Lords Sitting of 11 March 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
WEDNESBURY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]

  WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, with reference to the first two Bills on the Order Paper I beg to move that Standing Order No. 91 be dispensed with and that they be now read a second time.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills, and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to: Bills read 2a accordingly.

FALMOUTH WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
EXMOUTH GAS ORDER, 1930.
COVENTRY GAS ORDER, 1930.
BIRKENHEAD GAS ORDER, 1930.
CHICHESTER GAS ORDER, 1930.
BURY GAS ORDER, 1930.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Marley I beg to move that the Special Orders as reported on Tuesday last be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ILFRACOMBE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, that the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER. (FYLDE WATER. BOARD) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRADFORD EXTENSION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORMS.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government and to ask whether they propose to give legislative effect to any of its recommendations, more particularly those concerning—

1, Consolidation of Statutes,

2, creation of boroughs,

3, security of tenure for local government officials,

4, disqualification of members of local authorities;

and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my object in troubling your Lordships with an inquiry on this matter this afternoon is twofold. In the first place there is a certain amount of curiosity. My late colleagues and I would like to know what is the possible fate of our last effort. Secondly, and this of course is much more important, there are considerations which make me think that it is desirable to proceed with legislation on the lines of this Report with as little delay as possible. I will come to that later on,
844
and I would like to say at once that the Royal Commission can have no complaint as to the manner in which their former recommendations have been treated by Parliament. Each Report was embodied, practically in toto, in an Act of Parliament almost immediately after it was published.
The first two Reports, of course, dealt with far more important matters than are dealt with in this one. The recommendations in this Report are, generally speaking, designed to overcome various smaller—important, but smaller—difficulties which have arisen from time to time in the administration of local government. In the last chapter your Lordships will see something like fifty recommendations and a very large number of them are of a nature which requires legislation. A difficulty which can be remedied by administrative action is dealt with, or can be dealt with, at once, but if you have to legislate then you have to wait until you get a chance of introducing a more or less comprehensive Bill. You cannot have a Bill to deal with every small matter, however important it may be from an administrative point of view, as it arises. I will not trouble your Lordships with any attempt to review these various matters in detail. I will merely draw your Lordships' attention to the four points that I have ventured to put down specifically on the Paper.
The first, and I think by far the most important, because the whole matter turns upon it, is the consolidation of Statutes. The existing statutory provisions in regard to local government are numerous, are becoming more numerous and are very complex. The accumulation that is going on makes their administration rather difficult and the difficulty is increasing. In all the investigations of the Royal Commission, which covered nearly seven years, this point became more and more clear as we went on, and we felt it our duty to recommend that it was imperative to proceed with consolidation as early as possible. I know, of course, that a great deal of work in regard to consolidation has been done already. There is the Poor Law Act, 1927, and there are Housing Acts and so on. But a great deal remains to be done in regard to Public Health Acts and local government, and I venture to think that it ought to be done as soon as possible.

845
Here we come to a point on which I want to ask the noble and learned Lord who, I believe, is going to be good enough to answer my Question for a little information. If you are going to under take consolidation—and I have no doubt that you are—you want your consolidating Statute to be as complete as possible. You do not want to have to amend it afterwards. You do not want to pass a consolidating Statute and then have to clear up difficulties by passing a sort of tidying-up Act. That would be putting the cart before the horse. Since I believe it necessary to consolidate as soon as possible, I feel that it is desirable to pass a clearing-up Act beforehand, and therefore I think that speedy action on the last Report is necessary.
I think I can say that these recommendations are practically non-contentious. One or two matters might be regarded as likely to arouse a certain difference of opinion—perhaps the agricultural committees may be one—but they are not very important, and the vast majority of the recommendations are certainly non-contentious. This Royal Commission was a very different body from the usual Royal Commission. It contained definite representatives of the various associations, and we heard evidence, I think, from everybody who could possibly or conceivably be interested in any of the points including all the Government Departments. I want to add that all the evidence of the Ministry of Health was given by the representative of the late Minister of Health, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, but we specifically asked the present Minister, Mr. Greenwood, if he had anything to add, to alter or to supplement by further evidence, and we were informed by him that he had no wish to do so. That is in the Report.
That being the case, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, could see his way to introduce the Bill into your Lordships' House, where it can be carefully considered, discussed and thrashed out. Your Lordships' House offers very many good opportunities for that purpose, because there are so many of your Lordships who are actively interested in matters of local government. We have had an excellent example of the way such measures can be treated in the Mental Treatment Bill and the Road Traffic Bill. I wonder whether it would be possible to do the
846
same with a Bill on these lines. I may mention that the first Local Government Act, which emanated from the First Report of the Royal Commission, was introduced in your Lordships' House; in fact, I had charge of it. That is the first question that I wanted to ask the noble and learned Lord.
I come to my next point, the creation of boroughs. In this matter the Commission found themselves unable to agree with all the recommendations that the Government put forward. These were of rather a drastic nature, and proposed the constitution of a new type of borough. Perhaps it was not exactly a new type, because London boroughs are something of the same kind. At any rate, they proposed the constitution of statutory boroughs in the future all over the country when the urban districts were incorporated. We had a little difficulty in agreeing to this, because, as the Association of Municipal Corporations pointed out and as I have just mentioned, it does constitute a new class of local authority, and we found that it was a little undesirable to go as far as that. We were not prepared, therefore, to recommend the abolition of procedure by Charter; but, although we were not prepared to do that, we were of opinion that; steps should be taken to improve the system of grant by Charter and to. remedy the various difficulties that had been brought to our notice by different witnesses.
I think that the proposals contained in this Report, while not involving the drastic measures which were recommended by the Ministry of Health, would still cover the ground. There is only one point, I think, in regard to which legislation will be required to give effect to our proposals, and I do not think that it will affect those boroughs which now have petitions for Charters before the Privy Council. I hope, therefore, that, whatever decision may be taken in regard to our recommendations, it will be possible for the petitions that are now ready to be proceeded with. I know that there has been a certain amount of discontent at the petitions being held up and the incorporations being delayed, as they were, pending the publication of this Report. I rather hope that it will be possible to allow them to go ahead and get these petitions decided, because I think it is a matter that should be disposed of as soon as possible.
I come to the third point—the question of security of tenure. In this connection there is only one point with which I need trouble your Lordships. It arises out of the case of Brown versus Dagenham Urban District Council. Your Lordships will probably remember this case. It was a matter which interested the noble Earl, Lord Russell. What happened was that the clerk had a contract calling for three months' notice, and was summarily dismissed. He brought an action and it was decided that, under Section 189 of the Public Health Act, whatever the contract might be the Council had the power to dismiss the officer at pleasure. That seems to be an undesirable situation, and I think it ought to be cleared up. In fact, my noble friend asked me if we could not see our way to doing it on the Local Government Act. I think we might have done so if there had been time. I forget the exact circumstances, but there was some delay or difficulty which made it impossible. It does seem to be right that you should enable local authorities to enter into reasonable contracts with their officials—six months or three months, or a year, but perhaps that is rather too long—three or six months certainly. If that is going to be done, it seems that that anomaly ought to be cleared up at once, or as soon as possible.
The last point is the question of disqualification of members of local authorities. I do not think there is any doubt that the state of the law is unsatisfactory in this respect. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave, when Lord Chancellor, commented upon this matter when giving judgment in the case of Lapish versus Braithwaite. What we felt, after hearing the evidence of people concerned, was that it was most desirable to amend the law and modernise it, and, this is more important still, to define the disqualification in such a way as not to debar a considerable number of the population from taking part in local government. We do not want to make it possible for people who may be interested in local government work to be kept out of it altogether, and so we recommended that the disqualification should not be for membership of the authority, but for voting or taking part in any decision in regard to particular points on which they may be interested. That is
848
another matter which calls for early legislation, and which I very much hope we may hear may be attended to.
There is only one other observation which I wish to make, and it is probably rather an academic one. One finds with the constant passage of Acts of Parliament dealing with local government, and the experience gained by working, that modifications of a more or less important character are required from time to time. You cannot get a thing perfect without trying it in the light of experience, and Local Government Statutes do want polishing up, if I may use the expression, from time to time. Of course the difficulty of doing this is to get Parliamentary time. I venture to suggest to the noble and learned Lord that this procedure, of which this Report is the outcome, may be the means of saving Parliamentary time. Supposing that in another five or six years Departmental Committees were to meet, consisting of representatives of the associations and others, and hear evidence and devise schemes for getting over the various difficulties which crop up by experience in administration: we might then get a non-contentious Bill which would go through without difficulty and without the waste of Parliamentary time.
The points are well known to the associations and to the Ministry of Health, but if they are going through Parliament they will take up Parliamentary time, whereas if you get the thing done outside you will find it possible to get the matter through more quickly by means of a non-contentious Bill. It is not a thing which presses, because it will not arise for some years, but I have ventured to put forward the suggestion. I have had experience of various Bills, and I notice that it took about four Governments to get through a small non-contentious Bill. There was the Therapeutic Substances Bill, and there was the Smoke Abatement Bill and a great many others. I think that if we get the thing thrashed out beforehand, in a form upon which everybody is agreed, then it. will pass through the Houses of Parliament as a matter of form, more or less, and I venture to suggest very respectfully that this form of procedure may afford possibly a means of dealing with these very important but possibly minor measures of administration. I beg to move.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD, PARMOOR): My Lords, I am sure we are all indebted to the noble Earl both for bringing forward this matter in this House and for the great work which he has done over a series of years, as Chairman of the Royal Commission on Local Government, the Final Report of which, as he says, has been lately presented. We know how much his influence and work are to be found in the terms of that Report. With a great deal of what he has said I personally am in accord, but I shall have to point out what the difficulties are. The difficulties are of a wider kind than he has referred to, but they are sufficient, I am afraid, to prevent any immediate legislation upon the points to which he has called attention. Let me take first of all the consolidation of Statutes. No one can doubt for a moment that consolidation of Statutes is required after a time. For instance, take the Public Health Acts, which date from the important Act of 1875. I think it is quite time there was consolidation. This may also be said with regard to the Local Government Acts, which I think date from the great Statute of 1882. There have been several amending Acts since that time, and their consolidation is urgently needed.
What the noble Earl wanted, I think, to ask me particularly was whether a clearing-up Act, as he called it, could be passed before any consolidation of the Public Health or Local Government Acts was taken into consideration. I agree with him that that would be an advantage, but all I can say at the. present time is that, having regard to conditions in the Ministry of Health there is hardly any possibility or chance that the matter can be approached in the way he desires. The noble Earl is well aware of how consolidation is done. You get a Consolidation Bill prepared by the Ministry in question, of course with the help of the Parliamentary draftsman, and then it is referred to a Joint Committee of this House and the House of Commons. I have served on a good many of these Committees myself, under the Chairmanship of Lord Loreburn, when he was Lord Chancellor, and I am sure that any one who has served on these Committees realises the amount of labour and care which are required to produce an accurate Consolidation Bill, dealing
850
in some cases with a number of conflicting clauses. Unless a Consolidation Bill is carefully prepared and considered, instead of being a Consolidation Bill it is the means of introducing new legislation which has not been discussed and is probably not required.
I can say this, not perhaps with regard to the clearing-up Bill but the consolidation of Local Government and Public Health Acts, that a good deal has already been done in the Ministry of Health. It is in no sense a political question at all. It was done during the days of the late Government, and has been carried forward by the present Government; but it is not possible to hold out any hope that during this Session that work can be so far advanced that any practical steps can be taken.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: That is consolidation?
LORD PARMOOR: I will ask the Ministry of Health to consider what the noble Earl called a clearing-up Act, but I can hold out no hope that anything will be done this Session, owing to the great amount of work which falls upon the Ministry.
The second point which the noble Earl raised was as to the creation of boroughs. If I am right I have to answer that it has been done without the need of legislation at all. I just want to mention it from this point of view. The Report of the Royal Commission was referred to me as President of the Council because a considerable portion of the work in regard to the creation of boroughs went through what I may call my Department. First of all, we had agreed, and the necessary instructions had been given, that subject to anything very exceptional, the numbers of population in order to entitle a borough to the grant of a Charter should be not less than 20,000. Secondly, in old days the local inquiry was conducted by an inspector appointed in the Privy Council Office. We had a very admirable inspector, Mr. Dill, who over a great number of years performed his functions in a manner which was satisfactory to everyone. But when the matter was brought to my notice, as it was, by the present Minister of Health, I could not but agree with him—and it is also the recommendation of the Royal Commission—that the inspector to hold inquiries

851
of that kind should be one of the inspectors of the Ministry of Health who had experience in local government matters of this character. And therefore I have already arranged that in the future the recommendations of the Royal Commission should be carried out in obtaining information as regards the creation of new boroughs.
Then there is the provision that the petition should be by resolution of the local authority instead of by resolution of the inhabitants—that also has been agreed upon; but, in addition, in order to save trouble, if the same people are prominent persons who promote a scheme of this kind for the creation of a borough and are also members of the governing body, one petition may be sufficient. But that is merely a matter of arrangement for convenience in carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think you would have to amend the law.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think myself we shall have to. I do not want to be too certain—the law is a hard taskmaster—but at any rate the matter is being looked into, and I believe that everything that the Royal Commission requires can be carried out under the arrangement to which I have referred. But if there is an outstanding point of that kind, of course it will have to be dealt with when legislation dealing with the subject is brought forward. I may say I entirely agree with the recommendation of the Royal Commission that Boroughs by Charter should not become a thing of the past. They have an historical and sentimental interest, and occupy a very real position in our local government system. The Final Report recommended that they should not be superseded for all purposes, for instance, by the urban district councils; there should still exist a system of creating Boroughs by Charter. With that I am entirely in accord, and we have made provision in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission itself. I hope, therefore, that so far as the second Question is concerned, the noble Earl will rest satisfied that, even apart from legislation, his proposals are being carried out, and can be carried out successfully.
The next point is security of tenure to local government officials. That, I think,
852
will require legislation. The decision was that although a contract might have been made between a particular official and the local government authority of which he was an official, providing that he should not be dismissed without three months' or six months' notice, yet under an old law the authority could pay no regard to that, and could dismiss him without notice in a summary manner. I think myself that that is not right, and it ought to be altered in the direction that the Report indicated. There are two points I might mention with regard to this, which I think the noble Earl recognised at once as being improvements; they are dealt with in the Report of the Royal Commission. One of the points was that it is not desirable to have a sort of court of appeal on a tenure of this kind, because if a particular local authority has found that it cannot carry on its business with the help of a certain official, it makes matters very awkward if there is some provision by which he can continue there although out of accord with their wishes and their policy. That is an obvious inconvenience. But, on the other hand, a considerable number of these officials hold posts of which a, certain amount of the salary comes from central resources. That is the case with certain officials of the road service and the Ministry of Transport. In those cases, where the payment comes only partly from the local authority, and partly also from the central authority, I think a provision operates now under which the local authority cannot dismiss the official without the assent of the central body which is contributing to the salary. I think I am right in that.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Medical officers of health.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, medical officers of health, and no doubt some other important officials. The illustration which the noble Earl has given is, I think, a very apt one indeed. And therefore in the case of an ordinary tenure, provision was made that where an official desires the security to which he is entitled, he should not be dismissed without adequate notice. I think that ought to be put right. And I think that that is all really that the Royal Commission desired to be done.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is the clerks who are most concerned.
LORD PARMOOR:I quite agree, because you get there the security of the official, and yet you do not leave him as a burden for perhaps an indefinite time on the local authority. These were the two sides of the question with which the Royal Commission had to deal, and the determination I have given is, I think, the determination at which they arrived.
The last question I am asked about is the disqualification of members of local authorities. The principle is that where duty is out of accord with responsibility, that is to say, that you get friction between duty on one side and responsibility on the other, there ought to be some disqualification as regards members of local authorities. But what is suggested in the Final Report is, I think, extremely good. It points out cases where the disqualification would be naturally operative, and cases where it would not operate at all, or should not operate at all. For instance, take the case of a doctor who is called in from time to time at his ordinary fees by the local authority to deal with maternity and other cases. That ought not to be a ground for disqualification in the view of the Royal Commission, and I think that that is right. Then there was a case in the House of Lords, the one to which the noble Earl has already referred. That is a doubtful case, with all respect to the decision of this House, because before the case came here Mr. Justice Atkin and Mr. Justice Bailhache pronounced one opinion, and the other two Judges took the contrary opinion, although in that particular case it seemed to have turned a great deal on the point that the individual in question was not acting under a commission, but at a settled salary. Had it not been a settled salary, but a commission, other considerations might have arisen.
But without going into these matters—and one could not on the present occasion—I should like to say that the Report of the Royal Commission draws a distinction between disqualification for membership and disqualification for voting. That, I think, is an extremely important distinction. So far as the disqualification for voting is concerned, I would certainly go the whole length of the Report. I think the Report draws
854
a very proper line between one whose vote should be allowed and one whose vote should be disallowed, and that sufficiently protects the interest of the local authority whatever it may be. I hope that along that line salvation may be found as between the protection of the local authority on the one hand, and the manning of the local authority on the other by persons who otherwise would be disqualified from manning it and whose assistance is really required in order that the local authority may be efficiently manned for all its purposes. Those are the four points, and I have tried to give what I understand to be really the Final Report upon them. I do not think the noble Earl differs from what I have said.
I do not quite understand his last point though it raises a very interesting question. We are all aware that under the conditions of legislation in this country, particularly legislation which is to come before another place, there is often a great want of time and there is what we call a rush at the last moment. But I do not think the noble Earl suggested that even the matters to which he referred should not come within the legislative scheme.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: No.
LORD PARMOOR: What he suggested was that before you came to the legislative period you should have a prior inquiry, if I understood him.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes, something like that.
LORD PARMOOR: And that prior inquiry, being conducted by persons who were adequately informed to deal with the matter in question, would simplify the subsequent path of legislation. I think that would 'be an excellent principle, though I do not for the moment see how it is to be carried out.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It was carried out in the First Report of this Commission.
LORD PARMOOR: It was carried out?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes.
LORD PARMOOR: I am afraid I had not got that in my mind. Still, I can only say that any suggestion coming from the noble Earl on a topic of this kind to which he gave so much attention and

855
care will receive from the present Minister of Health all the attention which it thoroughly deserves. He may be quite sure that these matters will not, be lost sight of because there has been a change of Government. Treatment of this class of points, as I say, ought to be complete and continued. There is no need for political bias one way or the other. We want the administration of our local authorities to be carried on as effectively and efficiently as possible. That is the desire of every political Party and I am sure of all Parties in your Lordships' House. I wish we could bring this forward in your Lordships' House because I think the experience we had on the Mental Treatment Bill and the Road Traffic Bill was very encouraging.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Hear, hear.
LORD PARMOOR: But the reason is that the materials for framing Bills are not yet sufficiently advanced and, from information which has just reached me, it is impossible in the present Session for the Ministry of Health to add in any way to the very heavy labours and responsibilities on which it is engaged at the present time.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. In fact, I think he has told us that he is in accord with what I ventured to say to your Lordships. I am sorry about the consolidation, but I see, of course, that it would be a tremendously long business to consolidate all these Acts. I have also been a member of the Consolidation Committee and I know the great labour which the scrutiny of a Consolidation Bill entails. I do not think the noble and learned Lord was quite clear, at least I did not altogether understand whether he was in accord with me as to the necessity of passing this amending Act before consolidation was undertaken. Of course, there is no particular hurry to pass an amending Act if your Consolidation Bill is not fairly nearly ready, but I do hope that it will be thought necessary to pass a Bill containing small amendments of the local government procedure before we actually consolidate the Statutes. On the question of the creation of boroughs I thought his remarks were very satisfactory
856
and I think they will be very satisfactory to those urban districts which are seeking incorporation.
LORD PARMOOR: There are a large number.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes. I have heard from many of them asking why we did not hurry up as they were waiting for our decision. The second point I was much interested in. I thought it would require legislation. I am very glad that it will not, and I do not suppose that the matter really arises. With regard to the other two points, the question of disqualification and the question of security of tenure, I think we are all entirely agreed that they are matters which require legislation, and I hope they will be dealt with before very long. I should think there is not an enormous amount of pressure, because public attention was only called to them by these two recent cases, and apparently they got along fairly well before. Still, difficulties may arise and I rather hope that these matters will be dealt with soon.
Then as to the last point, which is a purely academic one, and which could not be dealt with for some years. One reason for the appointment of this Commission was to consider the creation and extension of county boroughs. It was impossible to get any agreement and it was no good going to Parliament with it. There was very considerable controversy. It was thrashed out over a long period by witnesses and the expert members of the Commission. Then, that having been done, and the whole thing having been agreed to, it was passed through Parliament without any difficulty whatever. It seemed to me that was a very useful way of getting other matters through for which you had not got Parliamentary time. That is why I ventured to raise it. As I say, this particular question cannot be brought forward now because there is nothing to talk about, but it may be useful at another time. I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I do not suppose there are any Papers, and I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, there is one consideration I should like to submit to the noble Earl opposite which he might take into account

857
before he raises this subject again should he wish to do so. It is the local Government Act of last year. That Act was a very large experiment. It created really wholesale changes in local government. In the course of the discussions in your Lordships' House last year I suggested that there probably would be found (and I am sure that the noble Earl would agree with this) in working that Act that quite a number of small amendments would be required to make it more workable. In that event, it would seem unwise, would it not, to bring in an amending Bill on the three or four points the noble Earl has mentioned before one was ready also to include in it such small amendments of that Act as might be found necessary? If one could discover in the course of the next year or two amendments which were required, it would be well to combine the two things together. I do not wish to introduce any note of difference into this
858
extremely friendly conversation that has taken place between the noble Earl opposite and my noble and learned friend. I only hope that if the occasion arises we may find that all the changes that this Government propose, say, in connection with such things as the payment of travelling expenses, may not meet with any opposition from noble Lords opposite.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I would point out to the noble Earl that really two Consolidation Acts are required, one in regard to public health and the other in regard to local government. I think the matters would have to be dealt with in two Acts. We would go ahead with public health, even though I agree there is a great deal in what the noble Earl has said.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five o'clock.