CLAUSE 3—(Appeal from designation of premises.) (Hansard, 24 April 1939)

§ Mr. Ede
I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, to leave out "twenty-one" and to insert "fourteen."
I think the general comment upon this Bill when it was presented to the local authorities was that all the times mentioned in it appeared to be too long. We have been exhorted on several occasions by the right hon. Gentleman to regard time as being of the very essence of all our proceedings on this matter. Within the last few days he has issued a circular to local authorities urging them to give this work priority over all other work in which they are now engaged, and the local authorities share his view. Indeed their complaint against the Government is that it has taken the Government a very long time to arrive at the conclusion that this is the most important work which is now being 863 carried out co-operatively by the Government and the local authorities. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself at the recent conference, gathered that the local authorities were unanimously of the opinion that, generally speaking, right through the Bill there should be a speeding-up of the contemplated procedure.
In this case it is felt that 14 days will be sufficient time, after the designation of premises, to allow an appeal to be submitted to the appropriate Department. That period gives the occupier or owner sufficient time to get preliminary advice on the position. I hope that the Government will be able to meet the wishes of the local authorities in this respect. This is one of the few points on which I have known local authorities throughout England, Wales and Scotland to be agreed. There was not a dissentient voice on the question that there should be a general speeding-up of these arrangements. In view of that demonstration of unanimity, which took place before the Lord Privy Seal himself, I hope the Government will meet us.

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
As the hon. Member has said, this view was held practically unanimously by the local authorities and as I think the Amendment would improve the Bill, I accept it on behalf of the Government.

§ Mr. Dingle Foot
This Clause refers not merely to occupiers but also to persons who have any estate or interest in the premises concerned. It may be that persons who are not occupiers but who have some interest in the premises will not discover for some days that a building has been designated. The time available for appeal may have almost run out before they discover that designation has taken place. I do not know whether the Minister has considered that aspect of the matter.

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
Under Clause 60 the Minister may, by Order, extend the time for the bringing of an appeal.

§ Mr. A. V. Alexander
I would like to be quite clear about the period which will be available after designation has been made and from what date the period will run. Supposing that the Amendment 864 limiting the time to 14 days is accepted will the 14 days operate from the date of the posting on the premises of the notice of designation and are we to take it that the notice will contain information to that effect so that the owner will have the benefit of a clear 14 days. I think that point ought to be made clear.

§ Mr. Morrison
That is so.

§ Mr. Ede
I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, after "satisfied," to insert: after consulting the local authority by whom the premises were designated As the Clause is now phrased, it would appear to be possible for the Minister to grant an appeal against designation without consulting the local authority. It is unlikely that such a case would arise but for the purpose of removing any doubt, I suggest that these words should be inserted. Probably they would only give legislative sanction to the procedure which would normally be followed, but I think it desirable that it should be understood that the views of the local authority will be considered by the Minister before he grants an appeal against any designation which they have made.

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
The Committee will have every sympathy with the object of the hon. Member. He desires that it should be made explicit in the Bill that in this case the customary procedure of any Minister or any other person exercising a judicial function shall be observed and that both sides shall be heard. I ask the hon. Member on this occasion, however, not to press the Amendment, not because there is any difference between us as to the reasonableness of its object, but because I think it is unthinkable that a Minister, exercising a function of this kind, would not give a hearing to both sides. Unless he did so there would be no method by which he could inform himself on the merits of the case. I would refer again to Clause 60 under which rules may be made regulating the procedure in connection with these appeals and it will be seen that what is contemplated is a semi-judicial process of a perfectly proper and well-known character. Moreover, the word "consulting" is, if the hon. Member will forgive me for saying so, a little infelicitous in this connection. It would suggest that the Minister was enjoined 865 after an appeal had been made to enter into some sort of confabulation with one side, and would give the impression, which I know is distant from the hon. Member's own mind, of a somewhat one sided consultation between the Minister and the authority. Perhaps the hon. Member will accept my assurance that the intention is to proceed by way of rules which will set down the proper procedure and under which both sides will have an adequate opportunity of stating their case to the Minister who will act judicially in the matter.

§ Sir J. Lamb
Are we to take it then that the Minister accepts the object of the Amendment and that it is only a question of carrying it out under the rules instead of putting it in the Bill? May we take what he has said as an undertaking that both sides will be heard?

§ Mr. Morrison
Certainly I give that undertaking. That has been our intention all along. There is no difference as to the intention of adopting the proper procedure in this matter but the word "consulting" has to my mind an objectionable connotation in this connection. There must be a judicial hearing of both sides.

§ Mr. Foot
Might not the point be met by a provision, either in the Bill or in the rules, to the effect that a person who gives notice of appeal should also give notice to the local authority concerned, within a certain time? Perhaps the Minister would consider that point.

§ Mr. Ede
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the sympathetic way in which he has considered the Amendment. I regard nothing as unthinkable in the case of the present Ministry. I can assure him that I have not nearly as high an opinion of the present Minister as he has of himself, but in regard to the use of the word "consultation" all that was in the minds of the drafters of the Amendment was the desirability of not having any words which would cause delay. However, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Alexander
I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, at the end, to insert: 866 or that the date of designation shall be postponed to allow sufficient time for the provision of other shelters for persons displaced by designation. This Amendment seeks to make certain that owners of premises who have provided shelters, perhaps even deep shelters, for their own employés, and who then find that a local authority wishes to designate the premises, including that special provision which they have made, shall not be held guilty of an offence as being without provision for their own employés when the premises have been taken by the local authority. This is an important point which should be considered by the Government and if the words which I propose are not appropriate I hope the Government will consider what provision is necessary in this respect. I have in mind certain premises the owners of which are anxious to make adequate provision for their employés. As far as we can gather from the pronouncements of the Minister, he has declared against deep shelters. Some employers may wish to provide such shelters in spite of that decision. A local authority may then require the whole of their premises, including the deep shelters, and in those circumstances the employers may be taxed with not having made separate provision for their workers. All we ask is that the Bill shall provide sufficient time for those employers to conform with the law and make their own provision thereafter for their own employés

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
I see the object of the Amendment and I will gladly consider it, but I think that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the contingency which he has in mind is very remote. I gather, however, that the right hon. Gentleman is merely anxious to make certain that the point is considered. On the basis that it would give the Minister an extra power there would be, on general principles, no objection to the proposal, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow us between now and the Report stage to consider the matter to see whether any extra power is required.

§ Mr. Alexander
I shall be glad if the Minister will have some consultation about this point, because I do not think that what he has said quite meets the case. There are some cases in which deep shelters may be provided and the entrance 867 to them may be from a public place. You might find that this would actually attract, not only the local authority, but the Minister himself in certain circumstances, to designate the premises. We want to be sure that in such circumstances we get sufficient time thereafter to make separate provision.

§ Mr. Morrison
I will undertake to consider the point in consultation with my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to add: (4) Nothing in this Section applies to the premises mentioned in Sub-section (5) to the last preceding Section The premises mentioned in Sub-section (5) of the previous Clause are premises of public utility undertakings, and it is provided in that Sub-section that the consent to be obtained there is that of the Minister of Transport or, as the case may be, of another Minister. It is called "the appropriate Minister," but if the Committee will refer to the definition Clause, they will see that for the purposes of public utility undertakings the Minister of Transport or another Minister, and not my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, is the appropriate Minister. The object of the Amendment is to prevent overlapping jurisdiction on the part of these two Ministers; otherwise we might have, under Clause 3, an appeal to one Minister from a decision which had already been approved by another Minister, and it is thought that such a proceeding would lead to overlapping and that it is better to exclude, by these words, the premises of public utility undertakings.

§ Mr. Ede
The explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman would have been perfect but for the Amendment which has been introduced by his right hon. Friend this afternoon, where, in line 5, on page 3, after the word "undertakers," he has inserted" for the purposes of their undertaking." Let us suppose that the appeal is by a public utility undertaker on the ground that the premises to be designated are used by the public utility undertaking for the purposes of the undertaking, and that the local authority which has desig- 868 nated the premises contends that the premises in fact are not used for the purposes of the undertaking. Some public utility undertakers have many functions—some local authorities, for instance, are public utility undertakers—and there may be some part of the premises which is partly used for the public utility undertaking and partly for some other purpose of the local authority. All sorts of disputes at that point might arise. When an appeal takes place on that specific point, which has been introduced into the Clause this afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman, to whom will the appeal lie? Will it be to the Minister of Transport, who is generally the appeal authority in cases involving most of these public utility undertakings, or will it be to the Minister? I think that something lather more elaborate than the Amendment now proposed should be devised by the Government to cover this point.

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
I do not think the difficulty to which the hon. Member refers should arise. The effect of the earlier Amendment which he mentioned is that if you have one building where the occupier is a public utility undertaking, but only one room is used for the purposes of the undertaking, that building is rot exempted under this Clause, in so far as it does not require to have the prior consent of the Minister of Transport before it can be designated for that part not used for the purposes of the undertaking. The hon. Member will notice that under Sub-section (5) of Clause 2 what is required, in the case of a public utility undertaking's premises, is the prior consent of the Minister of Transport or of some other Minister as the case may be. If there was a building only a part of which was occupied by the public utility undertaking for the purpose of the undertaking, and the remainder was used for some other purpose, and the whole building was designated, the position would be that the part occupied by the public utility undertaking for its own purposes could not be designated without the prior consent of the Minister, and as regards the remainder of the premises, the appeal against designation would lie to the Minister.

§ Mr. Ede
I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has not quite grasped my point. The question is, where there is a dispute as to whether that part of the 869 premises is being used for the purposes of the undertaking—on that narrow point— to whom does the appeal lie?

§ Mr. Morrison
That is, surely, a question of fact to be determined by the tenancy of the building and the use to which the various rooms are put. I cannot conceive that there would be any difficulty in ascertaining, as a question of fact, whether or not a part of the building was used for the purposes of the undertaking. The decision of that question of fact would determine which Minister's consent was required.

§ Mr. Alexander
I think this is a point of considerable substance. I can conceive, from a fairly wide experience 0f this sort of dual occupation of premises, of a case where you get an actual private user of a large part of premises of this character. Looking at it from the point of view of the wording of Clause 3 as it is now proposed to be amended by the Minister, that would cut out any of those private users of those premises from making an appeal to the Minister under Clause 3. Therefore, I am afraid that all that the right hon. Gentleman has said about what might happen and what would be the functions of the Minister of Transport leaves us rather cold. I think the Minister has yet to show that the right of appeal under the machinery of Clause 3 is still being properly conserved for those users other than the public utility undertaking where premises are jointly used.

§ Mr. Silkin
Did I understand the Minister to say that, in respect of one of the premises, there may be two different pieces of machinery—one where you would have to go to the Minister of Transport and another where the occupier would appeal to the Minister of Health? If that is the case, is it not possible that you could get two contradictory decisions in respect of exactly the same premises? Might I suggest that this is a matter which the Minister might look at again, to see whether the procedure cannot be simplified so that one authority shall decide whether in fact particular premises should or should not be designated, irrespective of how the premises are occupied?

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) and to the two hon. Members opposite who have raised this matter, and I agree that it is one which will have to be examined. My own view remains, as I said, that certainly the intention of the Bill is, and as I believe the effect would be, that in so far as public utility premises are concerned, the consent of the Minister of Transport or the appropriate Minister would be required, but in so far as they are not, the right of appeal lies to the Minister and not to the Minister of Transport. However, I will look at it again in case there is any dubiety in the matter.

§ Commander Sir Archibald Southby
It appears to me obvious that certain difficulties are bound to arise over this question of appeal. I think we all know that when an appeal goes to the Minister, he is in fact an interested party, and as I see the position over this Civil Defence business, the Minister will be a very much interested party. I hold the view that appeals in this matter very vitally affect private individuals, public utility companies, and concerns of allsorts, and it is essential that they should feel that they will get a square deal. Where there is reasonable ground for an appeal, they should be able to make an appeal to some authority which will view all the circumstances and give them a just decision.
I cannot help feeling, having heard the discussion on this point, in which, I must say, I am largely in agreement with the hon. Members opposite, that it is worth considering whether the appeals should go, not to the Minister, but to some judicial body. The Minister says that under Clause 60 rules will be laid down as to how the appeals should be heard, but I think it would be better, not only for the Minister, but for the individual and the country, if the appeals went first to the Minister and then to a judge of the High Court or somewhere like that, where the whole case could be argued out without there being any possibility of bias on one side or the other. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider, between 871 now and the Report stage, whether it would not be better to make these appeals, not from the local authority to the Minister only, but to give authority for appealing to a completely impartial, judicial body.