§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE)My Lords, this Bill is really the outcome of the conference which was held not long ago with the local authorities at the 945 Guildhall. It was found that the delay in carrying out necessary works for the relief of unemployment was hampering the local authorities in many ways, and although the procedure in normal times can no doubt be defended, the procedure in many ways in times which we must regard now as those of emergency is such as to produce unnecessary delay. I think that I ought to give some account of the various clauses of the Bill. Under Clause 1 a more simple procedure is laid down for obtaining powers by local authorities or statutory undertakers who now have to come to Parliament for a Local Bill. The present procedure is full of formalities and very long drawn out. It will be noticed that under subsection (2) the powers of the Ministers are strictly limited to works which will materially contribute to the relief of unemployment, and the powers to be conferred must be such as are customarily conferred on local authorities. They will not enable either local authorities or statutory undertakers to undertake functions of a different nature from those for which they already have statutory powers.
Clause 2 provides for more expeditious machinery for compulsorily acquiring and entering upon land for works. At present, in many cases, orders for the compulsory acquisition of land are provisional and have to be embodied in the form of a Bill, which has to be passed through both Houses of Parliament, and there is considerable delay. In this Clause the Bill provides that an order for compulsory acquisition may be made by a local authority or statutory undertaker, to become effective if confirmed by the Minister. There is the safeguard that, if an objection on merits is made and not withdrawn, the order may not be confirmed until a public local inquiry has been held. Any person whose land has been compulsorily acquired will be entitled to full compensation, assessed according to the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, which experience has shown to be eminently fair. This procedure is substantially the same as that under which the local authorities act now in acquiring land compulsorily for houses, so there is nothing revolutionary in the arrangement. Perhaps it should be noted that the power of compulsory acquisition is extended, under this clause, to aero- 946 dromes; to open spaces, where required by Metropolitan and borough councils; and to land required for a building under the Municipal Corporations Act.
An important consideration in regard to getting on with work is that, where local authorities have obtained power to acquire land compulsorily, they shall be able to enter upon the land as soon as possible. It is in that stage of the proceedings that there has hitherto been very great delay, but under subsection (2) of Clause 2, where a local authority or statutory undertaker obtains power to acquire land, they can enter upon the land on fourteen days' notice after notice to treat has been served. This provision also accords with that which has already been enacted in the Housing Acts in regard to land required for houses. It will be noticed that this clause applies to statutory undertakers as well as to local authorities. The former will obtain the powers conferred under the Act of 1919 which they do not now possess.
In Clause 3 it is provided that the compulsory acquisition of land shall not apply to the property of any local authority or to land acquired by statutory undertakers for the purposes of their undertakings, and the clause also provides that a highway authority may acquire—
an easement or right in, to or over any such land"—that is, the property of the local authority or land required by statutory undertakers for purpose of their under-takings—for the purposes of the construction, improvement or enlargement of any bridge under or over such land.The proviso in this clause, together with the Second Schedule, deal with the special case where an easement over or under a railway is required for the purpose of substituting a bridge for a level crossing. The Minister of Transport is very anxious in as many cases as possible to get rid of level crossings and, where the railway companies are agreeable, it is necessary that the procedure should be speeded up. In the case of a level crossing the railway company may have a charge of something like £500 or £800 a year to keep up the gates and attendance, and if, by the substitution of a bridge for a level crossing, the com- 947 pany is relieved of this expenditure, it is only proper that they should make some contribution towards the cost of constructing the bridge. Under the provisions of this clause an order may be made for the compulsory acquisition of the necessary easement, and the question of the apportionment between the highway authority and the undertaker of the expenses of construction and maintenance of the bridge may subsequently be settled by arbitration.Clause 4 makes some minor Amendments in the Unemployment (Relief Works) Act, 1920. The word "arterial," for instance, as applied to roads, was always very ambiguous, and is struck out of that Act, so that it applies generally to all roads. There is also an alteration in the provision by which local authorities can enter upon land, on seven days' notice, only where there is no building or structure upon it. This was manifestly not meant to refer to fencing and walls, and the point is now made clear. Clause 5 deals with Special Orders made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts. In this connection there is some delay, even in cases where there is no sort of opposition. Of the 57 orders issued by the Minister last year 48 were unopposed, and it is felt that the procedure here might be speeded up. Clause 6 deals simply with interpretations and definitions, and Clause 7 makes the necessary adaptation and application of the Bill to Scotland.
I think it may be useful for me to explain to your Lordshipsprecisely the advantages that will be gained under this quickened procedure. Private Bills and Provisional Orders may now be introduced in November and, very often, may not get through, completed in all their stages, until the end of July. That means that six or seven months are spent in carrying these Bills through. Under this Bill that period will be reduced to some twelve or thirteen weeks, and all the somewhat hampering restrictions—no doubt there is a good reason for them in normal times—with regard to certain dates at which notice has to be given and certain periods when Bills have to come before the Committees of the House, can now be dispensed with in this particular connection.
Compulsory purchase orders for the acquisition of land can now, before the 948 land can really be acquired and entered upon, last for the period of a year or even longer. There is often a very long delay, after the first formalities have been gone through, before there can be actual entry on the land. Under the Bill the procedure will now be the same as in the case of the acquisition of land for housing, which means that the whole process will not take more than two or three months. Special Electricity Orders now take from nine to eleven weeks, and this period will now be reduced by about three weeks. This, of course, may mean a great deal more than a saving of three weeks if the end of the Session is approaching—a saving perhaps of two or three months. So in these various ways this procedure is being speeded up.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMMay I ask the noble Lord if he is referring to Clause 1, subsection (8)?
§ LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDEThe whole of Clause 1 refers to Private Bills. Towards the end of my remarks I was dealing with compulsory orders, not Bills. In the case of Bills, as I said earlier, there will be speeding up too. This measure, while perhaps not very spectacular, will undoubtedly be of considerable service in speeding up procedure. It was passed through another place, after being amended, with the consent of both the Government and the Opposition Parties, and I now beg to move that it be read a second time in this House.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMMy Lords, I would like to ask the noble Lord a question with regard to subsection (8) of Clause 1. The noble Lord, as I understood him, said that it did not refer to Bills, but merely to orders, and I see that the subsection refers to "draft order." The subsection begins: "If the Minister decides to lay before Parliament any draft order." I presume that means that if a draft order is sub- mated to the Minister it is within his province whether he accepts it or not. It does not mean that he has power to say: "I will accept it, and not lay it before Parliament."
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMIt is not very clear, and that is what I hope will be the effect of it. Then the subsection goes on to say:—
the Bill, after introduction, shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages up to and including Committee and shall be ordered to be considered in either House as if reported from a Committee, and when the Bill has been read a third time and passed in the first House of Parliament the like proceedings shall be taken in the second House of Parliament.The noble Lord has done even better than the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, who moved earlier in the afternoon to take all the stages of Bills in one day. We do take the stages. We can, under the noble and learned Lord's Motion, discuss the Second Reading and divide on it, discuss Committee and divide on it, and so on; hut the noble Lord is submitting a Bill which says that when a Bill has been introduced in another place the introduction, except in certain circumstances, is perfectly formal. No discussion can take place; and I believe it is the same in this House.So what will happen is this. There will be no discussion on a Bill which confirms an order until it reaches the Report stage. The Committee is a most useful stage, because both in this House and in another place members are able to speak more than once on the Committee stage. If, therefore, a Minister in charge of a Bill gives an argument which perhaps would not hold water it is open to a member who has introduced an Amendment to speak once or twice, or even more. I have myself occasionally, when there has been a very bad Bill, and I have tried to move Amendments, spoken two or three times upon it. All that is to be done away with, and the only chance is to speak on the Report stage and Third Reading. It does seem a most extraordinary proceeding. You might just as well say: "If the Minister decides to lay before Parliament any draft order he shall do so by introducing in Parliament a Bill to confirm the order, and the Bill, after introduction, shall be deemed to have passed all its stages." It would be much simpler, and would probably carry out the intentions of the noble Lord. I cannot conceive it to be right that the Second Reading and Committee stages should be omitted, and that we should jump at once to the Report stage. 950 I am not so enamoured of hasty legislation as the noble Lord opposite. I understand that he is not going to take the Committee stage of this Bill to-day, and thus there will be an opportunity of moving to leave out this subsection. I hope the noble Lord will meet me on this pat titular point.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPMy Lords, I should like to say a few words to welcome this Bill. I am very glad to find from what one can see of the general disposition of the House that all Parties are prepared as a whole to welcome the Bill. There may be small points here and there, but the matter is of such urgent importance that for my own part I hope the Government will secure this Bill in its main provisions before the end of the Session. I am really ready to risk making mistakes on small points, rather than that the Bill should be prevented from becoming law. I do not want to exaggerate the position with regard to unemployment in this country, but it is evident that it is of a most serious character, and I am sure that Parliament should do everything it can in order to give people work, so that they should not be obliged to have recourse to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. This kind of measure was passed without difficulty during the War, and now that, as I hope, we are employed in a war against unemployment in this country, it is most important that all Parties should work together. I am sure the Government do not want to arrogate to themselves the whole of the credit for work being done to reduce unemployment. We on these Benches are prepared to help in every way, and this one step seems to me of vast importance. Therefore, for my own part, and on behalf of those who sit with me, I offer this Bill a hearty welcome, and hope it will be passed into law before the end of this week.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREMy Lords, I have no desire to stand in the way of any noble Lord opposite who wishes to speak, but this is a matter which touches work with which, in accordance with my duties, I am called into rather intimate connection. I think, without disagreeing with what the noble Earl has just said, that I ought to draw your Lordships' attention to certain points in the Bill, which whilst in no way running contrary to the 951 desire that we all feel to help the Government in dealing with the problem of unemployment, it seems to me ought not to be passed over lightly, and which present dangers about which I am profoundly anxious. I appreciate the importance of the Bill and I appreciate the belief, which I see is held, that the Bill provides valuable means of dealing with the present unemployment difficulties, but I find great difficulty in persuading myself to be very optimistic in that respect.
The Bill is really almost a revolution in our procedure, and I cannot see that it will very greatly speed up things, except perhaps during the next two or three months. Parliament will, of course, not be sitting during the next two or three months, and it may be possible that a number of unopposed schemes may be prepared during the next three months, to be whipped through Parliament (I am using the word in a proper, not an offensive sense) before we meet again, and thus provide work during the coming winter. But the unopposed schemes are not those which involve big works, and which are, therefore, likely to help unemployment. My noble friend behind me drew up a time-table which he hopes will be achieved under this Bill—twelve or thirteen weeks I think he mentioned, as against the Private Bill procedure of about seven months. I am sure he was only for the moment forgetting, but of course seven months is the longest time that any Private Bill ever takes to get through. A number of Bills to which His Majesty's Government drew special attention earlier in the year passed long before July although they were only introduced last December. Your Lordships' procedure is already sufficiently elastic to enable unopposed schemes to get through quickly, and in that way I do not believe that this new procedure is very much better.
But when we come to big schemes, involving big works, big schemes which are not only delayed in Parliament—there is the preliminary preparation of plans, there are widespread negotiations and controversies between parties involved—then I 'am a little afraid that perhaps speed may be obtained by paying too high a price for it. I do not think it can be denied that at any rate under 952 the procedure outlined here Parliamentary control will be less efficient. One of the most valuable things we have is the confidence that is felt in the absolute impartiality of the decisions of Committees of another place or Committees of your Lordships' House. Who are going to hold inquiries in future? In future there is to be no Committee stage, either in your Lordships' House or upstairs—at least I think that is the primary intention of the Bill. In future, in place of the Committee stage here at Westminister there will be an inquiry by a tribunal consisting of one or more persons nominated by the Minister, and paid by the Minister, but with no power to give any decision independently of the Minister. Your Lordships will notice that he reports to the Minister what alterations are to be made in the scheme; he does not report to the Minister, "I have rejected it."
But, more than that, I have been very much struck by the dislike there appears to be in the minds of many of the public —I am not certain it is a reasonable dislike, but it is there, and it ought to be dealt with—of the fact that in important inquiries ordered by Ministers one person hears the evidence and another one gives the decision. I am absolutely convinced that an inquiry by an inspector of some public Department is fairly carried out. I am certain his report made to the Minister is perfectly fair on all the facts; and I am equally certain that the decision subsequently given by the Department is perfectly fair in accordance with the conscience of those who give it. But it does not give public satisfaction to people to be told that "A will hear your case and report to B, who will decide it." It is inconceivable that such a procedure should be allowed in Courts of Law. It does not give satisfaction in the more social side of our affairs, and this new Bill vastly extends that system. I am therefore anxious as to its benefit and its value when compared with that great disadvantage.
Moreover, I think the Parliamentary inquiry is a loss from another point of view. It is not only that Parliamentary inquiries are independent and impartial, but they are useful. Scheme after scheme has reached the Committees upstairs, in the House of Commons or in your Lordships' House and come out a 953 better scheme than when it went in, the reason being that the inquiry has been held by four or five men of experience who have done valuable, if unostentatious, work to the body politic in criticising the scheme before them. That will be lost. I hesitate to think what would have happened under this procedure, for instance, if the Charing Cross Bridge Bill had not been brought before Parliament, but had been taken under this lightning procedure—a public examination confined to an inquiry by an inspector nominated by the Minister of Transport, and then the Bill merely brought forward in both Houses for Third Reading. I will not pursue that illustration, because I know the matter is still under discussion, but it seems to me we are running grave: risks in bringing forward some of these big schemes, as no doubt they will have to be brought forward under the proceedings now before us.
I do, however, draw a small grain of comfort from something I have refreshed my memory on this afternoon. This scheme is partly, I will not say borrowed from, but is in relation with the procedure which is familiar to your Lordships' minds, the Scottish Provisional Order Bill procedure. It is true, I think, that procedure is much better than this, because in that ease the inquiry, which takes place in Edinburgh or Glasgow, is held by one or other House of Parliament. But never mind that. What happens subsequently is the procedure which has been remarked on by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury. A confirming Bill comes before Parliament, and is considered to have been read a first and second time and reported from the Committee, which is the same as here. Then there is a Third Reading stage in both Houses.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMMy recollection of the reason for that is that it was said by the Scottish Members that only they understood Scottish affairs, and if they went up to Scotland and had a Committee there it was not necessary to have one here.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREI would not dream of contradicting that statement, but the fact remains that there is that opportunity of review on Third Reading in each House of Parliament. I 954 am comforted by one fact, however. Supposing some very big controversial scheme came before your Lordships and we were asked to discuss it on Third Reading. We had difficulty enough last week in deciding a matter of one borough extension without having heard any evidence. We may have a similar difficulty and a far greater difficulty in some scheme coming up under this procedure. I can see nothing that would prevent your Lordships, if you thought right, even on Third Reading referring a Bill to a Select Committee. I do not mean to say that under this Bill that would always be the right procedure, the normal procedure, but it could be done; it is an arrow in your Lordships' quiver. And it has been done before. Towards the end of last century there was a controversy—I read the whole of the debate this afternoon, and it might have taken place in the last few weeks—a controversy as to whether London Bridge should be widened because of the increasing traffic. Your Lordships' minds will at once go to Waterloo Bridge. After a short but very interesting debate, with the general consent of the House, the Bill, which had reached Third Reading unopposed in the second House, was referred to a Select Committee. It seems to me that Parliament in those days were wise, just as they will he wise in at any rate keeping that suggestion up their sleeve, if we are faced with a difficult problem to decide without the necessary evidence before us in any schemes that may come before us under this Bill.
There is only one other small point to which I think I ought to call attention, not in an unfriendly spirit, but it is one that makes me feel anxious, as the rest of the Bill makes me feel anxious, but no more. In the First Schedule there is a procedure with respect to the validity and date of operation of compulsory purchase orders. If I read that correctly, it amounts to this. An order can be made. It may be intra vires, it may be ultra vires, but if it is ultra vires and it is not challenged within 2l days it becomes intra vires, and it cannot be challenged again. I am rather anxious to put it more in the language of a layman. I f a Ministry does things illegally and it is not found out for three weeks, I think it is very wrong that its proceedings should thereby be legalised. No 955 doubt I might be told it is probable that in a case like this, which has been actively in people's minds in the preceding weeks, if it was ultra vires it would probably be challenged at once in the Courts or within three weeks; but it seems to me to be a bit of a gamble from a constitutional point of view.
That is all I think I ought to say with reference to the details and not to the objects and principles of the Bill. As a method of legislative procedure it does not strike me as a great step in advance. It almost amounts to appointing a dictatorship, which may or may not be justified. I know that there is honest anxiety to cure a real mischief, but I hope the Bill does not contain the germ of doing real harm to the body politic, misled by the honourable sentiments which actuate the proposals that have been made.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEMy Lords, I would first apologise to the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman. I did not observe that he had risen to speak at the same time as I had or naturally I should have given way. I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, this question. Is he certain that this is not a Money Bill and that we shall be able to amend it On the face of it it is a Money Bill. Whether it has the Speaker's Certificate I do not know and one never does know.
§ LORD PARMOORMy Lords, I should like to say a few words on the very important assistance which the speech of the noble Earl the Lord Chairman has given to all of us. In the first place, I value very much his remarks—I took down his words—that it was a valuable means of dealing with unemployment; that is, the procedure in this proposed Bill. I am sure he had in mind, as your Lordships' House will have in mind, what is in Clause 1 of the Bill—that it is only—
for the purpose of enabling them to execute work which will contribute to the relief of unemployment. …The powers are only conferred for that purpose and the powers altogether come to an end in the year 1932. It is not as though we were superseding for all time the well known forms of procedure that the noble Earl the Lord Chairman has referred to. We are bringing in a Bill providing a form of procedure which he, 956 with all his experience, knows to be a valuable means for dealing with unemployment, but only for that purpose, and which is not to be in operation in any case beyond 1932.He also said what is quite true, that it would operate to speed up things. That is really the most important point of all. It is true that seven months, I think, was the extreme limit that he mentioned; but there is no doubt—I had some experience of these matters in old days, as the noble Earl knows very well—that speeding up, apart from extreme cases of that kind, would be a great advantage when we have this unemployment terror, as I would almost call it, upon us and we want to do everything we can to deal with it in as quick a way as possible, provided we take all precautions that nothing is done that is either unfair or unjust. It is true, of course, that there is no Committee stage; but I noted with satisfaction what I understood the noble Earl the Lord Chairman to say, that as regards the inquiry and the report to Ministers, of course within their power, we could rely perfectly both on the impartial character of the report and the impartial character of the decision. I think that is very important because we ought to be able to rely upon our great Departments to be impartial, as I believe they are, in matters of this kind.
We are not dealing with a political question of any sort to-day, as the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, pointed out in supporting the Bill. We all want something more to be done if it can be done quite irrespective of Party, to help this unemployment difficulty which, to me, is of the most serious kind and must be to any one who has a wide outlook regarding our industrial difficulties. I agree with what the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman has said—and here again I had, I suppose, a much larger experience than any other member of your Lordships' House in old days—that the inquiry by Parliamentary Committees is admirable. No one has ever said that it is not admirably done and in a fair and impartial manner. The only question here is whether, without any interference with the real questions involved, we can speed up our procedure so that the powers may be conferred earlier in order that preparations may be made and employment given.
957 I hope we shall bear in mind what the noble Earl has said, and if there is any Amendment which he would suggest I am sure the House would gladly accept it, because I take it that we shall all be in favour of the Second Reading. I only interpose because I consider that the Lord Chairman's speech is of such great value in guiding your Lordships' House upon a matter which, in a peculiar way, is within his own cognisance and executive power.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWMy Lords, I propose only to deal with what is, perhaps, a point of detail. I do not think any member of your Lordships' House would disagree for a moment with what has fallen from noble Lords who have spoken as to the necessity and desirability of doing everything possible to expedite the relief of unemployment. Indeed, the only criticism of this Bill has been in regard to procedure. I happen to have had a good deal to do with the question of local inquiries, and I would like to endorse everything that has fallen from the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, and the noble and learned Lord as to the fairness and completeness of the inquiries undertaken by the officers of the Ministry of Health. But it is perfectly true, of course, as the Lord Chairman told us, that because these inquiries result in the report of one person and the decision of another, they are not regarded with the confidence that is placed in decisions of Committees of your Lordships' House and another place. I do not think that is disputed, rind it is natural. That they are absolutely fair and absolutely meticulous and impartial, I am perfectly certain. I went through a great deal of evidence and read a large number of these reports which were circulated to the Royal Commission on Local Government, and we were able to satisfy ourselves on that point, so I speak with some knowledge of the subject and I am certain that they are absolutely fair.
But the proposal is to have a local inquiry and then to go straight on to the Report stage in Parliament. That really means that Parliament will have very little opportunity of offering criticism. If in the case of a very controversial subject the public for some reason, good or bad, do not accept the decision of the Minister on the report of the Inspector, you may have the result that one or other House of Parliament has to throw the Bill 958 out altogether and that would delay the matter much more than if it were submitted to a Committee. But I am rather comforted by what has fallen from the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, that it will be possible in such a case, when there is a real difficulty, to refer it to a Select Committee, I do not know whether it is to a Joint Select Committee or a Committee of the House.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWSo that what we have is this, that if the House and the public are not satisfied with the result of the inquiry and there really is a difficulty, the question in the last resort can be referred to a Committee in the ordinary way. That is what it comes to. Your Lordships know that Bills have been thrown out. There was the Croydon, Whitgift Hospital, Bill that was thrown out on Second Reading in your Lordships' House, and again the Stoke-on-Trent Bill was also thrown out by your Lordships quite lately. So that it does happen, and I am glad to hear from my noble friend the Lord Chairman, that there will be this safeguard, if in any case there is a deadlock.
§ On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.