HL Deb 11 June 1903 vol 123 cc609-17

[SECOND READING.]

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

*LORD KENYON

My Lords, the Bill which I now have the honour to ask your Lordships to read a second time deals with a different question. At present certain restrictions are laid upon Borough Funds with regard to promoting or opposing Bills in Parliament. One of the restrictions is the requirement that the consent of the owners or ratepayers must be obtained, and that any one single owner or ratepayer may demand a poll. It has been urged that no one person should have the power of asking for a poll, and therefore it is proposed to abolish this restriction and to provide that the decision of the meeting in favour of or against the promotion of a Bill or any part or clause thereof, must be final unless not less than 100 parochial electors, or one-twentieth in number of the electors, whichever may be the less, demand a poll in writing. If, however, the decision of the meeting is against the promotion of the Bill or any part or clauses thereof the council themselves may require a poll to be taken. The proposal to allow the local authority to oppose Bills in Parliament without first obtaining the consent of the electors has already been agreed to in the case of County Councils, and it may be assumed that they will not oppose a measure with which the electors are generally in sympathy. The noble Earl included the Borough Funds Bill in his Amendment, and seemed to assume that we were giving additional powers to the authorities and diminishing the powers of the ratepayers, but I would ask your Lordships whether these authorities, being elected by the ratepayers themselves, are not in that sense the servants of the ratepayers to carry out their desires. Further, if the Report of the Select Committee should be adverse to certain classes of trading being undertaken by the various councils, and Parliament were to decide to act upon that Report, there is nothing to prevent the provisions which contravene such decision being struck out of the Bill. As to the powers of municipal trading, I would point out that County Councils are not municipalities, and have not hitherto been accused of desiring to promote Bills for municipal trading. I trust the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kenyon.)

*THE EARL OF WEMYSS

AS I was told from the Treasury Bench that my arguments applied to this Bill, it is not necessary that I should repeat them. I simply beg to move my Motion as an Amendment to the Second Reading of this Bill.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I think it desirable that the House should be absolutely, and without any doubt, in possession of the precise issue which is raised by this Bill. The idea of the Bill is to amend and simplify the procedure under the Borough Funds Act, 1872. Briefly, this Bill frees Borough Councils from every restriction as to opposition to a Bill, and it modifies and alters the procedure in the case of promoting a Bill. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Avebury) objects to this Bill on the ground, I understand, that it diminishes the power of owners. I think it would be convenient if I were to describe shortly the precise procedure under the Act of 1872. Under that Act Borough Councils are empowered to employ rates in either promoting or opposing any private Bill in Parliament, but the exercise of the power is subject to certain restrictions. One of those restrictions is that the consent of the owners and ratepayers to the promotion of the Bill should be obtained. For the purpose of testing the feeling of the ratepayers a meeting has to be called, and upon a vote taken for or against the promotion of the Bill the matter may be settled, provided no ratepayer demands a poll. Under that Act any single ratepayer may demand a poll of the whole constituency, and put the area to the expense involved thereby, and it is a very considerable expense in some large areas. For instance, in the city of Westminster there are some 18,000 inhabited houses, the owner or occupier of every one of which would have to have the opportunity of voting. The object of this Bill is to repeal the provisions of the Act of 1872, so far as opposition to a Bill is concerned, so that the council of either a borough or urban district may oppose a Bill without obtaining the consent of the ratepayers I understand from the previous discussion that neither the noble Earl on the cross benches nor the noble Lord opposite demurs to power being given to local authorities to oppose Bills.

*THE EARL OF WEMYSS

Yes, pending the inquiry.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I understood that their arguments were directed against the promotion of Bills and not against the opposition to Bills. It is quite clear that you cannot get any power for municipal trading by opposing a Bill. That, I think, must be obvious to anybody, and therefore the real question before us is whether the restrictions proposed to be substituted in this Bill for the restrictions now on the Statute-book are, or are not, improvements and sufficient for the purpose. There is no other issue. The question of municipal trading does not come into it, because now every Borough Council and Urban District Council can promote a Bill under certain restrictions. The only question is whether the restrictions which are now proposed to be substituted in this Bill are sufficient and satisfactory for the purpose. What is proposed now is that the resolution of the local authority to promote a Bill must be passed after ten days notice by advertisement in a local paper, and it must be confirmed by another resolution passed in like manner not less than fourteen days after the deposit of the Bill. The Local Government Board, to whom the powers of the Home Office are transferred, have also the power of veto. The position of matters at present is this, that when a proposal to promote a Bill is made by the local authority, notice has to be given by placards and advertisements of the proposed Bill. A public meeting of the parochial electors has to be called to consider the question, and the Bill has to be explained to them. The decision of the meeting, in favour of or against the promotion of the Bill, or any parts or clauses thereof, must be obtained, but any single elector can now insist upon a poll being taken. I think this is an undue power to put into the hands of any one man. As I indicated a few minutes ago, in the Borough of Westminster there are 18,000 inhabited houses, and it may be fairly said that some 30,000 persons could vote if a poll were taken in that borough. It is, therefore, not only a very cumbrous, but an exceedingly expensive matter if any one person takes exception. The idea of the present Bill is to substitute for the one man who may put the borough to that expense a proportion of the electorate. It is proposed that one-twentieth of their number may require a poll, or one hundred electors, whichever is the larger number. I do not think there is anything revolutionary in this Bill, and perhaps both the noble Lords who have spoken, and even the House itself, will be surprised when they are told that a Bill in almost identical terms passed this House in 1898. I do not know why it never went further, but on this occasion the Bill comes up to the House with the authority of the other House, and having, as I have said, been passed by this House five years ago. It is not, as the noble Earl seems to suggest, adapted from the Bill of a private Member. It was introduced as a Government Bill at the beginning of the session, and, after escaping all the perils to which Government Bills are exposed, it comes up here with the practical unanimity of the other House. I am not going to pretend that it is a matter of absolutely first-rate importance, but I do think it a matter of great convenience that these onerous restrictions should be removed. I am authorised by my colleague, the President of the Local Government Board, to say that he sincerely hopes the Bill may become law. There is nothing in the slightest degree dangerous in it, and I do not see why it should wait for the result of this inquiry. I do not think that any one can allege that the safeguards which we propose to substitute for those now on the Statute-book are not sufficient, and I sincerely hope the House will consent to pass the Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)

I think it right that I should call attention to the fact that the Amendment of the noble Earl has been already negatived by this House, and it would not be in order to move it again. The Amendment applied both to the County Councils Bill and to this Bill, and as it has been negatived it is out of order on this Bill.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

On that point I am not quite certain that I agree with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The Amendment could not have been in order as applying to both Bills, because the second Bill was not then before the House. It is impossible, surely, to move a Resolution with regard to a Bill not before the House, and therefore I think the noble Earl's Amendment ought to have been declared out of order when he moved it to the first Bill.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

As to the point of order which has been raised, surely it is hardly worth while making a difficulty about it, because if any noble Lord wishes to get rid of the Bill he has only to move that it be read a second time this day six months.

*LORD AVEBURY

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. I shall not take up the time of your Lordships by repeating the arguments so forcibly stated by the noble Earl below me as to the undesirability of dealing with the law on this subject just at a time when the whole question is going to be inquired into. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading told the House frankly that the Bill does introduce considerable alterations, and it cannot be denied that it diminishes the safeguards which have hitherto existed. It does seem to me that the present moment, when we are going to inquire into the whole subject, is most inopportune for such a great alteration in the law. My noble friend stated that the Bill came to us with all the authority of the other House of Parliament, but, unless I am mistaken, no statement was ever made upon it, and there was no discussion in the other House. Why should the ratepayers be deprived of the power which is taken away by this Bill? A practical illustration of the importance of the safeguard which this Bill proposes to abandon has been afforded within the year. The Hove Corporation proposed a system of tramways within and without the area of the borough at a capital outlay of £103,700. As the local authorities to the west of Hove did not approve, and would not co-operate, the scheme was abandoned for one within the boundaries of the town only, at an estimated cost of £80,500. A meeting of owners and ratepayers was accordingly held under the Borough Funds Act, 1872, on 16th December, 1902. When the Resolution authorising the promotion of the Bill of the Hove Corporation— For constructing and working tramways, erecting electric generating stations, acquiring existing tramways, providing for the expense and use of conduits for telephones and other wires, providing and running motors, omnibuses, etc. was put to the meeting, the Mayor, who presided, declared it carried by a large majority. A poll was demanded, and the result was announced on 17th January, 1903, as follows: Votes for the Bill, 3,111; votes against the Bill, 4,185; majority against, 1,074.

How serious the position is regarded by those most interested in the trade and commerce of the country has recently been shown by the fact that a memorial has been presented to the Bank of England, most influentially signed, calling attention to the alarming growth of municipal indebtedness. How have we been met by the supporters of municipal trading? Not by argument, but by abuse and misrepresentation. Even Lord Welby, from whom we should have hoped for better things, went out of his way to make a personal attack on me. Lord Welby said: Lord Avebury and his friends, have I think, been waiting for a huge failure on the part of some local authority to raise a new loan, but they have waited in vain, and I think always will wait in vain. No doubt they would have liked to see the last London County Council loan of five million a failure … … Such an ignorant and useless way of talking can have no real effect. My noble friend has no right to make any such assumption. He entirely mistakes our position. We should be very sorry that any loan issued by the London County Council should be a fiasco. As ratepayers it is our interest that municipalities should be able to borrow at as cheap a rate as possible. If they could get the money for nothing so much the better. Might I not good humouredly apply to Lord Welby his own words, Such an ignorant and useless way of talking can have no real effect. But municipalities have most important duties to fulfil—duties sufficient to tax all their energies. We wish them to have time to think out the problems of municipal government. This Bill, on the contrary, will encourage and facilitate the undertaking of outside enterprises, which will overtax their energies, and inevitably tend to higher rates. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will throw out the Bill. The great increase in the rates which has taken place in late years is partly due to the fact that so many have votes who do not pay any rates, at any rate directly. They do not, therefore, feel the need for economy. By depriving owners of any voice, the Bill will aggravate the evil, and it will also commit a great injustice. It will not be denied that anyone renting or buying a property takes the rates into consideration. Surely the owners are entitled to some voice in the expenditure. No doubt the present state of the law is unsatisfactory and requires amendment, but the present Bill goes in the wrong direction. It takes away from owners even the slight power they now have of resisting unwise expenditure, and will tend, therefore, still further to increase the heavy burden of the rates.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

This Bill does not deprive owners of any rights they now possess as owners.

*LORD AVEBURY

Will they be able to vote as they do now? I was informed that if the Bill passed, the owners' vote would be taken away.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The point is a technical one, but my information is to this effect, that the alteration from owner to parochial elector was made by the Local Government Act of 1894, and that all we are doing is to alter the proportion of parochial electors who may demand a poll. The owners' right was taken away in 1894.

*LORD AVEBURY

I can only say that I am advised differently. The point is not merely technical, but practical. At present, owners have the power to vote, and I believe they did so in the Hove case. At any rate, if it does take away any power from owners, I think we may take it that in Committee that will not be pressed. But whether it takes away the owners' vote or not, it does diminish the power of the ratepayers to control the local authorities.

Amendment moved— To leave out the word 'now' in order to add at the end of the Motion 'this day six months.'"—(Lord Avebury.)

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I made a statement on a question of fact a few minutes ago. I may possibly have misled the noble Lord and the House, and I desire to put myself right at once. I stated correctly that the Act of 1894 substituted the parochial electors as the people who would have to vote in the event of a poll being demanded, but, at the present time, in addition to these parochial electors, the owners may vote for that particular purpose if each owner makes a claim, but he has to make a claim within a certain limited number of days on the particular vote which is to be given. He is not on the register, and although he has, in the abstract, the power to make a claim and to vote, it is hedged about with such difficulties that it is very rarely exercised. It is the fact, however, that the noble Lord was correct to the extent that the Bill will abolish the right of the owner to claim to exercise his vote.

*LORD AVEBURY

The question is surely one of much importance. I venture to think that the right of the owner to claim is an important one, and, instead of being restricted, it should be facilitated, because he is the person in many cases on whom the burden of the rates ultimately falls.

On question, "Whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion."

Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.