HC Deb 01 November 1909 vol 12 cc1559-64

Sub-section (12), Sections fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen of this Act shall apply with the substitution of the sheriff for the Local Government Board; provided that Section one hundred and forty-six of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897 (prescribing the procedure if a local authority neglect its duty), shall apply as if the duties im- posed upon a local authority by Sections sixteen and seventeen of this Act were duties imposed by that Act:

Lords Amendment: After the word "Board" insert "or county court of the district" and after "that" insert "the reference in Section seventeen to a public local inquiry shall not apply, and provided further where an appeal is competent under any of these Sections an appeal shall not be competent under Section-thirty-five of the principal Act, and provided also that the power to make rules under Section thirty-nine of this Act shall be exercised by the Court of Session by act of sederunt."

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure)

I beg to move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. HAY

Will the hon. Gentleman give us some explanation?

Mr. URE

My Amendment is consequential on what was previously moved by the President of the Local Government Board, and it is to substitute for county court in the Lords Amendment the words "and the Court of Session for the High Court."

Mr. LYTTELTON

I confess myself not familiar with the points of Scotch law referred to by the Lord Advocate, but I think that the House is entitled to some explanation why in his judgment the House should be asked to disagree with the Lords Amendments. He has once or twice rather faintly murmured the word "consequential," but that is all I have heard.

Mr. URE

The reason is because High Court has been substituted for county court, and I substitute Court; of Session for the High Court.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Surely the Lord Advocate is not accurate in saying that the High Court has been substituted for county court. I do not understand that to have been the effect of the Amendment adopted. I understood that all the President of the Local Government Board was going to do was to give a power to the Local Government Board to ask an opinion of the High Court on a point of law.

Mr. BURNS

The Amendment which the Lord Advocate has moved is thoroughly compatible with the Amendment which I moved, and which was accepted unanimously, that the Local Government Board on a substantial point of law would refer that point to the High Court of Justice in England. I am told the equivalent of that in Scotland is the Court of Session.

Mr. CAVE

May I point out that the High Court is not mentioned in Clauses 15, 17 and 18.

Mr. BURNS

The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that by the previous Amendment we have abolished the county court, and the Lord Advocate's Amendment, so far as it applies to that, is consequential.

Mr URE

I move, after the word "Board," to insert the words "and the Court of Session for the High Court."

Mr. CAVE

Where, in Clauses 15, 17 and 38, is the "High Court" mentioned? The effect of the Amendment is that these Sections shall be read as if the Court of Session were substituted for the High Court. Where, in any of those Clauses, is the "High Court" mentioned?

Sir HENRY CRAIK

May I point out to the Lord Advocate that his Amendment should follow the word "that," and not the word "Board"?

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I really do not know what the House ought to do under these circumstances. I do not want to press anything unduly, but in this matter I feel that the House of Commons is really being asked as far as I can understand to enact something which is not grammatically sense. I cannot think the Government desire to do that, and though I should be sorry to do so if we really cannot get an explanation, I should move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BALFOUR

Before that course is taken may I suggest that the Government should read to us the Clause or the Section as it would stand if their Amendments were carried. We would then exactly know where we are, and at present I do not think anybody in the House does know where we are.

Mr. BURNS

In answer to the Leader of the Opposition, may I say that in my judgment Mr. Speaker has sufficiently directed the House. He has read out the Amend- ments that the Lord Advocate moved with some interruption. It was not heard in some parts of the House what the Lord Advocate did say. I gathered that the first Amendment of the Lord Advocate was, in line 23, to insert: "or county court of the district," and, after that, to insert: "Court of Session." I gathered that the House followed Mr. Speaker in the Amendment of the Bill so far.

Sir H. CRAIK

Read the words plainly, and if after the word "Board" you have "Court of Session," then the Section is perfect nonsense. Really we must have some explanation.

Mr. STUART-WORTLEY

I speak with the greatest humility, and I presume to say that I can help the Lord Advocate in the difficulty. The real difficulty, as my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave) pointed out, is that there is no reference in either Clause 15, 17, or 18 to the High Court at all. What we have done is that in Section 40 we have a reference to the High Court by an Amendment which we passed tonight. Therefore from this sort of retrospective connection with Clauses 15, 17, and 18 it becomes necessary to move a consequential Amendment. It does not follow that the Amendment which has been moved is the right one. I really believe what we want to say is that Section 40 should be read with the substitution of the Court of Session for the High Court. With all humility and respect I tender that suggestion.

Mr. CAVE

On a point of Order. Is it open to anybody to move that the Clause should be read substituting Court of Session for High Court when there is not in any one of those Clauses any reference to the High Court, and would the Amendment be in Order?

Mr. SPEAKER

Members can see for themselves whether the High Court is mentioned or not. If it is not referred to it is a very good reason for voting against the Amendment.

Mr. BALFOUR

My hon. Friend's point of Order is this: Is it in Order that we should put into the Bill a provision which is absolute nonsense? I understand that Mr. Speaker or the Chairman usually rules out any Amendment which does not read or which according to the ordinary interpretation of the English language has no meaning. I submit that the Amendment as proposed has no meaning, because it suggests the existence in preceding Clauses of words which in fact do not there exist. I cannot believe that the House desires to pass a Clause in that form.

Mr. URE

The matter will be made perfectly clear if I alter the Amendment so that it will read, "and the appeal given in Section 40 shall apply with the substitution of 'Court of Session' for 'High Court.'"

Mr. SPEAKER

That will come later.

Proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords Amendment: After "that" ["provided that"] insert "the reference in Section seventeen to a public local inquiry shall not apply, and provided further where an appeal is competent under any of these Sections an appeal shall not be competent under Section thirty-five of the principal Act, and provided also that the power to make rules under Section thirty-nine of this Act shall be exercised by the Court of Session by act of sederunt."

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Why is not this Amendment necessary, and what is to take its place? It appears to be merely drafting machinery for doing the same thing in Scotland that has been done in regard to England. The Amendment proposes to strike out the public local inquiry as far as Scotland is concerned, I suppose because that is not an appropriate phrase; and it also makes other provisions. These must be necessary to apply the Act to Scotland. We seem to be in great danger of making the Bill, so far as Scotland is concerned, perfect nonsense.

Mr. BURNS

As I understand, the Bill will read: "Sections 15, 16, and 17 of this Act shall apply with the substitution of the sheriff for the Local Government Board," and the Court of Session would be inserted to meet the point in Clause 40 as to the reference of points of law to the High Court.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman we are not on that Amendment at all; we are on the second Amendment.

Mr. BURNS

I have replied to the Noble Lord's question. He put a question definitely to me, and I have done my best to reply to it.

Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to Lords Amendment: At the end thereof to add, "and the appeal in Section 40 shall apply in substitution of the Court of Session or the High Court."

Sir H. CRAIK

The words "on appeal" mean an appeal to the Local Government Board, and the word in the Clause the Lord Advocate proposes to introduce is in reference to an appeal to a court of law.

Words added to Lords Amendment.