LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.

HC Deb 24 April 1899 vol 70 cc446-9

*MR. SPEAKER

There are various instructions on the Paper with which it is necessary for me to deal. The first two, which stand in the names of the honourable Members for Poplar and North Monmouth, invite the House to reconsider the relations between the city and the county of London. Those objects may be attained by amendment in Committee on the Bill; therefore the instructions are not in order. The next instructions are in the names of the honourable Member for North Islington and the honourable Member for Stepney. They propose that the Committee have— power to insert clauses in the Bill providing for the transfer to the new local authorities of all the powers and duties of guardians of the poor, and to assimilate the Poor Law areas in London to the areas of the new local authorities. That part of the instruction which proposes to insert a clause providing for the transfer to the local authorities of the duties of the guardians of the poor is beyond the scope of the Bill. The administration of the Poor Law is not referred to at all in the Bill, and is dealt with by separate statutes. The latter part of the instruction can be dealt with by amendment. It is in the power of honourable Members to propose any areas they choose by way of amendment in Committee. The next instruction stands in the name of the honourable Member for Hoxton. He proposes— That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide in the Bill for the more uniform and better assessment of the various districts of the county of London on the lines proposed in the recent Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. I think this instruction is open to the objection that it is not as definite as an instruction ought to be. And, further, this is a Bill to readjust the administrative areas and authorities of the county of London, and does not touch the question of local taxation except to make the necessary changes in the machinery of the collecting authorities. To introduce the question of local taxation would be to extend the Bill far beyond its proper scope, and, therefore, that is out of order. The same remarks apply to the proposed instruction of the honourable Member for Devonport to deal with the question of the taxation of ground values, and that also is out of order.

*MR. E. J. C. MORTON (Devonport)

desired, upon the point of order, to know, having regard to the fact that clause 10 of the Bill proposed to amalgamate several rates, one of which was the present sewers rate, into a single rate, to be called the "general rate," and that the occupier, who paid the present sewers rate, was entitled to deduct the amount of his rate from his rent, while no such provision was allowed for any part of the "general rate," whether clause 10 of the Bill did not alter the incidence of taxation from the owner to the occupier in respect of so much of the future "general rate" as would represent the present sewers rate, and whether, under these circumstances, it could be out of the scope of the Bill for him to make provision for moving and Amendment to alter the incidence of to taxation under the Bill in the opposite sense?

*MR. SPEAKER

Objections might be raised, and properly raised, to the proposed method of dealing with the general rate and the sewer rate. It might be found inconvenient that they should be joined, and the honourable Member would be in order in proposing an Amendment to separate them. But if the instruction were agreed to, a fresh valuation of ground values and sites would have to be made throughout London; that would not obviate the difficulty raised by the honourable Member, but would create a new one. The question of ground values must be dealt with by separate legislation. The last instruction is in the name of the honourable and gallant Member for Forfarshire, and, it proposes to provide— For the transfer from the Metropolitan Asylums Board to the London County Council and to the new metropolitan district authorities of all or any of the powers and duties in relation to public health now exercised by the Metropolitan Asylums Board in the administrative county of London. I think that so much of this instruction as proposes to transfer the powers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board to the County Council is beyond the scope of the Bill. This is not a Bill for extending the powers of the London County Council, but to regulate the arrangements between it and subordinate areas in which municipal authorities are to be created. So far as he proposes that some of the powers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board in relation to public health, such as are commonly exercised by municipalities, should be transferred to the new metropolitan district authorities, an Amendment to that effect would be in order if moved in Committee. Therefore his instruction is unnecessary. That disposes of all the instructions on the Paper, and therefore I am in a position to leave the Chair.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]

(In the Committee.)