HC Deb 08 November 1933 vol 281 cc267-86

Order for Second Reading read.

8.32 p.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The very big Bill which I now have the honour to introduce to the House is a tidying up of the law. The purpose of it is the consolidation of the law of local government for England and Wales. The geographical scope of the Bill covers England and Wales, but does not cover, in general, the City of London, which is dealt with by its particular Statutes. This great Measure of consolidation is one for the simplification and clarification of the law, and will, I am sure, be welcome to the House, the Members of which are wont to feel the great difficulty caused by the number and variety of Statutes. This particular instalment of the consolidation of local government law deals, in particular, with the constitution and the powers of local government authorities. The authorities with which it deals are the county councils, the borough councils and the county district councils, including urban and rural, and, lastly, the parish councils. It consolidates the law relating to their constitution and their powers.

The magnitude and the utility of the Bill is shown by the fact that. it repeals wholly or partially not less than 900 sections of other Acts of Parliament and 33 Schedules, and that it repeals 47 Acts wholly, thus effecting a very great simplification of the law, and incidentally a very great economy in the conduct of public business. By means of such simplification, one avoids legislation and the necessity for that expensive form of luxury, the private Bill. This great Measure of consolidation does not come before the House without ample predigestion by responsible and qualified persons. The inquiry which has led to this consolidation was instituted in 1930 by my predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who sits opposite to me now. and I am sure it will be a pleasure to him that the initiative which he then took arrives now at its period of fruition. The Committee was presided over by the late Lord Chelmsford, and on it were representative Members of all the three parties, including the then Members for Uxbridge, Leeds and the University of Wales, and also representatives of the four great associations of local authorities; and I should like to pay my tribute to the great ability and industry with which the Committee achieved its labours. Its sittings lasted for two years, and resulted in a unanimous report, a most remarkable circumstance which has made it possible to present to the House this Measure for the simplification of the law.

As a result of the labours of that representative Committee, the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, and was referred in the first place to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, so that it has already received the very careful deliberation of representatives of both Houses in the Joint Select Committee. The Joint Select Committee sat for five whole days, and took evidence on all matters requiring any consideration in the Bill. As a result, a number of minor Amendments were introduced into the Bill in order to prepare it for the consideration of the Houses of Parliament. After that stage the Bill received all its regular stages of consideration in the House of Lords, and has passed now from that House. It will be seen, therefore, that the Bill has already been subjected to prolonged and minute scrutiny at the hands of highly qualified persons, and this great Measure of consolidation, which has occupied the labours of persons of specially high qualifications for 21 years, I now recommend with confidence to the consideration of this House.

This is an instalment of a long process of simplification, clarification, and consolidation of local government law, which has been in progress now for a good many years under my predecessors and myself. We have codified the Poor Law; we have codified the housing law; we have codified the law relating to the sale of food and drugs; we have codified the law relating to National Health Insurance. This codification of the law relating to the constitution and powers of local authorities is the next instalment of that long process, and I hope that, when the House has dealt with this great Measure, no long period will elapse before there is another and final instalment of this codification in a Bill to codify the law relating to public health. That, indeed, will be almost the biggest task of all, because, as many hon. Members know, the law of public health needs codification almost more than any other portion of the law relating to local authorities and their powers.

I have described this Bill as a Measure of consolidation, but I want to leave not one shadow of possibility of misunderstanding in the minds of Members of the House as we proceed with the consideration of its Second Reading. I cannot say that absolutely every letter and every line of this Bill is consolidation. It is not; it could not be. The innumerable Statutes relating to local authorities have been passed at different times and in different senses, and they are completely irreconcilable with each other. In order to reduce them to a single intelligible code, it was necessary to modify and accommodate them by a certain number of what I might call mechanical amendments of the law, but the minimum number of amendments has been made that was required to make it possible to reduce all these varying codes to one without making complete nonsense of them. I can certainly say to the House that, in the opinion not only of myself but of those who have considered this great Measure, there is no substantial modification of the law at all; it is simply an accommodation of conflicting Statutes, and the incorporation in the general national code of a number of special provisions which have been found useful particular local Acts, which the House has become wont to repeat in those local Acts as they turned up one by one and which are now, for convenience and economy, incorporated in the general code. I think I may say that there is no amendment of the law except for the purpose of co-ordinating and reconciling conflicting elements in our law, and there is nothing controversial there involved. Finally, let me say that I am very well aware that there are various particulars in which many Members of the House would like to see the law relating to the constitution and powers of local authorities altered and amended. I am fully conscious of that, and of the fact that there are quite active controversies about some of these amendments. I am perfectly sure that we all desire to achieve this consolidation and simplification of the law, but I am sure that, with our knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, we shall know that we should defeat our own purpose if we confused the stage of consolidation with the stage of emendation We must consolidate first and amend afterwards. I am quite aware that this consolidation is only a preliminary stage to the possibility of emendation, but I would say to the House, let. us exercise, as it were, a self denying ordinance and self-restraint; let us realise that, whatever we think about possible amendment of the law, the way to facilitate and arrive at that is first of all to clarify the law by consolidation. After that it will be 10, 20 times easier to effect the amendments that we desire. If we confused the consolidation stage with acrimonious controversies such as there might be on the question of emendation, I am very much afraid that we should lose the benefit of this great advance in the simplification of our law. It is very important that we should get this Bill before the end of the Session. I do not think that there is any high controversy, and, therefore, I venture to ask for the cordial co-operation of the House in the Committee stage to advance the Bill rapidly towards the consummation which we all desire.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD

This is. I think, the first occasion on which I have spoken in this House in whole-hearted agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. I share the views which he has just expressed. I hope that this Measure will receive its Second Reading by the House with unanimity, and that it will be put on the Statute Book at a very early date. Those of us who have any knowledge of the vast body of law relating to local government, many aspects of which were outside the real scope of the consideration of the Committee, big branches of law such as the right hon. Gentleman has referred to—for example, that relating to public health—anybody who has any knowledge of this enormous mass of legislation with regard to the constitution and powers of local authorities will realise how complex the legislation affecting local authorities has become, and will realise the need, before any big new developments are made, of putting in as simple a form as is possible the present law. The fact that this Bill contains 306 Clauses and 11 Schedules shows how difficult it is to simplify the law with regard just to one or two aspects of local government. It is the considered policy of the Ministry of Health to do what it can to tidy up this complicated series of Statutes which affect the duties of the Ministry of Health.

This is an agreed Bill. Had there been any real question of vital import- ante, we should have had the associations of local authorities on their hind legs as soon as the Bill was introduced. The fact that. although I understand there may be Amendments, broadly speaking the Bill has been accepted by the organisations representing the authorities, is an indication that they believe that it is a useful Measure. It is true that this is not pure consolidation, but the terms of reference to the Committee that was set up nearly two years ago, when I was in office, gave them power to suggest Amendments where necessary to make a complete picture and to tidy up the structure of the constitution and powers of local authorities. So that, technically, the Bill is not a pure consolidation Measure. Its primary purpose 13 consolidation and its secondary purpose is to make the consolidation effective by minor alterations in the law. I am not going to pretend that I and my colleagues think that the law with regard to local government is satisfactory, but we accept the Minister's statement that the clarification and simplification of the law is necessary before there can be any real far-reaching changes in the structure of the law relating to local government. I should hope the House will give the Bill speedily a Second Reading, and my colleagues and I will do what we can to help the right hon. Gentleman to get it on to the Statute Book at the earliest moment.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT

The right hon. Gentleman remarked that this was probably the first occasion on which he had been in complete agreement with the Minister. Certainly it is the first occasion on which I have been in agreement with both him and the Minister, and anyone who takes any interest in local government must share their extreme gratitude towards those who have taken so much trouble in preparing this Measure. If I have too few opportunities of paying tribute to the work of the Department over which the Minister so ably presides, let me say now how grateful we all are for the work that has been done and for the fact that the Government have found time to sandwich this very important Measure into their already over-crowded programme. I rise only to say that, while I agree that it is necessary that the Bill should be passed into Law in the few remaining days of the Session, it would be extremely undesirable if all the various questions which have divided us on local government were to be raised on it. That is the last thing that any of us would desire. But, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there are certain alterations and emendations of the law, and I hope, where the view is expressed that those alterations are not in themselves good, or may cause harm, he will at least consider reasoned Amendments and will not set his face absolutely against any alteration of the Bill.

I would draw his attention to one series of alterations which may have a very great effect. I refer to alterations in the procedure at county council elections. I have read the proceedings of both the Investigation Committee and the Joint Select Committee. It appears to me that those proceedings suffered from what is always a danger in the case of Bills which have been dealt with in this way and which escape the glare of publicity which is apt to shine on Measures produced in this House, and certain evidence which might have been of value was not offered and put before them. I believe that the effect of some of the alterations in county council procedure, alterations which have a very good reason behind them, will have the effect of increasing both the expenditure and the trouble of county council elections. I am certain that the Minister would be the last person to desire that anything should be done which would make it more difficult to get the right sort of candidates to come forward at county council elections. He would dislike very much, and I think the whole House would disapprove of, anything which would tend to make county councils the preserve either of those so well endowed with this world's goods that they could afford any amount of time to contest an election or those who merely went into local government from ulterior motives. Anything that might tend to prevent the ordinary citizen taking his share of local government is a thing to be deplored. Most Members of the House will agree that anything that would tend to increase the influence of party politics on local elections is also bad. I say most Members, because I know there is one section in the House which does not share it. I am convinced that these changes will have both those effects, and my purpose in rising is to appeal to the Minister to consider Amendments dealing with the actual changes in the law that are being made, and putting points of view which may not even yet have been fully gone into by the committees which have done this admirable work. Subject only to that, I join in the unanimous desire which has been displayed to get the Bill on to the Statute Book at the earliest moment.

8.53 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE

The Bill has, of course, been carefully considered by the County Councils Association. Although it is a consolidating Bill, certain Alterations are made in the law. But they are entirely non-controversial, and we welcome the Bill and regard it as a most valuable Measure which will be of great help to local authorities. We shall have to put forward some minor Amendments in Committee, but I think they will be non-controversial, and the Minister will probably accept them. We regard this as 'a very valuable Measure, not merely a Measure of consolidation, but the foundation on which the Minister proposes to base the Amendments which he will make in the future. We are shortly to consider a Money Resolution which refers, apparently, to Clause 109. I should like to be assured that county councils will not be put in a worse position than they are now by that Clause, and that we shall not have any financial loss. If there is any financial loss, we should like to know what it is likely to be.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON

Nobody welcomes a consolidation Bill upon any branch of the law more than the practising lawyers who have the difficulty from time to time of advising on complicated matters, when they are unable to find in one certain place the whole code of Sections dealing with a particular subject. Although it is a great inconvenience to those of us who know our subject to find that a Section which we have known by some familiar name for years has become enshrined in a new consolidation Statute, nevertheless we recognise that it is essential that, as far as possible, the laws of this country should, bit by bit, be got into an accessible form where we shall be able, certainly in some of the great matters, and particularly in a matter like local government, to find people who are untrained in dealing with Statutes able to find that which they want without having to rely upon professional assistance.

My only criticism is not a criticism of this Bill. I desire to sound a note of warning with regard to future consolidation Bills which, I hope, will come before this House at a very early date, and that is the combination of a consolidation Bill with Amendments. In this particular case I do not suppose that it would furnish any inconvenience to anyone. The Amendments are small, as I understand them, and the subject is not one which lends itself to any great display of dialetical skill on the part of the lawyers in the Law Courts. But when you are dealing with other subjects, there is a great danger that Amendments which may be put in may cause a great difference in the construction of other parts of the same Act when they come to be considered in the Law Courts. In looking at the Eleventh Schedule to this Bill, I rejoice to find that there is a Schedule of 38 pages of Statutes and parts of Statutes which tare being repealed in order that we may get the whole code of law enshrined in this one volume which I hold in my hand.

The only other criticism I would venture to offer is a criticism of the form of ballot paper which appears on page 210. As a West countryman, I am delighted to find that the form of ballot paper for use at a contested election of a county councillor or of councillors of a borough is apparently, to contain the names of all people from the West country, and that they are to come from two different boroughs and two different counties. Although, no doubt, if that example is followed in county council elections it will add to the gaiety of elections, I do not feel that such an expedient is likely in, the end to produce a homogeneous county council of people who are near at hand and ready and able to attend to their business. At any rate, it is not a serious criticism, and I should like to thank the Minister and his predecessor for the services which they have rendered in consolidating a code of law with which unfortunately I have been too familiar in times past.

Sir H. YOUNG

By permission of the House, may I give my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) the assurance which he requires. The Clause to which he referred cannot possibly place any charge upon any local authority. It relates to the repayment to the Exchequer of a possible sum arising from a default of an acting medical officer of health. There can be no charge upon a local authority.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE

Will it take any money away from the local authority?

Sir H. YOUNG

Neither in meal nor in malt, will it place any burden upon the local authorities.

9.0 p.m.

Major MILNER

The Minister was good enough to pay a compliment to the committee which sat for two years, and I am sure that that committee, of which I was a Member, as was the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin) would not wish an opportunity to pass without paying a tribute to the great assistance and help rendered by the officials of the Department of the right hon. Gentleman in the memorandum of information with which they furnished the committee. It would have been impossible without their assistance, and the assistance of the Parliamentary draftsman who produced the draft Bill, to have got through the work which was accomplished by the committee. I should like —and I am sure my hon. Friend will agree—to pay tribute on behalf of the committee to those gentlemen for their assistance.

The only other observation I would mare is to commend the Bill to the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) spoke on behalf of the County Councils' Association, and perhaps I may presume to say a word on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations. Other associations representing local authorities have approved the Bill, and that association, whose Secretary also sat on the committee, also approved of it. As a lawyer, I feel that it will be of very great assistance indeed to all engaged in local government work or having the necessity to consult Acts of Parliament or law hooks on the subject, because in effect the Bill codifies to a large extent, at any rate, one branch of the law. I hope that it may be an example and an encouragement to other Government Departments to proceed with the codification of other branches of the law.

Something has been said with regard to the few Amendments which have been made. I can assure the House that they have been made solely to clear away inconsistencies, ambiguities, overlapping, or something of the sort, because the Bill not only consolidates but brings into one code the present three codes dealing with the law of boroughs and county boroughs, county councils, and rural and district councils. There are many Amendments of the law which members of the Committee would have desired to recommend to the House but we felt that they were beyond our province and might excite controversy, and we therefore refrained from making them. I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill.

9.30 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH NALL

I rise only to make one or two observations regarding some of the Amendments of the law which have been put into this Measure. I am sure that the whole House welcomes consolidation Bills of this kind if only for clarity and future reference, but I deplore, and offer a mild protest against, what is rather a growing tendency to use consolidation Bills for the purpose of securing amendments of the law. While they may not be material to people in general, they are regarded as of importance in some quarters. In particular, the amendments of the existing law relating to the election of borough councillors, I think, ought to have received more attention than appears to have been the case. There is, as many Members of the House know, a growing nuisance in local elections of persons being nominated far more than one ward at a time. We get. that sort of thing in the City of Manchester, where crank candidates are nominated for perhaps three or four wards. They are regarded as cranks because they do not poll a serious number of votes, and it would be quite proper to enact that such a person should not be nominated for a number of wards. One must have in mind that a candidate can be nominated for more than one parliamentary constituency. That is the law at the present time.

This Bill seeks to offer a remedy of sorts in regard to the duplication of the nomination of the same individual in one election, borough council and so on, but I think it does it in a wrong way. It does not limit the number of wards for which a person may be nominated but provides that the Mayor or Returning Officer may allocate him to one of the wards for which he is nominated, at the pleasure of that Mayor. In other words, the Mayor, if he is in some cases actuated by party motives, may allocate this candidate with crank intentions to a ward where he will be most nuisance to the party to which the Mayor is opposed, and he may secure his elimination from the ward in which the Mayor's own party is interested. That seems to me to be a wholly improper and irregular power to put into the hands of returning officers at this time of day, when we know that there is increasing difficulty in securing impartiality on these occasions. I should have thought that such a proposal, which is a material amendment of the law relating to borough council elections as it exists to-day, ought not to have been included in a Measure of this kind.

I gather that some of the Amendments relating to borough council elections have been brought up on the pretext that they used to apply to the elections of Poor Law guardians. Poor Law guardians have been abolished, unfortunately, and it is surely no excuse to use that as a pretext for amending the law relating to borough councils, and bringing forward things that may not have been good in the election of Poor Law guardians. There is another Amendment to which I would draw attention. On page 190, line 45, it is provided that the returning officer shall fill up nomination papers. That is quite wrong. The person nominating the candidate is usually the person to fill up the nomination papers and I cannot understand why the Bill should provide that the returning officer shall fill up the nomination paper. It may be an error of drafting. The paragraph says: At an election of a county councillor or of councillors of a borough, the proper officer shall provide nomination papers and shall supply any local government elector for the electoral division, borough or ward, as the case may be, with as many nomination papers as may be required and shall, at the request of any such local government elector fill up a nomination paper. The proper officer has plenty to do without filling up nomination papers, and I think that may be amended in the Committee stage. There are other Amendments, such as requiring the candidate to sign a form of consent. That is entirely new and ridiculous. The candidate usually hands in his own nomination papers, and to cut him out because he may have forgotten to sign the paper before he handed it in seems to me ridiculous and an unnecessary piece of humbug in a Consolidation Bill.

The point that I particularly wish to raise is in relation to Clause 145 which purports to re-enact Section 46 of the Local Government Act, 1925. In some quarters there has been complaint that the department's interpretation of that Section 46 of the Act of 1929 has been contrary to the recommendations of the Royal Commission and contrary to the evidence which the Department itself gave before the Royal Commission in matters relating to the extension of county districts or county boroughs or municipal boroughs on the review of district boundaries. I understand that this matter has been discussed between the Department and the County Councils' Association and that some undertaking has been given to the Association to effect an amendment of the law in due course. My only observation on that is that I hope my right hon. Friend in any future interpretation of the new Section 145 will not so stretch his interpretation of these words as to create the feeling in the field of county local government that words are being used for a Purpose for which they were never intended, and that in fact very material extension of boroughs and districts are going to be put through without any real opportunity for the parties concerned to state or fight their case before any body other than the inspector whom the Department sends down.

It seems to me that it is unfair to put upon the Department the onus of deciding a first class borough boundary extension case merely through the process of a local inquiry conducted by one of the Minister's officers. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had this in mind when he said that the Bill would avoid certain resort to Private Bill legis- lation. I do not object to that, because, having sat as long as I have on Private Bills, I have always regretted that local authorities waste so much money in that form of amusement, for I believe it is amusement to a great many of them. It is time that that scandal of local government, the annual promotion of the annual Parliamentary Bill, shall stop. It is one of the most scandalous things in local government that great cities and many county boroughs come here year after year spending anything from £500 to £5,000 on Bills which, if their Town Clerks knew their work and read properly the law which is now being codified in this Bill, might very well be avoided.

That brings me to one final word in dealing with local government. I think that the House in the next few years will be called upon to devote some attention to the question of the reform of local government. We have had a great many Bills reforming the law relating to local government, but we have not had a reform of local government itself, except that we have had a depreciation in the kind of administration that we get. The fact is that local government as it exists in some parts of the country to-day is becoming a menace to the welfare of the people in industrial localities, and is becoming an extravagance which harassed industry and hard-pressed ratepayers simply cannot afford to bear. Many great authorities are hopelessly unwieldy in size and personnel. We find boroughs with, say, 140 or 150 persons functioning in the work of local government when the job could be far better done by 40 or 50 competent people, or even fewer. I hope the Department and my right hon. Friend, as a result of this Bill, will next turn their attention to a drastic overhaul of the whole system of local government and that we shall have a really effective Measure which will eliminate the annual resort to Private Bill procedure on the part of local authorities upstairs.

In particular, I hope that my right hon. Friend will arm himself and arm his Department with powers similar to those that have been successfully used in the case of extravagant boards of guardians dealing with Poor Law matters, and that where it is shown that local authorities have got their local government into such a state that the rates exceed 10s. in the £, it should prima facie be a case for inquiry on the grounds of extrava- gance, and that facilities should be available for the Minister to supplant them in order that the Board of Commissioners may clean up their administration and put their house in order.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS

What about the difference in rateable values?

Sir J. NALL

Rateable values are already pretty uniform, but I do not see what bearing the uniformity of rateable values has on the point. I am asking for measures to be taken to secure uniformity of administration in local government. Uniformity of rateable values is one thing, uniformity of efficiency is the thing most necessary to-day, particularly uniformity in economy of administration. This Bill is a necessary preliminary to a overhaul of what is the greatest social menace of to-day, inefficient and wasteful local government, which is assuming greater and more disastrous proportions as the years go by. I hope that the Department, having secured this consolidation of the general law relating to local government, will find itself in a position to take up with a firm hand and a quick hand the whole problem of extravagant and inefficient administration, and that as a result of this Bill we shall see an improvement in that direction. I understand that the Committee stage is to be taken immediately——

Sir H. YOUNG indicated dissent.

Sir J. NALL

In that case, I will put my Amendments on the Order Paper. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet the various points suggested and that where he is changing the law and may be disposed to retain some of the Amendments put into the Bill he will not press his Amendments in what is primarily a Consolidation Bill too strongly against the wishes of some of us who would like to see these things put in a milder form or deferred to a later date.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. TINKER

I am afraid that I cannot give whole-hearted approval to the Bill because it carries forward a pernicious practice which I want to see altered. I refer to the election of aldermen. As this is a consolidating Bill I am wondering whether I shall be able to move Amendments dealing with that matter. Aldermen do not come before the electors, they are appointed by the councillors, and we may have the position where with a majority of one the councillors are able to elect all the aldermen and thus create a balance of parties entirely opposed to what the real strength should be. If the Bill receives the approval of this House we shall be consolidating the present system of appointing aldermen and I want to know whether I shall be able in Committee stage to move an Amendment on this point. If I am not then I must protest against the Second Reading of the Bill, but if I shall be in order in moving an Amendment then I would agree to the Second Reading and wait until Committee stage to put my Amendment down. I have felt this point for a long time and have intended whenever an opportunity presented itself to voice my protest. It is admitted that we have a democratic form of Government.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT

Ask the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps).

Mr. TINKER

We have a democratic form of Government, and if you examine the speeches of Members of the Labour party you will find that in the end it means that. I am dealing with an undemocratic form of election which has grown up during the years gone by, and I hope that I shall have an opportunity of dealing with the election of aldermen on the Committee stage of the Bill.

9.23 p.m.

Major LLEWELLIN

I rise chiefly to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) with whom I served, at the request of the right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Health in the Labour Government, on the Committee. I fully endorse the tribute he has paid. At every meeting we held to consider the consolidation of this law we were furnished with the most admirable memoranda, showing where the existing laws were to be found, and which particular provisions applied to county councils, to boroughs and which to urban district councils. It was very useful memoranda to those who were not so knowledgeable as the officials of the Ministry or the Parliamentary draftsmen, and who would have had great difficulty in seeing their way through this mass of legislation without this assistance. I agree also with him that both he and I on one or two occasions would have agreed to go outside our terms of reference and made bigger amendments than we thought we were justified in doing, but both he and I, and the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) our third colleague, realise that we had to restrain ourselves or there would be no possibility of a Measure of this sort being passed into law. In reply to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) although I am not an authority on the Rules of Order of this House I think that Amendments can be put down to every Clause of the Bill, but unless hon. Members show the same self-restraint as we did on the Committee there is no hope of the good work which we hope we had done in this Bill ever passing into law, the whole Bill must fall to the ground.

I appeal to the hon. Member for Leigh and the hon. and gallant Member for the Hulme Division of Manchester (Sir J. Nall) not to put down controversial Amendments but to leave them to a later occasion, when they may raise the question of the abolition of aldermen and as I understand the hon. Member the complete abolition in some cases of spendthrift councils. If the Bill, which I believe does a good deal to make the law much simpler, is to pass into law it can only do so if hon. Members will show some self restraint in amending the existing law. If we are going into a large number of controversial subjects then I am afraid that the years of work which we did so amicably together on the Committee may be lost, and I for one should hope that that will not be the case.

Perhaps I might say two other things to the hon. Member for the Hulme Division of Manchester with regard to the two points that he raised. With regard to the returning officer filling in the nomination papers, that is not an amendment of the law that we made. It has been the law since 1882, and we made no amendment of it. With regard to the amendment that we thought fit to make, concerning the allocation of a candidate by a returning officer to a particular division, we had three points of view before us when we went into the matter. It was clear that some of these crank candidates are a great nuisance when they put up for seven, eight or nine different wards, sometimes causing an election that otherwise would not happen. There was one particular case of a man who put up for eight different wards and did not poll more than 214 votes in the whole aggregate of the eight wards. In a large number of those wards there would certainly otherwise have been no expense falling on that municipality. We thought that something ought to be done to remedy that state of affairs.

We had three alternatives before us. The first was to make every candidate in a local government election put down a deposit in the same way that hon. Members of this House who are candidates have to put down a deposit. We found great difficulty in settling on what was to be the amount of the deposit, and we thought that this might at any rate be a controversial way of dealing with the law, because it would affect not only crank candidates but all candidates for local government election. The second way was to prevent the man from being nominated for more than one ward at a time. That was difficult, because of course people may be nominated, and we have now brought in a provision which allows that a man may to some extent be nominated for more than one ward. We thought that the best and the simplest way, and the one which would mean the least amendment of the law, was to give to the returning officer the power of allocating the crank candidate to one particular ward. The result is that the crank candidate will not get the ward that he wants and will be deterred at another election from standing for more than one ward. At the same time the returning officer, if the man is obviously a crank candidate, will presumably put him into a ward where there is going to be an election in any case, and so will be able to save the municipality the cost of fighting an election over such a man. We thought that was the best way of dealing with the situation, and I hope that that proposal will have the support of all parties in this House. Although we do not want to deter anybody who is a bona fide candidate for any ward from standing for that ward, it seems clear that when a man stands for two, three or four wards he is merely a crank candidate and ought to make a selection of wards. However, there will be a controversy as to whether we have dealt with that matter in the right way.

I will only make this final appeal, as I have done before, that, except for those particular ways in which we have sought to amend the law, all Members of the House may show a certain amount of self-restraint and try to reserve their Amendments—which many of them will have much at heart, as the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) undoubtedly holds the one he raised—for another occasion and allow this Bill to pass. I think all hon. Members will agree that it makes the law better, and all of us would like to see the law better than it is. If hon. Members start putting down Amendments on every point, it is clear that this Measure cannot become law. The work was started under the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman who was the Minister of Health and has been carried on by his successor, the present Minister of Health. I hope that the House, and the right hon. Gentleman, will do something to make the law more acceptable to the ordinary man and more intelligible to the vast mass of the citizens of this country.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. LECKIE

I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but the remarks of the hon. Gentleman on this bench have called me to my feet. He admitted that this was a Bill for the consolidation of local government, and yet he went out of his way to call for a further Bill for the reform of local government altogether, evidently especially attacking those local authorities which have a rate of over 10s. in the £. It is evident that the hon. Gentleman does not understand why in working-class areas rates are so high. The fact is that in a town where over 90 per cent. of houses are working-class houses and where the property is not very valuable, the rates must be high in order to raise sufficient money to carry on the administration. The produce of a penny rate in many of the working-class constituencies is ridiculously small as compared with the produce of a penny rate in districts that are wealthy and have a great deal of valuable property. The penny rate is not a fair test of the spendthrift character or otherwise of any local authority; the true test is the cost per head of population. You will find that many of the highly-rated areas, when judged by the cost per head of population, come out very well indeed as compared with the wealthy and low-rated areas. It is only right that I should make this protest on behalf of highly-rated authorities who are doing their best to struggle on in spite of unemployment and distress.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir H. Young.]