MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL. (Hansard, 8 May 1929)

§ THE EARL OF LUCAN
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

§ LORD JESSEL
My Lords, I desire to call the attention of your Lordships to certain facts connected with this Bill. Your Lordships may have remarked that in the case of all the Bills and Orders on the Paper the names of the places affected are mentioned. Here is a whole series of Provisional Orders Bills, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5 and No. 6, and it is very difficult to find out to what particular towns they relate. Some correspondence has been sent to me relating to the Leeds Corporation, who are included in No. 3 Bill. I took the trouble to try to find out, and I went to the very able clerk of the Chairman of Committees to ascertain in which particular Bill the Leeds Corporation is included, and unfortunately we could not find out. I had to go away rather upset at having wasted his time and my own. I do therefore 451 venture to suggest that in future on the Order Paper there might be printed the names of the particular districts affected by these Provisional Orders. The purpose of this Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill is to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Ministry of Health relating to Cardiff, Gateshead, Leeds, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Uxbridge. I dare say there are a similar number of towns in the other Provisional Orders Bills, and if one is approached upon certain matters it is very difficult to know in which particular Bill they are dealt with. I therefore make the suggestion for the consideration of your Lordships' House whether it would not facilitate business if the names of the towns could be added.
Another point I should like to make is that there is a tendency now for very contentious matters to be brought in under these Provisional Orders. I have looked through these Bills and I cannot say that there is very much except in the Cardiff and Leeds portions. The others are rather small matters, about ovens in one case and power to alter the rate of interest in another. But in the Leeds, part there does seem to me to be rather a peculiar case of municipal trading. The Corporation there is going to take and use land which is required for other purposes and to divert that land to use for letting out shops and various businesses. As your Lordships are well aware, by the machinery of the Provisional Order the Borough Funds Act is not required to be brought into operation and therefore the inhabitants have no knowledge of what is going on. The Minister of Health gives sanction for these matters and they go before the Parliamentary Committees.
I might remind your Lordships that the Minister of Health's sanction is sometimes upset and has been upset in some recent cases in the Law Courts. However, in this case the fiat of the Attorney-General could not be obtained and the only course is to oppose this Bill here. It is, I might say, going to be opposed in Committee and therefore naturally I will not ask your Lordships to oppose it upon Second Reading. It can be well thrashed out before a Committee of your Lordships' House. I wish to protest, however, against this growing practice of proceeding by Provisional 452 Orders instead of by the ordinary course of Private Bills, and to ask whether anything can be done to make it more clear as to which towns the Provisional Orders refer when they are put upon the Order Paper.

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME
My Lords, I understand that the position-taken up by the Ministry of Health is that, under a section of the Public Health Act of 1875, if there is one clause in a Bill referring to health the Minister of Health can alter any other clause in any way he likes. In this particular case the National Federation of Property Owners and Ratepayers, of which I have the honour to be President, applied to the Attorney-General, as my noble friend has just told your Lordships, for a fiat to apply to the High Court on the ground that the Minister was exceeding his powers. That fiat was refused. It comes to this, that a very technical legal point has now to be argued before Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, on which no lawyers may be sitting, and it makes it very difficult for the points to be brought out and properly considered.

§ THE EARL OF LUCAN
My Lords, with regard to what my noble friend Lord Jessel has said, I note that he objects to the names of towns not being included on the Order Paper which merely gives the title of the Bill. He will understand that I could not give him any assurance this afternoon on that point, but I can assure my noble friend I will represent the matter to the Minister of Health and to the Department concerned, and ask whether it is possible to do anything to meet his wishes and make the titles of Bills clear on the Order Paper. As regards the merits of the Bill I am afraid I cannot argue that point now. As the noble Lord told your Lordships the Bill is opposed; there is a Petition lodged against it by the Leeds and District Property Owners and Ratepayers Association, and, therefore, if your Lordships are good enough to give it a Second Reading this afternoon, it will go before the proper Committee and the matter will be thoroughly discussed.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
My Lords, perhaps as being closely in touch with officials of your Lordships' House I might say in one sentence I am glad my 453 noble friend Lord Lucan has said that he will consult, the Minister as to whether anything can be done in this matter. There is nothing the officials of your Lordships' House can do. The short title of a Bill, whatever that Bill is, appears on the Order Paper. Of course, if the short title was made more explanatory that would automatically assist in the direction my noble friend desires.

EARL RUSSELL
I suppose there is no question that there would be a locus standi to the opposition on this Bill?

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME
I understand not as counsel was heard before the Commons Committee.