HC Deb 13 March 1902 vol 104 cc1239-52

(BY ORDER).

Order for Second Reading read.

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

*(3.10.) MR. CRAWFORD SMITH (Tyneside Division)

, who moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, craved the indulgence usually granted in the House to those who addressed it for the first time. He only regretted that his arguments might not have the weight carried by the words of a more experienced speaker. He had waited day by day to see if some other hon. Member more intimately acquainted with the provisions of the Bill would put down a Motion opposing it, but, failing that, he had put down a Motion in his own name. He candidly confessed that he was to a very small extent interested in the welfare of the Bill, but although he was speaking on the subject he did not intend to take any part in the division which might follow. Whatever interest he had would be properly safeguarded by a syndicate which had been formed, and which, he understood, consisted of gentlemen connected with the city of Manchester and district, and who would take care that all interests would be properly looked after. He knew nothing about the members of the syndicate—he only assumed that they intended to carry out the promises they had made to the Corporation—but he wanted to call the attention of the House to the very grave matter of principle involved. The principle which lay upon the very surface of the Bill was compulsory purchase of private property by a private syndicate instead of by a corporation, in order to transfer the interests of private individuals to others without the previous consent of both parties. They who were owners of property were accustomed day by day to hear of syndicates formed for the acquisition of various matters, and of private buyers and sellers coming together to formulate large schemes which were eventually carried out successfully. They were also accustomed to corporations sending in notices that, for the purpose of improvements, they were going to take possession of one's property, and although one might regret it, one bowed to the inevitable. But here they were threatened with a new terror. They would not only have corporations allowed to serve notices upon owners of property, but if a private syndicate was formed, it might, with or without the consent of the corporation, if that Bill were passed into law, be able to serve notices upon owners for the appropriation of their property. That Bill applied to Manchester, but there was no reason why the principle should not be applied to any other large centre of industry in the country. Once they allowed that principle, they would have syndicates formed not only in their own country, but probably very many thousands of miles away, which would not only absorb their industries, but would also become owners of their streets, with the result that they would be placed in a position of considerable jeopardy.

A statement which had been circulated that morning, indicated that of twenty-four owners interested in the matter, twenty-two were not against the Bill, and the other two would be dealt with probably in a favourable way in the event of the Bill coming into law. The question at issue had reference to a well-known district of Manchester. Market Street was the main artery of Manchester, and was a very congested district. The traffic was not only very large in certain hours of the day, but from the early morning to late at night the passers-by upon the pavement and the vehicles in the street made the congestion of that district a very great danger, not only to the present population of Manchester, but also to the prospective increased population in years to come. The scheme which had been put before the Corporation had very generally the approval of the citizens of Manchester, but a similar Bill was brought before the Manchester Corporation last year. It was not exactly the same, but the principle at the foundation of both Bills was the same. That Bill was relegated to the Parliamentary Sub-Committee of the Corporation, who considered the matter very carefully, and in a division eight voted for the Bill and five against it. It was afterwards discussed by the Corporation, sixty-three out of 104 members being present, and forty-one voted for the Bill, and twenty-two against it, so that when they took the Bill of last year into consideration, it was evident that there was a considerable minority of the Corporation who were against the measure. The new Bill introduced this year might have met with the approval of the Corporation—he was not in a position to say whether it had or had not—but that did not affect the argument. The Bill proposed to hand over powers which should belong to the Corporation to a private syndicate to carry forward. The reasons which the Corporation officials gave why that Bill was not taken over by them, were that their hands were so full with other schemes that they had neither the time nor the opportunity to carry forward such a measure, and that they had power to acquire land, but not to build upon it. Another reason was that some years ago, a piece of land known as Victoria Buildings, close to Victoria Station, was acquired by a private syndicate, and, in the course of time, the contractor employed upon the work of building failed to carry out his contract, and the Corporation stepped in and took possession of the un-finished building. There was an estimate given in that case that the rental would amount to £35,000 per annum. The actual amount now received from that property was only £13,000, so that the amount expended by the Corporation was yielding a very small revenue, and once a Corporation had been bitten, they were very shy in taking over a scheme which might not be in the future remunerative. But the Corporation had taken care in this scheme that sufficient capital should be provided. £900,000 must be subscribed before the undertaking was commenced. They were to receive from the syndicate a street sixty-three feet in width, and what would weigh more with the Corporation than anything else, the increased rental upon the new street would affect the rating authority to such an extent that they expected the existing rates would be reduced 3d. in the pound by that new undertaking. He did not for one instant doubt the bona fides of the syndicate or their methods.

The principle at stake was far more interesting than any such consideration, and was one upon which the House itself must decide, viz., whether a local authority could abnegate their powers, and delegate them to private individuals. Parliament not only gave powers to but imposed duties upon local authorities, because they represented the taxpayers. It was asked that the Bill should be referred to a Committee upstairs. Last year a Bill similar in its application to the present was introduced into the other House, where it was sent to a Committee and discussed in detail with the Corporation officials and witnesses present, and was rejected. Now the promoters of the Bill came to that House with a similar clause in a similar Bill. Why should that Bill be sent up to a Committee when it had been rejected in Committee in the other House? Surely the House was quite able to understand the principles which underlay the Bill. In 1898 an interesting debate took place upon a Bill introduced into that House upon similar lines. He referred to the Victoria Embankment Extension Bill. In that case the House, by an enormous majority, refused to send that Bill to the Committee.† The figures were, 84 for, and 336 against, the Bill. He hoped a similar fate would occur to the present Bill that day. It was a Bill which might have the effect—and he presumed would have, if the clause were carried into effect by the proper authorities—of the necessary alteration being made that was wanted. The congestion of the district of Market Street might be alleviated and traffic diverted, but he appealed to the House, and to those Members of the House interested in the rights of private property in large centres of population, to recognise that if that compulsory power was granted there would be no means of knowing when private property would be compulsorily taken from them. He also appealed to those Members who believed in the proper authority looking after its proper duties, and to the many Members of the House who realised that in any extensions and improvements of property in centres of population, the proper authority was not a private syndicate but the local body elected by the ratepayers for that purpose.

MR. JAMES REID (Greenock)

seconded the rejection of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, To leave out the word 'now,' in order to insert 'on this day six months.'"—(Mr. Crawford Smith.)

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

(3.25.) SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)

said that although his name was on the back of the Bill he had no interest in it except as one of the Members for Manchester, and intimately acquainted with some of the promoters of the Bill. It certainly must be a matter of surprise that, with six Members for Manchester and three for Salford, besides those representing the adjoining districts, the opponents of the Bill had gone all the way to the Tyneside to find a Member, and that a new Member, to move the rejection of a private Bill in the interests †This debate is reported in (4) Debates, lvi., 1094. of the citizens of Manchester. The hon. Member had said he would not vote. Why?

MR. CRAWFORD SMITH

Because I have a small interest in the matter as an occupier.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said that, under the circumstances, the hon. Member's position was thoroughly legitimate. The hon. Member for South-west Manchester had exerted himself in opposition to this Bill, and had always been thoroughly straightforward in the matter. He had told him from the first that he was opposed to the Bill and intended to do all he could against it. The land affected by the Bill was not in his hon. friend's constituency, and had the interests of the inhabitants of the district been injuriously affected, he was sure his hon. friend the senior Member for Manchester would not have been slow to interpose on their behalf. The hon. Member said that this was practically the same Bill as that introduced last year; but that dealt with two great thoroughfares, whereas this Bill dealt with only one. The hon. Member objected to an improvement of this kind being undertaken by a private company and not by the Corporation, but surely the Corporation was the best judge of whether it was convenient for them to undertake a large work of this kind. Forty-four Members had voted in favour of the scheme, and only seven against, and that after a full debate. The Corporation had its hands very full. It had guaranteed £5,000,000 for the completion of the Manchester Ship Canal, which he believed indirectly had been very beneficial to the city, and which he hoped at no distant date would be remunerative. With the enormous works they had already in hand, the Corporation would rather that this improvement was carried out by private enterprise. At the same time they desired that the company should not interfere with the great artery of Market Street, but should leave that to be done by them under an arrangement provided in the Bill. It was true that some land the Corporation acquired last year had not for the most part been sold yet, and that was a considerable reason why they should not be burdened with a large amount of property which they perhaps could not realise. The hon. Member said he did not question the efficiency of the capital. He could hardly do that, because it was expressly provided in Clause 28 that unless the capital was subscribed in full the company should not exercise its compulsory powers. Therefore there was abundant security to the public that the company should not begin with insufficient means.

The hon Member for Tyneside said that this measure was on all fours with the Victoria Embankment Bill of 1898. and ought to be dealt with in the same way. Would the House believe that there was so little similarity between the two measures that the Bill was thrown out being opposed by the London County Council, because they had a scheme of their own for which they had since received Parliamentary powers? Therefore there was a great dissimilarity between the two cases. He was surprised to see in The Times that morning two suggestions, neither of which he ventured to say were accurate. One was that the Corporation of Manchester, having failed to obtain Parliamentary powers to carry out this scheme, were now attempting to prevent a private company from passing it into law. The Corporation had done nothing of the kind. This was a scheme for the benefit of Manchester, for he knew no street which was so congested as Market Street, Manchester, where they would find vehicles of all kinds passing along, besides a large number of foot passengers. No less than twenty-two out of the twenty-four owners affected were not opposing this measure, and the remaining two were virtually satisfied. He ventured to say that no scheme had been made out for withdrawing the scheme.

(3.36.) MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S.W.)

said he would be quitefrankinregard to this measure. He had no private object of any kind to serve in opposing this Bill, and he had no interest of any sort in the property affected. His right hon. friend had said that the only difference between this measure and the Westminster Bill of 1898 was that the local authority in that instance were anxious to promote a Bill, and in this case the Council was not anxious to promote the scheme. In the case of the Westminster Bill the same principle was contained in it, namely, that they were asked to give to a private syndicate powers to take compulsorily the property of other people. In that case Parliament would not reverse its almost universal practice of refusing to allow a private syndicate to exercise compulsorily rights over other people's property. This was an area which undoubtedly needed improvement. The widening of Market Street had been in the air for a great number of years, but the question as to whether this scheme would improve Market Street was a point more for the Committee to consider. If hon. Members would look at the plan, they would at once be convinced that the improvement proposed was a very partial one, and at one end in particular it would be a serious danger to the traffic. With regard to the consent of the Manchester Corporation to the scheme of this Bill, his hon. friend admitted that last year there was great opposition on the part of the Corporation, but this year it had been considerably reduced. and he said that now forty-four members of the Corporation voted for and seven against the Bill. He was under the impression that there were only six, and, therefore, his hon. friend had understated his case. He would point out, however, that only fifty members of the Council voted out of considerably over 100, and after the discussion several of the oldest and most respected members not only took no part in the division but actually walked out. He did not wish to suggest that that proved that the Corporation were not in favour of the scheme, because he believed they were; but what he did say was that the Corporation had not shown any burning desire for the scheme such as his right honourable friend had suggested. The position of the Corporation was this. They said, "If we can get this improvement by a private syndicate, why not? And why should this company not have compulsory powers if Parliament thinks fit to give them to it?"

His right hon. friend had said that the Corporation of Manchester thought this was a matter for a private syndicate and not for Parliament to decide, but he ventured to say that that was a misrepresentation of the state of affairs in Manchester. It was really a question of principle, and the opponents of the Bill felt that practically the same Bill had been brought in again. Therefore they did not see why they should be put to the expense of again threshing out a question which had been decided by a Committee of the House of Lords. There was a question of principle involved. Parliament had given to the local authority in Manchester the means to carry out street and local improvements. They had to hold local inquiries and ratepayers' meetings, and all these means had been provided by Parliament, whereby the local authorities could carry out necessary improvements. Parliament in one or two exceptional cases gave compulsory power to private syndicates to carry out improvements of this kind, but in all cases there were, like the Strand improvement, very exceptional circumstances. His right hon. friend had mentioned Birmingham, but the improvement there was carried out by the local Corporation, and in the Leeds case the powers were granted to the Corporation. If the House was going to reverse its decision of 1898, in the case of the Westminster Improvement Bill, he did not see where there was going to be any security to owners of property. The promoters said that this property was necessary to their scheme, but the House was being asked to pass the Bill because someone desired to make money out of it. Was it right that Parliament should give these people the right to make money out of other people's property when no case had been made out? Did his right hon. friend suggest that the Corporation, which was able to borrow money at a little over 3 per cent. on their consolidated stock, was unable to carry out a great improvement of this kind? He thought that if the Corporation was really in earnest in desiring to carry out the scheme, they would have very little difficulty in getting the money. He hoped, therefore, the House would agree to reject the Bill by a large majority, and not put those whose property was attacked under the necessity of having to defend themselves before a Committee of this House.

*(3.46.) MR. GROVES (Salford, S.)

said he wished to correct a misapprehension in the mind of his hon. friend. It was the General Purposes Committee of the Corporation that decided in favour of the scheme by a majority. When the matter came before the Council it was passed without question. The plans of the promoters had been considerably improved and out of twenty-four proprietors concerned there were only two who were now dissenting. When that opposition was overcome, as it was hoped it would be, the Corporation would proceed with the widening of the remaining portion of the street. He knew pretty well every brick on this property, although he had never owned or had any interest in any portion of it. It was absolutely tumbling down in many places, and the reason that the owners could not take means to rebuild was because their property at every point was surrounded by ancient lights. It was quite impossible to deal with this matter piecemeal. For many years the Corporation had had their hands full, and they could not proceed with this scheme, much as it was required. The rates had been going up, and the public spirit of the Corporation was such that they had undertaken improvements which were not always of a remunerative character. The various interests concerned in this matter having now been brought into line, he hoped that the House would take a broad view of the measure, and not stand in the way of the promoters carrying out the public improvement.

MR. PLATT-HIGGINS (Salford, N.)

said the opposition to this measure was based on the sacred right of private property. He must say that when twenty-three owners of property out of twenty-four were in favour of the scheme it seemed to him to be a singular ground of opposition. Those who knew Manchester knew that there was a crying evil in connection with this matter. Hon. Members who had been in the Committee room today knew that the tramway scheme would be utterly impossible unless the street was widened. It must be widened, and this proposal seemed to provide the only way in which it could be done. It was supported unanimously by the Manchester Corporation, and he submitted that the Bill should be passed in accordance with their wish.

MR. SEELY (Lincoln)

said he knew nothing whatever about this Bill, but he was in favour of its going to a Committee on the ground that the constant habit of Members bringing forward Motions at the time for private business to prevent Bills going to a Committee was becoming a nuisance, and was causing inconvenience to public business. It seemed to him that the only way to stop this was for a large number of Members to vote for sending everything to a Committee which was opposed in this way.

*(3.54.) MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)

said that he had not the privilege of being connected with Manchester, but as a case in which he was interested had been more than once referred to, he was bound to point out that this Bill was in most respects similar to the Westminster Improvement Bill, which; on a Motion which he proposed, was rejected by the House. It was rejected entirely on a matter of principle. It was not, as the right hon. Baronet behind him (Sir J. Ferguson) had urged, rejected because of the opposition of the London County Council. He did not want to depreciate the assistance which he and his friends received on that occasion from the hon. Member for Battersea; but it would be within the recollection of hon. Members that in those days the County Council was not very popular in the House, and he himself was warned that the co-operation of that body would not advance his case. The question of principle involved in that Bill was

the same one that was obviously involved in this. It was a principle so important that the House was not only justified in coming, but was bound to come to a decision in the matter. The principle involved in the Bill now before the House was whether the public interest was to be guarded by a public authority responsible to the ratepayers, or whether that public interest, so far as it was embodied in a scheme like this, should be in the hands of a private body who could have no ultimate object to serve except the interest of their shareholders in making dividends. That was a definite principle on which the House ought to decide. On this point he differed entirely from his hon. friend who had just spoken, Matters of detail undoubtedly should go to a Committee upstairs; but to say that important matters of principle should not be decided by this House was a reductio ad absurdum of the procedure of the House with regard to private Bills, which in that case ought not to come before the House at all.

(3.58.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 102; Noes, 179. Words added. (Division List No. 76.)

Second reading put off for six months.