HC Deb 05 December 1932 vol 272 cc1318-21
Mr. LINDSAY

I beg to move, in page 17, line 3, to leave out the words "Minister of Health" and to insert instead thereof the words "Lord Chancellor."

7.22 p.m.

This Amendment is not put forward to embarrass the Government but because it seems to me to be an improvement on the Clause, which deals with the consideration payable to local authorities on the transfer of an undertaking. Subsection (3) deals with the procedure to he followed after the arbitration tribunal has been wound up and provides that after the arbitration tribunal is wound up the consideration shall be assessed by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Minister of Health. Clause 12 provides for the appointment of the arbitration tribunal by the Lord Chancellor. It is to consist of three members, and any vacancies which arise during the course of its operations are also to be filled by the Lord Chancellor. It is constituted into a Court of Record; it becomes a legal body. It is also expressly provided that the president shall be a man of legal experience. It would make for uniformity if the person who is to discharge the duties of the arbitration tribunal after it has ceased to exist should be appointed by the same person who is to appoint the arbitration tribunal in the first instance, that is the Lord Chancellor. I do not understand why the Minister of Health is brought in at all. This is the only place in the Bill where he is brought in, in all other cases it is the Lord Chancellor.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. LYONS

It occurs to me that as so much of the machinery in the Bill is being taken out of the hands of the Minister for very good reasons, there can be no objection to this appointment being made by the Lord Chancellor. I support the Amendment and I hope the Government will accept it. These appointments will best be made by the head of our judicial system rather than by the Minister, who has been trimmed of many of his powers by the Amendments made to the Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The hon. Member has fallen into a little confusion. This is a question of the Minister of Health not the Minister of Transport.

Mr. LYONS

I am much obliged to the Attorney-General, but I do not think the Minister of Health should make these appointments. I think it should be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor.

7.25 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I quite appreciate the hon. Member's point, but he argued that as we are depriving the Minister of Transport of some of his powers we might as well take them all away.

Mr. LYONS

I am much obliged for the correction. It was an error. The Minister of Transport has had his powers limited by this Bill, but I do not see why another member of the Ministry should have the right of making appointments which should be made by the Lord Chancellor.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

That is more ingenious than convincing. I quite recognise that the hon. Member is asking for the arbitrator to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The only reason for choosing the Minister of Health is because this Clause deals only with grievances on the part of local authorities; and the Minister of Health deals with local authorities. The matters to be decided by this arbitrator are relatively small, and are those matters which are left over and will not be decided by the arbitration tribunal. It was thought better, as the Minister of Health is more acquainted with questions affecting local authorities, that he should appoint the arbitrator to deal with them. It is not a matter upon which anyone can have any firm or fixed opinion, but in my view it is rather better on the whole to have the Minister of Health.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE

What would happen in the event of the Minister of Health being abolished??

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Exactly the same as if the Lord Chancellor were abolished.?

Mr. SOMERVILLE

In this somewhat complicated age the legal fraternity are more necessary than the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Health might be abolished in the interests of economy. It would be as well to put in some alternative.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

I think it would be better to have the Lord Chancellor making these appointments rather than the Minister of Health. I do not like the idea of putting these extra duties on Ministers of the Crown, because they are rather apt to extend them. The Lord Chancellor, however, occupies a special place which enables him to make these appointments. After the very excellent speech from the Mover of the Amendment I thought that perhaps the Attorney-General might graciously accept the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. LINDSAY

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir H. CAUTLEY

I should like to ask the Attorney-General one question before we pass the Clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I cannot quite hear my hon. and learned Friend.

7.29 p.m.

Sir H. CAUTLEY

The question I want to put is this. Does Clause 10 provide that every agreement between the board and a local authority is to go to arbitration? That is the way I read it. If so, does that mean that the agreements with the three authorities mentioned in the Fourth Schedule have not to go to arbitration 7 If the learned Attorney-General will look at page 129 of the Bill he will see it stated that: The amount and class of transport stock to be issued to the local authorities certified in this Schedule shall be as follows: That looks as if it was definite. My recollection is that those three county councils did come to terms.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Yes.

Sir H. CAUTLEY

How is that reconcilable with Clause 10? Why are those three county councils' agreements exempted when we know that arrangements have been made with others, the London County Council, for instance? Another question is, with how many local authorities have agreements been made?

7.31 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

My hon. and learned Friend will observe that the local authorities mentioned in the Fourth Schedule do not come within the purview of the arbitration under Clause 10, but other agreements have to be confirmed by the arbitration tribunal before they are to have effect, and the tribunal may confirm them with or without amendment. My hon. and learned Friend asked another question which at the moment I am unable to answer. I am told that the three local authorities mentioned in the Fourth Schedule have come to agreements. With regard to the others agreements still remain to be made, or else arbitration will have to take place.

Sir H. CAUTLEY

Although other agreements have to be made they have to go to arbitration?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

If and when agreements are made they will have to go to arbitration to be confirmed.