HL Deb 11 July 1907 vol 178 cc23-32

House in Committee (according to Order).

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2: —

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

moved an Amendment limiting the power of local authorities to make by-laws for the regulation and control of hoardings and similar structures used for the purpose of advertising to cases where such hoardings or structures "exceed twelve feet in height." He pointed out that the effect of the Amendment would be to restore the Bill to the form in which it passed their Lordships' House two years ago and in which it was introduced in the House of Commons in the present session. The limitation had been a matter of general agreement and acceptance, but in the Committee of the other House the words were omitted against the desire both of the promoters of the Bill and of the representative of the Home Office. He hoped the House would restore the Bill to its original form, in which it would do all that was necessary, and be less in restraint of trade.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 9, after the word 'advertising' to insert the words 'when they exceed twelve feet in height.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

LORD BELPER

asked what was the particular virtue of twelve feet. As far as he understood, the proposal related to those hideous advertisements which were put alongside railways and in places where they spoilt the amenities of the neighbourhood. If the effect was simply to compel those who erected the advertisements to make them 11 feet 6 inches instead of 12 feet, he did not think it would improve the situation to any great extent.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the whole Bill had been a matter of considerable discussion between the bill-posting industry and the promoters of the measure. Twelve feet was a very well-known height in the trade, many advertisements being printed for hoardings of that size. As the particular height was a compromise between two parties, in consequence of which the bill-posters withdrew their opposition to the Bill, he thought the noble Lord was well advised in seeking to restore the words.

LORD BELPER

said it was no answer to his question to say that two people had agreed to a proposal. Nothing would be easier than to cut off a few inches from the bottom of these advertisements, and if the object of the Bill was to secure control over advertisements, it seemed to him that that object would be largely frustrated by limiting the height in the manner proposed.

LORD BALFOUR or BURLEIGH

said that, so far as abstract principle was concerned, there was nothing in the regulation as to 12 feet, except that many urban district councils and other authorities already had control over advertisements above 12 feet in height, and it was not unreasonable that, as the principle was to some extent established, general control should start at that height. He did not like to plead agreements made outside Parliament, as the House might naturally say that people had no right to make agreements interfering with the freedom of either House of Parliament. The promoters, however, were under an honourable obligation not to proceed with the Bill if the omission of these words was insisted upon. The Bill passed by their Lordships two years ago contained these words; it was introduced in the House of Commons in that form, and those interested in the trade abstained from opposition on the understanding that the words would be adhered to. While he could not fetter the absolute freedom of the House to do as it chose in the matter, if the omission of the words was insisted upon the promoters of the Bill would be placed in an extremely difficult and delicate position, and would feel honourably bound not to proceed further with the measure.

LORD BELPER

did not think the answer which had been given was a very satisfactory one for those who had hoped there would be power in the Bill to deal with the unsightly advertisements to which he had referred. He did not wish to wreck the Bill, particularly at that stage, but he would take the opportunity of considering whether at a later stage words could not be introduced to make the provision more effective.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

moved to amend the provisions exempting hoardings and similar structures in use for advertising purposes for a period not exceeding two years, by substituting "five" for "two." The period of five years was originally in the Bill, and the case for its retention was very strong, inasmuch as some of the individuals interested in advertisement display had made contracts for a period of years, most of which would expire before five, but not before two years had elapsed. Under these circumstances, it being a matter of considerable importance to the trade he thought it expedient that the words; should be restored, and ho moved accordingly.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 9, to leave out the word 'two,' and insert the word 'five.'" —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

moved to insert the following new subsection: "The expression 'pleasure promenade' shall not include any road or street mainly used for business purposes." He said that the Amendment had been suggested by the London Chamber of Commerce. Some of those interested in the trade feared that the words "pleasure promenade" as they stood in the Bill were too vague and might lead to litigation. A member of the deputation of the Chamber of Commerce declared that the advertisements in certain thoroughfares in London were to him a source of positive delight, and that he went along those streets for the purpose of looking at them. It was a somewhat curious taste, and the fear was expressed that such a street might be termed a "pleasure promenade." He thought the argument rather far-fetched, but the words could not do any harm, and in order to show that it was really intended to confine the strict regulation of advertisments to places which were for pleasure and not for business he suggested that the Amendment should be accepted.

Amendment moved— To insert as a new sub-section: 'The expression 'pleasure promenade' shall not include any road or street mainly used for business purposes.'" —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

pointed out that no allusion had been made in the course of the debate to the right of the private owner of a house or shop or land with which a local authority under the Bill might interfere. He did not want to defend the hideous advertisements which were to be seen in some parts of the country; he would be very glad if the Bill put an end to them; but there must be cases where purely business advertisements had been put up almost from time immemorial on private houses or at the corner of a street which would not be covered by the proposed Amendment.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said that in the view of the Home Office the Amendment was somewhat superfluous. Roads and streets used mainly for business purposes would not in any case naturally become pleasure promenades, but there might possibly be difficult cases. For instance, it was always a pleasure to walk along Piccadilly, which was also a place of business. Perhaps the noble Lord would think it better to reconsider the matter and propose words more carefully thought out in Standing Committee.

LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH

said he was in the hands of the Home Office, who had given him considerable help both two years ago and in the Standing Committee of the other House. Personally he did not think the Amendment necessary, but it was put down in good faith to allay the apprehensions of those who thought the Bill would unduly interfere not only with what they thought was legitimate business, but with things ornamental in themselves. With regard to that point raised by Lord St. Aldwyn, he could not conceive that advertisements which were purely temporary in their nature would ever be subject to regulation by the local authority. They must assume good sense on the part of the local authority, regulated by the superior power of the Government Department. He was anxious to get the Bill through with as little friction as possible, and if the noble Viscount would, at a subsequent stage, suggest words to carry out his view he would endeavour to accept them.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said he would rather the words now proposed were not inserted.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said that under the circumstances he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and if the noble Viscount could at a later stage suggest words which would not be objectionable he would be glad to consider them.

THE EARL OFHALSBURY,

in the interest of those who would have to decide the question, asked what was supposed to be meant by a "pleasure promenade." Could the noble Earl give an instance in London of what he considered a pleasure promenade where advertisements might be displayed?

EARL BEAUCHAMP

pointed out that the clause was not confined to London, but dealt with other places also.

THE EARL OFHALSBURY

said he had only mentioned London for the purposes of illustration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD AVEBURY

said he had been requested by the Borough Council of Islington to ask why the powers given to Scotland under Clause 5 should not be given to England under the clause now before the House.

LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH

replied that as first drafted the clause referred to had application to England also, but the Home Office pointed out that the law as it stood was strong enough to meet the case, whereas in Scotland it was not so. In England the owner of private property had sufficient power to stop the advertisements in question, but that was not the case in Scotland; hence the difference in the clauses.

LORD BELPER

said the question seemed to bear on the point he had raised earlier in the debate. The local authority would have power under the clause to make by-laws for two purposes —first, for the regulation and control of hoardings and similar structures used for the purpose of advertising when they exceeded twelve feet in height, and, secondly, for regulating, restricting, or preventing the exhibition of advertisements in such places and in such manner, or by such means, as to affect injuriously the amenities of a public park or pleasure promenade, or to disfigure the natural beauty of a landscape. Those two provisions naturally ran side by side, but did the limitation of twelve feet apply to the second? His objection would be very largely met if it did not. The advertisements to which he referred were those which disfigured the natural beauty of a landscape or injuriously affected the amenities of a public park and so on. If in those cases the local authority could absolutely do away with advertisements whether they were over twelve feet or no the would be to a large extent satisfied.

Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said he thought the point was so obvious that he had not mentioned it. The restriction applied only to the first part of the clause. There was no restriction as to height in the second subsection, except that the by-laws had to be confirmed by the central authority.

LORD BELPER

did not think the point was so obvious as had been suggested. The first part of the clause referred to hoardings generally, and they might be supposed to include hoardings in the places referred to in the second part.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

LORD KILLANIN

moved the insertion, after Clause 3, of a new clause providing that it should be the duty of every metropolitan borough council within its own area to enforce the by-laws made under the Act, and to defray the expenses incurred in connection therewith. He had been asked by the London County Council to propose the Amendment, which carried out a resolution passed unanimously by that body. The object was to meet a difficulty which it was anticipated would arise. It appeared that in other Acts of Parliament, especially under Section 84 of the London Building Act, 1894, powers as to hoardings were given to and exclusively administered by the metropolitan borough councils. It was thought advisable, therefore, that the administration of by-laws made under this Bill dealing with hoardings should also be in the hands of the borough councils, otherwise there would be a certain amount of dual control which might be very confusing and lead to the inefficiency of the Act.

Amendment moved— After Clause 3, to insert the following new clause, 'In the application of this Act to the administrative county of London, outside the City of London, it shall be the duty of every metropolitan borough council within its own area to enforce the by-laws made under this Act, and any expenses incurred by a metropolitan borough council shall be defrayed as part of the expenses of that council.'"—(Lord Killanin.)

LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH

said he would like the advice of the Home Office in this matter. Two years ago the Home Office and the Local Government Board had a conference with the promoters of the Bill, and as a result of that conference the Bill, so far as it concerned the action of the local authorities, was drafted in its present form. Since the resolution to which reference had been made was passed by the County Council he had received a representation from the borough of Southwark that if it were given effect to they would want something else. He hoped the Bill would not be imperilled so far as it affected the rest of the country by any contest between the different authorities in London. Doubtless they each had their own rights and privileges to conserve, and he would be guided by the advice of the Home Office, who had expert knowledge as to how far the different authorities were in the right.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said he must ask the House not to accept the Amendment, largely on account of the dual control it would set up. The Bill provided that the authority to make the by-laws should be the county council and the noble Lord proposed that those by laws should be enforced by the metropolitan borough councils. The view of the Home Office was that on the whole it would be better that the body which made the by-laws should also enforce them. That was the usual custom in regard to bylaws of this description, and it would be advisable to adhere to it in this case. The powers with regard to hoardings given to the borough councils under Section 84 of the London Building Act, 1894, had no reference whatever to advertisements, but concerned the safety of the erections and the length of time they were to remain; hence there would be no dual control in the matter of advertisements. The Bill affected considerably more than mere hoardings. It referred, for instance, to the advertisements mentioned by Lord Belper, and it was not thought advisable that the metropolitan borough councils should have the control of those advertisements, for the reason that their area of jurisdiction was not very large, and it might very easily happen that the advertisements would disfigure a promenade or public walk in the area of another borough council than that in which the advertisement itself appeared. On the whole it was better that the matter should not be considered as one of purely local concern, but that it should be in the hands of a larger authority than the borough council. No request had reached the Home Office from any metropolitan borough councils asking that this power should be given them, and under the circumstances he hoped the proposed new clause would not be accepted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH

moved the insertion, after Clause 4, of a new clause with the objection of making it perfectly clear that this general law would not repeal provisions in local Acts of special importance to the localities concerned. Edinburgh, for instance, had power to prevent advertising on the Castle Rock; and Dover had a right to restrain a syndicate from the other side of the Atlantic from advertising a certain preparation on the cliffs above Dover. Other places had local provisions of special importance to themselves, and while it was not certain that the clause was necessary, it could do no harm, and it would ensure that those places which had been foremost in securing their own protection would not be placed in a worse position than at present.

Amendment moved— To insert the following new clause: 'The powers and provisions of this Act shall be deemed to be in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers or provisions of any local Act of Parliament, and the powers and provisions of any such local Act may be exercised and enforced in the same manner as if this Act had not been passed.'" —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6: —

LORD KILLANIN

moved to amend the definition by making the London County Council the local authority within the "administrative" county of London. He pointed out that the administrative county of London included portions of three counties.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 15, after the first 'the' to insert the word 'administrative.'"—(Lord Killanin.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the Home Office were not responsible for the exact wording throughout the Bill, but in Standing Committee they proposed to move the omission of the words "and within the county of London outside the city of London the London County Council," as being unnecessary.

LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH

suggested that as the Home Office were going to move certain drafting Amendments the noble Lord would do well to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DENMAN

moved to omit the words "or Ireland" from the subsection defining the expression "local authority" within any municipal borough in England or Ireland to mean the council of that borough. He explained that words already in Subsection (4) included municipal boroughs in Ireland, and therefore, in order not to overload the clause, it was proposed to omit the words "or Ireland" from Subsection (2).

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 17, to leave out the words 'or Ireland.'" —(Lord Denman.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7: —

LORD DENMAN

said the Amendment he now proposed was merely a matter of drafting, the substitution of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts for the Public Health Acts being necessary.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 31, after the word 'State' to insert the words the Public Health (Ireland) Acts 1878 to 1900, 'shall be substituted for the Public Health Acts, and any references to a borough shall not have effect.'"—(Lord Denman.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. [No. 110.]