HL Deb 23 June 1903 vol 124 cc225-37

Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

My Lords, I have a Motion on the Paper to submit to your Lordships. But before I do so I ask the indulgence of the House while I say a few words on a matter wholly personal to myself. When speaking the other day from the cross benches, I appeared to have infringed the rules of order of the House, and not to have bowed to the ruling of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. I have no wish to appear in your Lordships' House as an unruly Member, and I desire to explain that my infringement of order was entirely due to my affliction of deafness. Speaking from where I did, I could not hear a word that fell from the Lord Chancellor, and therefore I have to apologise to the noble and learned Earl for having in any way appeared unruly. In order that this may not occur again, when I have to address your Lordships' House in future I shall, with the permission of those who are in the habit of sitting on this bench, do so as near to the Lord Chancellor as I can. That is the reason why I speak from my present position (the bench near the Woolsack on the Opposition side) to-night, but I have not abandoned my proper habitat on the cross benches, which I look upon as the Liberia of the House of Lords.

Now a word in defence of my proposal. Two noble Lords on the last occasion said that my Resolution had no connection whatever with the Bill that was under discussion. I hold in my hand a resolution, which I believe has been sent to every one of your Lordships, passed by the United Property Owners' and Ratepayers' Association of Great Britain, whose headquarters are at Bradford. This resolution states that the object of the County Councils (Bills in Parliament) Bill is to empower County Councils to promote Bills in Parliament without first obtaining the ratepayers' consent. It goes on to say— And this is being done at the very moment the Government has reappointed a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to inquire into the question of municipal trading. It is inconsistent, to say the least, that measures of this character, which give municipalities practically unrestricted powers to promote private legislation, should be brought forward. It is, therefore, submitted that the Bill should not be proceeded with, and the Committee of this Association, representing large and important property interests, respectfully and urgently appeal to your Lordships to support the Motion of Lord Wemyss to defer the Bill until the Joint Committee have reported to Parliament. Can anything be more reasonable, more consistent with common-sense, than that opinion with regard to this kind of legislation pending the inquiry by the Joint Committee. The action of the local authorities has been such that they have piled up a debt of £1,300,000,000. The rates of one London parish have gone up to eleven shillings in the pound, and they are going up all round. A few years ago the feeling in reference to this matter was such that it was thought some limit should be imposed. The result was the appointment of a Committee of both Houses, but they did not finish their inquiry. For two years they have been waiting for their reappointment. The reason that they were not reappointed is supposed to be that the local authorities did not like their transactions being inquired into, and the Government did not wish to give offence to the local authorities. But the expenditure grew, and feeling increased, until this year the Government consented to the reappointment of the Committee. The Report of the first public sitting of the Joint Committee appears in The Times to-day, and the evidence shows how enormous have been the sums borrowed by local authorities for these purposes. One witness stated that in the present session sixty-five Bills had been promoted by local authorities, of which twelve had been dropped or defeated up to date. I have heard privately that so unsatisfactory were the trading accounts of the Plymouth authority that it was recommended that the accounts should be audited, not by an auditor appointed by Plymouth but by an auditor on behalf of the Government. That shows the state of things which led to the reappointment of this Committee. The Committee has the right to inquire into the transactions not only of municipalities but also of local authorities. Clearly, local authorities are included; therefore, I apprehend that this Joint Committee is appointed to consider everything connected with these Bills, which give power to Councils which they do not now exercise, and which takes away from the ratepayers a security which they now possess.

What are the reasons given for this action on the part of the Government? They are three. The first is that county councillors, not having this power of promoting Bills, sometimes do it themselves and incur liabilities thereby. The second is a most extraordinary reason to give for passing a Bill. It was stated by one noble Lord on the Front Bench that Mr. Long, the author of this Bill, wished very much that the Bill should pass, but that in itself is no reason for your Lordships facilitating the measure. This raises the question, is this a private venture on the part of the head of the Local Government Board or is it a Government Bill? Has it been considered by the Government? Has it the full consent of the Government? This, I venture to think, raises a very big question. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has a tolerably big team to drive. He has eighteen in hand. They remind me of an incident in the old coaching days, when the driver of a four-in-hand, being asked how it was he was driving so erratically, not to say dangerously, replied— Ah! you don't know what it is to drive three blind ones and a bolter. The Prime Minister certainly has a bolter, who sometimes perhaps gets over the traces when least expected. How many blind ones there are I should be sorry to specify.

I now come to the third reason, which was given by a canny Scot—my noble friend Lord Balfour. He said the Bill no doubt gave powers, but that it was not likely that County Councils would exercise those powers. That is an admission, my Lords, that you are giving County Councils powers by this Bill at the very time when you are sending the question, as to whether or not the powers of local authorities should be restricted, to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I feel confident that the result of this inquiry will be that these powers will be restricted and greater checks on the part of the ratepayers established. What those checks should be it is not for me to say. The question is now under discussion. The members of these municipal authorities are supposed, without any training, to be electricians, engineers, architects, builders, contractors, tram and omnibus undertakers, and navigators where there are rivers; and, besides this, they must be surveyors, sanitary professors, florists, landscape gardeners, social reformers, band-masters, concert organisers, and universal providers generally. If these things are undertaken, some knowledge of the best way of doing them should be in the possesssion of those who exercise these powers. The check I should propose is that all those who are elected to County Councils, before they are allowed to act should pass a qualifying examining in all these subjects. That would be a most potent and valuable check. I asked my noble friend Lord Balfour the other day to give me precedents for legislating upon a subject which had been concurrently submitted to a Committee or a Commission for inquiry. The noble Lord did not specify any precedent, but went off into a cuttle-fish speech upon the whole question, and that was where I got into trouble. I had not said anything in putting my question, but after the cuttle-fish speech of my noble friend I rose to answer him and was ruled out of order. I cannot help thinking that if there had been any precedents for this kind of legislation the noble Lord would certainly have brought them out. He would not have kept them up his sleeve for no purpose. I know there are many precedents the other way. I will give one. When the Commission on the Liquor Traffic was sitting, all the temperance measures were suspended. But in this case the Government are bringing in Bills at the same time as the inquiry is taking place, and when the subject to which these Bills refer is before a Joint Committee, I contend that this House ought not to be a mere registry for Bills which come from another place. It is the last Court of Appeal in matters of legislation, and if Bills are faulty and wrong in principle, no matter how often they are sent here, your Lordships ought unhesitatingly to do your duty. This Bill, as well as the Borough Funds Bill, may be an excellent measure and very needful, but let the Joint Committee say so. Do not let us legislate on the subject while it is under consideration by the Joint Committee.

Moved, To leave out from ('That') to the end of the Motion and insert the following Resolution, viz., "In the opinion of this House it is inconsistent alike with Parliamentary practice and sound administrative policy, to legislate on subjects under consideration by Committees or Commissions, and that, inasmuch as the question of the powers of local and municipal authorities, and their exercise of these powers are now under consideration by a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons specially appointed for this purpose, it is neither right nor expedient to proceed with Bills giving increased power to local and municipal authorities, until the said inquiry has been completed and the Report of the Committee has been received."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)

*THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH)

My Lords, I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that we have had a most interesting and amusing speech from the noble Earl. I hope the House will also agree with me that it had not, in at any rate its major part, very much to do with the precise Bill we are now asked to go into Committee upon. I will deal first with one or two direct questions which the noble Earl put to me. He made it a grievance that I had not given him precedents the other day.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

Not a grievance. I was very glad of it.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I think my version is the more correct. He made it a grievance, both on the last occasion and to-day, that I had given him no precedent for the course which the Government is asking the House to take. In the first place, the noble Earl said that if I produced a hundred precedents he would not pay any attention to them, and therefore I thought it a work of supererogation to do so. I also pointed out on the previous occasion that the noble Lord's Motion in regard to the Joint Committee of Inquiry has really nothing whatever to do with this Bill. I will read the precise terms of the reference to the Joint Committee— 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. The reference to the Joint Committee has to do with the powers of, and the method of the exercise of those powers by, municipal corporations, or, if the noble Earl prefers it, local authorities; but there is nothing whatever in the reference to the Joint Committee to suggest that Parliament has it in consideration, even in the remotest degree, to take away from local authorities the powers of promoting or opposing Bills. All that this Bill does is this. It gives to County Councils certain limited powers to promote Bills for a variety of purposes. The point we have to consider to-day is whether County Councils have, after fifteen years' existence, sufficiently established their reputation for steadiness of purpose and useful work to be entrusted with the power of coming to Parliament when they see fit to promote Bills for certain purposes. The objects for which County Councils desire this power is mainly to take land for the improvement of roads, for the building of lunatic asylums, for improving bridges, and such like purposes, which are strictly within the purview of county council work. I will concede these two points to the noble Earl, because I wish to be very fair to him. I will concede, in the first place, that in some cases municipal authorities have gone too far in the direction of municipal trading. It is because we hold that opinion that the Joint Committee of both Houses has been appointed to consider the method of the exercise of those powers, but not whether they shall have powers or whether powers shall be taken away altogether. The second point I will concede is that technically it would be possible for a County Council under this Bill to promote a Bill to enable them to supply gas or electric lighting. But my position in regard to that matter is this—firstly, that there is not the remotest chance of a County Council being so foolish as to do anything of the kind, and, secondly, that if they did it the time to check them is when they come with that proposal to Parliament. There is neither reason nor commonsense in refusing to all the County Councils of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland the power to come to Parliament for certain purposes properly within the scope of their work, because there is the possibility of a remote chance of a County Council doing something in the direction of municipal trading. I do not believe there is that danger, but even if I believed it to be ten times more than I do, I should not think it the slightest reason for maintaining a prohibition which has been found extremely inconvenient in the past. In the extreme urgency of certain cases, and when it was absolutely necessary in the public interest that Bills should be promoted, individual members of County Councils have promoted the Bills, taking the risk of being able to prove to Parliament the absolute

necessity for them, and if the Bills had failed they themselves as individuals would have had to pay the cost of their enterprise. The noble Earl quoted a resolution to the effect that the object of this Bill was to allow County Councils to promote Bills without getting the ratepayers' consent. I altogether deny that statement. The restrictions upon the power of County Councils are amply safeguarded. They are plainly set forth in the schedule to the Bill, and the whole purport of the noble Earl's speech was that there should be restrictions, but that there should be no power at all.

*THE EARL OF WEMYSS

I do not object to the Bills. I carefully said that. I object to your giving powers, rightly or wrongly, pending the inquiry into the whole of this question.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I have endeavoured to dispose of that plea, and I am afraid that if I were to do it again I should have no better success in convincing the noble Earl. The fact is that on this matter he is unconvinceable. There is no foundation for the suggestion of the noble Earl that this Bill is the private enterprise of the President of the Local Government Board. It is a Government Bill, a Bill promoted by the Government, not only because it is the unanimous desire of the County Councils that it should be passed but because we believe, from the useful work and steadiness of purpose of these local authorities, that they may safely be entrusted with the powers which it is proposed to confer upon them.

On Question whether to agree to the said Amendment, their Lordships divided. Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 75.

CONTENTS.
Cawdor, E. Dunboyne, L. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Munster, E. Ebury, L.
Newton, L. [Teller.] Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) [Teller.]
Oranmore and Browne, L.
Avebury, L. Sherborne, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Wellington, D. Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)
Devonshire, D. (L. President.) Ripon, M. Ancaster, E.
Zetland, M. Belmore, E.
Grafton, D. Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.) Camperdown, E.
Portland, D. Carnwath, E.
Denbigh, E. Powerscourt, V. Glanusk, L.
Hardwicke, E. Hawkesbury, L.
Leven and Melville, E. St. Albans, L. Bp. Herries, L.
Lytton, E. James, L.
Malmesbury, E. Alverstone, L. Kenyon, L.
Mar and Kellie, E. Ashbourne, L. Killanin, L.
Mayo, E. Balfour, L. Lawrence, L.
Morley, E. Barnard, L. Leigh, L.
Nelson, E. Barrymore, L. Lyveden, L.
Northbrook, E. Bateman, L. Norton, L.
Onslow, E. Belhaven and Stenton, L. Reay, L.
Portsmouth, E. Belper, L. Redesdale, L.
Romney, E. Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) Ribblesdale, L.
Stamford, E. Burton, L. St. Levan, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Calthorpe, L. Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Cheylesmore, L. Sinclair, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Suffield, L.
Bangor, V. Colchester, L. Tweedmouth, L.
Churchill, V. [Teller.] Congleton, L. Welby, L.
Hampden, V. Crawshaw, L. Windsor, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Foley, L. Wolverton, L.
Forester, L.

Then the original Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.

Clause 1.

LORD AVEBURY

said that Lord Kenyon, in introducing this Bill, had told the House that the object was to allow County Councils to promote Bills in the same manner as municipal boroughs. But the Bill gave the power without the existing safeguard. The object of the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper was to carry out the expressed intention of His Majesty's Government. The words were those in the existing Act. Unless they introduced them they would be giving County Councils powers which municipal authorities had not hitherto possessed. Moreover, unless they inserted these words they abolished the right of owners to vote. One reason of the great increase in rates undoubtedly was that so many persons had votes but paid no rates. They had, therefore, no direct interest in economy. In many cases, moreover, even those who paid rates were merely temporary occupiers. It would hardly be denied that in the long run rates fell to a great extent on owners. They had not even now a fair share of representation, but if they had so little surely the proper course was to give them a more adequate share of representation, and not to deprive them of what small share they still possessed. At the previous day's sitting of the Joint Committee which was now considering this subject, Sir S. Provis, Permanent Secretary to the Local Government Board, was asked whether in his judgment and from his great experience he considered that the ratepayers required more protection, and he replied that he did. But unless the House accepted his Amendment the unfortunate ratepayer would have even less protection than he had at present. The Amendment gave no additional safeguard, but at any rate it preserved to the ratepayers the power they at present possessed, and of which the Bill as it stood would deprive him.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 8, after 'them' to insert 'The powers conferred by this section and by Section 15 of the Local Government Act, 1888, shall be exercised subject to the provisions of the Borough Funds Act, 1872, and of any Act amending the same, in like manner as if the county were a borough, and the chairman of the County Council the mayor of a borough."—(Lord Avebury.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

LORD KENYON

said the Government could not accept the Amendment. The Amendment contemplated the adoption of the machinery of the Borough Funds Act, under which a meeting of owners and ratepayers would have to be held in order to gain consent to the promotion of a Bill. It would obviously be impossible to find buildings large enough to hold meetings of the county owners and ratepayers of London or Lancashire. In the second place, Lord Avebury sought to impose a restriction on County Councils in opposing Bills, and therefore was not in order because the Bill did not alter the powers that at present existed as to opposing Bills. He thought the ratepayers' interest sufficiently safeguarded in the Bill as it stood. An absolute majority of the Council was necessary, and the meeting at which that majority had to be obtained would be held after ten days notice had been given by advertisement. Further, no expense could be incurred on the promotion of a Bill unless it was confirmed by an absolute majority at another meeting of the Council after the Bill had been deposited fourteen days in the House. Besides that, in the case of both the promotion of and opposition to Bills, the consent of the Local Government Board, or the Secretary of State as the case might be, would have to be obtained. As Lord Balfour had pointed out, the proper place for ratepayers to object to the promotion of Bills was when the Bills came before Parliament.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

agreed that it would be totally impossible in a large county to hold meetings of the kind proposed, and urged the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment. He assured him it was not workable.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said the explanation which had just been given by the noble Lord opposite showed that the Bill was quite a different one from what they had supposed. They had no explanation when the Bill was introduced beyond this, that they were told that it was to create exactly the same state of things with regard to County Councils as now existed in boroughs. But it now transpired that it was totally different. With regard to the owners' vote, he contended that there could be no objection to summoning the owners and ratepayers to a meeting. He could not see how the Amendment would take away the power of opposing Bills.

LORD BELPER

insisted that it was practically impossible to get a meeting of ratepayers in a county that would in any sense represent the feeling of the county. With regard to the effect of the Amendment, under the Act of 1888 power was given to oppose Bills without the consent of the ratepayers, and the Amendment would overrule that by making the provisions of the Borough Funds Act applicable to the opposing of Bills as well as their promotion. He hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.

LORD AVEBURY

said it was quite clear from the noble Lord's explanation that the Bill did not merely give to County Councils the powers which had been hitherto enjoyed by municipal authorities. It might be right or it might be wrong, but the Bill gave them totally different powers.

LORD BELPER

Quite so.

LORD AVEBURY

Yes, but that was not what was stated to be the intention of the Bill when it was introduced. Continuing, the noble Lord said it did away with the powers which had hitherto been enjoyed by the ratepayers, and handed those powers over to the Local Government Board. It was useless to put the House to the trouble of dividing, and he would therefore withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

LORD AVEBURY

then moved to omit the sub-section which provides that the powers conferred by the clause shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any powers possessed by the London County Council. He wished to know what additional powers the Bill would give to the London County Council.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 20, to leave out Sub-section 4."—(Lord Avebury.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section 4 stand part of the clause."

LORD KENYON

said he did not think the Bill gave the London County Council any additional powers. The sub-section was only put in as a safeguard.

LORD AVEBURY

asked whether the Government would omit the words, "shall be in addition to."

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. The object of the sub-section was simply to safeguard to the County Council the powers it already had, and to make it perfectly clear that the County Council should not have any of its powers interfered with by the Bill.

LORD AVEBURY

said he was not wishing to deprive the County Council of any of its powers, but the words in the section were "the powers conferred by this section shall be in addition to," etc. He understood the Government did not wish to add anything to the duties of the London County Council.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said the London County Council, as the successors of the Metropolitan Board of Works, had the power to promote Bills for the improvement of the Metropolis, and for the public benefit of the inhabitants. The present Bill gave a general power to County Councils to promote Bills under certain restrictions, and the Government saw no reason why the London County Council should be differently treated from other County Conncils; but they wanted to make it clear that the powers now enjoyed by the London County Council were not derogated from.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Bill reported without Amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.