§ Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
§ Clause 4:
§ Application of Parts II. to V. in rural districts.
§ (2)The Minister of Health may by order apply to any rural district, or contributory place therein, any provision in Parts II. to V. or Part VIII. of this Act, in the same manner as provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, which apply to urban districts, may be applied to rural districts, or contributory places therein, and section two hundred and seventy-six of that Act shall be extended accordingly.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (2), after "Act," to insert "except the sections in Parts II and III of this Act which are mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act." The noble Lord said: My Lords, if this Amendment is carried I shall move a further Amendment to the Second Schedule. My object is as follows. Clause 4 (2) states that the Minister of Health may by order apply to any rural district or contributory place therein, any provision in Parts II to V or Part VIII of this Bill, and then, if your Lordships will turn to the Second Schedule, you will see that there are 681 certain sections, nine in number, in Parts II and III which cannot be adopted by rural district council.
§ Those two provisions are in contradiction. One of these clauses—namely, Clause 39—was specially put into the Schedule on the Committee stage by your Lordships, because you considered that it was not adapted to rural district councils, but unless my Amendment is carried it is open to any Minister to apply this clause and make it adopted by a rural district. My Amendment, if carried, would affect only nine clauses and there are 87 in the Bill; therefore I do not interfere in any way with the power of the Minister to allow other clauses to be applied to rural districts. I do not approve of giving Ministers all these powers. Much to my sorrow, we have gone rather far in that direction; but I certainly think that, unless we enact that the provision that these nine clauses mentioned in the Schedule are not to be adopted by a rural district council, we shall render the provision absolutely useless. I earnestly hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept my Amendment and I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, after ("Act") insert ("except the sections in Parts II and III this Act which are mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act").—(Lord Banbury of Saytham.)
§ LORD EMMOTTMy Lords, the noble Lord opposite has been a very consistent and sincere opponent of nearly the whole of this Bill. I think he dislikes it as a whole and almost everything in it. Therefore I am not in the least surprised that he seeks at this late stage to make a considerable hole in it. I would, however, venture to point out that there is no inconsistency between subsection (2) of Clause 4 and the Second Schedule. The Schedule contains provisions which may not be adopted by a rural district council—that is, these clauses. Subsection (2) of Clause 4 says that "The Minister of Health may by order apply" them. There is no real inconsistency. But that is not the main point, and I am still not without hope that when I have explained the matter the noble Lord will see that it would be inadvisable to press his Amendment.
682 England and Wales are divided, as the noble Lord knows, into urban districts, including, of course, cities and boroughs, and rural districts; but the division is by no means either accurate or scientific. In some urban districts there are portions of a rural character and in many rural districts there are substantial urban communities, large villages or small towns. In those circumstances it has been found from experience of local government that provisions of this kind should be of an elastic character, and the most satisfactory plan has been in regard to rural districts that provisions mainly applicable to an urban district should be applied by the Minister of Health, where necessary, to that portion of a rural district which is really urban. That has been the practice for the past fifty years and I believe a considerably longer time; because the Public Health Act, 1875, under which that provision was adopted, was to a large extent a consolidation of older Acts. Under that Act an order of the Ministry of Health can be extended in suitable cases, either to a whole rural district or to any portion therein.
The main point is this. I do not think there are any provisions of the Public Health Act which cannot be applied at present to the urban parts of rural districts. Therefore, if this Amendment were adopted we should be establishing a new precedent, and I venture to urge upon the noble Lord, if I may, that it would be a very undesirable precedent and would have results exactly the opposite of what he desires. If such an Amendment were carried it would mean that a great many more urban parts of rural districts could press to be made urban districts. The premature making of urban districts out of rural districts is very undesirable from almost every point of view; from one point of view which I know, in regard to education, it is most undesirable. There will be immensely more pressure to take these urban parts out of rural districts and make them into urban districts, unless there is the elasticity proposed in this Bill in regard to these clauses. There will be also a strong tendency on the part of local authorities to urge that more extensive powers shall be given them, and 683 it will be very difficult for the Minister, who will probably sympathise with the view, to oppose them.
With that explanation of the wider general ground I venture to suggest that we have to consider the noble Lord's Amendment on the merits of the particular clauses referred to in the Schedule. Ought a Minister to have power, in the urban parts of what are technically rural districts, to apply provisions dealing with the subjects of these clauses? What are they? First, there is the naming of streets. If part of a rural district is really urban, it is clear that the Minister of Health ought to have power to see that the streets are named. He ought also to have power, I think, to see that water is prevented from flowing on the footpath; to prevent the undue washing of soil into streets; to deal with projections in streets, to vary the width of the carriageway and footway upon the making up of private streets, and to require notice of intention, not to repair now but to reconstruct or alter drains. I think he ought to have power to deal with that and also with offensive trades or businesses. I do not think I need detain your Lordships longer. I hope I have shown that there is real ground for retaining elasticity in this Bill and that there is precedent behind it.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMMy Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I should agree with him in everything, provided that all that could be done by the Minister was to apply these powers to the urban part of a rural district. But, as I understand it, they can be applied to the whole of a rural district, whether a portion of it is urban or not. As I understand that my noble friend Lord Salisbury has for once deserted me and does not intend to support me, I shall not press my Amendment, though I should like to say this to Lord Emmott. 684 He said this would be a new precedent We are always creating new precedent every day and nearly always bad ones.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI will only say that I always approach this subject with a completel open mind and the convinced by the noble Lord opposite.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD EMMOTTMy Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
§ Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Emmott.)
§ On Question, Bill passed, with the Amendments, and returned to the Commons.