§ Functions of Local Authorities exercisable in relation to Trunk Roads by the Minister exclusively and Modifications of Enactments relating thereto.
§ Enactment conferring powers and Modification.
§ The Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7. c. 53)—
§ Sections 18, 20 and 29.—No appeal shall lie under Section seven of the said 827 Act against any withholding of consent or approval of, or any requirement or decision of, the Minister under any of the said Sections eighteen, twenty, and twenty-nine.
§ The Public Health Act, 1925 (15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 71)
§ Section 25.—In subsection (1) the words "under the hand of the clerk" shall be omitted, and no appeal shall lie under Section seven of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, as applied for the purposes of the Public Health Act, 1925, against any withholding of consent by the Minister under the said Section twenty-five.
§ Section 27.—No appeal shall lie as aforesaid against any withholding of a licence by the Minister under the said Section twenty-seven.
§ Section 33.—… In subsection (13) the words "and any question whether or not such consent has been unreasonably withheld shall be determined by the Minister of Health" shall be omitted.
§ The Road Traffic Act, 1930 (20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 43)—
§ Section 46.—An order made by the Minister in respect of a trunk road shall not require to be confirmed, and may be revoked, varied or amended by the Minister, but before making, revoking, varying or amending any such order, the Minister shall give notice to the council, being a council to which the said section applies, and shall, if he thinks fit, hold a public inquiry.
§ PART II.
§ Functions of Local Authorities exercisable in relation to Trunk Roads by the Minister as well as by other Authorities and Modification of Enactments relating thereto.
§ Enactment conferring powers and Modification.
§ The Public Health Act, 1925 (15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 71)—
§ Section 21.—No appeal shall lie under Section 7 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, as applied for the purposes of the Public Health Act, 1925, against any requirement of the Minister under the said Section twenty-one.
§ Section 22.—No appeal shall lie as aforesaid against any requirement of the Minister under the said Section twenty-two.
§
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to omit the reference to Sections 18, 20 and 29 of the Public Health Acts Amend-
828
ment Act, 1907, in Part I of the Schedule. The noble Viscount said: Perhaps I had better read to your Lordships Section 7 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907:
Except where this Act otherwise expressly provides any person aggrieved—
That is the law as it stands. What the Government proposes to do is to take away the right of appeal. The Schedule takes away, in the case of trunk roads, the existing right of appeal to Quarter Sessions against refusal to permit means of access to or from premises abutting on a trunk road for cattle, waggons, etc., claims for injury to trunk roads alleged to have been caused by works on land adjoining the road, and refusal to consent to the placing of building materials or the snaking of excavations on roads.
may appeal, in manner provided by the summary Jurisdiction Acts, to a court of quarter sessions.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 37, leave out lines 21 to 31.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONThe Amendment as the noble Lord has actually moved it would not give effect to what he intends. He has moved to leave out lines 21 to 31, but owing to the rather curious way in which this Schedule is constructed, that would take away from the Minister all these highway powers under Sections 18, 20 and 29 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907. The noble Viscount does not intend to do that. He wants the Minister to have these powers, but he does not want that there should be no appeal to Quarter Sessions. Therefore, what the noble Viscount wants to do is to leave the left-hand column of the Schedule as it stands. What he wants to do is to strike out the words "No appeal shall lie, etc." Provided we understand one another on that point, I think there is reason in his proposal. We ought to give the Minister all the powers which a highway authority has, but as regards the 829 right of appeal that ought to lie, I agree, as at present.
If I may anticipate and save a little time, the same argument would apply to those provisions under which a private owner has the right to ask the local authority or, when the trunk roads are transferred, to ask the permission of the Minister, to do certain things over or under the roads. We put upon the Minister the obligation of seeing that a road is efficient and safe. It is vital that he should be the judge of what is an obstruction which would be dangerous or bad for traffic, but subject to the Minister being the authority to lay down the broad conditions of height, for instance, of a bridge aeross the road and so on, then I think, if the Minister refuses unreasonably to give permission for facilities, there ought to be a right of appeal. What I would suggest in all Amendments of this kind, if my noble friend will agree, is that this Amendment and two or three subsequent ones standing in his name might be withdrawn, and the Parliamentary draftsman would exercise his ingenuity in recasting the paragraphs of this Schedule so as to give the Minister absolute discretion on questions of safety and efficiency but leaving the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions as it exists to-day. If that course would be agreeable to my noble friend I would gladly adopt it.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEI can assure the noble Viscount that it is most agreeable to me. I shall feel quite safe in his hands and in those of the Parliamentary draftsman.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the reference in Part I of the Schedule to Section 25 of the Public Health Act, 1935, to leave out all words after "omitted." The noble Viscount said: I think this is consequential.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 36, leave out from ("omitted") to end of line 42.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame).
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI should like to have it on record that this is also to be covered by the undertaking I have given.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to omit from Part I of the Schedule the 830 reference to Section 27 of the Public Health Act, 1925. The noble Viscount said: I should like to have it on record that this is also the same point, and that if the noble Viscount looks into it and finds it is the same point, the same undertaking applies.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 38, leave out lines 6 to 10.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI think it is the same point, but I do not want to go further in my undertaking.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice of Amendments to provide in the reference in Part I of the Schedule to subsection (13) of Section 33 of the Public Health Act, 1925, for an appeal to Quarter Sessions. The noble Viscount said: I am afraid I am getting a little confused over all this, but I believe these are the same points.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 38, line 20, after ("13") insert ("for") and leave out from ("words") to ("by") in line 23.
§ Page 38,line 24, leave out ("shall be omitted") and insert ("on appeal in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts by a Court of Quarter Sessions").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONIf I might venture to say on this, they are the same points we have dealt with before with regard to statutory undertakers. The Amendments of my noble friend would create for the first time a right of appeal by statutory undertakers to some court. The statutory undertakers are already safeguarded by the Bill as it stands because, if the Minister said they were unreasonable, the Minister would have to go to the High Court to coerce them, and therefore they are more safeguarded really than the noble Viscount has proposed.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEI shall withdraw the Amendments, but I would like to see what my noble friend's arguments look like in print.
§ Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
§
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in Part I of the Schedule, at the beginning of the reference to Section 46 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to insert:
An order made by the Minister in respect of a trunk road shall be of no effect
831
unless and until it is confirmed by a Resolution of each House of Parliament if within twenty-one days after the publication of the notice of the making of the order an objection thereto in writing is lodged with the Minister and is not withdrawn but in any other case …
§ The noble Viscount said: This Amendment relates to Section 46 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which gives power to restrict the use of vehicles on classified roads. In this case, as in Section 47 applied by the Second Schedule, the Minister as highway authority would be able to make an order restricting the use of the road and would decide, as the confirming authority, on an appeal against his own order. This is not only Gilbertian but unjust. The Amendment proposes that the order shall be laid before Parliament for confirmation, and again I rely on the Donoughmore Report.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 28, column 2, at the beginning insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONWhen your Lordships realise what the orders are I think you will agree that the reasoning which persuaded you not to insist on having orders made under an earlier section has much more force here. These are the orders which preclude vehicles of a certain size going on to roads that are unsuitable for them, and orders relating to the one-way traffic system, the unilateral system, the waiting and standing of vehicles, etc. There are over 200 of these orders a year. They are the general orders which every local authority makes about general traffic control, and I am sure your Lordships would agree that if you are to direct the Minister to have charge of the trunk roads he must have these powers of traffic control enabling him to provide for one-way streets and so on. It is absolutely necessary that he should have such powers. They are purely local matters, and I think your Lordships really would feel you were stultifying yourselves if we were to have dozens and dozens of these purely local orders brought here. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEThe Amendment will not be pressed. I beg to withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
832§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to leave out the reference to Sections 21 and 22 of the Public Health Act 1925, in Part II of the Schedule. The noble Viscount said: I think this is the same point about appeals, and if my noble friend undertakes also to look into this I shall withdraw the Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 40, leave out lines 23 to 34.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Third Schedule agreed to.
§ Fourth Schedule:
§ FOURTH SCHEDULE.
§ Modifications of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935.
§ 5. The power under Section four of the said Act of fencing roads subject to restrictions in force under Section one or Section two of that Act, and the power under subsection (1) of Section eleven of that Act of demolishing buildings, filling up excavations, closing up means of access, or removing works, in relation to which a contravention of any such restrictions as aforesaid has been committed, and the power to recover expenses incurred in so doing, shall be exercisable by the Minister as well as by the authority:
§ Provided that so much of the proviso to the said subsection (1) as provides for an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction by any person aggrieved by the decision of the authority, and for an appeal to Quarter Sessions by that person or by the authority from the order of the court of summary jurisdiction, shall not apply to a decision by the Minister.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to omit the proviso in paragraph 5. The noble Viscount said: I believe this also concerns the point we have been discussing.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONNo.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEThe proviso says:
Provided that so much of the proviso to the said subsection (1) as provides for an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction by any person aggrieved by the decision of the authority …That is a point about an appeal.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONYes, but it is a different principle.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEThe Act in question in this matter is the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act which was passed as recently as 1935, and now this Bill proposes to override that. I think it is rather a serious thing. I hope my noble friend will look into this again between now and Report, because to override an Act passed as recently as 1935 should require a very strong case indeed before this House assents to it.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 43, leave out lines 1 to 6.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI have looked into this very carefully. I think my noble friend will agree that when I dealt with the other Amendments I went very closely into the whole of this Bill and as to what was reasonable in the case of the right of appeal, but this is really another case. The other cases were cases where the Minister was, or might be, unreasonably refusing someone a reasonable right of appeal. Observe what is proposed here. I am not going to argue on the strict legal interpretation of it, though I would have thought there was some doubt as to whether a petty sessional court really had a right to become, so to speak, the ribbon development authority, or whether it was not its business to concern itself with the law. But what is proposed here? Here is a case where the Minister has decided in the interests of safety that the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act ought to be carried out, that a certain obstruction ought to be cleared away, using powers which Parliament has given to him under that Act. I am sure I speak within the recollection of your Lordships when I say that Parliament is anxious that the Act should be carried out very thoroughly. We were anxious as to whether it would be, because there might be local authorities who had not got the money to pay the compensation for doing it. That difficulty does not arise here, because the Minister has the money to carry it out, and I am sure it would be the wish of Parliament that the Minister should carry out that Restriction of Ribbon Development Act.
I submit with confidence to your Lordships that the Minister must in this matter, which touches safety, be the judge of what is necessary for the safety of a 834 road, and that it ought not to be left to petty sessional courts here and there in the country to constitute themselves the authority for deciding how the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act ought to be carried out. I am not putting it that the Minister has a right; I am putting it on higher ground; I am putting it that the Minister has a duty to carry out the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act in this matter of safety. In such cases I do not think a court of petty sessions ought to be able to say: "We do not agree with the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, and we are not going to carry it out"; or "We are going to see that the Minister shall not carry it out." I think that would be wrong. The most important thing is that there should be an appeal to a Court—whatever be the right Court, I do not know whether it should be a petty sessional court or a Court of Quarter Sessions or the High Court—if the Minister has acted illegally. If he makes an order and that order can be challenged on the ground of illegality, that it was ultra vires and a wrong order to make under the Act, then it ought to be possible to challenge it, and I would put down an Amendment to ensure that there shall be that right of challenge on grounds of illegality when they are there; but I would not accept the proposition that a petty sessional court ought to decide whether the Act should be carried out.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEI am much obliged to my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Fourth Schedule agreed to.
§ Remaining Schedule agreed to.