I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to say a word about the very large number of Amendments which come down to us from another place. The House will not be surprised to know that in a Bill of this length and complexity a very great number of drafting and consequential Amendments have been discovered to be required by various changes which have taken place in the Bill in going through this House and another place. Indeed, the great bulk of the Amendments which we have to consider to-day are purely of a drafting or consequential character. I am sure that the House does not wish to spend time unnecessarily upon trivial points, and I will undertake to call the attention of the House to any Amendment upon which any point of substance is raised. Perhaps by that means we may be able somewhat to shorten the proceedings. There is only one Amendment on which I propose to ask the House to disagree with the Lords. That is the Amendment, in Clause 65, page 57, line 26, to leave out from the word

"operations" to end of paragraph (b), and insert "and whose wages are subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924."

I will say a word about that when we come to it.

The Amendment to the Title which is now before us must be read in conjunct- tion with the insertion of the proposed new Clause "F":

"Amendment of 18 & 19 Geo. 5. c. 44 (s. 3 (2))."

The purpose of this is to deal with certain doubts which have arisen as to—

I would point out to the House that this Amendment, in conjunction with the new Clause "F," which comes later on the Paper, raises the question of Privilege, which, of course, the House can waive if it thinks fit.

I shall move that the House agree with the Lords in this Amendment, and I hope that the House will consent to waive its Privilege. The object of this Amendment is to deal with certain doubts which have arisen as to the interpretation of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act. Certain hereditaments are de-rated or are selected and classified for de-rating. These hereditaments are factories and workshops, and are defined under existing Statutes. The question which has arisen is whether, where one of these places is occupied by some person who does not employ any other person, but runs the works by himself or in partnership, such a place comes under the definition of a factory or workshop; in other words, whether the words "factory or workshop" connote the necessity for employment in that place. The intention of the Act is perfectly clear. There was no intention to distinguish between two hereditaments used for the same purpose and in all respects alike, save that in one a man works by himself and in another employs a second man. It would obviously be a grave injustice if there were any distinction of rating between two such places. We became aware that there were doubts as to interpretation, and it was felt that local authorities might interpret this Clause in different ways, and we felt that it was necessary to remove these doubts by putting in this new Clause. That requires consequentially alteration in the Title.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a consequential Amendment.

I should like a little explanation of this Amendment. We are taking out the words, "elsewhere than in the county of London," and I would like to know if "county borough" means "metropolitan, borough." I do not understand what is the effect of taking out the words.

In the County of London the functions under Part I of the Children Act, 1908, were vested in the London County Council and the Common Council. They are not functions formerly discharged by Poor Law authorities, and the words are therefore unnecessary.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This matter was raised by the Labour representatives in another place. It was suggested that the Clause as originally drafted did not have regard to a case in which there was no amount to be recovered from the recipient of relief or from the person liable for his maintenance. There will, of course, be a number of cases where a local authority will not impose any charge upon any individual, and it was to meet that point that the words "if any" are being inserted.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is merely in the nature of a drafting Amendment to provide that the scheme should determine not only the place of meeting of the guardians committee but also of their sub-committees.

I am not quite sure about the wisdom of inserting this Amendment. It seems to me that it is making the conditions too rigid from the point of view of small rural parishes. I do not wish to press my objection, but I think that in large county areas, where parishes are a long way from the county towns, the sub-committees ought themselves to have the power to determine where they will meet.

I think the hon. Member will see that this is really put in to assist the small parishes. If we leave it undecided where these sub-committees are to meet, there is no guarantee that discussion will take place upon the various alternatives; but if this provision be inserted, everybody will have an opportunity to make representations about the place of meeting who does not agree with it.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment raises a matter of some importance, and was the subject of a considerable amount of discussion in another place. The purpose of the discussion was to try to ensure that there should be full and ample opportunities for the representatives of voluntary hospitals in any area, including not merely the lay members, but also the medical and surgical staffs, to offer their experience and their views before a local authority sets to work to revise its hospital accommodation. Perhaps I should say why, if we approve of this Clause, we did not ourselves insert it. I think our view was that consultations of this kind must necessarily take place, and we did not desire to put into the statute more than was necessary; but it became clear in another place that people of very considerable weight and standing in what I may call the voluntary hospital world were not satisfied that without some statutory provision there would be that measure of consultation with the representatives of voluntary hospitals which they felt to be not merely desirable but really vital for the proper development of the hospital service of the country in the future. With the object of this Amendment I have always been fully in sympathy. I have a very strong view that the assistance of the voluntary hospitals will be absolutely essential if the municipal hospitals, which will be reorganised and conducted by the local authorities in the future, are to be placed upon a proper footing. They start from a different level from the voluntary hospitals, and it will be a work of time and care and of tact to bring them up, generally speaking, to the same level as that attained by the voluntary hospitals. I am sure it can only be done by the exercise of co-operation and goodwill on both sides, and I hope the provisions of this Clause, under which a duty is laid on the local authorities to consult with bodies representative of the voluntary hospitals, will bring about that co-operation.

There is just one other point. It will be seen that the body which is to be consulted is—

"such committee or other body as they consider to represent both the governing bodies and the medical and surgical staffs of the voluntary hospitals."

It will be said that perhaps there will be no such body in one area or another. I think it is quite possible that at the present time there is no such body in some areas. But, on the other hand, it is most desirable that there should be such a body, because voluntary hospitals would never be able to exercise the full influence which they ought to do upon the health and the institutional services of the area unless there is co-ordination among themselves, and unless there is some body which will represent the various hospitals concerned, and can speak for the whole of them when dealing with the local authorities. I regard this Clause, therefore, as one which is likely to have the effect of stimulating the formation of such representative bodies, and from that point of view I believe it to be a valuable addition to the Bill.

I think it is quite clear, if we are to make the best use of the hospital accommodation, that there must be consultation between the local authorities and the voluntary hospitals. At the same time I look upon this new Clause with a little apprehension. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be taking in hand a new organisation of the voluntary hospitals with a view to preventing the development of other public hospitals, but the words that alarm me particularly are those relating to the medical and surgical staffs of the voluntary hospitals providing services. It is perfectly right and proper, and I do not complain, that the local authorities, when working out their schemes, should consult the hospitals whose services are to be used, but I see no reason why that consultation should not have been confined to the representatives of the governing committees of those hospitals. Has the Conservative party now turned Syndicalist that public authorities have to call into consultation, whether they like it or not, the employés of the voluntary hospitals. If we had suggested in some of these new Bills that there should be co-operation with the trade unions, I am quite sure it would have been rejected by hon. Members opposite, but these very words have been put in by the most powerful trade union organisation in this country. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that this matter was brought forward by noble Lords who have had special knowledge of this problem, but it also happens to be true that the proposal was initiated and supported by very influential members of the medical trade union.

May I ask the hon. Member what he means by that? Does he mean the British Medical Association?

I mean the organised medical profession of this country.

Which organisation does he mean?

There is more than one, I understand, but I will take the hon. and gallant Gentleman's words, if he likes. I see no reason why he should be ashamed of his trade union.

I am not ashamed of it, but I want the hon. Member to be precise in what he says.

Well, to meet the hon. and gallant Member's wishes, shall I say the British Medical Association?

May I ask if Lord Dawson has anything to do with the British Medical Association?

I should think it very unlikely, but I should say at the same time that he is, no doubt, a loyal paying member of that trade union, and he is in a position to represent its case in the House of Lords. The real objection I take to this new Clause is not the consultation with the governing body because they are the responsible body and they are directly responsible to the locality. Why it should be made compulsory upon the local authorities to consult with the servants and committees of the voluntary hospitals I cannot understand, although I admit that many of those in charge of voluntary hospitals are public spirited men. Why should the local authorities not be called upon to consult their own medical staff, who have an equal right to be given representation on any committee for consultations of this kind? I am sorry that the Minister of Health should have lent himself to this new development of Sovietism in what is really a very Conservative profession.

It looks suspicious to me, and it seems to me that a body like the British Medical Association will oppose any arrangements which do not harmonise with their own professional interest. The governing bodies of many voluntary hospitals may be admirable for administrative purposes connected with their hospitals, but when it comes to a question of general policy it would be quite easy for them to unduly influence that policy through the specialists on their staffs. I think this new Clause gives cause for a certain amount of alarm, and I am sorry that the Government should have extended unnecessarily the number of people who are to be consulted on this question. No one would have objected to the council of the county of the governing body of the voluntary hospitals being consulted, although I fear that this is an attempt to make more effective the organisation of voluntary hospitals as against the growth and future development of municipal hospitals.

I wish to say a word or two in favour of this new Clause. I regret that pressure of time prevented a similar proposal to the one we are considering being dealt with in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "The guillotine."] However, the Amendments we put on the Amendment Paper were not reached, and another place has fulfilled a useful function on this occasion. We welcome this new Clause because we are deeply interested in the future development of hospitals, and because we feel that some sort of co-ordination should be established in the future between the voluntary system and the development of local government hospitals which is now sanctioned by this Bill and which is absolutely necessary in order to prevent a great deal of the overlapping which is likely to take place without the adoption of some method of co-ordination. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) would have agreed that consultation with the profession would be extremely useful in a matter of this kind. There is a vast amount of experience which has been gained by voluntary hospitals, not only in the matter of administration, but also in the matter of the co-ordination of work in the hospitals.

There is need for a separation of the different kinds of treatment. A vast amount of work is necessary in connection with reorganisation and co-ordination of the work of hospitals in order to secure that one sort of work is done by one hospital and another sort of work by another, and in such matters a large amount of medical advice is necessary. I think it is a little unfair on the part of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to imply that the medical profession should not be consulted in this matter. I think it is very much better that we should not be left to the scheme alone, but such a provision as that which is contained in this new Clause should be definitely laid down in the Bill. I welcome this Clause very heartily on behalf of those interested in the development of our hospital system, as an assurance that the wonderful old system of voluntary hospitals shall not be elbowed out and that a new development of hospitals will be the ultimate result. We owe to the Noble Lord who so eloquently and persistently urged the adoption of a new Clause of this kind another debt added to that great debt which the nation owes to him to-day and which the nation will never be able to pay to him.

I view this Clause with some slight apprehension. The Minister of Health who has asked us to agree with this new Clause put a certain poser to himself, and it was what will happen if the voluntary hospitals do not possess such a committee as that which is suggested. In that case what are the local authorities to do. Like Dogberry when he put a similar question, "What if they won't stop?" The right hon. Gentleman did not give us any real answer to that question, but he said the fact that they might form such a committee would have a salutary effect upon the voluntary associations. The right hon. Gentleman gave us no indication of what the local authorities were to do in a case where no such committee existed.

I think this is a very serious matter, because we are not really asking the local authority to consult this body, but we are instructing it to do so. The words of the new Clause are, "shall consult." Supposing the voluntary hospitals have no such committee as that which is described in this new Clause. In that case there is no obligation upon the voluntary hospitals under this Bill to form such a committee, and I do not see what the local authority is to do under such circumstances. Has the local authority to itself organise such a committee representing voluntary hospitals, or has it to run round to all the hospitals asking if they have such a committee? Supposing no such committee is formed, what is the position of the local authority? If the voluntary hospitals do not provide what is required, will the whole of the scheme being prepared by the local authority be held up? Is there any power vested in the local authority to get a mandamus to compel the voluntary hospitals to form such a committee? It seems to me that under this new Clause, the voluntary hospitals will be able to delay indefinitely or at any rate to hang up any suitable scheme proposed by the local authority. It must be realised that to some extent the voluntary hospitals and the institutions provided by the local authority are rival institutions, and that the voluntary hospitals will, to some extent, be anxious at any rate to delay the formation of institutions to be provided by the local authority.

I think this is a matter which requires very careful attention. I should not like to exaggerate, and I am not saying that the voluntary hospitals are not anxious that people should be attended to in the best way, nor am I going to say that the great bulk of them will not welcome such assistance from the local authority as may make the hospital accommodation more complete; but you will get cases, and it will be just in those cases that the position will arise where the voluntary hospitals will be jealous of any suggestion on the part of the local authority that the existing accommodation is inadequate, and that they propose to provide additional accommodation. Therefore, I think we need an answer to the question which the right hon. Gentleman himself put, but to which he has not supplied any answer.

I should not have ventured to intervene in this Debate unless it had been my lot to have to deal with some of the very questions for which this most admirable Clause is intended to provide. As a member of the governing bodies of two or three voluntary hospitals in a large city in the North, I have had to deal with these questions of co-ordination, which are absolutely vital and of the utmost importance. We have had definite cases of overlapping by different hospitals, where, by a little reasonable co-ordination, it has been possible to secure that each should confine itself to its own sphere of work. If anyone has any doubt on the matter, I am perfectly willing to give the names of two or three hospitals in Manchester which prove that up to the hilt. But the question which has been raised is not so much the question of consulting with the actual governing bodies of these hospitals, admirable as they are, and made up of business people, many of whom have devoted their lives and a good part of their fortunes to these objects. They are the best advisers that can possibly be had if it is desired that the work shall be done properly. In addition, however, the medical staffs must be consulted. They are the people who really know the points in question, and it is absolutely vital to have their views.

In the co-ordination of the hospitals in Manchester, we have had the loyal co-operation of those medical men who give a very large proportion of their lives to this kind of work, to a great extent voluntarily. I do wish that we could get rid of this talk about trade unions, and simply say that we want to get the work done properly by the right people who know how it should be done. Who are those people? I quite agree that it is very often best to leave the judgment in the hands of laymen, guided by the opinion which only the medical staffs of the voluntary hospitals can give. It is not only a question of healing, but also a question of research, of prevention, and of getting further knowledge. How is it possible to know what steps should be taken unless you consult the very people who have been doing the work for years in connection with voluntary hospitals in various parts of the country?

Then we must not forget, and I speak with some feeling on this matter, the question of the training of the medical men and the nurses. On that point I have come to the conclusion, after many years' experience, that the co-operation of the layman, the local authority, and the trained medical man is vital and essential, and I do think that, from all these points of view, it would be wrong if those who have had to deal with these very questions in practice under a large system did not say how grateful we are to those who have framed this Clause, and how grateful we are to the Govern- ment for having accepted it. We look forward to this Clause as one of the best possible aids to ensure that the right work is done in healing, research, adequate knowledge, and the proper training of those who have the care of sick people.

I am sure that the House will be surprised at the attitude taken on this matter by hon. Members on the benches above the Gangway. In my judgment, the issue is a very simple one; it is the issue of abstraction and theory as against practice. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood) raised objection to action being taken in consultation with a trade union, but I should have thought that that would have been welcomed, and not opposed, on the benches above the Gangway. I was also interested to notice, a little later in the hon. Gentleman's speech, the grudging way in which he covered his tracks by dragging in a reference to the voluntary services of the members of that particular trade union. I should have thought that, if any reference had been made to the voluntary services rendered to the hospitals by medical men, it would not have been in any grudging sense, but with a full recognition of the magnificent work that they do for the sick and poor of the country. I am quite sure that the insertion of this Clause will allay the alarms which have existed, and which were not based on abstraction and theory muffled in robes of Sovietism and phrases of that kind, which may fill the mouth but do not illuminate the mind. Those of us who serve on the committees of voluntary hospitals know quite well that the bulk of the work done by those hospitals is in the direction of cure, whereas the work done by the other hospitals is more in the direction of prevention, and, if there is to be thorough co-ordination, some effective link is necessary between those who serve voluntarily and whose main work is done to cure sufferers from accident and sickness, and those who new undertake the task of bringing together all the forces that make for the healing and prevention of disease.

I am glad to find that the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has said a great deal of what I wanted to say myself, as one who has been directly associated with voluntary hospitals for many years, regarding the ungenerous statements which have been made from the other side. I will confine myself to pointing out that the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) surely has not read the Clause. He talks about the possibility of delay, and rather suggests bad faith on the part of the governing committees and medical staffs of the voluntary hospitals, but he fails to see that it is the county council or the county borough council that has to determine who it is that is considered to represent the governing body and medical staff. The council may come to the conclusion that there is no one that they can call to their aid, or, at any rate, they have such a wide discretion that it is impossible to say that public services will be delayed deliberately, either by the governing body or by the medical staff.

The hon. and learned Member has not understood what I said. I said that, supposing there were no such body—and it may perfectly well happen that there may be no such body—I wanted to know in that event what the county council were to do.

The county council will go to work without reference to that body. It is not conceivable, surely, that, in order to consult under this Clause, the county council should create a body in an institution with which they have no direct concern. As has been pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir A. Hopkinson), it is only by voluntary effort and good will that these services can be made effective, and it is peculiarly ungenerous that such criticism should come from those who pretend to be the friends of the poor, who are the very persons to benefit by consultation of this sort, which will make the hospital service a reality without jealousy or bitterness. I sincerely hope that we shall not hear any more of this ungenerous criticism of the medical profession who give their lives to this work. All that can be said against them is that they have to buy their experience, and that really they are giving their voluntary services to the hospitals in order to gain experience for themselves, and, it may be, turn it into money in their private practice. That is the only way in which it is possible to depreciate the voluntary efforts of the medical pro- fession.When one knows what they do at all hours of the day or night on behalf of the poor, one can only resent very warmly the least suggestion that they are actuated otherwise than from the highest motives.

I presume the proximity of the General Election has led the right hon. Gentleman to make a speech which may or may not be calculated to bring in the suffrages of certain doctors.

The imputation of personal motives is contemptible.

The hon. and learned Gentleman ought not to impute motives.

I have no desire whatever to impute motives, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman accused us of speaking on behalf of the poor, when no-one had said a word against the doctors on this side, and I am entitled to draw attention to the fact that we are in close proximity to a General Election and that the irrelevant matter could only have been introduced for political purposes. There is no personal imputation on the right hon. Gentleman at all. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown) say we are concerned with abstraction and theory as against practice. I am concerned solely with the drafting of this Clause which it is suggested we should add to the Bill. Most of the discussion we have had this morning has been in truth abstraction and theory about the rights, status and qualifications of doctors, in which we all agree in giving them the greatest possible tribute, but after all we are here to consider the proposed Clause, and the question of the merits or demerits of doctors or anyone else has nothing to do with it. The first exception I take to the Clause is-this. It is a most unfortunate tendency, which has developed very rapidly, to overload legislation with minute and particular directions to particular bodies how they are or are not to carry on their duty. Even the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), who, I believe, in principle agrees with this consultation with the doctors, will agree that, other things being equal, the less minute directions you put into an Act of Parliament of a rigid kind dealing with a temporary situation the better, and this Clause seems to me, from the point of view of drafting, most offen- sive to that principle. The Bill is already complicated beyond all measure. There are directions, there are controls, there are conditions, there is every kind of device put into it to make it complicated and unworkable and, therefore, we should approach a clause of this kind with some suspicion. It is much better to allow local authorities to use their discretion and their wisdom in whom they will consult rather than to lay down Acts of Parliament rigid direction as to consultation.

In the first place, a consultation in itself means in law nothing at all. It is like that precious phrase which has crept so much into modern legislation, "shall have regard to" this, that or the other. It has no real legal meaning at all and it, therefore, merely confuses the law. But this Clause is even more objectionable than that, because it not only uses such a phrase as "shall have regard to," but imposes a direct obligation on the council of every county to do a certain act. It says they shall, when making provision for hospital accommodation, consult certain bodies. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) asks pertinently, "What are you going to do if the body does not exist?" I do not thing the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) meets the point at all when he says that in that case it will carry on without it. The Clause says in terms that you are bound to consult this body. It gives no guidance as to where it is to be found or what body it is. "Consult such a Committee as it considers represents the hospitals and the staff." Is there such a committee in existence? There may or may not be. Those hon. Members opposite who understand more fully than I do the workings of the medical profession can tell us whether, in the case of most or all voluntary hospitals, there is a committee representing the governing body and the staff. There may or may not be, but there is not the slightest indication in the Clause as to where such a body is to be found or how it is to be constituted, or how you are to constitute it if it does not exist. Nevertheless, this uncertain, inchoate and doubtful body is to be consulted. What is going to happen if you do not consult it I do not know. My hon. Friend raised the question whether you could get a mandamus in a court of law to compel them to consult it. I am not on abstractions at all but on realities. If there is an obligation to do a certain act, how is it to be performed? There may be a case for putting an obligation within the Clause, but it is very badly drafted and utterly inapt to produce the result that is desired. You have to consult this committee which represents the medical and surgical staff of the hospital. What is the medical staff of the hospital? Does it mean the doctors? Does it include the nurses? Does it include the ladies who carry out the slops and do the subordinate medical and surgical work? There is no definition at all.

When this consultation has taken place, what is to happen? There is no provision as to what is to be done as the result of the consultation, whether they are to ignore it or to have regard to it. Again, are they to have a consultation with the medical governing bodies of every single voluntary hospital in the area, or are they to form one joint committee to represent all the hospitals? In a large city you get a number of hospitals. The real truth is that this is not legislation. This is journalism, as so many Clauses are. It is a Clause on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing may hang a speech in praise of the doctors, with the sentiment of which we should all agree, but it is not really a Clause which would possibly be interpreted or administered in a court of law. In other words, it is meaningless, like so much modern legislation. One of the objects of legislation is to give directions to His Majesty's subjects how they shall behave, and to intimate to the courts of law how they shall interpret the law. Judged by such an object, and not merely by politics or journalism, this Clause means nothing, and I protest against the overburdening of a Bill, already far too complicated, with mere pious aspirations of this kind, which may or may not have political advantages but which cannot have any real legal result at all. If we must have such a Clause it should have the word "may" and not the word "shall." I have never in the whole of my experience known a Clause, or a part of an Act of Parliament, which has compelled one body to do an act when the machinery is not there in order that it may do it, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing, who has such great experience of the administration of the law, should seriously tell the House that when someone is required by Act of Parliament to do something, and the thing he is required to do becomes impossible, there the matter may end. These people are compelled to consult the committees. There is no machinery for setting up the committees, and we ask what is to happen to an unfortunate county when it is compelled to consult a committee which does not exist.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has invited the House to approach this Clause with some suspicion. I ask the House to approach it with some sympathy and to give it its support. The hon. and learned Gentleman has given us what he thinks is the law, and the legal effect of the Clause. Happily, in another place many distinguished lawyers including men who sit upon the highest Appeal Tribunal in the country and judges of the land took part in the discussion. They devoted considerable time and discussion to the framing of this Clause. One of the Members who gave considerable assistance to the Government and who very earnestly desired to see some Clause of this kind placed upon the Statute Book was the Master of the Rolls.

Some Clause; not this particular Clause.

I prefer, if the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) will permit me to say so, their view as to whether a Clause of this kind is likely to have any legal or practical effect rather than the view which he has just expressed. I have no doubt that the expression of opinion which I have taken will generally be accepted by Members in all quarters of the House. What is the object of this Clause? Will it have any legal effect? Is it merely waste paper, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says? The object of this Clause is a very natural one, and, I should have thought, a very desirable one, and it has been put forward in the interests of the voluntary hospitals of the country. They say, inasmuch as under this particular Measure new duties will be cast upon the counties and the borough councils in the provision of hospital accommodation, that before any new scheme can be embarked upon there shall be consultation with representatives of the voluntary hospitals and of their staffs with reference to the use to which such accommodation shall be put. I should have thought that the object of that would have been seen by Members in all quarters of the House.

No legal obligation is cast upon the local authorities to accept that advice, but I think it will again be generally accepted that when the local authorities enter into consultation with representatives of the voluntary hospitals of the country it will be a friendly consultation and one entered upon in order to do the best for the municipalities and for the hospitals of the country. My opinion of the local authorities is not that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not for a moment think that this will be an empty consultation. It will be a consultation designed really in the interests of the poor and of the sick people of this country to avoid overlapping and to see that the very best provision is made to remove the difficulties from which the people are suffering at the present time. Obviously, this Clause is a very desirable one, and I think that it will receive the acceptance of the House.

The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) asks: "What is to happen if there is no committee or other body?" That matter has received consideration, and consideration from the legal point of view also. From the point of view of the practical effect of this Clause, it is within the knowledge of the Ministry, and of most people who are interested in hospital work, that already there are in existence a very large number of associations in the various areas. Where there are no such associations at the present time my right hon. Friend is assured, and this House can be assured—and we have good evidence to the effect—that the voluntary hospitals in the areas where there is no such body or committee will see to it that one is formed. It is obviously in their interests to do so. They are not going to sit tight and lose an opportunity which is for their own advancement, and for the benefit of the voluntary hospital movement. Where there is no committee or body one will be formed.

12 n.

The only other point is a purely legal one. The hon. Gentleman will remember, as he followed the matter when this question was discussed, that when the Clause was originally drafted the words "if any" appeared in it. One of the greatest lawyers in another place, a man who at one time occupied the position of Lord Chief Justice in this country, said that there was no need to have in the words "if any." If there was no such body, from the legal point of view, the duty cast upon the particular local authorities would fall to the ground. He was very anxious to promote this consultation between the local authorities and the voluntary hospitals, and he said, "If we put in these words, it will look like an invitation to some voluntary hospital organisations in the various districts not to have a committee or body. Do not put in anything that makes any alteration in the legal point of view or that will imply to any of those areas that there shall not be instituted any body representing the voluntary hospitals of the country."

Surely, on a Clause of this kind we ought to have unanimous agreement. The points put by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South East Leeds are really not worthy of our consideration. This is a Clause which I should have thought that all parties would have been united and agreeable to having on the Statute Book in order that we might have the voluntary hospitals on the one hand and the local authorities on the other holding a genuine and friendly consultation. We do not want to see, as was implied in the criticism of the hon. and learned Gentleman, some mandatory direction to the local authorities as to what they shall do. That is not the way to get a reasonable arrangement as regards hospital accommodation in this country. I think that we are carrying out this matter in the very best way and that we can trust the local authorities and the bodies representing the voluntary hospitals genuinely to consult in this matter and come to conclusions in the best interests of all concerned. I hope, therefore, that we shall be content to pass the Clause in the form proposed as being one to which consideration has been given by a large number of people interested in the voluntary hospital movement and by the local authorities.

It is rather strange that so many Members opposite should think that we view this proposal with so much suspicion and that we should then be taunted with receiving the benefits of the voluntary hospitals. We in the Labour and Trade Union Movement know all about the work of the voluntary hospitals. In the East End of London especially, we have done something towards helping them. For nearly 50 years, I have been doing my share, along with others, in looking after the voluntary hospitals. If any hon. Members lived in the county in which I live and had had the report brought to their notice as was brought to my notice just recently, they would realise the seriousness of this problem. The local authority's medical superintendent had to report to his Board that within three weeks they had lost 100 patients. That was mainly owing to want of accommodation. It was distinctly stated that if they had had more accommodation in the local hospital, many lives would have been saved. Had the right hon. Gentleman been living in a district where people had lost their breadwinner, or where the life of the wife had been lost, he would view the proposal in the new Clause with a little suspicion, especially in view of the fact that this particular Board had approached the Minister of Health and asked for sanction to increase their hospital accommodation, but had not received his approval. They were desirous of spending something like £33,000 on enlarging their accommodation. If the Minister takes so long under the present arrangements to give his approval to such a scheme, what will happen when this new Clause comes into operation, if we have the same Minister of Health—I hope we shall not—and it becomes necessary to go round to these other bodies for consultation?

I do not think the hon. Member is now dealing with matters which are very relevant to the Amendment.

I thought that I should be in order in raising this matter, seeing that the Amendment says that the council shall

"consult such committee or other body."

Therefore, if they have to consult other committees or bodies it will mean that they will be longer before they can get to the Minister of Health for the purpose of obtaining his sanction to any extension which they may wish to make. When they have only one channel to go to, and that channel is so slow in coming to a conclusion either to refuse or to sanction a scheme, and they are to be expected in future to consult with these other bodies, then it is time that we had something to say about it. I view this new Clause with a great deal of alarm and suspicion, and I contend that the local authorities ought to have the right to make their schemes to get sanction as quickly as possible, when they know that the accommodation is required.

I should have imagined that the whole substance of the speech just delivered was very strongly in support of the Clause. Every word of substance which fell from the hon. Member was a powerful plea in favour of passing this Clause, or some similar Clause. I am neither a lawyer nor a doctor. Not being a lawyer, I cannot respond to the courteous invitation of the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), but as a mere layman I should like to give very cordial support to the Clause from the point of view of one who is, like other members of this House, most keenly interested in the health and physical well-being of a great urban constituency. We ought to look at this Clause not from the point of view of the suspicion of a great profession, and lees from the point of view of the administration of the hospitals, but rather from the point of view of the health and well-being of the people whom we represent. I have not the slightest doubt that this Clause will tend to the better administration of the health services of our great urban communities.

I support the Clause, also, from the point of view of those who are keenly interested in the prevention of disease by research. I am quite clear that this Clause will help in the co-ordination of research work in our great urban communities. From that point of view, it is exceedingly important that the Clause should be passed. Over and over again during the discussion of this Bill we have had long debates about the health, good government, and welfare of our great local communities, and I heartily rejoice that in another place it has been found possible to insert a Clause which will work untold benefit for the people whom we severally represent. It is a mere matter of commonsense that when you are regarding the health of a community the governing body of that community should take into the closest consultation those who have devoted themselves to this work.

Although I do not wish to lay myself open to the rather unkind and unworthy suspicion which was expressed by the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds as to the approximate date of the general election, I should like to be allowed to express, very modestly and very respectfully, my enormous admiration for the generous, unselfish, and devoted services of the physicians and surgeons in our great voluntary hospitals. No one who has not had some experience of the administration of those hospitals can possibly know the unselfish devotion which is given to that work, and I am exceedingly sorry that even one word should have been said in this debate which seemed to throw any ungenerous suspicion upon the motives of those who devote themselves to that work. I can speak for two great voluntary hospitals, and two important urban communities, and from my local knowledge of them I should like to say how cordially I support the Clause.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

It will be within the knowledge of many hon. Members that there is a growing practice to form associations amongst wage-earners or persons not in receipt of large incomes to contribute regular sums weekly for the support of voluntary hospitals in their neighbourhood, who get in return treatment, where treatment can be given at those hospitals, when they require it, without their being asked to make any special contributions towards the funds. In more than one place there has grown up a practice which I think is rather doubtful from the point of view of its legality, but which certainly is not undesirable in itself, to include among the hospitals in such schemes, Poor Law hospitals. In a case which came to my notice last year, a sum of very nearly £10,000 was paid to the guardians in respect of services rendered by a Poor Law hospital. Now that Poor Law hospitals are to be taken over by the local authorities, the county and borough councils, it seems desirable that we should regularise this procedure and make it possible in future for the associations to pay a sum to the local authorities which otherwise would be recoverable from the patients, where those patients have become members of an association of this sort. That is the purpose of the Amendment.

I desire to draw the attention of the House to the extraordinary capricious and unsatisfactory manner in which we have now left this method of obtaining remission of relief. I must point out the anomalies which will arise from the operation of this Amendment read in connection with the original Clause. Under the old Acts a public health authority may remit the costs to a patient, and under the old laws a Poor Law authority may recover. The word in the Poor Law Acts was "may," not "shall," although the Minister of Health assured the House that the Poor Law authorities were under an obligation in this matter. We start with a state of affairs in which the poor law authorities "may" recover contributions. There is nothing whatever about their being under an obligation to do so. The word in the Poor Law Acts is "may," not "shall," and the word in the Public Health Acts is "may," not "shall." We then imported the word "shall," and applied it alike to public health authorities and to poor law authorities. We changed the word "may" to "shall" in both instances, and imposed a general order on public health authorities and on poor law authorities that they should recover as much of the cost of treatment as the patients or their relatives could reasonably afford. Now we are going to make an exception and to restore the old position of Poor Law authorities and public health authorities in the one case in which a person is a member of an association of some kind or other.

I am very glad to let anybody off; I am glad to restore the old position under the Poor Law Acts or the Public Health Acts in any single case. I am delighted that local authorities in England are to be in the same position as local authorities in Scotland with regard to any single class of persons. If the right hon. Gentleman had put in an arbitrary distinction, removing certain people from the operation of the present laws, I should have been delighted; butt the people whom the right hon. Gentleman is relieving from the obligation to repay and from the necessity of an inquiry into their circumstances, are not the poorest class in the land. When we are dealing with voluntary societies everybody knows that lapsing of payments is one result of poverty and illness. You may have two people in the same street, one in comfortable circumstances who has been able to keep up his payments to his voluntary society, and the man next door who is unable to keep up his payments. In the case of the man who is pretty well off no questions will be asked as his subscriptions will cover him, but in the case of the poor fellow who has been forced to let his subscriptions lapse, the cruel obligation of recovery imposed by the original Clause and the necessity of an inquiry into his circumstances will be enforced. That is an entirely irrational proceeding.

I want to know something about these societies. If the right hon. Gentleman had said approved societies I could have understood it, but even if it is a question of an approved society making a contribution to a hospital, it will be the comparatively rich society which will be able to do so; the extremely poor approved society will not be able to afford these benefits for their members. So far as approved societies are concerned, the distinction will benefit those who are comfortably off as against those who are less comfortably off. And what sort of a society is it? It does not say an approved society. It might be the annual goose club, or any little hole and corner rat-catching society. The Clause is badly drafted. If we were dealing with approved societies—

The hon. Member is discussing the whole Clause. She must confine her remarks to the Amendment which it is proposed to add to the Clause.

I was discussing the Amendment. I was dealing with those associations on whose behalf contributions will be accepted. There is no distinction. If you take approved societies, it is those which are best off which make these contributions; the poor approved societies cannot make them, and their members do not get these extra benefits. I am speaking of the associations which may make contributions to a hospital. Approved societies which are well off give their members medical benefit, but approved societies supported by groups of poor persons cannot afford these additional benefits. Therefore, there will be a distinction between the members of a rich approved society and the members of a poor approved society. Then the persons who make extra contributions to some societies will be those who are more comfortably off, who will be able to keep them up, while poor people will be unable to do so. The whole effect of the Amendment is to take out of the present provisions the class of people who are tolerably well off. I look back with regret to the absolutely simple state of the law before the Amendment was introduced and before the Clause was modified, when the poor law authority might remit the charge if they pleased and the public health authority might charge if they pleased. The Amendment is a confession of the folly of the original Clause and I hope it will undergo an amendment in another stage.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment, and the next Amendment, in page 14, line 34, at the end, to insert:

"(c) the administrative scheme may make provision for the appointment—

(i) of sub-committees of the public assistance committee (in this Section referred to as 'local committees') consisting wholly or partly of members of that committee; and

(ii) of sub-committees of local committees, consisting wholly or partly of members of the local committees;

for the functions of such local committees and for the discharge by the sub-committees thereof of any of the functions which, under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, are to be discharged by guardians committees or sub-committees thereof"—

must be taken together. They deal with the administrative arrangements in London only. The Amendment has been agreed upon with representatives of the London County Council and it is designed to enable the work to be carried without overloading the members of any committee.

I have to inform the House that this Amendment raises the question of Privilege.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

A note will be made in the Journals of the House that the Amendment was made.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment and the next are intended to make it clear that the county councils' functions are in respect of county roads and do not extend to the roads of an urban authority.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is to make it clear that the county council are to be responsible for all bridges, repairable in the county at large, which carry the county roads.

This Amendment and two which follow are not of importance, but they provide that the county council in sending its statement to the district council need not send the whole statement but only that part of it which concerns the district council in question.

This Amendment again raises the question of Privilege.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a Clause that might well be accepted. The object is to preserve the rights of public utility undertakings to obtain compensation for damage age done to their sub-surface by roadwork. They have the power to obtain compensation in regard to district council work, but they do not get it in regard to county councils, and when the roads are transferred to the county councils they desire to preserve the rights of compensation which they had when the authority responsible was the district council.

A note will be made in the Journals of the House recording that the Amendment was made.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

In the original Clause, the date at which it is compulsory upon local authorities to prepare town planning schemes is 1939. In another place it was suggested that this allowed too long a time. Although it does not make much difference in the long run, still I do not feel that we need resist such an Amendment as that which is now before the House.

Why is it that when a reasonable suggestion is made from this side of the House it is invariably declined, and when a similar suggestion is made in another place it is accepted?

It may well be that a case which is put here does not sound so reasonable as when it is put more ably in another place.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

There is a provision in the Poor Law Act which requires returns of this kind to be made, but there is no such pro- vision in the Public Health Act or in the Local Government Act of 1888. If, as is likely, work which was hitherto done under the Poor Law Act should in future be done under these other Acts, there would be no power to require a local authority to make the necessary returns. I do not suggest that there will be any reluctance on the part of local authorities to make these returns, but, if there were, it might seriously affect the continuity of statistics which will be of value.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The effect of this Amendment is to widen the Clause, so as to cover the travelling expenses of the representatives of county councils or joint committees representing both counties and non-county boroughs. The Clause as originally drafted did not cover all thi3, and we want to put the matter right.

The effect of this Amendment is to repeal Section 236 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, which is really obsolete and which deals with the affixing to a town hall of certain notices and also of certain correspondence, for purposes of publicity. The House may be aware that under the Public Health Act of 1875 a town council, in such circumstances, can pass a resolution which goes to the Minister, and the Minister on re- ceipt of the resolution may, if he thinks it desirable to do so, order a public inquiry, and of that inquiry full advertisement is given. It has been represented to us by the municipal corporations that this section of the Municipal Corporations Act does not give any effective help to-day and involves a rather unnecessary and wasteful procedure. People do not look for these notices at the town hall and are more likely to see notices which appear in the newspapers.

I have to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment raises the question of Privilege.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment gives the power to rural district councils to promote and oppose Bills in Parliament and to prosecute or defend any legal proceedings necessary in the interests of their districts. It places the rural district councils in the same position as other local authorities in this respect. I think it is only right that the power should be given to these authorities to take proceedings in such matters. We desire to give them the same authority and power as other bodies.

A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House with reference to the question of Privilege.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment will be of interest to those Members of the House who are concerned about the conditions relating to the compensation of officers who are transferred. In conjunction with the next Amendment—in line 23, at the end, to insert:

"any of the provisions of this Act relating to the transfer, superannuation, and compensation of officers and any of the provisions of section sixty-three of the Local Government Act, 1894"—

it enables the Minister to apply the provisions of this Measure as to the transfer, superannuation and compensation of officers, in connection with any transference of functions from district councils to county councils.

I have to inform the House that this Amendment raises the question of Privilege.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House of this Amendment.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is the Clause which deals with the supervision of midwives and some apprehensions have been expressed as, to its effects. This Amendment which is to be taken in conjunction with the following Amendment—in line 38, at the end, to insert:

"(2) Before making an order under the last foregoing subsection, the Minister shall consult with the county council and shall, if requested by them, hold a local enquiry"—

provide for a local inquiry at request of the county council at which representations can be made by all parties. I think that is sufficient to remove all those apprehensions to which I have referred.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

It may be remembered that in Committee, questions were raised about these words, which require the district councils and their officers to give information to the county council. These words are unnecessary, as a similar provision in more general terms is contained in Clause 119.

This Amendment and the next one—in line 28, at the end, to insert:

"any of the provisions of this Act relating to the transfer, superannuation and compensation of officers and any of the provisions of section sixty-three of the Local Government Act, 1894"

—taken together, raise a question of Privilege.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

So struck is the right hon. Gentleman with the ability of the other place that he is content to leave financial matters in their hands.

A note will be made in the Journals of the House that the Amendment was made.

Again, I must point out that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is the Amendment to which I referred on the very first Amendment to the Title of the Bill, when I explained the position, and I imagine that it is not necessary to repeat what I then said.

I only regret that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) has not fully recovered from his illness and so is unable to speak on this point, because I remember an extraordinarily able and metaphysical speech which he made on this particular question in the Debate of last year. I am sure the House will be glad to know that my hon. and learned Friend is recovering from his illness.

This new Clause seems to me to assume that a factory or workshop must be some place occupied by one person, although there may be other persons working therein but not in his employment. I should like to know if that is the case.

I am afraid the hon. Member was not here when I explained this matter at the beginning of our proceedings to-day.

I was here.

Then perhaps the hon. Member was not listening.

I was.

It is discouraging to hear that, because I have no reason to suppose that if I explain it again there will be any better result; but this Clause is for the purpose of removing a doubt as to the interpretation of the term "factory or workshop." The object of the Clause is to make it clear that the place may be a factory or workshop even though there is nobody working there who is actually employed by the occupier or owner of the hereditament.

Does this new Clause make it clear that where you have a place occupied for the mending of fishing nets, which is not technically a factory under the Act, it will enable that form of industry to be helped, which I believe is the intention of the Ministry?

That is a a conundrum that I am not prepared to answer without further examination. I imagine that will depend upon whether the hereditament in question is a factory or workshop.

It seems very unsatisfactory that at the last stage of this Bill, despite the ability of the right hon. Gentleman, he cannot tell one of his own colleagues what we are legislating about.

I did not say that.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the hon. and gallant Member's question as a conundrum, and surely, in accepting this Amendment from another place, he must explain whether or not the hon. and gallant Member's case is covered or is intended to be covered. Surely it is unsatisfac- tory to part with this Amendment when the Minister in charge of it cannot explain it. With all his ability, he cannot answer a plain question which touches the fishing industry not only in the South-West of England, but in Scotland as well.

A note will be made in the Journals of the House that the Amendment was made.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This deals with the question of compounding. The House will remember that the class of property to which rating authorities could, by resolution, apply the principle of rating owners was to be so defined as to cover only hereditaments not exceeding £13 rateable value, the rent of which became payable and was collected at less than quarterly intervals-This new Clause is in order to meet the wishes of the local authorities and to enable them, if they think fit, to bring all this property into compounding despite the fact that it may be let on quarterly or longer tenancies.

I want to thank the Government for this Amendment, which will be very acceptable to the local authorities.

This Amendment also raises a question of Privilege.

I beg to move,

"That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

While I move this on the question of Privilege, I may perhaps point out to the House the reasons which, in my opinion, would render this Amendment particularly undesirable on its merits. What we are trying to do in Clause 65 is to carry out what are called consequential provisions, and here we are endeavouring to leave matters, as nearly as it is possible to leave them, in their present position, but if this Amendment which has been inserted in another place were to find a permanent home in the Bill, it would introduce an entirely new principle of rating. Instead of saying that a house shall be rated according to the rent which a hypothetical tenant might reasonably be supposed to be willing to pay for it on certain conditions, it would say that a person engaged in a particular kind of occupation should carry about that occupation to whatever house he occupied.

But not an industrial one.

It is a far-reaching change in our present system, and, indeed, it is very difficult to see why it should be confined to a person following one particular occupation. When this Amendment was proposed in another place, there was a Noble Lord who desired to extend it, not merely to agricultural workers, but to other workers engaged in an industrial occupation. If it could be shown that another person engaged in some other occupation is in the same sort of economic or financial position, it would be difficult to see on what grounds of equity you could justify the distinction between the two classes. I dare say it would be possible to say still more if necessary, and to consider the question of what this might lead to in the long run—whether it would benefit the agricultural labourer himself, or go in some other direction. I think the House will see that there are solid, substantial grounds for insisting on the privilege of this House.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I had better say a word on this Amendment, which is designed to ensure that the tenants of parts of premises which may not for the time being be the subject of separate assessments shall receive the benefit of the rate of relief which, where inclusive rents are paid, would otherwise pass to the landlord.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This and the next Amendment—in line 41, at the end, insert:

"(2) an Order under this Section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made"—

should be taken together. They provide that where the Minister is varying the increase in the specified rate of poundage and putting in some other figure, he has to do it by Order, and Parliament is to have an opportunity of revising that Order.

This Amendment, taken together with the following Amendment—in line 25, at the end, to insert a new Sub-section (3)—raises the question of Privilege, and I must call the attention of the House to them.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This raises rather a technical matter. The additional Sub-section is necessary to meet the possible case of hereditaments liable to a drainage rate for which the basis has been rateable value and is now to be Schedule A gross value which are not assessed for Schedule A.

I want to ask whether there will not be a certain amount of difficulty about the collection of the rates. The collection under the existing system is done by the local authorities, and if we are to adopt Schedule A the rate will be collected under a system over which they have no control.

I do not think there will be any difficulty in that connection, but I will certainly make some inquiries on the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has raised. It does not arise on this Amendment.

I will cause an entry to be made in regard to this Amendment in the Journal of the House.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This seems, on the face of it, a little more than a drafting Amendment, and perhaps we might have some explanation.

This is simply a change of place in the Bill.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is the change of place to which I referred just now.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that this is merely a change of place, and does not in any way affect the amount of the distribution?

That is so.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Clause is in conformity with Clause 94. It is not necessary to give six months' notice.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is being proposed in response to a request made by certain local authorities in order to remove any possible doubt that local authorities who have kept their accounts on a receipts and payment basis will not be required, for the purpose of the calculation of grant, to reconstruct them on an income and expenditure basis. The actual account kept will be used for the purpose of calculations and estimates to be made under the Bill.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

In regard to this Amendment, and the one following—in page 87, at the end of line 32, insert "or by such other means as may be agreed between the Minister and the council"—it has been represented to us by certain local authorities that they would desire to pay the debt, if they are in a position to do so, in a shorter period than the fifteen years mentioned in this Clause. It is to enable them to do so that this Amendment is being incorporated.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Money has been in the hands of trustees for the purpose of paying the expense of repairing certain roads, and the object of this new Sub-section is to avoid unnecessary account keeping, and to see that the money is kept for the purposes of the parish for whose benefit it was intended.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This arises out of an undertaking given in the House that the Government would consider inserting a provision enabling the district council and county council to agree that in the event of a quarry, plant, etc., being taken over by the county council, some or all of the liabilities contracted in respect of it should pass to the county council, and provision is made accordingly to allow such an arrangement to be made. If, however, any part of the liability is transferred to the county council, it would not be right that this council should pay the district council the full value of the property, and we are proposing to omit the words "as representing the value of the property so transferred at the time of the transfer."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is another matter affecting the officers transferred to a council, who have adopted the Act of 1922 and do not elect to remain under Poor Law Officers (Superannuation) Act of 1896, and this Amendment provides that they will continue to have the benefit, if they so desire, of the Act of 1922.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." This Amendment deals with an objection that it ought not to be laid down in the Statute that the county council be empowered to demand from the officers of another local authority certain information, and it provides that the authority is the channel through which the information will be provided.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment does not read, as it stands, because "the last foregoing Section" is Section 121, whereas the Section referred to is 123. Therefore, I want to explain to the House that the order of these Sections is going to be reversed when the Bill is printed, and what is now Section 123 will come before what is now Section 122.

That is to say, all Orders will have to be laid under the old procedure, calling for an Address if objected to, except Orders under Section 123.

Yes, it excepts Section 123. That is not necessary because we have another provision.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Under the last section certain Orders are provided for, and it is laid down that they must be laid before Parliament and that an Address may be presented within a certain number of days asking for them to be annulled. Under this Clause 123 we have gone further and we have put in a provision that there must be a positive, affirmative Resolution supporting the action of the Minister under this Clause, if it is to become operative. We had a discussion upon this matter in this House and Amendments were made here which, I think were fairly satisfactory to everybody and entirely satisfactory to most of the Members of the House. Still, there were certain Noble Lords in another place who felt that further restrictions upon the possibility of bureaucratic action by some future Minister—I think all were careful to explain that it was a future Minister they had in mind and not the present Minister—might be desirable. This provision was offered to them and received by them with, I might almost say, enthusiasm, so far as enthusiasm is ever shown in another place, and I hope it will be received with equal enthusiasm by hon. Members of this House.

Before I make a few general remarks on this subject I wish to ask how we stand about an Order which should vary one of these Orders. Clause 122 gives the Minister power to make an Order varying an existing Order. As far as I can understand it, that Order varying an existing Order can only be checked by an Address. An Order removing the difficulties, which may be the original Order which has been varied, requires a positive Motion of approval. Is that the position?

Yes.

That is to say, if the Minister makes an Order amending the Act, at any rate what he is pleased to call remove difficulties, under Clause 123 he must get a positive confirmation from both Houses, but if he subsequently makes another Order fortifying his original Order for removing the difficulties he does not have to get any approval.

If the hon. Member will look at Clause 122, he will see that it says there:

"Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, any order or scheme made under this Act may be altered or revoked by an order or scheme made in like manner and subject to the like provisions as the original order or scheme."

I had overlooked that. I am quite satisfied. I have made a mistake. Now I want to say that this is another case where the Minister by his Guillotine and by refusing to meet reasonable criticism in this House has really degraded the House of Commons as a debating assembly. [Laughter.] This is really more than a joke. We have got past the time of Runnymede and Magna Carta, and we look to this House to protect the liberties of the subject.

I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the Guillotine is an Order of the House and not an Order of the Minister.

I am well aware that I am not permitted to criticise any Order of the House. I merely say that owing to the course of the Debate and in consequence of Motions made by the right hon. Gentleman carlier on it is a fact—without casting any reflections upon this House—that this Debate was greatly curtailed. The discussion on this particular question was not actually terminated by the operation of the Guillotine, but the whole Debate was curtailed because we were expecting the Guillotine at half-past seven. This precise suggestion was made to the Minister in this House, and the Attorney-General, I think it was, although he did not speak very strongly against it, rejected it. Why is it that a suggestion should be rejected by the Minister when it is made in this House and accepted by the Government in another place?

It was not in this form.

Oh, no. The right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. A Member of his own side said what many of us would have said if we had had an opportunity, that there ought to be a positive Resolution of approval. That was the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson). That suggestion was rejected by the Government.

In that form.

I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman says "in that form." What was asked for was a positive Resolution of approval.

The explanation is very simple. In the form in which it was originally presented the Order was not to be operative till this affirmative Resolution had been passed. As was pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend as well as by myself, that was an absolutely impossible suggestion, because the whole point of Clause 123 is to enable the Minister to deal with a situation which is urgent, and if it should happen that the Houses of Parliament were not sitting it would not be possible to wait until an affirmative Resolution could be passed. That was the reason why the suggestion was rejected in this House. This Amendment gets over that difficulty.

I read the very able exposition in the other House, and I was shocked that this House should have been estopped from making its case on a point on which we all felt deeply. The reason we could not make our case was that the attempt to draft Amendments and have them discussed on the Committee stage was a fatuity. The best we could do was to make the point.

I suppose the hon. Gentleman is speaking for himself and his friends.

That is a very quick retort, but not very effective. The narrow limits within which we were working made it quite impossible for us to do more than make our case and ask the Government to take it up, and that is exactly what was done, not only from our side of the House but from many other quarters. There is reciprocal subservience between the Government and the Upper Chamber. They are subservient to the Upper Chamber, and the Upper Chamber, when required, is subservient to them. That is what has occurred in this case, and I say it is a matter for deep regret that it has not been left to the elected representatives of the people to erect this, which is something of a barrier, against the undue exercise of bureaucratic powers.

"All's well that ends well." This matter has certainly ended very well indeed. I was one of those who, with the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson), brought forward an Amendment which did not do exactly one of the things which needed to be done. There were two things to be done—enable the Minister to act, and to act at once. Unless he acted at once it was no good at all. That was the practical question; but some of us also felt that the constitutional question was of very great importance, and we did not want another precedent set for the over-riding of Acts of Parliament by Departments. The other place has secured a very happy solution. The Minister can act and can act at once, and the beauty of it is that his act, though it comes into operation at once, as was absolutely necessary, is to be limited in time until this House has had the opportunity of confirming it. The question is not a pedantic one. We are all very glad that a practical solution has been found, and that the constitutional question has been very carefully guarded. I will not go into the details of this Clause, which has been very carefully drawn, but I will congratulate everybody concerned in regard to it. We have saved the Constitution on the one hand, and on the other hand the Minister will be able to bring the Act into operation without any undue delay. I have very great pleasure in supporting the agreement which has been arrived at upon this question.

I would like to remind the House that on the Second Reading of this Bill I called attention to this particular matter, in fact, I drew attention to the whole structure of the Clause. In the first draft of the Bill which I received I put in tie margin opposite this Clause "Henry VIII." I suspected this provision from the first, and, in fact, I thought that the only word that was missing from it was the word "proclaim." It seemed to me to be a great pity that in view of the large number of words put into the Clause conferring powers the word "proclaim" was not put in. I do not agree that congratulations are due to the Minister of Health in regard to this matter, because it is only after the most intense debate that we have been able to secure a modification of the original Clause.

I think congratulations are due to the Members of this House for the final result which has been achieved in this Clause, and I do not think those congratulations ought to be extended either to the Minister of Health or the Parliamentary Secretary. The attempt we made to obtain a reason- able constitutional procedure in this matter was like drawing the teeth of an unwilling patient. Concessions were extracted under very great difficulty and it needed a Committee stage in this House and a considerable amount of discussion to persuade the Minister to consider any Amendment. On the Report stage hon. Members again expressed their dissatisfaction on this point, and even then the Minister of Health refused to give way to the widespread opinion which was expressed in all parts of this Chamber. It was not until the Bill went to another place where the friends of the Government are present in overwhelming numbers that the Minister of Health decided that discretion was the better part of valour. We have a far more reasonable proposition in this Clause than that which was inserted in the Bill, and although we do not disagree with the Lords Amendment we protest against the Minister refusing to meet the wishes of the representatives of the people in former discussions on this question.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Although this Amendment is rather long, it is really only a drafting Amendment. The new words are

"elsewhere than in the County of London."

These words are put in because the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, does not apply to London.

I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that the question of Privilege is raised by this Amendment.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a further concession to the Poor Law officers, and I think that many Members of the House have had representations made to them by those who are covered by this Clause. The number of cases to which the Amendment will apply is limited. An extreme case is that of the man who, after full-time service in one nominal capacity for a number of years, finds that the work which he has been doing is split into two parts, and he is given two nominal appointments where only one formerly existed. That is one extreme case; hon. Members may know of others. The object of this Amendment is to meet fully the cases of such officers.

I am very glad that the Government have seen the desirability of meeting the Poor Law officers in this matter. Although the number of cases is very limited, the concession, so far as it goes, is of considerable value.

Mr. Speaker will cause an entry to be made in the Journals of the House with regard to this Amendment.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This makes a temporary arrangement in London for the purpose of easing the machinery.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a modification of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, and is consequential on Part III of the Bill. Under Clause 28 of the Bill, county councils have, in respect of county roads, like powers to those which they have with respect to main roads. One of those powers is the power of dismaining a section of a road which has been mained in pursuance of the Act. The present limitation is inappropriate, since all classified roads will become county roads under the operation of the Bill, and it will be necessary for the dismaining powers to apply to them as well as to roads mained under the Act of 1878.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

We come now to a series of Amendments all dealing with points of very minor importance. All of them are, perhaps, a little obscure, but I do not think I ought to trouble the House by giving a separate and independent account of each Amendment, unless there be any on which any hon. Member desires information. I shall, however, be ready to answer any questions should any points arise.