if we in 1892 were to give the slightest sanction to this law passed in 1862. Several things have happened since that date. In 1867 the suffrage was extended to workmen in towns, and in 1885 it was extended to workmen in the counties; and are we to be told in 1892 that those who had no voice in the making of this law of 1862 are to be equally ignored to-day as if they had no more voice now? Does anyone suppose for a moment that if in 1862 workmen had had the franchise they would have submitted to the process which has since gone on, the removal of these ancient burdens from the landlords to the shoulders of the occupiers? What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us last night? I listened to a very interesting discussion between the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) on political economy, and the right hon. Gentleman on this side professed himself a disciple of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a very edifying talk, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured the House that all the rates in towns which were paid by the occupiers came out of the pockets of the occupiers, and were not a burden on owners. Now, I am not going to discuss that question on its merits, or to say whether I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on it or not; but I take the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government on their own ground occupied last night, that all these local rates payable by the owners are taken out of the pockets of the occupiers, and I say we live in a time when the working classes are not disposed to agree that the whole burden of these rates should fall on their shoulders. They are disposed to demand that as in the case of the poor rate and education rate, so in this rate, to the extent of half, it should be borne by the proprietors. Can the Govern- ment show us any reason why occupiers should bear the whole cost in burghs? This is a matter of infinitely greater importance than all the other questions raised by this so-called Consolidation Bill, and I venture to think that unless the Government will meet us on this point it would be wise policy on our part to take care not to give fresh sanction in a new enactment in these days to a principle acknowledged now to be unjust towards a large portion of the community.

(6.50.) MR. BARCLAY

This is a very important question of principle, and we ought not to dispose of it immediately. It is worthy of the consideration we can give to it between now and our next sitting on the Bill. The Lord Advocate says the Bill does not afford the proper opportunity for dealing with the question, but that it should be dealt with as part of the general incidence of taxation; but I say this is precisely the time for dealing with it when we are dealing with the incidence of local taxation for the whole of the burghs of Scotland with five exceptions. I see no prospect of any other opportunity.

It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.