HL Deb 23 June 1891 vol 354 cc1165-77

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

*THE EARL OF ELGIN

My Lords, this Bill proposes to deal with certain inconveniences and anomalies which have arisen in the management of the roads and streets in some of the smaller burghs in Scotland. I think I can sufficiently show to your Lordships the necessity for the Bill by stating in a few words what the present position is. The general Act which abolished tolls in Scotland in 1878 constituted County Road bodies which have the management of all the roads, with the exception that in Royal burghs, and in police burghs of above 5,000 inhabitants, the roads fall under the Burgh Authorities, who become separate authorities for those purposes. So far as I know there is really no substantial difference between a Royal burgh and a police burgh, except, perhaps, in matter of antiquity. They have the same constituents, the same elections, the same Magistrates, the same Courts, and they perform the same functions; and least of all, is there any difference in the matter of population, because police burghs range from the burgh of Govan, which contains something like 60,000 in habitants, to the small burghs, and the Royal burghs go down even lower still till they come to the case of one having only 380 inhabitants. In fact, of the small burghs in Scotland there are 46 Royal burghs and 77 police burghs. It is obvious that the transference of the roads in the Royal burghs and not in the small police burghs was calculated to create some feeling of jealousy in the latter, and that has been accentuated as time went on, because, unfortunately, variations have occurred. In the first place, some burghs which had above 5,000 inhabitants have become less, and some that had less than 5,000 have become larger. But in addition to that there were certain provisions in the Act of 1878 which have increased these anomalies and inequalities. The Act provides that in a certain period after the adoption of the Act, a list of highways should be made up under each of the road authorities, and the roads which were intended to be put upon that list were roads which had been formerly maintained from public funds. After the list was made up, those roads, and those roads only, became highways, and were maintained out of the county assessments. Of course it would never have done that that list should be considered final, and accordingly there were subsequent provisions in the Act which enact that certain steps should be taken to put roads upon the list. That provision has been acted upon I should think very often, certainly it has in my own experience, but it has had a legal interpretation given to it. I am not, of course, going to argue the matter upon any legal interpretation, I am only going to state a fact in regard to the police burghs in this connection. It has been held that the list once made up in a police burgh cannot be added to; that new roads or streets cannot be added under the provisions of the Act to which I have referred in the case of those police burghs. Again, to create a still further anomaly, there have been, since the adoption of the Act, places incorporated as burghs which were not then burghs, and in those cases which sometimes referred to places of above 5,000 inhabitants, sometimes to places of below 5,000 inhabitants, in both cases the roads are under the management of the County Authorities, but different from their neighbours who were within police burghs at the time of the passing of the Act, can have all their roads placed upon the county rates. Now, it follows, therefore, that we have a variety of conditions with regard to burghs in Scotland. We have among the towns of above 5,000 inhabitants in the first place, Royal burghs, and in the second place, police burghs that were police burghs before 1878, who are separate road authorities, and who manage their own roads. Then we have police burghs which have been incorporated since that date, which are managed by the County Authorities, and have all their roads so managed; and in the fourth place, we have the police burghs, which were incorporated before that date, and were then below the 5,000 limit, but have now increased, which are under county management, but which have no roads put upon the rates except the roads which were included as highways. Then, in places of below 5,000 inhabitants, we have practically the same divisions. We have the Royal burghs with their own management, the police burghs of 5,000 inhabitants in 1878, but now below that number, with their own management, and then we have the two other divisions, those which have all their roads maintained because of the lateness of their incorporation, and those which can only have their roads maintained which are highways in the county sense. I think this statement will be sufficient to show your Lordships that there are very serious anomalies, and what ordinary persons would naturally consider inequalities if they are resident in a police burgh with regard to the position of the roads in the police burghs in Scotland. I shall sum up the grievances which the inhabitants feel in this matter under two heads. In the first place, there is the grievance which affects these side or new streets. I do not think I need insist upon the great importance of those streets being maintained in proper order. In fact, anyone who has had anything to do with sanitary management, will recognise at once that the necessity of maintaining those streets in proper order, and seeing that they are kept clean, is one of the reasons for the incorporation of small burghs. But besides that, many of them became very important streets in the burghs to which they belong. I have seen it stated that in the burgh of Millport, the whole rental on which the county lays its assessment abuts on these streets which are not on the county lists, and none of them apparently abut on any street or road which the county maintains. And in another case (Newport) with which I am acquainted, as being in my own county, of the total valuation of £18,000 no less than £10,000 abuts on streets for which no provision is made out of the county rates. Or, take another instance. A station may be put down in the neighbourhood. If a road leading to that station is in the county there can be no doubt, under the provisions of the Act, that the road will be put on the county list and maintained; but if it passes through a police burgh under the power to which I have alluded, it cannot be so put upon the list, and that, no doubt, is a great grievance. Then, in the second place, there is a grievance with regard to the main roads which are maintained by the county, because it is certainly an inconvenient state of affairs that these main roads, which are practically the main streets of these burghs in which the Commissioners must lay down gas and water pipes, and which they must break up for many purposes are entirely under the control and supervision of the officials of the county, and those officials are naturally and rightly somewhat jealous of any interference which might damage the roadway as a roadway. So far as I know, the objections which are taken to this measure from the county point of view depend chiefly on two considerations; In the first place, it is feared that allowing these police burghs to become separate Road Authorities may withdraw a certain portion of road assessment which the counties now enjoy. I do not think I need enter into the general argument on that point. It appears to me, if these small burghs are to be allowed to incorporate themselves for the various purposes for which they are so incorporated, it is almost necessary that the maintenance of the roads, and the assessments for the maintenance of the roads, should follow. But I would just point out that in this Bill, which is now before your Lordships' House, the contention which has been brought forward on behalf of the counties is given effect to in a manner which has not been done before; because what this Bill provides is not that the police burghs may by any action of their own, and without any further steps, take possession of the road and levy the assessment, but that if they pass a resolution that they desire to take possession of the roads, they are then to agree upon terms with the County Authorities; and if the parties do not agree themselves, it is provided that the terms shall be settled summarily by the Sheriff or Sheriff of the county or counties in which the police burgh is situate, who shall take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, including the cost of maintaining the highways in the neighbourhood of such police burghs. That is the contention as I understand it, and I have heard a good deal of it now for many years, which has always been advanced on behalf of county management of the roads—that we have some claim upon the burghs, large and small, which formerly used to pay tolls when they used our roads, but who now got the use of the roads for nothing; and I venture to" suggest that, in the recognition of this principle in the present Bill, we have as county men received some consideration. At any rate, it is as a compromise that I regard it and that I advocate it. In the second place, I can quite sympathise with the other objection, which is naturally felt, namely, that a central administration, particularly for main roads, is exceedingly desirable, and that to cut it up among a very large number of small Road Authorities is not desirable. But I will just point out that we have to look at both sides of this question, and the consideration which I have advanced with regard to the management of the streets for other purposes by the Burgh Authorities seems to me to raise difficulties which are practically insuperable in any other way, and I would further suggest that in this Bill again there is an opportunity for a compromise on reasonable terms. I see nothing to prevent the County Authorities stipulating, in the terms which they are authorised under this Bill to make with the burghs, that a contract should be entered into either with the county directly or by the appointment of a county road surveyor as the surveyor for the burghs. The superintendence of the roads would thus be maintained in one hand. I speak with some experience in this matter, because I know a case in my own county in which that was satisfactorily done. There is another alternative comprised in the Bill, namely, in the 6th clause, which in cases where the burghs do not resolve to take possession of roads allows County Road Authorities to pay a small sum for the maintenance of side streets under the superintendence of the Burgh Authorities. I am quite prepared to say that in many cases with which lam acquainted that would have' settled the whole matter, if we had had the power (which we were advised we had not), long ago. I would venture to say that I speak with some experience in this particular matter, because I belong to a county which has more small burghs in it than any other county in Scotland. Fife has 18 Royal burghs, mostly under 5,000 inhabitants, and 10 police burghs, and I would only say that if for administrative purposes there is a real advantage in a Central Authority, this surely ought to be done by a measure which deals not only with the small police burghs, but also with the small Royal burghs, and I venture to suggest respectfully to my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland that if not in this matter, at any rate in sanitary matters, the time will come when he will have to consider seriously the necessity of introducing some general measure for the purpose of bringing these small burghs into line with the counties; but I do not see that there is any reason why, in the meantime, the smaller police burghs should be put at a disadvantage as compared with the position of their neighbours. One word more I would venture to say to your Lordships with regard to the history of this question. This is by no means a new question. The difficulties and friction have existed for a long time, practically since the passing of the Road Act, or very soon afterwards; but it was supposed that this matter would be dealt with in one of the largest Bills that was ever submitted to your Lordships' consideration—the Burgh Police Bill; and it was only when, I suppose from its mere weight, it failed to pass that those who are interested in these burghs brought forward this Bill last year. In the course of the history of that Burgh Police Bill the matter was very carefully sifted indeed. It went through two Select Committees I think, one of this and one of the other House; and in the last Select Committee, that of the other House, this particular subject received, as I know, particular attention, and the Bill, which I have the honour of presenting to your Lordships, is based essentially on the clauses which were adjusted by that Select Committee. The Bill was this Session brought forward again, and was received by both Parties in the other House cordially. It was suggested that it should stand over for some time in order that the County Councils in Scotland should have time to consider it, and that is the reason it has not reached this House before the present date; but the Lord Advocate announced himself a warm supporter of the Bill; the name of the Solicitor General of the late Government was on the back of the Bill; and, therefore, I think I am entitled to say this Bill comes up from the other House with the practical consent of both Parties. It has had considerable support outside. I believe there were about 70 Petitions in favour of the Bill and only one against it, and I have had the honour this evening of presenting to your Lordships' House a Petition from the representatives of the police burghs of Scotland, urging very strongly that your Lordships should allow this Bill to pass this Session on the ground which I have already mentioned, namely, that it is a satisfactory compromise. I venture for these reasons to ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Elgin.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Lords, the subject which is raised by this Bill is one of considerable importance in the local administration of Scotland, and I think it requires a little attention. The proposal of the Bill is that any police burgh, without any limit of population at all, shall have it in its power to assume the management of its own roads and streets. That is accompanied, however, by the condition that the Sheriff shall name the terms upon which police burghs shall cease to be part of the county. Now, so far as principle goes, this Bill is objectionable, because it departs and recedes from the principle which is laid down in the Local Government Act for Scotland which was passed two years ago. The Local Government Act recognised the desirability of diminishing as far as possible the power of the small burghs. The Local Government Act insists that police burghs of under 7,000 inhabitants shall not maintain and support police, and that they shall not be Local Authorities with regard to the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts. This Bill takes exactly the reverse line, and perhaps I may just mention to your Lordships the practical effect it will have. Of police burghs with a population of under 1,000 there are 6; between 1,000 and 2,000 there are 22; between 2,000 and 3,000 there are 19; between 3,000 and 4,000 there are 19; and between 4,000 and 5,000 there are 11, making a total number of 77, and therefore, if this Bill passes, it is quite possible, and not only possible but quite probable, that you will set up 77 additional Road-keeping Authorities in Scotland. Of course, these new centres of administration will be, if I may so call them, so many islands in the counties, and certainly, in themselves, if there were no other reasons for creating them, I think that what I have already said would be a very great objection against the principle of the measure. But I do not wish to discuss this question at all. My noble Friend said just now that this Bill had been attacked and opposed from the point of view of the counties. I do not wish to discuss the Bill from that point of view at all. I wish to look at it both with regard to the counties and with regard to the burghs themselves. I quite admit that, as far as the larger burghs are concerned, it is very desirable that they should have the management of their own roads and streets; but up to the present time, and until the introduction of this Bill, it has never been proposed that the very small burghs should have the management of their roads and streets. In the Police Bill which my noble Friend quoted just now the clause was that all the police burghs which had a population of 5,000 should have this power of managing their own streets; but that police burghs having a less population than 5,000 should only have the power of taking over their streets if the consent of the county was obtained. This Bill goes a great deal further, because it says that a police burgh, of whatever size, may, if it chooses, take over its own streets, and in the list I have mentioned to your Lordships there are several, as you have heard, which have a population of less than 1,000. Now, I readily admit that these police burghs have one undoubted grievance, which was mentioned just now; they are not able, in the first place, to control the streets and pathways which are among their own houses, and are not able to interfere with them. The county surveyor may, if he chooses, request that they shall not interfere with the surface of the streets. That, I admit, is a very considerable hardship, and, also, it is perfectly true that unless the county district consents they cannot get their side streets put upon the list of highways. I am not quite certain whether they even can if the county district does consent; and that also, I admit, is a considerable grievance. The main objection, however, which they have taken is this: that they contribute much more largely to the support of the roads than to the extent of the benefit which they themselves derive from their assessment. But these small burghs, of course, must understand this: that if in this particular they contribute more than they receive from the county, in certain other respects they receive a great deal more than they contribute. For instance with regard to the Police Force. It is quite well-known that maintaining the police in these very small burghs is a very considerable expense upon the counties; and, therefore, if you are merely looking upon questions of this sort from the point of view of money, you must remember that if in regard to roads they suffer, in other matters, such as police, they are considerable gainers from the county. I am not going to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but there are two or three other matters which I wish to bring under the notice of your Lordships and of those who drafted the Bill. In the first place, this Bill, as I have said, is drawn entirely in the interests of the burghs. It places the whole initiative in their hands. A burgh may say to a county, "We wish to leave you; "and, subject to the confirmation of the arrangement by the Sheriff, the burgh may do what it pleases in the matter. I cannot help thinking that, in dealing with these roads, the county ought to have a reciprocal power. The county ought to be able to say, if it so wishes, "We prefer that you, if a police burgh, should manage your own roads and streets." There would be more value in an Amendment of this sort than some suppose, because those who, like myself and the noble Earl who has just spoken (the Earl of Elgin), have something to do with the local administration in Scotland know that very frequently disputes and difficulties arise which, if you had the power of determining them in some such way as this, would never be heard of. There is another point which I should like to call your Lordships' attention to, and that is that the terms under which these small burghs may be removed from the county are to be settled by the Sheriff, and the Sheriff includes, of course, the Sheriff Substitute, unless express provision is made to the contrary. Now, this might easily happen: that in some counties where there are small burghs and several Sheriff Substitutes, you might have the terms arranged in the same county on quite different principles. I think it is desirable there should be as few versions of the law as possible; and that in each county it is desirable for that purpose that the Sheriff himself should settle the terms on which this alteration of jurisdiction is to take place. The same thing has been done in other matters. It was done with regard to the Corrupt Practices Act for Scotland which was passed only last year; the same thing was done in practice also, if not enforced by the law, in the case of the settlement of the electoral divisions under the Local Government Act; and I think the same arrangement would be very desirable here. There is one further point to which I would allude, and that is a matter which, I think, deserves some further consideration; it is whether there should not in these cases be some periodical revision of the terms of separation, the reason being this: that it will very probably happen that some of these police burghs will extend themselves. As the police burghs grow in size, so, of course, they will use the county roads more and more, and it is desirable, I think, that at the end of some certain term, which, of course should not be a little one, after a certain duration of time a revision of terms should be conceded in the interests either of the county, or of the burgh, or of both. With these few remarks, which I commend to the attention of the noble Lord, I do not propose to offer any objection to the Second Reading of the Bill.

*THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

My Lords, I do not think that it is necessary that I should say much regarding this Bill. It is not a Government measure, but perhaps some of your Lordships who are interested in this question may think it right that I should say a few words upon it. The question, as the noble Earl, who has just sat down has said, is one of considerable interest in Scotland, affecting as it does the interests of both burghs and counties. As a matter of fact, the reason for introducing this Bill is that the police burghs, as stated by the noble Earl, are dissatisfied with the position which they hold in the existing state of matters. The burghs have nothing to say with regard to the complicated position of the various burghs in Scotland as the noble Earl has said, referring, of course, to the various police burghs and Royal burghs which have a population of 5,000 and upwards, having the management of their own roads, and with regard to those under that number of population not having the management of their own roads. The question, which is one of supreme interest to the counties of Scotland, is whether practically under this Bill a very large amount of assessment is to be taken away from the counties, and therefore not used for the purpose of maintaining these particular roads? That is a matter which ought not to be loft an open question under this Bill. I have no doubt that the burghs, anxious as they are for this Bill, are anxious that the counties should not suffer. I think that is the basis of the compromise which they now offer. They desire to have the management of their own roads, as has been stated by the noble Earl who has introduced the measure, because under the existing state of matters they pay the valuation, and yet they have not the management of the side streets, upon which a great part of that valuation is levied. That is the first consideration; and, secondly, because in the state of matters which now exists very great inconvenience is felt in regard to questions of sewerage, gas lighting, and other similar subjects. I think the noble Earl who has just sat down raised a question which was well worthy the consideration of the noble Earl who has introduced the Bill. I do not intend to make any positive statement on the subject now, because I would rather see what the proposals of the noble Earl are if he introduces Amendments on the Committee stage in this House; but the point I was alluding to is the vagueness of the basis on which the Sheriffs are to estimate in the case of any burghs managing their own roads the sums they are to pay to the counties. I do not know whether, in the present form of the Bill, the word "Sheriff" would include the Sheriff Substitute, and I think that adds to the difficulty If it does include the Sheriff Substitute it need not be so stated in the Bill, because in Scotland, unless it is stated to the contrary, a reference to the Sheriff does include the Sheriff Substitute, and as the noble Earl has pointed out, if the Sheriffs and the Sheriff Substitutes are in each case to come to a decision upon the merits according to their own way of looking at the matter, there will no doubt be great divergence in the decisions and opinions they may come to. There was another point to which the noble Earl referred; and if he will put an Amendment upon the Paper with regard to it, I shall be most happy to consider it on the part of the Government. More than that I cannot say now, as I do not exactly recollect at the moment what it was.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I shall be glad if I can be of any assistance. I said that I thought the terms of separation might be periodically revised in the event of the burghs being largely extended.

*THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

That was the point to which I wished to allude. I think that also is well worthy of consideration, because the size of the burghs varies very considerably in Scotland. They sometimes increase considerably, and sometimes they decrease. I hope that is a matter which the noble Earl will consider; but upon the principle of the Bill, and quite apart from mere details, I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to the Bill. Whatever alterations may he necessary will be a question hereafter. That will depend upon another stage. I can only say that I sincerely hope the Bill will pass into law this Session.

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN

My Lords, I am glad to hear from the noble Lord the Secretary of Scotland that the Bill is not opposed on behalf of the Government. I only rise to say that although the noble Lord who raised this Debate spoke of the Bill as one which is demanded in the interest of the police burghs, I think it must be borne in mind that none of the counties have petitioned except Perth.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

For far is not in favour of it.

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN

The County of Aberdeen has petitioned in favour of the Bill, with one single qualifying exception, which I do not think bears at all upon the merits of the Bill. On the whole, the counties have shown an attitude favourable to the Bill, and for that reason I am glad to hear from the noble Earl the Secretary for Scotland that Her Majesty's Government do not propose to oppose the Bill.

On Question, agreed to.

Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.