(No. 168.) SECOND BEADING. (Hansard, 15 July 1890)

§ LORD HERSCHELL
My Lords, I need trouble you but for a minute or two upon this measure, which has passed the other House of Parliament, and has received, I believe, the full support of the Local Government Board in its passage through that House. Its purport is to correct what I think was obviously an oversight in the Metropolis Management Acts. There exist in various parts of the Metropolis footpaths which are repaired by the parish, but which have to be flagged by the tenants. A provision in those Acts enables the parish to flag them, and casts the expenses of doing so upon the occupiers of the adjoining houses. "Why that burden was cast upon the occupiers it is very difficult to understand. Similar burdens appear throughout the Acts to be cast upon the owners; and this special provision has been found to operate with grievous hardship in some parts of the Metropolis, where the Vestries have flagged the highways. The burden is cast upon the occupier, however short his tenure. It has actually happened that at the time the flagging took place the tenant, who was in occupation under a quarterly tenancy, had not only given notice to quit, but had positively quitted, the premises, and would never have anything more to do with them, at the time when the whole burden of the flagging of a portion of the footpaths was cast upon him. There can be no doubt that was not the intention of the Legislature, and the proposal of this Bill is merely to deal with those footpaths in the same way as other permanent improvements are dealt with—that is, to put the burden of them upon the owner, as defined by the Metropolis Management Acts, instead of upon the occupier, who may be a person having a tenancy which will cease immediately the work is done.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
My Lords, I do not rise to say anything with regard to the substance of this Bill, but merely in reference to the legislation of which it 1713 is a type. There is another measure called the Metropolis Management and Building Bill, which has reached your Lordships' House, and will come on for discussion in a few days, and also another private Bill which is promoted by the London County Council, in which there are 10 clauses referring to no less than five other Acts. I think that anybody who wants to thread the maze of such legislation as that should have a clue which he will not possess. Therefore, I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord whether he does not think it possible to bring on together before the House the two Bills relating to the Metropolitan Management Act; and I would venture to suggest that, at all events, the clauses of the one Bill should be included in the other. I merely call attention to the fact, because it seems to me that this is making legislation a good deal more confused than it necessarily need be.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
I am sure I shall be most happy to entertain my noble Friend's suggestion. If the Bills were both referred to the Standing Committee no doubt we might put the whole of the clauses referred to into the two Bills, but I do not know whether we could put the whole of one Bill into the other and send it down to the House. It would be practically disagreeing with everything, because you would be transferring one to the other entirely. We might put it into the Bill, and then, if the House so wished, throw it out on Third Reading. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, I will do my best to have them put into one Bill.