HC Deb 24 February 1893 vol 9 cc289-99

Order for Second Reading read.

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

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

I do not wish to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but there are one or two points in it which I think require serious attention. First, there is Clause 15, which gives power to the County Council to spend money on investigations and negotiations— to obtain such advice and assistance to make such investigations and to carry on such negotiations on any subject as they may consider desirable in the public interest. I think these are large powers. It is true the County Council have issued a statement in which they endeavour to minimise these powers, stating their intention is only to spend sums of limited amount on inquiries in relation to certain specified subjects. If these words were in the Bill itself, I would have nothing to say against it; and I hope the matter will be attended to by the Committee upstairs. There is another matter of considerable importance. Clause 19 of the Bill gives power of a very drastic nature to the County Council to re-arrange the wards in different parts of London. It says— The Council may from time to time upon the application in writing of the Vestry, or of not less than 500 rated householders of a parish within the County of London by order under their seal, re-arrange the wards in such parish, and determine the number, extent, limits, and boundary lines of such new wards. That is a strong power to give the County Council over the heads of the Vestries on the requisition of 500 ratepayers. Five hundred may seem a large number, but in the parish of Islington, which I represent, we have 40,000 houses and a population of 350,000 persons; so that after all 500 is a very small portion of the residents to have the power of inducing or moving the London County Council to re-arrange the wards, even against the wishes of the Vestry, which is elected by a representative body of the ratepayers. It is quite true that there is an appeal to the Secretary of State; but that is a very cumbersome procedure, and I think there should be some restrictions inserted in the clause which would prevent a small portion of the residents of a district from over-riding the wishes of the Vestry.

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

said, that with reference to Clause 21, dealing with sky signs, street advertisements and hoardings, it seemed that the County Council had not yet made up their mind as to the nature or the scope of the clause, and that being so he thought that persons affected by the clause, such as street advertisers, should have the opportunity of giving their views to the Committee. If, as he understood, the time for presenting Petitions had expired, he thought these people should have the opportunity of attending before the Committee and have their interests represented.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)

I can assure the hon. Member (Mr. Bartley) that the London County Council are not desirous to spend unreasonable sums of money in obtaining the information they require. But when proposals are made a careful inquiry is often necessary in the interests of economy, and we desire to be ready for such emergencies. As to his other point, we think there must be some ultimate authority as to the re-arrangement of the wards. We think our proposal is a very reasonable mode of dealing with the subject. We desire to co-operate with the Vestries in the matter, and it is very improbable that we should endeavour to force the Vestries into a re-arrangement of the wards against their wishes. To guard against any arbitrary re-arrangement, we make it subject to an appeal to the Local Government Board, but the County Council will have pleasure in meeting any objection on that point that may be raised. As regards the request of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton), the Council have taken no steps to shut out Petitions. We should not object to Petitions being referred to the Committee. I hope, under these circumstances, the House will consent to the Second Reading of the Bill.

COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)

said, he thought the London County Council should not be entrusted with arbitrary power to sub-divide the wards as the population increased. With regard to inquiries, and the amount of money that might be spent on inquiries, he thought the County Council would have power under the Bill, if it passed without, amendment, to make inquiries anywhere—in Berlin, or in any other part of the world; and in the interest of all the ratepayers of London at large some strict definition should be given to the words and limitation of expense in order to prevent the County Council from going beyond their statutory powers.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection.

SIR A. BORTHWICK (Kensington, S.)

moved— That all Petitions against the Bill presented in conformity with the Standing Orders be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill. My desire that this Bill should go to a larger Committee than a Select Committee is entirely based upon a consideration of the principles involved in it, and not upon any wish to oppose the general measures of the County Council. The County Council is a very large and important body, which has in many respects done its work well, and I am certain that the wish of the House of Commons and the public generally is to encourage it in doing its work as efficiently as possible. From time to time, however, the Council comes to Parliament for further powers, and my complaint against it is that, instead of asking definitely for what it absolutely requires, it it too apt to open its mouth too wide and ask for powers which hardly ought to be conceded to it. In this very Bill it asks for powers to raise any amount of money for any investigation without laying down any specific definition whatever. In another clause it proposes—I do not use the term at all offensively—to invade the Thames Conservancy, which is a very old body and thoroughly well administered. The County Council now ask for a sudden and large representation upon that body, but while the Thames flows for 20 miles of its course through the territory of the London County Council, there are many more miles where the County Council cannot possibly claim to have any authority over the river. I am not contesting the point as to whether or not the County Council ought to be represented upon the Thames Conservancy, but I must point out that the Council are putting forward a sudden and large requirement without any apparent justification. The Council seek power to build a bridge, and also to establish a large ferry, across the river, in both of which cases they ignore the existence of the Conservancy altogether. The subject of sky signs has been alluded to, and it is very difficult to arrive at an exact definition of what constitutes a sky sign; but here again the County Council take power to interfere with all mural advertisements, and insert a clause in their Bill which I am sure will certainly be excised in many of its details by any Committee before which it may come. The Bill likewise deals with the question of music. The Council has already spent £4,000 a year for bands in open spaces, and under this Bill, instead of getting an estimate from the Vestries or District Boards as to what particular bands they require, they take power to ask for any amount of money, and to provide any quantity of music anywhere. This may give rise to suspicions, because there is a proposal on the part of the County Council to take over the Albert Hall, and we may have the County Council plunging into speculative entertainments at the Albert Hall. I may be told the rate payers would object to that, but I am not so certain upon the point. The rate payers are very long-suffering, and many of them are very full of the wish for entertainment. It is certainly evident that such a large power of providing amusement in competition with other amusements might lead to very considerable abuse. I am not alluding to the matter in any carping spirit, but I think a case has been made out for the reference of the Bill to such a Committee as I now propose.

MR. W. F. D. SMITH (Strand, Westminster)

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That all Petitions against the Bill presented in conformity with the Standing Orders be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill."—(Sir Algernon Borthwick.)

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

I quite agree with the hon. Baronet when he says that he has not moved this Motion in any carping spirit, but it appears to me that he has done so under a misapprehension of the facts. Take the question of music, for instance. He said we are asking for powers to spend additional sums of money in providing music for the people. That is not so. At present we have powers to spend any money we please on bands in the parks, but we have no power to place a band in any of the open spaces which are under the control of the Vestries. The people who live near those open spaces in different parts of London very properly think that they should share in the pleasure of the bands as well as people who live near the parks, but we are precluded from carrying out their very natural wish, because these open spaces are not under the control of the County Council, but under the control of the Vestries. As to the point about the amount of money to be spent on inquiries, I have already replied to that. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not desirous to undertake any inquiries which may end in wasting the ratepayers money; but we think that when we have entered on an inquiry which we see will be of advantage to the ratepayers, we should not be precluded from carrying it to a successful issue because of the insufficiency of our powers. The hon. Baronet seems to think that our proposal in respect to the representation of the County Council on the Thames Conservancy Board is a new and subtle proposal; but really we are only carrying out a recommendation of a Committee of this House. When we made a similar proposal in 1890 it was referred to the Committee upstairs, and they gave us a representation on the Conservancy of the Lea, which was agreed to by the Lords and is now law. The Committee also gave us a representation of five Members on the Thames Board, but when the Bill came down to this House again the question was raised that as it was undesirable to deal with the question of the Thames Conservancy as a whole, it was, under the circumstances, undesirable at that moment to make any change in the constitution in the Thames Conservancy Board. We think we should have some voice in the control of the great river which flows through London, and I hope the House will think that that is only fair. At any rate, the whole question might be considered if the Bill goes to a Committee. As regards the County Council, we have no objection to the Motion of the hon. Baronet, with a certain Amendment which will be moved later on by the hon. Member for Hoxton Division of Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart) Speaking, however, as a Member of this House, I am not sure that this Motion is desirable; it seems to me that an ordinary Committee would be quite sufficient, but if the House thinks that a Hybrid Committee is desirable, so far as the County Council is concerned we have no objection to offer.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

said, the Amendment he wished to move to the second paragraph of the Motion was in order that certain people who are affected by the clauses in this Bill and who have not presented Petitions because they do not really know what the County Council intend to do—even the County Council themselves have not made up their minds as to the scope of the clauses—should have an opportunity of petitioning. He now proposed that that should be effected by this Amendment to the second paragraph of the Motion: After the word "presented" in the first line to omit the words "in conformity with the Standing Orders," and insert "within five days from the Second Reading," so that the clause would read, "that all Petitions against the Bill presented within five days from the Second Reading be referred to the Committee."

Amendment proposed, To leave out the words "in conformity with the Standing Orders," and insert the words "within five days from the Second Reading."— (Mr. Thomas Henry Bolton.)

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

COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)

observed that such an Amendment would exclude the Petitions that had already been lodged.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

intimated that he should be willing to include the words "and already presented," so that Petitions already lodged should not be excluded.

MR. SPEAKER

I would suggest that the words should be "within one week of the meeting of the Committee." I do not know whether the hon. Member will accept that.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

thought that if the Committee were to meet within a week from the present time that would shut out Petitions. Howver, he was in the hands of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER

The Committee cannot meet until this day week.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

If that is so, I will accept the suggestion.

MR. SPEAKER

If the hon Member will accept the words "within seven days of the meeting of the Committee," I will put it to the House—that the words proposed to be left out be omitted for the purpose of inserting the words "within seven days of the meeting of the Committee."

Amendment put, and negatived.

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Words "not later than six clear days before the meeting of the Committee" there inserted.—(Mr. Thomas Henry Bolton.)

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

I think the Amendment my hon. Friend is now moving goes a good deal beyond his first suggestion. What I said was that the Committee would no doubt receive the Petitions, and certainly there was no desire to exclude anyone interested. To that I still adhere, but I think it would be a dangerous thing to depart from the rules of the House, to allow further Petitions to be handed in, and the petitioners heard by counsel.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

I cannot see what objection there should be to allowing any persons affected by this clause to have their views represented. We have been told that the County Council themselves have not yet made up their minds what this clause is to be, and yet these people are to be shut out from having their views represented by counsel before the Committee! I am surprised that the right hon. Baronet has raised any objection to the course I have suggested.

MR. SPEAKER

I hardly like to make another suggestion, but I think it would be better if the notice were "not later than six clear days before the meeting of the Committee."

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Allow me to point out that it does not matter what Petitions are referred to the Committee; but what Petitions are allowed to be heard, and it is upon the next point that Debate may arise. On this point I think my right hon. Friend might allow Petitions to be presented up till within six days of the meeting of the Committee.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

I agree to that.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

then moved, in reference to the words "the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel," &c., that the words "the Petitioners" be omitted, and the following words inserted in their place: "such Petitioners as would otherwise have a locus standi." If such an Amendment were not adopted, the Bill would be thrown open to any amount of Petitions to be heard by counsel, and persons who had no locus standi under ordinary circumstances might apply that their Petitions be presented and considered by the Committee. The Committee might take the question under their consideration, and considerable expense might be thrown upon the City.

Amendment proposed, To leave out the words "the Petitioners," and insert the words "such Petitioners as would otherwise have a locus standi."—(Mr. James Stuart.)

MR. T. H. BOLTON

The words "otherwise have a locus standi," taken in connection with the alteration made in the first paragraph, might confine the petitioners to those people who have already presented Petitions. That is not what is intended; and with reference to the suggestion that the altered clause, taken in conjunction with the alteration made by my Motion, would let in all sorts of people to petition, and would let in a number of Petitions that would not come in under the Standing Order, that is not a good objection. The provisions of this Bill are so very exceptional in many of their aspects that it would be unfair to important interests to lay down a hard and fast rule, made to apply to ordinary cases, but not to extraordinary cases such as this. There is a good deal in this Bill besides what appears on the face of it. This sky-sign clause unquestionably may very seriously affect a very important and useful trade, and I am not at all sure that that trade, as a body, could present a Petition with reference to this particular clause under the Standing Orders of the House. That being so, if the Amendment which my hon. Friend now proposes be carried, the result might be to shut out that important trade; and there are other interests affected by this Bill which, by any hard and fast rule confining the Petitions within highly technical rules, would shut out important interests that have a right to be heard on a measure of this kind. I am not desirous of throwing any difficulties in the way. I only wish, in regard to this Bill—which the County Council themselves admit is confessedly imperfect and ought to be supplemented by corrections in many places—that it should be open to Public Bodies and persons prejudicially affected by it to have an opportunity of presenting Petitions upon it and of being heard by the Committee. As to the question of expense, I may point out that no person would petition Parliament, fee counsel, and bring witnesses before the Committee at considerable expense unless he has some serious case. Under these circumstances, I object to the Amendment, and I trust the House will not assent to it.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

My hon. Friend says he wishes that these important interests he represented should have an opportunity of appearing before the Committee. But these interests have had the usual opportunity. They have had the full and ordinary notice that the Bill was going forward and of petitioning in time if they chose to do so. My hon. Friend said that I admitted on behalf of the County Council that this Bill was imperfect and must be modified. What I really did say, as representing the County Council, was that with the permission of the House we should not object to send the Bill to this Committee, and that the Committee would carefully inquire into the clauses. We have made up our minds on these clauses before this, and we desire to carry them if we can, but we are ready to consider any suggestions in a fair spirit. My hon. Friend asked me if we were prepared to agree that the Committee should consider these clauses, and I said we would gladly do so, but that is a very different thing to allowing Petitions not yet presented to be brought forward in this unusual manner. I am surprised to hear the hon. Member say that such a matter would not involve expense. We hope the House of Commons will agree to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which seems very reasonable. We have even stretched a point beyond what we were asked for—we have agreed that those persons not represented by Petitions should still have a right to petition, and those Petitions may go to the Committee upstairs and be considered. Under these circumstances, I submit we have already gone beyond what is usual in these cases; we have never admitted that there is anything in the Bill which we do not approve, all that we have said being that we shall be happy to consider the evidence and representation that may be made to the Committee upstairs. I hope, under these circumstances, that the House will support us in our endeavour to oppose being put to unnecessary and unusual expense in this matter.

Question put, "That the words 'the Petitioners' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: — Ayes 98; Noes 229.—(Division List, No. 12.)

Words inserted.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented not later than six clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee, that such Petitioners as would otherwise have a locus standi, praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill. Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records. Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Sir Algernon Borthwick.)