§ [SECOND READING.]
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading Read.
LORD KENYONMy Lords, I do not think it will be necessary to take up your time for a long period in proving that this is a necessary and sensible measure. The object of it is to allow County Councils to promote Bills in Parliament. 598 This privilege, as you know, belongs to municipal boroughs and Metropolitan Borough Councils, and even to Urban District Councils throughout the country; and it seems to be an anomalous thing that County Councils, which in many cases are more important bodies, should not be able to promote Bills. In some fifteen instances County Councils have found it necessary to frame Bills, and in those cases they have embodied a clause allowing the expenses of promotion to be paid. But supposing those Bills had not been passed, the expenses of promotion would have fallen on private individuals, and could not have been paid by the County Council. I heard of a case not long ago in South Wales where a free library was unobtainable owing to the fact that the County Council could not promote a Bill to obtain it. In regard to the powers possessed by Municipal Boroughs and others, the consent of the ratepayers has to be obtained and a poll taken by means of voting papers left at the houses. It is obviously impossible, in the case of a county, for voting papers to be left at the door of every voter, and therefore other methods have to be adopted to ensure that only necessary Bills should be promoted. The way in which that is proposed to be done is that before any Bill can be proceeded with a special meeting of the Council has to be advertised, and ten days notice given, and an absolute majority of the Council has to be obtained. The resolution has to be obtained by a further resolution passed in the same way fourteen days after the Bill has been deposited. In that way full publicity is given as to the nature of the Bill which it is desired to promote, and the ratepayers can take the necessary steps to safeguard their interests. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kenyon.)
§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSSMy Lords, I have a notice on the Paper which is, I think, in itself a perfect answer to the speech of my noble friend. My notice is to move to resolve—
That, in view of the appointment of a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament 'to consider and report as to the principles which should govern powers given by Bills and Provisional Orders to municipal and other local authorities for industrial enterprise within or 599 without the area of their jurisdiction,' this House is of opinion that, pending the Report of such Committee, no Bills of the character of the County Councils Bill or Borough Funds Bill, which would empower the spending of the ratepayers' money in promoting and opposing Bills in Parliament without having first obtained the ratepayers' assent to such expenditure, should be considered by this House.So far as my experience is concerned, it is an absolutely unique principle that such Bills as these should be introduced pending the Report of a Select Committee of both Houses appointed to consider this question. These Bills alter the present relative position of ratepayers and municipal authorities, diminish the power of the ratepayers, and increase the power of the county authorities. But I am content to rest my case against these Bills upon the wording of my Resolution alone. It is, however, necessary to show to your Lordships the extent to which municipal trading has gone and the danger it involves. This Joint Committee was asked for in 1899 and was appointed in 1900. It took evidence but did not report; and it was suggested that it should be reappointed. The municipal authorities objected to the evidence that was taken before that Committee; they objected to having the light of day thrown upon their proceedings; and for two years nothing was done by the Government. But opinion was so strong in the country that the Government finally gave way and reappointed the Committee. In the old days local government meant the administration of roads, drains, lighting, water, and other things. There was no question of municipalities trading; but to-day, so I am informed by one who is thoroughly conversant with these things, the local authorities throughout the country are either engaged in the following forms of trading or are seeking Parliamentary powers to enable them to engage in the same:—Gas, water, tramways, electric lighting, omnibuses and motor-car services, manufacture of residual products of gas, provision for entertainments, concerts, etc., refrigerators and manufacture and sale of ice, workmen's dwellings, construction and management of crematoria, bathing machines and tents, the supply of sea water for private purposes, hop growing, slaughter houses, manufacture of steam engines and dynamos, gas and electric 600 fittings, manufacture of paving materials, cold air storage, shops, saloons and refreshment rooms, hotels, Turkish baths, telephones, baths and wash-houses, cycle tracks, municipal banks, and the use of municipal bank notes, municipal pawnbroking, municipal bakeries, and municipal public houses. In the North of England municipal collieries have been under discussion, and the Bradford Corporation have actually proposed to supply coal for retail consumption.That shows where the ratepayers' money goes, and that instead of diminishing and checking the powers of ratepayers over this expenditure those powers ought to be increased. Whether the Joint Committee to which this question has been referred will increase the power of the ratepayers and put some check on municipalities in regard to municipal trading I do not know, but certainly it seems to me that some check ought to be established. There is no limitation to the amount of rating; the authorities may rate up to 20s. in the pound. In the Public Libraries and other Acts the amount of the rate is limited. That is one check; the other checks are the public meetings of ratepayers to sanction the expenditure. But at such meetings the ratepayers are at a disadvantage, for the municipal authorities practically pack the meeting with people in their own employment and others who vote whichever way they are told. I hold that, in view of the increasingly large army of municipal servants, the ratepayers would only have a proper chance of protecting their own interests if these municipal servants were disfranchised. Supposing that trading by municipalities is successful—a large assumption—is it safe? Are the ratepayers safe? Is the speculation an absolutely safe and sound one? I contend that it is not, in view of the rapidity with which inventions are superseded by others. In conversation some time ago with my noble friend Lord Kelvin, I asked him to jot down the inventions that had been made in his recollection. He did so. They were—development of steam power; improvements in mechanical engineering and textile factories; railway and steam locomotion by land; steam navigation; electric land telegraphs; electric sub 601 marine and wireless telegraphy; electric light; electro-chemical works; applications of water power for these, and both steam and water to electric work generally; electric traction on railways, tramways and common road motors, gas engines, oil engines, electric transmission of power and motor traction in general. If municipalities had invested in oil lamps originally, gas superseded them; and in the same way electric light has superseded gas. So it runs on through the whole course.
Not only is this question of municipal trading a serious one as regards the ratepayers, but also from the point of view of national progress. It is not the County Councils who have taken up new inventions, and even in the future they will not dare to take them up until they are thoroughly tested, owing to the risk; whereas, it a speculator takes up an invention, he either brings it to a successful issue — in which case the public benefit—or, he fails, and the public do not lose, as would be the case under the legislation we are asked to sanction to-day, and similar legislation. This is what happens. Where science has invented some great discovery, the municipalities or the State—and I hold that State trading is quite as dangerous as, if not more so than, municipal trading—get a Bill passed through Parliament to take possession of this invention. Take electricity—an absolute instance in point. That very active Minister, Mr. Chamberlain, brought in a Bill which took possession, at the end of twenty years, of all electric works, at the price, not of going concerns, but of the old plant and old iron. What was the result? An absolute stoppage was put to all electrical work in this country, and to such an extent that we have never recovered it, and we are now behind all the rest of the world in regard to electricity. Mr Chamberlain had to come to Parliament and admit that he had made a mistake, and the period was altered from twenty to forty years. No matter what the invention is, however great, it must be remembered that we are always in the infancy of invention. If a speculator is liable to be robbed of the benefit to be gained from working a successful invention, he will not take it up, and so all national progress is stopped. It cannot be denied that this would 602 be the result of stimulating in any way municipal trading. We are progressing without a stop, to what? To the time when individuals will be abolished as traders, when Socialism will be rampant, and when everything will be in the hands of a labour-governed State. Do I exaggerate when I say this? To prove that I do not I would quote the answer given by Mr. Burns at a great meeting some time ago. I asked him whether it was not the case that he and those who acted with him looked forward to everything in the way of property, manufacture, trade, and the distribution of trade being in the hands of a labour-governed State. Mr. Burns simply stood up and nodded assent. I have another authority to show whither this is tending, and what you have to guard against. What are the views of Sir Albert Rollit, the President of the Municipal Association, upon municipal trading? I am told that three or four years ago Sir Albert Rollit said—these are not his actual words, but they convey the effect of what he said—that the time would come when the municipal authorities would determine who should carry on business within the limits of the municipality, and when no business would be allowed therein which the authorities believed they could do better than it could be done by the individual. That is the prospect before your Lordships, a prospect which seems to be encouraged by the Government when they bring in such Bills as this. The Joint Committee to which I have referred will have to consider all these things, and it does appear to me that, pending their inquiry and their decision as to where the line should be drawn in regard to municipal trading, it is absolutely unsound and inconsistent with the practice of Parliament that Bills such as these, which take away from the ratepayers powers that they now possess and give to County Councils additional powers, should be passed into law. It is unbusinesslike and contrary to common sense, and I hope, on those grounds, that your Lordships will support my Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
To leave out all the words after 'That' for the purpose of inserting the following
603
words, viz., 'in view of the appointment of a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament "to consider and report as to the principles which should govern powers given by Bills and Provisional Orders to municipal and other local authorities for industrial enterprise within or without the area of their jurisdiction," this House is of opinion that pending the Report of such Committee, no Bills of the character of the County Councils Bill or Borough Funds Bill, which would empower the spending of the ratepayers' money in promoting and opposing Bills in Parliament without having first obtained the ratepayers' assent to such expenditure, should be considered by this House.'"—(The Lord Wemyss, E. Wemyss).
*THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH)My Lords, I would venture to say a few words upon this Bill because it applies to Scotland as well as to England. I think I can put the issue which the House will have to decide quite clearly in a very few words. The noble Earl who has just spoken has mixed up two things which are wholly distinct. A very large part of his speech was, shall I say, more or less appropriate to the next Bill we shall have to discuss—the Borough Funds Bill—but was not appropriate to the Bill now before the House. Let me explain very shortly precisely what this Bill does. The Bill is a Government Bill, and has never been in the hands of Sir Albert Rollit or Mr. Burns.
§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSSBut the Borough Funds Bill has.
§ *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI am at this moment discussing the Councils Bill.
§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSSThe principle is the same.
§ *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI would represent to the House that the course taken by the noble Earl is extremely inconvenient. There are two Bills on the Paper. The issue we have to decide is totally distinct in each case, and surely it is not too much to ask that the discussion should be appropriate to the Bill which is at present before the House. All that this Bill does—it may be a right thing or a wrong thing—but all that it does is to allow County Councils to promote as well as to oppose Bills in Parliament. In the year 1888, 604 under the Local Government Act, Parliament gave County Councils the power to oppose Bills, and the same was done for Scottish County Councils in 1889. But no power was given at that time to promote Bills. In the fifteen years that have elapsed this has been found inconvenient in a certain number of cases. As a matter of fact, County Councils, or some County Councillors, have promoted Bills in some fifteen or sixteen cases, and Parliament, by passing those Bills, has sanctioned the course they have taken. The only question before the House at this moment is this: Is this a right power to give to County Councils, or is it not a right power; and, secondly, are the safeguards which are proposed in the Bill sufficient and satisfactory for the purpose? The safeguards are these: There shall be twice a resolution of the County Council, once before the Bill is introduced and once after the Bill is introduced. In each case an absolute majority of the whole Council is required. All the questions affecting municipal trading are entirely beside the point in connection with this Bill. I put it to the House that, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, County Councils have nothing to do with municipal trading. They do not, as a fact, undertake it at the present time, and I believe they do not desire to acquire powers to undertake it.
If I had to discuss the abstract question of municipal trading with the noble Earl (I make him a present of this admission), I think I should very nearly agree with a great deal that he has said to-day. I am no great friend to municipal trading except in regard to such prime necessities of life as water and gas, if, indeed, these are covered by the term. But that is not really the point which is before us at the present time. What I want to point out to the House is this, that, in the first place, it is not likely that County Councils will either desire to indulge or as a fact indulge in what is called municipal trading. This Bill really does not touch the question at all. County Councils are municipal authorities in the ordinary sense of the term, but they are not municipal authorities in the sense that you speak of municipal trading. I do not think that the 605 wildest opponent of municipal trading has ever contended, or could contend successfully, that the County Councils either of England or Scotland, as a body, are likely to extravagantly indulge themselves in that direction. Most of the undertakings in which local authorities have engaged, and which are called municipal trading, are authorised by general Acts of Parliament, and not by private Acts, such as it would be possible for County Councils to promote under this Bill. The class of enterprise which it is intended in this Bill that County Councils may promote will have regard to roads, bridges, lunatic asylums, and so forth. When you come to such subjects as the building of workmen's houses, electric light undertakings, tramways, baths, waterworks, markets, and so on, if the municipal authority, be it the County Council or the Borough Council, desires to undertake them, they do it under the terms of general Acts, and not under the terms of private Acts which would be promoted under the powers given by this Bill. It may be a right thing or it may be a wrong thing for municipal trading to go as far as it has gone; but, so far as this Bill is concerned which we are now discussing, all the spectres which the noble Earl has conjured up really have nothing to do with the question at issue. A great many of your Lordships are connected with County Councils, and I think I am speaking within the knowledge of nearly all of those who are so connected when I say that this power is one which County Councils all over the country almost unanimously desire. I sincerely hope that, in spite of the suggestions of the noble Earl, some of which I must leave over to answer till we come to the next measure, the Bill will receive the sanction of your Lordships' House.
§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSSMy noble friend said he did not think it likely that County Councils would take advantage of the powers given them by this Bill to go in for trading. Is there anything in the Bill to prevent their doing so?
§ *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI do not think there is.
§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSSHear, hear.
§ *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHBut my point is that even so far as the boroughs are concerned, which are to a certain extent open to the charge of undue municipal trading, they have undertaken their enterprises in the main under the powers of general Acts and not under Acts promoted under the powers which would be given by this Bill.
§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSSThere is no security in the Bill.
§ LORD BELPERMay I be allowed to say one word, merely as representing the County Councils Association, which comprises all the County Councils in England, and has strongly supported this measure. In answer to the noble Earl who has just remarked that there is nothing in this Bill to prevent municipal trading, let me point out that County Councils have absolutely no power to deal in municipal trading in any way. They have no powers with regard to gas, only limited powers with regard to water, and no powers at all with regard to the different municipal purposes for which boroughs acquire powers from Parliament. This measure has now been before the County Councils some years, for very shortly after the Local Government Act of 1888 was passed, it was found most inconvenient that County Councils could not promote Bills. This is a power which is held and exercised by every municipal borough in England, not only by every small borough within the districts of counties, but also by every urban council. Why, therefore, is the County Council, which is the supreme authority in the county, to be deprived of powers which the smaller authorities possess? The inconvenience caused has been so great that chairmen of County Councils and others have taken upon themselves the responsibility of promoting certain Bills which were absolutely necessary in order properly to carry out the work of the council, and if these measures had not been passed these gentlemen would have been mulcted in the cost of their promotion. I hope the House will not be led 607 away by the idea that this Bill has anything to do with municipal trading or with those who support municipal trading. Sir Albert Rollit, who has been quoted as the head of the Municipal Association, has no more to do with the County Councils than the man in the moon has. He is not a representative of the County Councils in any way; quite the contrary. So far from the object of this Bill being to enable the County Councils to undertake duties which the noble Earl and a great many of us think ought not to be undertaken by municipal authorities, it merely proposes to give County Councils the power to promote as well as to oppose Bills in Parliament in cases where it is necessary. There is ample security given that the ratepayers shall be properly consulted.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF RIPONMy Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of adding anything to what has fallen from the two noble Lords opposite. I entirely agree with all they have said; but I do think it is desirable that some one who has been for long chairman of a County Council should confirm what has been stated by those two noble Lords. I entirely concur in the importance of giving these powers, which are possessed by municipal boroughs, to County Councils. It was felt at the very commencement of the coming into operation of the Act of 1888 that there was a defect in this respect, and as time has gone on the difficulties that have been created in consequence have been found to increase. The matter has no more to do with the question of municipal trading, as assumed by the noble Earl on the cross benches, than, as the noble Lord opposite said, with the man in the moon. It is merely a question of giving to County Councils the powers which municipal councils possess of promoting Bills in Parliament, and I do not think any one who appreciates the difficulty that has been caused by the present state of affairs will oppose the Bill.
§ THE DUKE OF RUTLANDMay I suggest to the noble Earl on the cross benches that it would do more to promote the object he has in view if he were to withdraw his Amendment in regard to 608 this Bill and move it when the Borough Funds Bill is under discussion.
§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSSMy feeling about it is this: that the principle is the same. My argument applies equally to this Bill as to the Borough Funds Bill. My point is not whether this Bill or the other Bill is necessary, but whether, pending the Report of the Joint Committee, two Bills of this character should be considered. I think such a procedure absolutely contrary to common sense.
§ *LORD BELPERThis Bill gives no power of municipal trading whatever.
§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSSIt gives County Councils the power to spend money which they cannot spend now, and it gives them this power while a Committee is sitting to consider and report upon the whole question.
§ *LORD AVEBURYMy Lords, it is true that this Bill does not directly authorise County Councils to embark on industrial enterprises, but it enables them to introduce Bills with that object. County Councils have not as yet shown any desire for municipal trading, and I am not very much afraid that they will show any such desire in the future; but I do not see why we should run the risk. It seems to me that this Bill does not give the ratepayers the protection they have hitherto enjoyed, and will facilitate the expenditure of money for this purpose At the same time I understand that there are other objects which may make it important that County Councils should have some of these powers. I think the case against the Borough Funds Bill is stronger than the case against this Bill, and while I admit that there is more to be said for this Bill than for the Borough Funds Bill, perhaps the objections might be renewed in Committee; still, if the noble Earl presses his Amendment to a division, I shall vote with him.
§ On Question, whether the words proposed shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.