SECOND READING. (Hansard, 14 April 1893)

§ MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)
I understand there is a desire for the postponement of this Bill till next week. I have no objection to the postponement on the merits, but there is a question of Order to which I desire to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, in order to have your opinion upon it. The Bill is a Bill for the execution of certain works in London, and the amount of money proposed to be spent is £5,000,000. There is in the Preamble a list of the works, and at the end of the Bill are the usual means for raising the money for the purpose. But, apart from the amount of money for the works, there is in Section 45 of the Bill a separate and distinct code containing other powers for raising money by an entirely novel mode of taxation, for it asks the House to give the County Council power to impose on the property of private owners a charge by way of a mortgage on their properties, which, for the sake of brevity, I will describe as "the betterment system." The question I wish to ask is whether that power of raising money in a novel mode, which has never yet been discussed in this House, can be introduced by the County Council into a Private Bill? Standing Order 191 provides that— All Bills framed by the London County Council containing powers to raise money shall be introduced as Public Bills. This Bill contains powers to raise money, and I submit, therefore—if the Standing Order went no farther—that it should be brought in as a Public Bill. But there is, however, in the Standing Order a further 310 proviso which raises a little doubt. It says that this Order shall not apply to Bills promoted by the London County Council for the borrowing of money which complies with certain conditions which are set out. This is a Bill, no doubt, which enables the County Council to borrow money, and in respect to that borrowing of money I am willing, for the purposes of the argument, to admit that it complies with all the conditions affecting the borrowing of money. But that has nothing to do with the subject-matter of Clause 4o. That clause has a distinct code which gives power to the County Council to impose a new taxation on the owners of property in the Metropolis. Moreover, any money which the County Council would be so empowered to raise as a charge on such property is not at all appropriated by the Bill for any public purpose. Therefore, I submit that in these two respects the Bill does not comply with the Standing Order. The Bill in other respects is perfectly legitimate, and one which I hope, with certain modifications, will pass into law; but I. submit that this new system of taxation should be discussed in the House as a public matter, and not introduced in a Private Bill, which is referred to a small Committee. I should not like, Sir, to place you in any difficulty. If yon think that this question places you in a position of doubt or difficulty, and if you think the House should discuss the matter I have raised in the question on the Bill itself next week, I shall, of course, accede to that course.

§ *SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)
I shall be glad to say a few words on behalf of the London County Council before you decide the point, and I must first thank my hon. Friend for giving me Notice of the point which he has raised. This Bill, in the terms of Standing Order 194, authorises the borrowing and expenditure, for the purposes mentioned, of the sum shown in the Estimates recited to be required for each purpose, and is otherwise framed in accordance with that Order. Clauses 4o and 49 deal with the provision of the annual sums required to meet interest and principle, and other revenue expenses. Both of them apply to the purposes of the Act, separate accounts being kept for the purposes of the authorised improvements. Clause 45, on 311 which my hon. Friend relies, only applies to a limited specific area defined on the deposited plan within limits of deviation. A ruling, such as my hon. Friend asks for, was made on a former Bill of the London County Council. But this Bill is different in its character from the London Owners Improvement Rate or Charge Bill, which provided for the general levy of a rate throughout the whole of the county which might be applied to such purposes as the Council might think fit, those purposes not being specially recited in the Bill. It is said that Clause 45 does not expressly apply only to the proposed improvements. The County Council, on the contrary, contend that it does; if not, an Amendment in Committee might make the matter clear. I therefore respectfully submit that the Bill is in Order, and that it ought to be proceeded with in its present form. With regard to the Debate on the Second Reading, I understand that Thursday 27th would be convenient to hon. Members opposite.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member has raised very clearly a point of Order as regards the course taken by the promoters of this Bill. I understand that the objection does not apply to the whole Bill, because there is no question that, as a whole, it need not be introduced as a Public Bill. The hon. Member bases his objection on the 45th clause, and maintains that, as it introduces a new principle of raising money, therefore the whole Bill is vitiated. It would be rather a strong thing to say that, because a particular clause for a Private Bill should be properly introduced as a Public Bill, the whole Bill is thereby vitiated, and that it should be introduced as a Public Bill. But, apart from that, the hon. Member has raised the point that Clause 45 does include a principle that ought to be the subject of a Public Bill, and ought not to be included in a Private Bill. Reference has been made to a former ruling given by me. The distinction between that case and the present one is obvious. In the case of the London Owners' Improvement Charge Bill, there was a provision in regard to betterment by raising a charge over the whole county to be applied to the purposes of a limited locality. That, I thought, was a principle that should be introduced only in a Public Bill, because the people on 312 whom the charge was made would not either necessarily, or even possibly, be benefited by it. I therefore ruled that that measure should have been introduced as a Public and not as a Private Bill. The question here is whether the 45th clause does raise such a question as ought to be introduced in a Public Bill. The hon. Member will see that, though it is quite true that in the Preamble of the Bill charges are made, and estimates of specific improvements given, yet that in the 45th clause there is only a general reference, and that there is no allotment of the charges to specific improvements.

§ MR. KIMBER
At the end of the Bill there are means provided for raising the whole of the money.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member will see that, under Section 14 of the Bill, an arbitrator will have to decide whether the particular property affected is improved, and whether the increased charge shall apply to the property so increased in value. I cannot see that any objection can be taken to it, and in my opinion the clause, looked at as I have described it, may be properly the subject of a Private Bill. If the hon. Member thinks the question of betterment, to which he objects, is raised by the 45th clause, his course is either, on a further stage of the Bill, to move to omit the clause—in which case the House will be in a position to discuss the principle and its application—or he may, if he thinks the clause too vague, and that the specific charges are not, sufficiently hypothecated for specific improvements, move an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to allocate the particular charges to particular improvements in the Bill. Under these circumstances, I do not think there is any objection to proceeding with the Bill as a Private Bill.

§ MR. KIMBER
said, he accepted the decision of the Speaker, and would avail himself of the opportunity given him by the Notice he had placed on the Paper to discuss the question he had raised when the Bill came on. With regard to the date of the adjournment, he would point out that the Bill was a very heavy one, and if there was any delay it might not go through this Session, with the result that the contemplated improvements in London would not take place in the 313 present depressed season for the working classes. He should be glad to have the discussion on the Bill taken next week.

§ *SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
said, he was willing to accept any day which suited the convenience of Members generally.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)
said, it was desirable that some definite day should be decided on, as there was considerable inconvenience caused to hon. Members by the Notice of the Bill appearing day after day on the Paper without any intention of bringing it on.