§ Major PRICEI beg to move, in page 2, to leave out from the words "may," in line 9, to the word "appeal" in line 11, and to insert instead thereof the words "in all cases."
As far as I can gather there has been no discussion of this point at any stage of the Bill. Under the Clause as it stands at present, where a surcharge of over £500 has been made, the person surcharged has the right of an appeal to the Minister or the High Court. It is most desirable, in all cases where a surcharge is made, that there should be uniformity of decision, and it is quite impossible for anyone at the moment to know his exact position under a Clause 2028 of this kind. Assume that a man has been surcharged and makes an appeal to the Minister. Ministers vary. Nobody will suggest that there will be uniformity in the decisions of the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), and the present Minister of Health. There might be three Ministers of Health of different political views in the course of a few years. There is no uniformity of decision, and we feel that in cases where it is a question of the legality or otherwise of the proceeding you should go to the the properly constituted authority—namely,the Court. We do not mean the High Court in every case, but that where a small amount is involved an appeal to the County Court should be allowed. If it is left to the decision of the Minister, in all cases up 2029 to £500, a large figure indeed might be involved. If you have 15 members of a council surcharged £450 each it represents a sum of about £6,750. That is left entirely in the discretion of the Minister; and it is not clear in the Bill whether the decision of the Minister will be given on evidence laid before him. In Sub-section (4) it would appear that the appellant is entitled to a personal hearing by a person appointed for this purpose by the Minister. I do not know whether it is within the option of the appellant to be heard by the Minister himself or by someone appointed by the Minister. It is not clear that the Minister himself will hear the case personally. In those cases which come before the Minister, those amounts under £500, there can be no question of publicity. If a case is decided in the Law Courts it is published in all the Law journals, provided it is of sufficient importance and involves some novel point in law, but if the matter comes before the Minister there is no publicity at all. At any rate it is not clear that publicity in cases up to £500 is contemplated. It is not at all clear also why cases just under £500 are not dealt with. Take Sub-section (3), which provides that any ratepayer or owner of property in the area to which the surcharge relates shall appear at the hearing and object. That is put in in order that the ratepayer should have some protection, but, if it is £499 that is in question, the ratepayer has no protection at all and no right of audience before the Minister. We feel that, as the subject has to make an appeal against what he considers illegal, he ought to make that appeal to the properly constituted authorities of the country, and that there should not be so much of taking before the administrative and governing authority those matters which really belong to the judicial authority. The Executive should be kept outside judicial decisions. We feel that in this case we should make a stand and ask the Minister to explain and justify why the Law Courts should not decide a legal question and say whether it be legal or illegal.
§ Mr. RADFORDI beg to second the Amendment.
§ In times past surcharges have been made by district auditors usually in 2030 respect of bona fide errors. But hon. Members opposite in their speeches today have openly gloried in the fact that in future it will be on members of their party upon various local authorities that surcharges will be made. Many of them have said that probably the whole council would be returned to carry out a certain policy involving illegal payments and in the exercise of that policy the whole council might be suspended from office. In view of their attitude, which they have openly admitted and in which they regard surcharges as being perfectly right and meritorious, what confidence can we have in an appeal by the person surcharged to a Minister of Health of the Socialist party? I would have been loth to say this and would not have said it if I had not heard the speeches of hon. Members opposite. On that ground and on the grounds put forward by my hon. Friend, I do not think a Minister of Health should be able to adjudicate on the appeal of a councillor or member of a local authority who has been surcharged, and I support the Amendment. If a Conservative Minister of Health were in office and a Socialist member of a local authority had been surcharged and the Minister turned down the appeal, it would give scope for saying that he had been biased in his decision, or a Socialist Minister of Health might be said to have been biased if he allowed such an appeal. Ministers of Health in this country have other duties to perform than that of acting as a Court of Appeal in cases of this kind.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Price) will not think it necessary to press this Amendment. It seems to me to be based upon some misunderstanding of the actual facts. After all, the present law gives the power of appeal to the Minister in all cases of surcharges, and while this Bill has to some extent limited the powers of going to the Minister, we have left that power in the case of the majority of surcharges, namely, the smaller ones. My hon. Friends have suggested that different Ministers might take different views of their duties, but I would point out that the great majority of cases of surcharges do not raise any political question at all. They deal with quite small matters. It 2031 may be that the authority has not collected all the rents that they should have done, or it may be that they have paid interest on overdrafts where there should not have been overdrafts. These things form the great bulk of the appeals. In the last five years out of 456 appeals, 449 have been to the Minister and only seven to the Courts. It would place a burden on the Courts, and they should not be called upon to deal with such small matters. I have to take these Amendments as I find them, and the Amendments do not survive the tests that are applied. I really think, in view of what I have said, that my hon. Friends would not be justified in pressing this Amendment, for which there is no cause. Nothing that we can foresee justifies a change, and it certainly would, if carried, cause great inconvenience and congestion in the Courts.
§ Sir H. SLESSERI find myself in a difficulty over this Amendment, because, as a rule, we on this side view with great suspicion the exercise of judicial functions by Ministers of the Crown. That is why we protested against the Government in the Landlord and Tenant Bill. In this particular case, I think the Minister has made out a case for resisting the Amendment. As the Minister has pointed out, and on this point I must agree with him, it is obvious that a great many of these cases deal with small matters of administration. In spite of the polemical and political speech delivered by the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford), we know a large number of these surcharges have no relation to political affairs at all. There may be cases where auditors with excessive zeal make a surcharge where they should not have made a surcharge at all. But if one can only appeal to the High Court it means that whenever an error has been made by an auditor, and they often make errors in small surcharges, people will have to go to the High Court. The High Court as matters now stand would only construe questions of law. It has been laid down more particularly by the House of Lords that the question of reasonableness one way or another is a matter for the auditor, and that therefore, if you go to the High Court limited to the question of law, there is really nothing on which the High Court can act. 2032 A Minister can exercise his discretion in curbing the enthusiasm of an auditor for surcharging. I do not think that this is a question of a Minister of one political view or another. The hon. Member says that he would not trust a Socialist Minister. We might equally reply that we do not trust a Minister of a bureaucratic Government.
§ Mr. RADFORDI said that it was equally undesirable in either case.
§ Sir H. SLESSERIn the larger cases, it may be admitted that there is a matter for the Court, but in the ordinary small cases of surcharge which have to do with small tenders—it may be that have to do with some small technical breach of the law and nothing to do with politics—it is absurd that everyone should be required to go to the Law Courts. The hon. Gentleman seems more anxious to deliver a political speech than to study the subject. Has he considered the existing law in this matter? There has always been power in the Minister to deal with these surcharges, and we on this side associate ourselves with the Minister and were glad that he refused to accept the Amendment.
§ Sir JOSEPH NALLI am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Price) put this Amendment down. I put down one like it in Committee, and this will enable me to say what I had intended to say then. This Amendment calls attention to a departure which has provoked much controversy—the increasing tendency to repose in Departments all kinds of judicial functions which ought to lie with the Courts. The Minister, in his reply, pleaded the experience of the existing legislation. But this Bill proves that the present legislation on this matter is not adequate. That is why we have this Bill. It is because circumstances are arising in the country which have hitherto not been contemplated, and are in some instances of so serious a character that this Bill has become necessary, and this particular Amendment, which arises on it. I would ask the House to consider the opinion of a high authority on this matter, no less an authority than the Lord Chief Justice himself. In an address to some students in Birmingham, on the passage of the Electricity Bill, the Lord Chief Justice drew attention to this tendency to 2033 transfer judicial functions to Ministers. He has done it on other occasions. I am going to quote one extract from an address which the Lord Chief Justice delivered to the American bar:
It is a commonplace,said Lord Hewart,to say that the rule of law involves at least two things: (1) The absence of arbitrary power on the part of the Government, (2) equality before the law. In other words, every man, whoever he may be, and whether he be an official or not, is subject to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary tribunals. That is our system—the system we owe to the Common Law. But has there not been during recent years, and is there not now a marked and increasing development of bureaucratic pretensions, the essence and aim of which are to withdraw matters and topics from the jurisdiction of the Courts and set them apart for purely official determination.If we cannot persuade the Minister to do something, I hope that when this Bill reaches another place this kind of thing will be adequately considered. The right hon. Gentleman might have reduced the figure at which the appeal should go to the Minister. It might have been £5 instead of £500. There may have been something in the case he made out just now for a quicker and more convenient appeal in certain cases to his Department rather than to the Courts, but the figure of £500, in my view, is far too high for the differentiation between appeals to the Courts and the Minister. I hope that the Minister will realise that this Amendment is brought forward and supported by myself because we feel that the time has come when the Executive must realise that this practice of reposing judicial functions in the will of officials of Departments is contrary to the settled practice of this country, and is one which cannot be supported.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI am sure that we may be permitted to congratulate the party opposite on having awakened to an interest in the Measure now before the House. The hon. Member for the Hulme Division (Sir J. Nall) was very frank with us in his opening remarks. He told us that this was a Measure which was being promoted to deal with a new set of conditions that has arisen in this country. The new set of conditions, I assume, is the adoption of Labour and Socialist views by the electors in certain localities, 2034 and the need for oppressing these localities.
§ Sir J. NALLThe new circumstances to which I was referring are the growing practice of bribing the electorate out of public funds.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI will not attempt to pursue the line of policy opened up by the remark of the hon. Gentleman or I might be tempted to ask what was in the minds of the party opposite in pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as they are, to be ready with a reduction in the Income Tax on the eve of the next general election. The remarks of the Minister himself seemed to me to be rather inconsistent. He seemed to say, when replying to the Mover of the Amendment, that the complexion of the questions that usually come up for decision at the Ministry of Health is not of a political character, and that the Minister might be trusted to deal with them. That does not seem to agree with the report of a speech of his delivered to the Committee dealing with this Bill upstairs. Perhaps the OFFICIAL REPORT may be wrong. One can more easily visualise, if I may use one of his favourite words, the OFFICIAL REPORT being wrong than the right hon. Gentleman. But the right hon. Gentleman is reported to have said:
Under the new form, we divide disallowances and surcharges into what I may call the ordinary and the extraordinary. The ordinary are the cases of error made in good faith which have been the subject of surcharge in the past, and where the surcharge has frequently been paid. The extraordinary are cases in which disallowances are made in respect of political expenditure which is due to political policy rather than to purely local municipal considerations".That seemed to reveal the right hon. Gentleman's mind when he was nearer the angels than he is to-night. When the Bill was before the Committee, his view was that it was a Bill directed at expenditure indulged in by local authorities for purely political considerations. To-night the right hon. Gentleman says: "Oh, dear, no; it is very seldom that there are questions having a political character at all." The hon. Member who moved this Amendment was right to a certain extent. On this question of surcharges it is not often, when you come to the real essence of the thing, that the party opposite differ from, say, a Socialist Minister of Health. 2035 The hon. Member seemed to think that we would take extremely different views. I can speak from my own experience. When I, as a Socialist Minister of Health—or as near to being a Socialist Minister of Health as circumstances would allow—laid it down that certain surcharges at Poplar were to be remitted, I remember with what horror that decision was received by the present Minister of Health and particularly by his Parliamentary Secretary. I can well visualise the Parliamentary Secretary sitting in this corner and virtuously appealing to heaven for vengeance on the head of the party that would so far depart from the traditional practice of this House. But both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, by their subsequent proceedings, have informed the country that they were not really serious in the attack that they then made on the Socialist Minister of Health. It was just the ordinary Parliamentary ladder by which in criticising your opponents you climb to office, and, the ladder having served its purpose, is dispensed with. The right hon. Gentleman became Minister of Health and the hon. Member became Parliamentary Secretary, and they have proceeded to pursue on straight lines exactly the policy of remission of surcharges against Poplar which was such a dreadful thing when it was done by a Socialist Minister of Health. I can therefore assure the hon. Member who moved the Amendment that there will not be those violent extremes in public administration when the political colour of the Minister of Health is changed. They pursue, in a way, just the same policy and the speeches usually made on that side of the House or on this side of the House need not be taken too seriously I am not quite so sure about what advice I can give to my friends on this side of the House with regard to this Amendment. On strictly Parliamentary lines the Amendment having come from the opposite side of the House, we should oppose it. But as we have had so little discussion on it, and as we are glad to see hon. Members opposite at last taking part in the discussions, I think we should encourage them, and I therefore thin! that we should go into the Lobby against the Minister.
Mr. BECKETTI could not help thinking. as I listened to the hon. Member 2036 who moved this Amendment and to the hon. Member who seconded it, that it is a remarkable thing that even a small Bill—and the Minister has reminded us that it is a small Bill—of this character cannot be introduced into the House of Commons without a determined attempt by hon. and learned Members of the House to endeavour to make some little bit of extra employment for the lawyers. It was with very great relief that I listened to the hon. Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) opposing the Amendment and that I realised that the Whips were not being put on. I am sorry to differ from the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), but I do hope that this Amendment will not be carried. If it be pressed to a division, I shall find myself in the Lobby behind the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. If the Amendment were carried, we should simply put on the shoulders of some of the worthiest, if least wealthy, members of local authorities in this country the intolerable choice of having to submit to a surcharge which they could ill-afford to pay or risk sums of money that they could ill-afford to risk in making an appeal to the Law Courts. I hope that the Amendment will not be carried for that reason, and because I think we have as much right to say on this side as hon. Members on that side of the House have, after the speech that was made seconding the Amendment, that it would be a very serious blow at the ordinary and, on the whole, satisfactory, manner in which Ministers and our Ministries have carried on their administrative work.
As a member of a local authority, I have had occasion to see the late Minister of Health, and on several occasions to see his Parliamentary Secretary. Since the present Government have been in office, although I have not myself been a member of a local authority, I have been with the local authority of my own constituency to ask the Minister for remission of surcharges, etc. I will not pretend that we were anything like satisfied with what they were able to do for us, but we had to accept it in a sporting sense. If they are perhaps unduly harsh to us when it is a question of preventing children from starving, I am sure that they would not be unduly harsh to hon. Members opposite if it were a question of their having paid too 2037 much for a contract. When hon. Members opposite are on this side of the House and appeals for remission of surcharges are made, they will be treated not so badly, whereas if it be a question of a contract they will be treated worse. The essential point is that on these comparatively small details of administration it is ridiculous and entirely damaging to the whole system of party, constitutional and Parliamentary government for hon. Members on the other side of the House to say, "We do not mind decisions when one of our own people is in office, but think how terrible it would be if it were a Minister on the other side of the House." Therefore, I suggest that
| Division No. 471.] | AYES. | [1.0 a.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel | Grotrian, H. Brent | Radford, E. A. |
| Albery, Irving James | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Raine, Sir Walter |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Remnant, Sir James |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Hanbury, C. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Balniel, Lord | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Harland, A. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Hartington, Marquess of | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Rye, F. G. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Hilton, Cecil | Savery, S. S. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) |
| Buchan, John | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Burman, J. B. | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M (Hackney, N). | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast) |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) | Skelton. A. N. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Christie, J. A. | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Knox, Sir Alfred | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Lamb, J. Q. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Loder, J. de V. | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Long, Major Eric | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Cope, Major William | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | MacIntyre, Ian | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Mason, Lieut-Col. Glyn K. | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Dixey, A. C. | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Ellis, R. G. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Wells, S. R. |
| England, Colonel A. | Moreing, Captain A. H. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Fenby, T. D. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Nuttall, Ellis | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Oakley, T. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | O'Neill. Major Rt. Hon. Hugh | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Penny, Frederick George | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Wragg, Herbert |
| Goff, Sir Park | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Peto, G. (Somerset. Frome) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Grace, John | Philipson Mabel | Captain Margesson and Captain |
| Grant, Sir J. A. | Preston, William | Wallace |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Price, Major C. W. M. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Buchanan, G. | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Charleton, H. C. | Gibbins, Joseph |
| Batey, Joseph | Compton, Joseph | Gillett, George M. |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Dalton, Hugh | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Day, Colonel Harry | Grundy, T. W. |
§ there is no ground for this Amendment. It strikes at the very fundamental decencies of Parliamentary government. It would put a tremendous burden on people who can ill afford that burden. It would be harder on local authorities than the Bill already makes it. I hope that the Minister's advice will be taken and that the Amendment will be rejected.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 53.
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Lindley, F. W. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Lunn, William | Townend, A. E. |
| Hardie, George D. | Mackinder, W. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Hayday, Arthur | Montague, Frederick | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Hayes, John Henry | Murnin, H. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Oliver, George Harold | Westwood, J. |
| Hirst, G. H. | Paling, W. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Whiteley, W. |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Potts, John S. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Windsor, Walter |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Scurr, John | |
| Lansbury, George | Slesser, Sir Henry H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Lawrence, Susan | Stephen, Campbell | Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith. |
| Lawson, John James | Thurtle, Ernest |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House proceeded to a Division.
§ Major COPE and Captain MARGESSON were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Member willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out the words "of Health."
This is a drafting Amendment. The Minister of Health is already mentioned in Sub-section I of Clause 2.
§ Mr. STEPHENI should just like to make this observation. It is proposed by the Minister of Health in this Amendment to leave out the words "of Health." I think the Minister would be better to leave the words in the Bill. As I have listened to all this discussion to-day, I have found that the Minister does not himself seem to be very clear about his own Bill, and, if he leaves in the words "of Health," it might mark the fact that it was a particular Minister of Health that was in charge and responsible for putting this Bill upon the Statute Book and making it an Act of Parliament. I think that as a monument to the present holder of the office we should leave in the words "of Health." It is true, as he suggested, that elsewhere the Minister is defined as Minister of Health, but, in view of the character of this Bill and also in view of the fact that the policy of this Minister of Health with regard to the conduct of affairs is an attempt to bureaucratise the administration in this country, I think we ought to leave the words in here as a memorial to him and his attempt to do away with democratic institutions in this country.
Mr. BECKETTI should like to ask the Minister of Health to leave these words in the Bill. We have got into a lax way of putting Bills through the House. The Bills are not only for the guidance of those who are used to the study of Acts of Parliament, but, very often, they are the only sheet anchor of people who are not so well informed in the procedure of drafting Bills as many of the Members of this House. I would ask the Minister in the interests of those people not to press this Amendment as he suggested in his speech that it was only a formal Amendment. There is no very vital reason why this title, which I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) designed after much thought, should not be repeated in the Bill. I think, when any unfortunate persons who are not used to the study of legal documents find themselves in the position of having to appeal against a surcharge or something of the kind, or if they wish to make an application against the Minister, it is very disconcerting for them to read that they have to make the application to the Minister. It is true that two pages back in the Bill it states that the Minister of Health shall be called the Minister, but the average person who has reason to read the Act will not read the whole Act through to find out to whom he has to appeal. The average person will turn to page 3, line 17, to find out to whom he can appeal or apply to help him out of the unpleasant predicament in which he finds himself. If the Amendment be passed, the Bill does not tell them to which Minister they should go, whether Health or Labour—a bad choice—and they cannot decide to which to go. The result will be that they must pay for legal advice which they can ill afford before they can find out to which Minister they ought to go in their trouble or to appeal for assistance. We have not had much given to us on this 2041 side of the House in the Debate, and, if the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to withdraw the Amendment, he may be of assistance to a great many poor people who are in difficulties over this Bill, and his name shall be blessed in the land.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYMy reason for rising to address the House on this Amendment is largely for the purpose of protesting against the waste of time to which the House is being subjected by the carelessness of the Minister of Health He must have had this Amendment under consideration for a considerable time before presenting it to the House. I know that great care is given to a Measure of this kind by his Department, and I know he also has at his disposal some of the most competent members of the Civil Service. This Bill went through all its stages in Committee upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman told us yesterday afternoon that the Amendments had been adequately considered upstairs, but this Amendment by the Minister was not put down when the Bill was brought before the Committee. I do not think it is fair to the House that it should have thrown at it in the early hours of the morning shoddy workmanship of this kind. I can go throughout the Bill and give instances—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Bill is printed by order of the House. This is merely a drafting Amendment.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI did not want to pursue the point of the Amendment, but I think the House is entitled to enter a mild protest against having its time occupied in making corrections which should have been made by the Minister before the Bill was brought in. I do not want to trespass on your ruling, and I was only going to give you an illustration and examples of the bad draftsmanship of the Bill. I really think that as a protest against the carelessness of the Minister of Health the House ought to divide against the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.