Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

1° Decembris, 1926.] Sir FREDERICK LIDDELL, K.C.B., and Mr. H. J. COMYNS.

[Continued.

Lord Warrington.

83. Is there anything in this? Apparently the power of the Minister to divide into wards is for the purpose of an election, whereas the power of the County Council appears to be more general, because these are to be similar to those which in this part of this Act are, for the purpose of election of guardians, vested in the Minister. It looks on the first glance at it as if there was some distinction?-(Sir Frederick Liddell.) I do not think a ward is anything but an electoral area. an area for any other purpose.

Mr. Hudson.

It is not

84. Can the County Council alter the number of guardians for a ward?-Yes. Mr. Hudson.] Does it say SO in Clause 11?

Mr. Neville.

85. Why is it necessary that a ward should be deemed a separate parish? What is the object of that in Clause 10, Sub-clause (2)?-(Mr. Comyns.) That the electors should be restricted to the electors in the ward and should not be the electors of the parish. I think that is the meaning of it.

Sir Henry Slesser.

86. I do not quite follow the end of Sub-clause (2) of Clause 10; every ward is to be deemed to be a separate parish; but under Clause 11 Sub-clause (1) the County Council may divide a parish into wards. If a parish is divided into wards by a County Council, I take it that it is not a separate parish within the meaning of Clause 10 Sub-clause (2)? (Sir Frederick Liddell.) Clause 10 Sub-clause (2) might come out.

Mr. Neville.

87. What are you following there, Sir Frederick?-This is the older law, Clauses 9 and 11 come from the Local Government Act, 1894. Clause 10 is in an older Act and I expect Clause 10 Subclause (2) is unnecessary by reason of the end of Clause 9 Sub-clause (1), which says:

"The electors of the guardians for each ward shall be such of those persons as are registered in respect of qualifications

[blocks in formation]

1° Decembris, 1926.] Sir FREDERICK LIDDELL, K.C.B., and Mr. H. J. COMYNS.

[Continued.

[blocks in formation]

99. Clause 11 raises a difficulty which we have already mentioned on Clause 4, except that now a further problem is raised by Clause 10. In Clause 11, I understood you have the same sort of powers that you get both under Clause 10 and Clause 4 consolidated into one clause; so that really the same point arises, as to whether those concurrent powers ought not to be differentiated in some way according to the practice?-(Mr. Comyns.) Might I explain. There are two cases in which the Minister is called upon to exercise these powers of division into wards. One is where he sets up or alters a Poor Law Union. You might have a movement for the formation of a fresh Poor Law Union. One of the parishes might be divided into wards already and it would be advisable that the Order should indicate that either those wards, or some modification of them, should continue; and to carry that out it is necessary that the Minister should have power to divide a parish into wards for the election of guardians. The second point is that occasionally we have been called upon to exercise our powers, because Sub-clause (2) of Clause 11 provides for the formation of joint committees where a Union runs into more than one county. There are cases where a Union runs into four counties, and the

[blocks in formation]

101. One wants to avoid unnecessary litigation, and without being unduly political, one can imagine a Minister of one political opinion and a county council of another political opinion, and there might be a conflict resulting in litigation; and if one looked at the Act, I do not think the Court would get any guidance at all; it would be very difficult to say which had the power to override the other. The county council might say: "Here people of a particular political opinion are very strong on a particular shape; we will make them of another shape," and the Minister might say: "That is unfair; you nave not got proper representation "; and therefore you would have two concurrent powers conflicting?—(Sir Frederick Liddell.) This has existed for thirty years.

Mr. Hudson.] I think the contingency that Sir Henry Slesser has suggested is more conceivable to-day than it was thirty years ago.

Mr. Neville.

102. There is no final authority at the present moment?-No. 103. You are going to set up one by this Act, are you?-No.

104. Then you have to leave it. How can you alter it? If you have to leave it, what can you do to make it clear except by saying that they have concurrent powers?-By saying, so as to give effect to the existing practice, the

1° Decembris, 1926.] Sir FREDERICK LIDDELL, K.C.B., and

Mr. H. J. COмYNS.

[Continued.

Minister should not exercise his powers of setting up wards except in very particular circumstances.

Chairman.

105. I think we had better leave the thing as it is; it has worked for thirty years and in some way it is rather a strong thing for us to do to make the alteration, but I think that Sir Frederick will have an opportunity, when he is drafting the amending Bill, of pointing it out? If there is an amending Bill, the whole thing will go; there will not be guardians or wards or anything else; there will be simply county councils.

Mr. Neville.] Might we put a note to say that apparently the law is that there is concurrent jurisdiction in the Secretary of State and the County Council?

Chairman.] Yes, I think we might very well do that.

Mr. Hudson.] We might perhaps go further and say that although it does not come within our province to make this alteration in this Consolidation Bill, we think it would be desirable.

Mr. Neville.] What is the suggestion to alter it-to cut out one or the other? Mr. Hudson.] That we ought to make it clear.

Mr. Neville.] You would make it clear if you said that they have concurrent jurisdiction, which is the law at present. But what you have to do is to cut out one or the other or do something of that sort.

Mr. Hudson.

106. But that is consolidating the existing practice. I think Sir Frederick might perhaps draft a note ?-The question is, is it the function of this Committee to make suggestions for the alteration or improvement of the law?

Chairman.] My idea is that the result of our conversation here may be to enable you, when you have the opportunity, to point it out for the purposes of the amending Bill; but unless we have some very strong particular reason in some case, I do not think it is our business to recommend amendments. We can point out, of course, what the state of the law is and any intelligent man who reads

[blocks in formation]

107. With regard to Clause 12, I see you say in your note that the Home Office suggests leaving out this Clause?--(Sir Frederick Liddell.) Yes.

108. If it was in, you would repeal the section?-No; leave it out, and in Subclause (3) of Clause 9, at the top of page 6, it would have to run: "the election shall, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, be conducted in accordance with rules framed by the Secretary of State under the Local Government Act, 1894." The advantage of leaving it out is that Section 48 of the Local Government Act, 1894, relates not only to the election of guardians but also to the election of district councils, and if you look at paragraph (d) on page 7, we have had to put in "for the polls at elections held under this Act and the Local Government Act, 1894 being taken together." The rules apply to all these elections, both guardians' elections and district council elections. There would be an advantage in all the rules being made under the same enactment, the Act of 1894.

Mr. Hudson.

109. Does the Act of 1894 embody all this? This is taken word for word from

1° Decembris, 1926.] Sir FREDERICK LIDDELL, K.C.B., and Mr. H. J. COMYNS.

[Continued.

the Act of 1894. It has to be left outstanding in the Act of 1894 so far as district council elections are concerned. We cannot repeal it absolutely, we can only repeal it so far as it relates to the election of guardians.

Lord Warrington.

110. Is it not convenient for people who have to do with the administration of Poor Law to have something they can look to themselves in their own Act?— They do not look to the Act; they look to the Rules issued by the Secretary of State. That is what they are guided by. They are not concerned with this; the Home Office are the people who are concerned with this, in framing their Rules.

111. For instance, the proviso to Subclause (2), about the use of schools and so forth: where would that be found if it was not in this Act?-That would be found in the Local Government Act of 1894.

112. And they would have to look at. another Act for the purpose of finding what they might do with regard to the use of schools? That is, the returning officer would, not the guardians. is Section 48; that is the present section.

Mr. Hudson.

Here

113. You would also have to amend the Schedule; you would have to cut out the reference to Section 48 in the Schedule? Yes. From the Statute Law revision point of view, it is no good. The whole of Section 48 would have to be printed in the revised Statutes.

Chairman.

114. So it will come twice?-Yes.

Lord Warrington.

115. These relate, of course, to the election of a parish councillor ?-Parish councils, district councils and guardians, and, of course, in rural districts the rural councils are the guardians.

Chairman.] I think it looks rather as if we have to leave it out. What do you say, Lord Warrington?

Lord Warrington.

116. It comes to this, does it not: that Section 48 of the Local Government

Act does cover the whole ground covered by this section ?—Yes.

117. It applies to all local elections? -Yes.

Chairman.] Shall we leave it out; the Home Office wish us to leave it out, apparently.

Sir Henry Slesser.

118. I think it ought to remain where it is in the Bill. I think it would only be a needless complication if people have to refer back to another Statute?-The people do not. The people are merely concerned with the Rules themselves. The only person concerned with this clause is the rule-making authority, which is the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State would like to have it left in the Act of 1894.

119. That is true of sub-clause (1), but sub-clauses (2) and (3) and the rest of them go beyond the requirements, 1 think? (Mr. Comyns.) Not quite. The election order sets out those sections with the necessary modifications and alterations, so that, really, to see what the effect is, you have to refer to the election order. All the provisions are printed in the schedules to the order.

120. Lord Warrington took the case of the proviso, the use of schools; that is not a mere matter of rules; that is a substantive right?-I think you are right.

Lord Warrington.

121. I did not read the section very carefully. Does Section 48 of the Act of 1894 cover all these other sub-clauses?(Sir Frederick Liddell.) Yes.

Mr. Neville.

122. They are word for word, are they? -Yes.

Lord Warrington. Then I do not see much good in keeping it up.

Lord Gorell.] Why could we not repeal Section 48 of the 1894 Act?

Lord Lucan.

123. Would it not be more definite to have it all in the same Act?-Sub-clause (4) is the substantive enactment, "If any difficulty arises respecting the election."

1° Decembris, 1926.] Sir FREDERICK LIDDELL, K.C.B., and

Mr. H. J. COмYNS.

[Continued.

[blocks in formation]

126. I thought the reason for codifying the Acts was to prevent the necessity of reference to other Acts of Parliament wherever you could?-The reason for this is simply that the Act of 1894, Section 48, contains a code applicable to three sets of elections, the same code, and the Home Office say it is convenient to keep them all together in the same Section.

127. You will not repeal the other Act, but you will simply put it in here?--That is so.

Mr. Hudson.] If you look at the Schedule, you will see we are repealing part of the Act of 1894.

Mr. Neville.

128. Then you are re-enacting it in this -Act? Yes.

Sir Henry Slesser.

129. It is not quite accurate, is it, to say it is an entire re-enactment? There are matters dealt within Section 48 which do not appear here, because they do not apply to guardians?-That is

So.

Mr. Hudson.] Inasmuch as the Home Office would like to have them all together, it seems hardly worth leaving it in.

Lord Warrington.

130. The repeal is quite accurately expressed in the Schedule, is it not; "Section 48, so far as it relates to the election of boards of guardians." The repeal is limited to that?—Yes.

[ocr errors]

131. So that it makes it quite safe to retain the Section in this Act, with that repeal?—Yes.

(Clause 12 is passed).

On CLAUSE 13.

Chairman.] There is no note on Clause 13. Has anybody any remark to make upon it?

(Clause 13 is passed).

On CLAUSE 14.

Chairman.

132. There is a note on Clause 14?There is a small point. Section 10 of the Act of 1842 is still law. I suggest that if it is still law, it is inconsistent with the election rules which are to have effect notwithstanding anything in any other Act.

Lord Warrington.

133. The rule provides for the Returning Officer declaring the retiring guardians, to put it shortly, to be elected?-Yes.

134. How do you read that?

Sir Henry Slesser.] Notwithstanding any other Act they must be inter vires in themselves, I suppose; they cannot override anything?-Yes, they can override everything. The election rules are the rules which prevail.

Mr. Neville.

135. And that is what is intended ?— That is what is intended.

Sir Henry Slesser.] I would rather like to ask Lord Warrington a question on that.

Lord Warrington. I am not quite sure that I appreciate this at present.

Sir Henry Slesser.] The suggestion is that where you have an Act which says Rules may be framed which shall take effect notwithstanding any other Act, how far that goes if the rules in fact contradict the other Act.

Lord Warrington.] I suppose they do. do they not? There was an election rule made under the Act of 1894 which provides what I read just now, that the retiring guardians are to be declared elected. The election rules are by the Act of 1894 to have effect notwithstanding

« ZurückWeiter »