§ Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill amended, be now considered."
§ MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N. E.)moved, "That the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee in respect of Clause 5 (Expense of lighting common staircases)." He said, he did not like to take this course of moving that the Bill be referred hack, but it was the only way of dealing with the matter. The Bill, as amended in Committee, proposed to make some changes in the powers of the London County Council with regard to workmen's dwellings or dwellings in blocks. That body had come to the conclusion that it was desirable that the common staircases should be lighted in such buildings at night until sunrise, and they had introduced a clause to that effect into the Bill. The evidence upon that subject had no doubt been considered by the Committee upstairs, and had that been all he should not have thought it his duty to intervene in the matter. But the Local Authorities had been consulted, and grounds had been made out for interference. The Bill, as it had come down to the House from the Committee, was now changed, and instead of throwing the responsibility for lighting the staircases of these private dwellings upon the owners, it proposed that half the cost of such lighting should be defrayed by the Local Authorities out of the rates. He maintained that this was altogether a new thing as applied in this country. He knew nothing, of course, of what had taken place upstairs, but he believed the only precedents brought before the Committee wore the cases of Edinburgh and Glasgow. He was unaware to what extent the Com- 694 mittee considered there was a precise similarity of circumstances; he could only say from his own knowledge of those cities, the "wynds," as they were called, were common highways, and there might be a necessity for lighting them in both those towns where they led to blocks of dwellings. It was unnecessary, however, to go into the question as regarded Glasgow and Edinburgh. His objection was to throwing the responsibility of lighting the staircases of blocks of dwellings belonging to private owners upon the ratepayers. This proposal was really "the thin end of the wedge," so often referred to in that House, and he could not exactly see where it was going to land them. The House should be exceedingly jealous of any proposal to extend taxation and rating in this country. The power of taxation conferred by Parliament upon Local Authorities had already grown to an enormous extent; and the House ought, in the interests of the taxpayers, to take every care to prevent any undue extension of the principle of taxation by Private Bill Legislation, and to keep it within very strict bounds indeed. He had no wish to taboo the matter, and had taken this course as the simplest way of calling attention to the matter. He had no objection to the Bill, nor any wish to interfere with it passing. Probably the London County Council had taken good care of such parts of the Bill as required to be brought before the House. If the House should not see fit to refer it back to the Committee, in order that they might reconsider the whole thing, he should certainly feel called upon to move that, two of the amended clauses be struck out. For the present, he simply moved that the Bill be referred back, that evidence from the Local Authorities might be taken. Various Local Authorities would be affected by this clause in many different parts of London. Some, of course, would not be affected at all, but in his own constituency there were a great number of these blocks of private dwellings; also on the south side of the river, in Chelsea, and in St. Luke's, and they would probably be greatly extended in various parts of the Metropolis. When an attempt was being made to throw part of the cost of lighting the staircases to them, which should be borne by the owners, whether private individuals or public companies, so dangerous 695 a precedent should be resisted. Whatever was required to be done to make these staircases decent and respectable at night should be done at the expense of the owners.
§
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words, "as amended, be now considered," in order to add the words,
Re-committed to the former Committee in respect of Clause 5 (Lighting common staircases, &c.)"—(Mr. Howell.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'as amended, be now considered,' stand part of the Question."
§ MR. CODDINGTON (Blackburn)said, that when this clause was before the Committee upstairs it was most carefully considered. Many alterations were made in it, the original proposal having been that the whole expenses of lighting these common staircases should be thrown on the property owners. The Committee, of which he was Chairman, took the view, however, that if it were desired that these staircases should be lighted, they would be lighted for the public convenience, and that it seemed manifestly unfair, therefore, to impose upon the owners the entire cost of lighting. The evidence showed that an enormous number of people lived in industrial dwellings, and it was clear that the occupants would be injured if the owners were called upon to bear the whole cost of lighting. A compromise was therefore arrived at, by which one-half the cost was imposed upon the owners and one-half upon the Vestries, powers being given to the Vestries to say whether the staircases should be lighted or not. The evidence given before the Committee showed that in some instances the street lamps were so situated as to sufficiently light the staircases, and that was why it was left to the Local Authority to say whether or not special lights should be provided. Had the hon. Member for Bethnal Creen been in the Committee Room he would have seen what anxiety was displayed by the Committee in regard to this matter, and he would not have adopted the course he had taken that day.
§ SIR L. LYELL (Orkney and Shetland), as a Member of the Committee, said, he and his Colleagues were quite unanimous in the decision they came to upon that clause. These common staircases were practically part of the street. 696 It was desirable that they should be adequately lighted—as a fact, they were lighted up for a portion of the evening, and it was held to be necessary on police grounds that the lighting should be continued throughout the night in the same way as streets wore lighted. Inasmuch as the Local Authorities were to have the power of insisting on this extended lighting, it was felt to be only fair to the property owners, who did not deem it necessary, in the interests of the occupiers, to keep the gas alight for so many hours, that the whole of the increased expense should not fall upon them. The decision that the Local Authority should pay half the cost of lighting the staircases was, under the circumstances, a very fair one, and he therefore joined the hon. Member for Blackburn, the Chairman of the Committee, in resisting the Motion of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green.
§ COLONEL LOYD (Chatham)objected to the proposal to send the Bill back to the Committee. It would involve a waste of time, as they had already carefully considered this question, and had unanimously decided to divide the cost of lighting the staircases between the owners and the Local Authority. As the result of a census among the occupiers of these blocks, it was ascertained that only 3 per cent. wished the staircases to be lit up at night. Surely, then, if the Public Authorities were anxious to have them lighted longer they ought to bear some portion of the cost. Hence the compromise which was arrived at by the Committee, before which £3,500,000 worth of property was represented, and it did not seem to him that the House ought to entertain the suggestion that the Committee should be asked to reconsider the proposal.
§ MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)said, it was always difficult, especially when one had had no opportunity of either hearing or seeing the evidence given by a Committee, to controvert the position taken up by the Members; but looking at this question on general grounds, and knowing, as he did, a great deal about the locality, he was sure the evidence was of such a nature as to convince the Committee that something was required to be done in the matter of lighting the staircases. But it was a rather strong order for the Committee to assume that this was simply a 697 matter of public convenience—in the ordinary acceptance of the term, as applied to the question of street lighting. Surely if the persons who erected these blocks created a public inconvenience by putting out the lights at a given hour, there was nothing unjust in calling upon them to make such arrangements as would avoid that public inconvenience. In that part of London which he represented there were large numbers of these blocks, and there was a very strong feeling in favour of the staircases being lighted, but he could not see why the small householder and small shopkeeper, who already paid heavily for lighting the thoroughfares, should have an extra charge thrown upon them in order to put an end to a public inconvenience caused by the action of private owners. That was the crux of the situation, and he submitted that if the owners of these dwellings de-sired to maintain the reputation hitherto borne by them they should pay the expense of providing the necessary lighting. He was told that under the Burgh and Police (Scotland) Act owners of such properties were called upon to provide a, proper amount of lighting, although an exception was made in the case of the City of Glasgow, where the Local Authorities contributed something. But was not that exception due to the fact that the Glasgow Authorities had control over their own gas supply, and therefore felt themselves to be able to deal generously with their own people out of that which was common property? In London the case was very different, for there it was felt they were already paying £500,000 annually in excess of what they ought to pay for their gas supply. He hoped the House would seriously consider this question, and would bear in mind that the lighting of the staircases would be of great advantage to the occupants of the blocks, who were terribly inconvenienced at the present time by the niggardly proceedings of Companies owning the properties. Although this class of workmen's dwellings was not his ideal of what the working man's home should be, they could not deny that the blocks were a necessity in the present conditions of London life, and the proper lighting of them would be very beneficial to the residents in them.
§ MR. J. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)said, the circumstances in which the House was placed were a little diffi- 698 cult. The London County Council were responsible for the proposal that the staircases should be lighted, and that the owners of the property should pay the cost. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green now asked that that proposal should be given effect to, but the Committee before which the Bill went had after careful investigation decided that the Lighting Authority should have the power of regulating the lighting of these staircases, and that it should in consequence bear half the cost. It seemed to him it would be rather difficult to refer the matter back to the Committee. It was rather a question for the House to determine, and he should not press his Motion, but that he should avail himself of the subsequent opportunity of raising the issue by moving to strike out the clause.
§ MR. RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.), as a Member of the Committee, wished to say a word as to their decision. The Committee were absolutely unanimous in thinking that the proposals in the Bill were of a somewhat stringent character, and they felt that the very considerable expense that would be caused to owners and occupiers would be more than was justified. It was proposed to work these lighting provisions through the Vestries concerned, and it appeared that those Vestries had not been very largely consulted, and there was no evidence before the Committee to show that there was any great wish on their part that the duty should be put upon them. The evidence showed that- the inhabitants and proprietors of these flats did not desire them to be lighted after 11 o'clock. They thought that if the lights were kept up after 11 o'clock it would be undesirable in the interests of quietness. The Committee came to the conclusion that the initiative should be left to the Lighting Authority. The responsibility would rest with the Vestries, and they would have to exercise their own discretion as to putting their powers in force. The Committee felt that as the arrangement was as much for the convenience of the police as of the inhabitants of the blocks the cost should be divided.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,) Bradford, Centralsaid, that after the strong and unanimous expression of opinion on the part of the Mem- 699 bers of the Committee he thought it would be useless to refer the matter back to them, as it was obvious they would stand by the decision at which they had already arrived. As the Vestries had not had an opportunity of considering this matter he would suggest that the Motion be withdrawn and the Bill be postponed a short time, so that the hon. Member could take another opportunity of raising a Debate on a point as to which in the absence of evidence he himself should be sorry to express an opinion.
§ MR. HOWELLIf the House desires I will take that course, and will raise the question on a future occasion.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Main Question again proposed.
§ Debate adjourned till Tuesday, 22nd May.