COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 21 July 1893)

LORD BALFOUR
asked if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill could now give an answer to the question he had put on Second Reading? The Bill, though not really effecting what it professed to do, set up Glasgow as a county, did something. It gave Glasgow a Commission of the Peace and power to appoint officers; but no provision was made for paying the latter or for defraying the expenses of the former. Possibly he would be told—and that was why he had not put down Amendments—that that House was not competent to deal with the matter; but, as a matter of curiosity, he would like to know how the Scotch Office proposed that the necessary expenses of the machinery to be setup were to be met?

§ LORD PLAYFAIR
said, that when it was stated that the whole extra expense required to carry out the provisions of the Bill would only be £250 per annum, the noble Lord would scarcely think it necessary to intervene on the Committee stage. That was a very trivial amount compared with the resources of the Municipality of Glasgow, where 1d. in the £1 rate produced £15,000. The Municipality might, therefore, readily be trusted not to become bankrupt by having to pay that small sum.

LORD BALFOUR
asked whether the Municipality were to pay it out of their own pockets? Because there would be no power to assess for it, or to pay it out of any existing fund.

§ LORD PLAYFAIR
said, that was provided for by Clause 8. He moved the Amendments proposed in Standing Committee.

§ LORD SHAND
asked whether it was intended that the Amendments should be disposed of now, or whether an opportunity would be given of dealing with the Bill before the Grand Committee?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, it would, of course, go to the Grand Committee?

§ LORD SHAND
said, if that were the case, several points would require careful consideration which, it had been explained, would be dealt with before the Committee stage, but none of which, he found, had been taken up. If everything was to stand over to Grand Committee he would say nothing more.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
hoped that would not be the case, because the House was always in the difficulty that they did not know when the Bill was to be considered. Amendments might be proposed on three or four occasions, either in Committee of the Whole House, in Standing Committee, on Report, or, according to a bad custom which had become more common of late, after the Third Reading. Some noble Lords objected, when the Standing Committee was taken before the Committee of the Whole House, that the House was deprived of its power of control over a Bill. Then the practice was reversed, and the Committee of the Whole House was put first, where Amendments of substance were to be brought forward, only matters of drafting and things of that kind being dealt with by the Standing Committee. But that had not been carried out, and it was very doubtful when Amendments would be taken. As the Amendments were on the Paper, he hoped the Bill would be proceeded with now as far as possible.

§ LORD PLAYFAIR
said, his Amendments were in accordance with the views of the noble Lord opposite.

* LORD BALFOUR
thought that would hardly do. As a matter of procedure, 186 the Earl of Kimberley, who was a great defender of order in this House, would find that this clause was contrary to anything that had ever been passed before. The only semblance of precedent for it was a clause in the Local Government Act, 1888–9, in reference to boundaries by which regulations for that purpose were to be confirmed by Provisional Order. But by this Bill the Secretary for Scotland was to be allowed to modify any enactment, whether general, local, or personal, as regarded its application within the area of the County of the City of Glasgow. It was no safeguard to say that anybody aggrieved might petition Parliament. Everybody could not afford that luxury. The Secretary for Scotland and the Municipality of Glasgow were to be allowed by a stroke of the pen, and without consulting anybody, to place before Parliament measures which might injuriously affect people. He would ask whether the Chairman of Committees had ever seen a clause similar to this? Other towns and cities in Scotland might possibly want to be made into counties, and of course it would be easy to obtain privileges by putting in such clauses, attracting no great attention at the time, and nobody knowing how much they might afterwards be affected by them. He would not be doing right if he failed to call attention to this new form of legislation, and he felt strongly inclined to take the sense of the Committee upon it.

§ LORD WATSON
thought the clause was in reality much less formidable than it looked, because it was limited by the words— such orders as shall appear to be necessary for bringing this Act into full operation, which did not confer upon the Secretary for Scotland any right to trench upon the general law of the land, but only to modify statutory provisions which from some unforeseen obstacle might prevent the Act being carried into effect. The clause appeared to be for the same purpose as that in the general Act, to give to Glasgow an easy means of promoting a Money Bill. If they had to come to Parliament for a Private Act, for carrying out this measure it might be considered an unnecessary expense. On 187 the other hand, it might be difficult at this stage to insert in the Bill a clause which would give them a similar power of taxation. If his understanding of its moaning was correct, he should not feel justified in opposing it.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,
speaking in the same direction, said it was true there was an uncertainty in the clause as it stood, particularly in the latter part, which he suggested might be omitted after the word "operation" in line 35. The Secretary for Scotland would then have the power intended, of making such orders as would bring this Act into full operation.

§ LORD PLAYFAIR
said, the Government were quite prepared to adopt that suggestion. It would remove a great deal of the objection to the clause.

LORD BALFOUR
said, that, of course, met a great difficulty, and in those circumstances he should not divide against the clause. He suggested that it would be better to take the words for the subsection from Section 91 of the later Local Government Act, which made it necessary for the sanction of Parliament to he obtained for any changes made.

§ LORD SHAND
said, this was a very unsatisfactory clause. It raised the same question as that already brought forward by Lord Balfour upon the working out of the Act. He could not quite believe that an annual expenditure of £250 only would be required. This clause provided for compensation to the Clerk of the Peace, and for the appointment of a new official—of course with a salary. He would again draw attention to this matter in Committee. Parliament ought to specify out of which particular fund or assessment this money should come, and it should not be left for the Magistrates to lay their hands upon any fund they chose.

LORD BALFOUR
asked whether the Scotch Office seriously proposed to give the Magistrates power without coming to Parliament to vary the purposes for which the existing assessments were to be applied?

§ LORD PLAYFAIR
said, it was intended that a Provisional Order should be laid before Parliament, so that Parliament would be able to say whether it approved or not.