§ Considered in Committee: reported, without Amendent.
§ 2.47 p.m.
§ Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Perhaps I ought to explain the purpose of the Bill and say how it comes before the House. It arises from an anomaly created by the passing of the Highways Act, 1959. I was prompted by representations by my constituents that as a consequence of the 1959 Act persons on one side of the street who, under the 1875 Public Health Act, and the 1892 Act, had fully paid for the cost of the paving of their side of the street at an earlier date, were called upon to pay towards the making up of the other side of the street as well on a later occasion.
Although the sum of money was not considerable, they naturally felt that this was monstrously unjust. Those on the other side of the street who were thus obtaining a benefit also felt that by this anomaly this was unjust. If a street is fully made up with two footpaths it is obvious that the people living in that street have to pay for it to be made up. The fact that part of the work was done before 1st January, 1960, and the other part done after that date should not lead to a distinction in the obligation for the residents to share the costs on an equitable basis.
The purpose of the Bill is to put that matter right. In a sense it is only a provisional Bill, because, clearly, it will not apply to cases in which on 1st January, 1960, neither side of a street had a footpath. This is a small matter, but I am sure the provision would give great satisfaction to a large number of 1622 people in Sheffield where the practice has been to follow a rather obscure judgment of the courts in 1880 in the case of Wakefield sanitary authority v. Mander. As a result, the practice in Sheffield and certain other cities has been out of line with practice in other parts of the country. The purpose of the Bill is to enable their practice to conform and I am sure that the Sheffield local authority will be extremely pleased if, as I hope, the Bill receives its Third Reading today.
The Bill is backed by all hon. Members representing Sheffield, irrespective of party. Both the Sheffield Corporation and I appreciate the co-operation we have received from the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in deciding how best to rectify this small problem and in preparing the Bill.
Major W. Hicks Beach (Cheltenham)I thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) for the explanation that he has just given us. I hold the view, and I have expressed it many times before, that it is wrong that any Private Member's Bill should go through without any form of explanation. I do not believe in the business of "on the nod," and for that reason I thank the hon. Gentleman for an explanation which has satisfied me as to the Bill's proposals.
I do not know the circumstances in his constituency, but I hope that the Bill will help overcome the difficulties in that area and, once again, I thank the hon. Member for the courteous way in which he has given a proper explanation to the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.