BOROUGH FUNDS BILL. (Hansard, 23 June 1903)

§ LORD AVEBURY
moved to omit the sub-section which repeals the provision in the Borough Funds Act, 1872, that no expense in opposing a Bill shall be charged unless the opposition has had the consent of the owners and ratepayers of the dis- 238 trict. He thought it was very undesirable to alter this provision in view of the fact that so many of the voters did not pay rates.

LORD KENYON
said the Government could not accept the Amendment, as one of the chief objects of the Bill was to render it unnecessary to obtain the consent of the owners and ratepayers to mere opposition to a Bill. He thought the local authority might be trusted not to engage in opposition to a Bill against the wishes of the inhabitants. Again, the cost of obtaining this consent was considerable in the event of a poll being demanded. A Bill was very often opposed in order to secure some particular advantage, such as, for instance, a bridge instead of a level crossing, and it was not thought wise that the consent of the owners and ratepayers should be necessary for this course. All the other requirements imposed by the Borough Funds Act of 1872 would be retained.

§ LORD AVEBURY
moved an Amendment to insert after Clause 7 a new clause. When the Act of 1872 was passed there were practically no such things as electric lighting or traction companies, and he suggested that it would be reasonable to treat them in the same way as gas or water undertakings. Perhaps the Government would consider the Amendment on the Report stage if they were not prepared to accept it then.

LORD KENYON
said they could not accept the Amendment. The question of municipal trading had been referred to a Joint Committee, and this proposal would seem rather to prejudge the matter. It would be perfectly competent for Parliament to reject any proposal that came before it in a Bill promoted by local authorities which in their opinion would render the competition unfair. The Urban District Councils Association was strongly in favour of the Bill for the very reasons which the noble Lord wished to oppose it.

§ *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
ventured to think there was some misunderstanding in the mind of the noble Lord with regard to this Amendment. He had done his best, but had been unable to understand what it was Lord Avebury wanted to effect. First of all, he did not understand what was meant by a traction company. In the second place, the noble Lord seemed to think that there was no power now to start in competition against an electric lighting company, or against a tramway company. The point was distinctly laid down under the Electric Lighting Acts of 1888 that there was no monopoly given, and that competition might, if necessary, be started. Since the noble Lord's Amendment had been placed on the Paper the Local Government Board had received a communication to the effect that it would be a very serious matter for urban authorities if this Amendment were accepted, because it might be that some company, by obtaining in their district only a few yards of tramway line, might absolutely prevent them from starting a tramway undertaking if they wished to do so, even although that company was not in any way whatever serving their district. The matter was rather a technical one and the Local Government Board believed the Amendment would have an unfair effect upon local authorities.

§ LORD AVEBURY
thought those who had invested their money in tramways or 240 electric lighting were entitled to consideration of the same kind as had been given to gas and water undertakings. Perhaps the words of his clause went rather too far, but he thought the Local Government Board should consider whether investors in electric lighting or traction companies were not entitled to some protection, not against competition as a whole, but against competition by a local authority.

§ *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
said they were entitled to be protected against unreasonable or pernicious competition, but the noble Lord must bear in mind that the present statutory position of such companies as he referred to, was not the same as that formerly given to gas and water companies, and they could not by a side wind suddenly reverse previous legislation.

§ LORD AVEBURY
said it was competition by the local authority to which he had referred. He would not press the Amendment.

§ LORD AVEBURY
, who had given notice of an Amendment in Clause 9, page 3, line 13, after "council," to insert—"The expression 'electors' means 'the persons who would be entitled to vote at an election of a local board under the Public Health Act, 1875, and sections ten to thirteen of Schedule II. to that Act shall apply to a poll of electors under this Act in like manner as if the poll of electors were an election of a local board,'" said that this Amendment raised again the question of the owners' vote, but as His Majesty's Government insisted upon taking away that vote he did not propose to occupy the time of the House by moving his Amendment.

LORD KENYON
The owners' vote is still there.

§ LORD AVEBURY
pointed out that it was provided in the First Schedule that a poll might be required with respect to any resolution by not less than 100 electors or one-twentieth in number of the electors, whichever might be the less. He moved as an Amendment to leave out "one hundred" and to insert "twenty" and to leave out "one-twentieth" and insert "one-hundredth." He quite agreed that the present number who might demand a poll should be increased, but in small places surely 100 was too large a number of electors to require to join in demanding a poll, and in very large places, on the other hand, to insist on one twentieth would make it impossible to carry it into operation at all. That clause, if it passed, would make it almost impossible to demand a poll, and constituted another step in the direction of taking away powers now enjoyed by the ratepayers.

LORD KENYON
said the Government could not agree to the Amendment. If they could not find 100, or one-twentieth, whichever might be the less, within seven days to demand a poll, there seemed no good reason for a poll.