HL Deb 08 February 1894 vol 21 cc157-70

Clause 31 (Duties and powers of County Councils with respect to area and boundaries.)

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

said, he no longer saw on the Paper a Motion by Viscount Cross to omit Subsection (b), and if it was withdrawn he would call attention to the sub-section. The whole of this clause required very great consideration as regarded both its subject-matter and its drafting. It appeared to have received hardly any consideration in the House of Commons, for, having been originally negatived on the Motion of the President of the Local Government Board, it was afterwards reintroduced, and was only in the hands of hon. Members a few hours before it was passed. He should like to know what was the meaning of Sub-section (b)? The parishes referred to in the. sub-section might be said to form three classes. A parish might be within two rural sanitary districts or within two urban sanitary districts, or partly within an urban and partly within a rural sanitary district. In Sub-section (2) it was provided that "as from the appointed day" a parish which was divided between different urban sanitary districts should as regarded each part become a separate parish. What was the County Council to do in respect of these different parishes? Ho understood the intention of the Bill was that, after these parishes were made separate parishes under this clause, the County Council was to have an opportunity of considering the boundaries and making any change in them that might be considered expedient in order to carry out, the intention of the Bill. If that was so, surely the clause should be worded in a, different way and should be placed in a different part of the Bill. He objected to the proposal to give the County Council power to settle the affairs of parishes within urban districts, for such parishes belonged to the Urban Sanitary Authorities and had nothing whatever to do with the rural sanitary districts. Friction between the Municipal Authorities and the County Council might be occasioned by the proposal to which he had referred. He mentioned this matter to enable the Government to give some explanation on the subject with a view to making the clause more clear and intelligible.

LORD BELPER

desired to point out, before the noble Earl answered the question, that parts of the clause would be absolutely unworkable. He thought it would be a matter of extreme difficulty to translate this clause in any reasonable manner, and believed that some parts of it would in its present form be absolutely unintelligible. According to Clause 1, on the appointed day a parish that was partly within and partly without one sanitary district was to be divided proprio motu. With regard to the action of the County Council in the matter of grouping small parishes, he should like to know which was the appointed day referred to in Sub-section (2). It was impossible to be certain whether the boundaries were to be altered after the appointed day or before. There was no procedure provided for with regard to these small parishes until 1895. The Government should make the real meaning of the clause clear.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the noble Lord had called attention to what appeared to him to be an inconsistency between Sub-section (b) of Clause 31 and Sub-section (3) of Clause 1, and asked how, if parishes were to be divided by Sub-section (3) of Clause 1, it could be intended that the County Council should afterwards have the power of dealing with them by way of division. The two sub-sections were perfectly consistent. The words in Subsection (3) of Clause 1— subject to any alteration of area to be made by or in pursuance of this or any other Act, were for the purpose of making the divi- sion of parishes subject to consideration on the part of the County Council as to whether that division was a practicable one. It was essential, with regard to rural parishes, that some body should have the power of correcting anomalies, and where small fragments of parishes could not be constituted separate parishes to incorporate them with some other parish. He directed the last speaker's (Lord Belper's) attention to Clause 78, Sub-section (3), for the statutory interpretation of the word "forthwith." Inasmuch as the Bill provided that the consent of the parish meeting had to be given before grouping took place, he saw no necessity for any inquiry into the matter. It was the necessary consequence of the alteration made in the Bill, requiring that there should be no grouping except with the consent of the different bodies interested. "Forthwith" was not confined to grouping alone.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

said, that if it was the intention of Sub-section (b) to provide that if there was any difficulty with respect to boundaries or areas after parishes were divided the County Council might inquire and rectify them, it was a pity the intention was not more clearly expressed in the Bill. The expressions used in the clause were most vague and unsatisfactory, and should be made plain so that nobody could misunderstand them. He hoped some words might still be inserted showing what the intention clearly was. It appeared to him to be an objectionable feature of the Bill that the County Council was given the power of arranging the boundaries of urban parishes entirely within the area of an urban sanitary district. If more distinct words were not introduced in the clause he should be disposed to move the omission of the sub-section.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the division under Clause I would take place on the appointed day, and immediately after that the County Council would proceed to act. He saw no difficulty in this arrangement. It had been urged that the clause was vague and obscure, but it must be remembered that the subject was one of great complexity, and he doubted whether words could be introduced in the clause which would make its meaning perfectly obvious to every one. If, as he said, his noble Friend approved the main object of the clause, he saw no reason why his noble Friend should take such an objection to the machinery. It had been the desire of all reformers connected with local government legislation for many years to endeavour if possible to put an end to the extraordinary anomalies connected with boundaries which existed all over the Kingdom. Nothing in this direction would be accomplished until some authority was given the power to carry the work out—to remedy these things, and not merely to talk about them. If they waited for an application on the part of the different bodies interested to be made nothing whatever would be done. He was not blind to the force of the objection raised by his noble Friend, but he failed to sec how they could avoid the interference with urban districts in relation to their boundaries. On the whole, he thought it was best to lodge with the County Councils the power of revising boundaries, for through the County Councils it might be hoped to get some symmetry and some kind of order. The Committee must either make up its mind to leave the present chaotic state of things existing or empower them to enable the County Councils to make an effort to get these boundaries arranged.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

demurred to the noble Lord's expression as to the power being "lodged in the County Council." The duty was imposed upon them; no discretion was left to them; and to that he greatly objected with reference to these rural sanitary districts. A rural sanitary district was seldom co-extensive with the parishes. He supposed that sanitary districts were arranged according to drainage areas.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that sanitary districts were coterminous with Unions.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

believed there were a number of parishes the boundaries of which corresponded with drainage areas, and the duty imposed on County Councils they could hardly possibly perform.

*THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, that a Rural Sanitary Authority was coterminous with a Union, except where there was a borough included in the Union. He only wished the noble Marquess was correct, and that the boundaries of urban districts did correspond with drainage areas. It had been overlooked that the sub-section, requiring the consent of the parish meeting, related only to the grouping of parishes under a common Parish Council.

LORD BELPER

said, he saw no provision for the election of a Parish Council for more than a year and a-half after the appointed day. The noble Marquess had pointed out that the section related to grouping; but it referred also to parishes under 500, which could only have a Parish Council if the County Council chose to give it them. Questions sometimes turned up where not expected, and if he was correct nothing could be done in these small parishes for two years hence. The point required clearing up—when they were to get the Parish Councils, if they did not get them by the appointed day.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, that was a consequence of raising the population limit to 500, for which the Government were not responsible; but, of course, the Government would consider the necessity for a further change.

*THE EARL OF HARROWBY

asked for information as to Sub-section (c), which brought parishes under 500 under the operation of the clause. He had looked through all the sections, and could not make out what was to be done to these small parishes under 500 population, which were very numerous, amounting to much over 8,000. What was the use or meaning of Sub-section (c)? Unless a clear explanation was given he should move to omit the sub-section.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the scope of the clause was to enable the Act to be carried into effect in the cases mentioned—as, for instance, if it was necessary to make any change by which the whole parish should fall into one sanitary district.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

pointed out that was covered by Sub-section (a).

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, (a) referred to grouping. The object was, as far as possible, to bring the smaller areas within the larger ones as might be convenient. Cases might occur where they were outside a district and where it would be desirable to bring them in, in order as much as possible to avoid confusion. The matter was so complex that it was almost, impossible to describe shortly the object of the clause.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, a rural parish of less than 500 would not have a representative. He did not see the use of Sub-section (c), and did not understand it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

understood the object was to prevent overlapping, and surely these poor little parishes of under 500 overlapped nobody. Then, why were they included? The case of every parish under 500 was to be considered by the County Councils, on the chance that here and there one might be found to overlap.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, when parishes partly within and partly without a rural sanitary district were divided a small fragment only might fall outside the Rural Authority—so small that it would be inconvenient that it should be separately dealt with. Everybody would desire that those fragments should be put into another parish. Subsection (c), therefore, seemed to be absolutely essential.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

understood wherever overlapping occurred, whether the parish was large or small, they should come under the section. It did not matter whether the population was under 500 or not; if there were two sanitary districts they would come under the operation of Sections (a) and (b); but there was nothing in the section to show why in this respect parishes under 500 were to be dealt with differently from other small parishes.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the section enabled County Councils to deal with them.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, it was not an enabling power—they were compelled to do it. Notices were to be given, and they were to make inquiries.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, they were not compelled to do anything, but only to take cases into consideration and do what was necessary. This power would enable a small parish of perhaps 20 inhabitants to be annexed by the County Council.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

pointed out that would be grouping.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, no doubt the noble Earl had put his finger upon the very point. In one sense that would be grouping.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, it should be made clear this should not be done by the County Council without the consent of the inhabitants.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

pointed out that the grouping could never become effectual without the consent of the parish grouped.

*THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

said, considerable delay would arise under this clause. As he could not see the application of this Sub-section (c), he would support his noble Friend's proposal to leave it out.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

suggested that, as nobody appeared to understand what Sub-section (c) meant, their Lordships had better leave it out.

LORD NORTON

said, if the subsection were not left out great difficulties would be created.

*THE EARL OF HARROWBY

repeated, that as it was clear that nobody on either side of the House could explain or could understand what the sub-section meant, it would be much safer to leave it out.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, their omission would make it impossible for the County Council to take into consideration the grouping to be done under Clause 1.

Moved to omit Sub-section (V).—(The Earl of Harrowby.)

Motion agreed to.

Verbal Amendment.

LORD BELPER moved (for the Marquess of HUNTLY)

to add words to paragraph I of Sub-section 1 to provide that a rural district should not be divided unless the County Councils concerned or, in case of difference between them, the Local Government Board should for special reasons otherwise direct. He would not make himself answerable for the words of the Amendment, but believed that it would apply to such cases as Peterborough and Tam-worth, where there were three or four sanitary districts, and which desired to be left as they were.

*LORD NORTON

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper for the same purpose, which provided that the division of any rural district overlapping a county boundary should be subject to its being shown that such division would not be prejudicial to the district. No one was more anxious than himself for the rectification of boundaries, and all legislation had followed the Report of the Commission of 1871 on the subject. Any advantage, however, so derived might be outweighed altogether by the special injury done to localities from the severance of districts which had long acted together. He therefore proposed that a rural sanitary district overlapping a county boundary should not have the portion in each county made a separate area if sufficient reasons wore given to the County Councils concerned, or, on their disagreement, to the Local Government Board, that such severance would be specially prejudicial to the interests of the district. Tamworth, one of the cases alluded to by Lord Belper, which had 12 parishes in Warwickshire and 10 in Staffordshire, had for a long time been engaged together upon large sewer, water supply, and anti-pollution works, and loans had boon raised on the district for those purposes. Serious injury would be caused by the severance of such districts, 58 of which had memorialized the Local Government Board to the effect of this Amendment.

LORD MONK BRETTON

hoped that the Committee would not agree to either of the two Amendments. He thought it better to leave the words as they stood in the clause.

*THE DUKE OF RUTLAND

thought that the clause in its present form left a great hiatus, as it did not say what was to happen if the County Councils did not agree as to the revision of the boundaries. Take the case of the Union of Stamford, which was in three different counties. It was quite on the cards that might be affected by the re-arrangement of boundaries; then what was to happen under this clause?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

explained that where more than one County Council were concerned the revision of the boundaries would be referred to a joint committee constituted under the Act of 1867. The difference between himself and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Norton) was merely as to change of onus, and this did not, seem to be a matter of very great, importance.

LORD NORTON

said, that the noble Karl had exactly hit upon the difference between them; but the distinction was, he thought, important. The Bill left the matter simply to the arbitrium of the County Council, and, as he had pointed out, a division would be fatal in some oases to great public works. It was not desirable to give the County Councils this arbitrary power.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, the proviso was "if sufficient reasons were given" to the County Council. Perhaps the noble Lord meant that if no reasons were given it should not be done. It was, therefore, not a question of their being satisfied, but of sufficient reasons being shown.

LORD BELPER

said, the point might be met by an alteration in the words. The area under the jurisdiction of the County Council and the whole of the rural districts would be under the same Administrative County unless otherwise directed for special reasons. It, looked here as if the matter were to be left in the hands of one County Council, and nobody could say which County Council that was to be. The question of an appeal to the Local Government Board would arise later.

LORD NORTON

desired to add words as had been suggested—"to the satisfaction of the County Council."

LORD MONK BRETTON

"Or County Councils."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that was unnecessary, as the singular in recent legislation always meant the plural.

Amendment agreed to in the following form:— ("But a rural sanitary district overlapping a county boundary shall not have the portion in each county made a separate area, if reasons are given which satisfy the County Councils concerned, or, on their disagreement, the Local Government Board, that such severance would be specially prejudicial to the interests of the district").

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

moved— In page 30, line 0, to leave out from the word ("parish") to the word ("shall") in line 11, and insert the words ("in the case of a parish situate in more than one urban district, including a county borough").

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

said, that this would make the clause unintelligible.

LORD BELPER

said, his attention had been called to this matter by people who were much interested in it. He would show their Lordships that this clause entirely disagreed with the subsequent parts of the Bill, and was out of harmony with the present law under the Local Government Act, 1888. If these words were omitted it would give power to the, County Councils to say that the parishes for Poor Law purposes should all be within the districts of the boroughs. He did not think that was the intention of the clause. He hoped the noble Earl would not press this Amendment.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he understood that his noble Friend was quite satisfied with the words remaining precisely as they stood.

LORD BELPER

said, he was quite satisfied to let them remain as they were.

THE KARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, if the noble Lord would be satisfied with putting the words again in their appropriate place he had no objection.

LORD BELPER

said, when one provision was transposed and another introduced, which was not in the Bill before, it wits very difficult to tell what was meant.

Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

, in order to meet the special cases of Edmonton, Tettenham, and other districts, moved— In line 20, to leave out the word ("but") and insert the words ("unless the County Council for special reasons otherwise direct").

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

asked why the same provision was not made in the first clause?

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

pointed out that it was only to be "if the County Council think fit."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the object of the Amendment was to meet, special cases which he was told existed in Middlesex.

Amendment agreed to.

Verbal and drafting Amendments.

LORD BELPER

moved to insert, after Sub-section 10— Provided that no such order shall take effect without the consent in writing of the several County Councils represented on such joint committee. The Amendment raised two points, and he had thought it better to take the latter portion first. They referred to all the previous sections dealing with the joint committees. The question ho wished to raise was whether in cases where three or more comities were represented on the joint committee a bare majority of that committee would have power to make an order notwithstanding the protest of the minority. In the event of no order being made the matter would go before the Local Government Board for decision, and then, of course, the voice of each County Council would be heard. It was, he thought, very undesirable that a bare majority should be empowered to make an order in such cases, and he therefore trusted that this proposal would be accepted.

Amendment moved, In page 32, after line 3, to insert as a new sub-section—("Every Report made by the Boundary Commissioners under the 'Local Government Boundaries Act, 1887,' shall be laid before the Council of any administrative county or borough affected by that Report, and before any joint committee appointed under Sub-section 10, and it shall be the duty of such Councils and joint committees to take them into consideration before framing any order under the powers conferred on them under this Act. Provided that no such order shall take effect without the consent in writing of the several County Councils represented on such committee").—(The Lord Helper.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

suggested that what his noble Friend desired had been provided for by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Norton). At present the joint committees under the Act of 1888 were not subject to these restrictions, and there had never been the right of veto by one Council represented on them. The case of one County Council being overridden by two others could not arise under the clause, because there was an appeal to the Local Government Board.

LORD BELPER

did not agree that Lord Norton's proposal would meet the case.

*THE MARQUESS OP RIPON

said, the third county must be heard, because it would be represented on the joint committee. The effect of the Amendment would be really to delay this most desirable measure. Very little had been done in these matters since the Act of 1888, and the real object was to expedite boundary arrangements. The adoption of this Amendment would throw the whole matter back into the condition in which it had been since 1888. The joint committees had extensive power, but it was intended that they should act by a majority. It would be a pity to throw the matter back into the position which had existed for the last six years.

LORD BELPER

said, unless the noble Earl would give an assurance that satisfactory regulations should be made with regard to the procedure on the joint committees, he would not withdraw his Amendment, as it seemed to be the only safeguard against a County Council being overridden by two others, although it might have right on its side. He only wanted to secure that each case should be decided on its merits.

THE DUKE OF RUTLAND

said, the Amendment raised an important point. A majority of the three Councils would decide, and what would be the feeling of the defeated Council? It would consider itself victimised by the hostile decision of the other two Councils. To invoke such a result was inadvisable, and ho would therefore support the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

*THE EARL OF HARROWBY

moved, in page 32, line 4, to omit the term of "two years" for the County Council making orders. This was rather an important Amendment, though ho was not sure that he would press it. The proviso was that— Every County Council shall, within two years after the passing of this Act, or within such further period as the Local Government Board may allow either generally or with reference to any particular matter, make such orders as they deem necessary for the purpose of bringing this Act into operation. The County Councils had been given freedom in these matters of amalgamation, and might decide that alterations of boundary were sometimes desirable and sometimes not. Extreme susceptibility of feeling existed throughout the country with regard to these matters of boundaries, and it was very doubtful whether these large powers should be given even to the Local Government Board, though no doubt their inquiries were singularly well conducted. What was the use of telling the Councils to decide on the expediency or not of altering boundaries during two years, if the Local Government Board was to have the power of reversing their decisions immediately afterwards? Would the Local Government Board he able to deal with cases already decided, or only with untouched or new cases?

Amendment moved, In page 32, line 4, to leave out from the word ("shall") to the word ("either") in line 6.—(The Earl of Harrowby)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, in regard to making adjustments, they would get into great difficulties if they tied the hands of the Local Authorities too tightly. Possibly the County Councils might make mistakes, and in that case everybody would be anxious to go to the Local Government Board to get the required alteration made. He had not found the authorities in London very desirous of interfering in these matters, and thereby bringing a nest of hornets about their ears; but in case it was desirable the power should be given.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

said, the power was quite limited. It was not a general power to the County Councils, but only for the purpose of bringing this Act into operation, and he thought it was quite safe.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, it was important to get the work done, and. as he had said before, he had every confidence in the Local Government Board.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Consequential Amendments.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 (Provision as to parishes having parts with defined boundaries), agreed to.

Clause 33 (Orders for grouping parishes and dissolving groups).

On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 32, after line 26, to insert as a new sub-section—("The whole area under each Parish Council shall, unless the County Council, for special reasons, otherwise direct, be within the same Administrative County and County District").

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34 (Provisions for increase and decrease of population).

On the Motion of the Earl of WINCHIL-SEA, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 33, line 15, to leave out the word ("two") and insert the word ("live").

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35 (Confirmation of and appeals from County Councils).

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the next Amendment would, he thought, be generally approved. It was to prevent the necessity of having decisions come to by the County Councils ratified by the Local Government Board. Great inconvenience had been caused by that necessity in small cases, and he therefore proposed to omit these words.

Amendment moved, In page 33, line 27, after the word ("parishes") to insert the words ("and an order relating to the custody of parish documents or requiring the approval of the Charity Commissioners and an order requiring the consent of the parish meeting for any part of the parish to any act or class of acts of the Parish Council"). [Break up Clause 35 into two clauses, one with the marginal note ("Certain orders of County Council not to require confirmation"); the other with the marginal note ("Reduction of time for appealing against County Council orders")].

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Forward to