[Continued.

Mr. Hudson.

2. Does that cover the question of the London and the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund?-The Metropolitan Common Poor Fund will go.

3. That is Part VI; we are going to consolidate that?-Yes.

Mr. Hudson.] It seems to be a waste of time.

Chairman.] Is not your objection a Second Reading objection? Of course it is only one House, but the House of Lords has read the Bill a second time and has referred it to this Committee, which, under a Resolution of both Houses is conIstituted in order to take Consolidation Bills which are introduced.

Mr. Hudson.] I only raised the point in connection with your suggestion as to how we should sit; and I inquired whether it is not better that we should apply our minds to that portion of the Bill which will not be altered and go more quickly over, or possibly even omit, those portions which are going to be amended.

Chairman.] That is to say, Part I?
Mr. Hudson.] Yes.
Chairman.] In

begin with Part I.

any

event

we

shall

Mr. Neville.] Besides there might have been a hiatus between the new Act coming into force and the old one; what are we going to do then?

Chairman.

4. I do not know that it is intended by the Government that this Act should ever come into force ?-Oh, yes, certainly, whether the amending Act is passed or not; if the amending Act is passed it will come into force.

To go

Chairman.] I, of course, do not look upon it from the point of view of the Government; I look upon it from the point of view of consolidation, as to which I have almost a bee in my bonnet. I am so dead on consolidation back to the question of when we shall sit, I should have thought that might, at any rate, sit until 1 o'clock to-day, and if any Members of the Committee could come for an hour after luncheon, I, at any rate, should be ready to sit, and we might, even with a small number, get through some of those clauses about which there really is no

we

question, and postpone any clause that seems to present great difficulty, until a fuller meeting. I thought that we might, at any rate, meet next Wednesday and the following Wednesday. Would the Committee agree to that, always supposing that the House will be sitting Cn the 15th?

(Agreed.)

Chairman.

5. I am inclined to think that it would be as well to ask Sir Frederick Liddell to read the memorandum; it will put us on terms with the Bill. It is really a picture of the Bill, and it raises at least one question which, I think, we shall have to settle before proceeding. It is, of course, rather usual in these cases to take a memorandum as read, whether it has been read or not, but I do think it would be worth while to ask Sir Frederick Liddell to read it and to get it upon the notes. Has anybody any objection to that? Sir Frederick Liddell, may I ask you to read the memorandum?" The consolidation of the Poor Law Acts is matter of difficulty and complexity. The difficulties consist not alone in those inherent in any attempt to embody in a single measure enactments scattered over more than a hundred Acts and to assimilate the language of enactments ranging in date from 1601 to the present day, but chiefly in those occasioned by the revolutions in the Poor Law brought about by the Acts of 1834 and 1865.

a

"(1) The Act of 1834 substituted boards of guardians for overseers as the bodies to administer the Poor Law, and the Poor Law union for the parish as the area of administration. But it tried to effect its objects in general terms without making the specific alterations in the pre-1834 Acts which were consequential on the changes effected by the Act of 1834; and it is therefore, as will appear in the following notes, difficult to determine whether the old law affecting overseers applies to boards of guardians.

"(2) The Act of 1865 made practically all expenses of relief a charge on the common fund of the union instead of being, as theretofore, for the most part, parochial charges. The Act of 1865 did

[Continued.

to some extent attempt to work out the necessary consequential alterations to be made in the pre-1865 law; but the consequential amendments so made are far from being exhaustive, and, as will appear from the subsequent notes, in many cases difficulties arise as to how references in the earlier Acts to the parish of chargeability are to be construed, there being now no parishes of chargeability.

"Similar difficulties in lesser degree are caused by the Acts of 1846 and 1876 which, by creating a status of irre

movability and making settlement by residence depend on such residence as would confer a status of irremovability rather than settlement the dominating consideration for the purposes of removal.

"Nor has the task of consolidation been rendered the easier by the changes in the law of rating effected by the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925 (an Act which does not apply to London) and the abolition of the office of overseer by that Act.

"Another source of difficulty is the co-existence of various enactments dealing with the same subject matter giving rise to questions whether the later enactments are intended to supersede the earlier enactments, or are intended to be alternatives. For an example of this difficulty reference may be made to the note on Clause 231.

"Finally, there are to be found, as may be expected in a series of Acts extending over so long a period, a number of enactments which have become obsolete by long disuse. The reproduction of an obsolete provision would have the effect of altering the law, for although a provision appearing in an Act of the 17th, 18th or early 19th Century may be treated as having become obsolete by disuse, the same enactment in an Act of 1926 could not be treated as obsolete.

"There is one other matter of general application which requires consideration. The pre-1834 Acts contained special provisions as to the manner in which penalties and forfeitures under the Act were to be enforced and recovered. The Act of 1834 also contained a special code of procedure for the enforcement and recovery of penalties and forfeitures thereunder, a code which was generally applied by the amending Acts up to 1879; since 1879, the amending Acts have applied the procedure under the

60288

present Summary Jurisdiction Act. With respect to the pre-1834 Acts, the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1884, repealed the special procedure enacted under those Acts, the effect of the repeal being, by virtue of Section 5 of the Act of 1884, to substitute the procedure under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts for the procedure under the repealed enactments. But the special code of procedure under the Act of 1834 was not repealed by the Act of 1884. That the omission of the provisions of the Act of 1834 from the Repeal Schedule to the Act of 1884 was not per incuriam is clear from the fact that in the Bill for the Act of 1884 as originally introduced the procedure provisions in the Act of 1834 were included in the Repeal Schedule. The reason for the subsequent deletion from the Repeal Schedule of the provisions of the Act of 1834 was that the provisions of the Act of 1834 applied, not only to penalties for offences, but to the recovery of sums certified to be due by district auditors, and on the representation of the district auditors the reference to the provisions of the Act of 1834 was struck out from the Repeal Schedule, and this though the Act of 1884 itself contained (see Section 11) a special procedure for the recovery of payments certified by district auditorsa procedure which is more effective than the procedure under the Act of 1834, and is the procedure which is now almost universally adopted. The result is that in the provisions of the Bill dealing with offences created by pre-1834 or post-1879 Acts, the ordinary summary procedure is applicable; whereas in the provisions reproducing the Act of 1834 and the amending Acts up to 1879, the procedure under the Act of 1834 reproduced by Clause 236 is applicable. It is anomalous to have in the same Bill two different procedures for offences of the same character. As pointed out in the note to Clause 236, the procedure under the Act of 1831 does not differ substantially from that under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, but where it does differ it is anomalous and offends against modern principles. For these reasons, it is suggested that amendments of the Bill should be made, or at any rate recommended, which would have the effect of making the procedure under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts universal throughout the Bill."

6. That last paragraph seems to raise a point which we had better decide now, so as not to have it raised upon every A 2

[Continued.

clause where some question of procedure comes in?-I think there are really two points. First the procedure under the Act of 1834 is applied to two different types of cases, one civil the recovery of what are really debts, and the other, the recovery of penalties for offences. So far as the procedure applies to the recovery of debts. I suggest that it has really been repealed by Section 6 of the Act of 1879; because the procedure under the Act of 1834 is initiated by a complaint. Section 6 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, I have set out on page 100 of the notes. Section 6 of the Act of 1879 provides that: "Where under any Act, whether past or future, a sum claimed to be due is recoverable on complaint to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction and not on information, such sum shall be deemed to be a civil debt, and if recoverable before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, shall be recoverable in the manner in which a sum declared by this Act to be a civil debt recoverable summarily is recoverable under this Act and not otherwise."

Mr. Neville.

7. Is it a question, then of procedure by information? Is that the point?Under the Act of 1834 the procedure is on complaint.

8. Does anything turn on the difference between information and complaint on this particular point?-Yes. My suggestion is that the ordinary Summary Jurisdiction Act procedure, by virtue of Section 6 of the Act of 1879, applies in all cases where it is a civil and not a criminal remedy, under the Act of 1834.

9. Is information in order to preserve the rights of the Attorney-General, or what is it?-Under the Summary Jurisdiction Act proceedings are divided into two classes.

10. I did not know whether it had anything to do with the Government ?-No; this is summary jurisdiction. There is no question of a Government prosecution. Under the Summary Jurisdiction Act criminal proceedings are commenced by information; civil proceedings are 011 complaint.

Lord Warrington.

11. Is there anything in the Bill dealing with civil procedure? I see Section 236 is "Recovery of penalties and forfeitures "?-Will your Lordship look

at Clause 45 of the Bill, Sub-section 5, which is on page 24: "If any employer refuses or neglects to pay the Board of Guardians producing any such order the money thereby directed to be paid according to the terms of the order, and at the periods thereby fixed, the same may be levied and recovered, and the payment thereof from time to time enforced, against the employer in the manner in which forfeitures under this Act are recoverable." That is purely a recovery of a debt, but I suggest that as the effect of Section 6 of the Act of 1879 that ought to run "shall be recoverable as a civil debt."

Mr. Hudson.

12. Do you want Section 236?—I could cut out Section 236 altogether: have no special procedure but have all Summary Jurisdiction Act procedure.

Sir Henry Slesser.

13. Then how does the matter stand with regard to information when you do not receive a complaint? As I understand, Section 6 of the Act of 1879 is limited to a case of complaint?--Yes.

14. Then you will have the case of Information to deal with ?-When there is an offence, we should simply make it a summary offence and make the procedure by Information instead of complaint; the result would be the same.

Mr. Neville.

15. Both under the Summary Jurisdiction Act?-Yes, that where the procedure under the Act of 1834 is applicable to the recovery of a debt by civil procedure, you would apply the civil procedure under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.

16. Would there be any loss at all by cutting out the old procedure, or any chance of escape or hiatus?-No.

17. We should be just as sure, should we?-Yes, absolutely.

18. There is no real gain in maintaining the old unless you can show that there is some particular thing which is not covered by the new?-No; unless you do not feel justified in doing it, on account of it being a change in the law. Chairman.] I was going to raise that point presently

[Continued.

Jurisdiction Act in civil cases; but you do make an alteration in the law, whether it be wise or unwise, in the case of an Information?-Yes.

Mr. Neville.

26. You said you could not issue a warrant. Can you issue a warrant under the 1834 Act?-No.

27. Under the Summary Jurisdiction Act in the case of an offence you first issue a summons and then you get a warrant to arrest the man?--Under the 1834 Act you cannot.

28. Not on Information?—No, it is all initiated by complaint.

Chairman.] There are two questions for us. The first one is as to whether we think an alteration desirable; and in the second place, as to whether it goes beyond our province. We are supposed to certify this Bill as being an exact representation of the existing law. I should think that we had better take first of all the question as to whether this is desirable or not. Will you express an opinion?

Mr. Neville.] I certainly think it is desirable.

Sir Henry Slesser.] I agree.

Lord Gorell.] I hardly came in in time to follow this.

Lord Monkswell.] I have not followed it clearly enough to give an opinion.

Lord Warrington.] The statement in the memorandum seems to show that it is desirable.

Chairman.] Then there only remains the question whether the necessary alterations in the Bill are beyond our province. I think that the position is a little cleared by the fact that the Government are going to bring in amendments; and they could do that, I suppose, on the face of the Bill and amend this Act, when passed, in the necessary way. But I am rather inclined to suggest to the Committee that we should take our courage in our hands and do the business now, and that according to our practice with which several Members of the Committee are familiar, we should make here a note stating what we have done. That has been our practice where we have thought that we did go perhaps a little beyond the existing law. I should like to suggest that we take that course.

Mr. Neville.] It is what we have always done.

A 3

1° Decembris, 1926.]

[Continued.

Chairman.

29. Yes. Very well, then, Sir Frederick, as we come to the different cases, you will just point out where they are, and we shall ask you to draw the necessary amendments?—Yes.

30. There are two questions I wanted to ask you, which will clear our way, I think, in going through the Bill. Where a clause refers to only one repealed Act and there is no note upon it, does that mean that the clause is the old clause verbatim or subject to changes?-It means that the clause reproduces the enactment noted, not necessarily verbatim, but without a substantial change in the effect; that is to the best of my belief.

31. Such as where it is necessary for harmonising any of the different Statutes, and things of that sort? That is so.

32. So that when we come to a clause referring to only one old Act I did not trouble to ask you the question all over again as to what the meaning of the clause is, but we shall take it that you have certified that, subject to such things as modernising or harmonising the language, it does represent exactly the old Act? Yes.

33. Then the other question is this. Where there is more than one Act referred to, and you again have made no note, what are we to understand by that? That it reproduces the law, usually in the earliest Act as amended by the subsequent enactments noted.

34. And that, in your judgment, it is the actual existing law without alteration? Yes, without alteration.

ON CLAUSE 1.

Chairman.

35. Now I think we can turn to the clauses of the Bill. The first clause is a clause coming under the head of the first question I asked you. There is no note, but, on the other hand, we have a statement in it of the pedigree, I think, of the Minister of Health. You show how it comes to be that the Minister of Health represents what, in the old Acts, were the Poor Law Commissioners and various other bodies, at different stages? -Clause 1 purports to reproduce Section 15 of the Act of 1834.

Mr. Hudson.

36. Verbally or in substance?-To reproduce, I said; to give effect to it.

Mr. Neville.

37. It is not verbally the same?-No. Of course, Section 15 of the Act of 1834 does not refer to the Minister of Health, but to the Poor Law Commissioners.

Mr. Hudson.

38. But apart from that, is it word for word the same?-It is only part of Section 15.

Sir Henry Slesser.

39. There is an important proviso, for example, about the Minister interfering in any individual case. That, I take it, is in the Act of 1834 ?—Yes. Chairman.] That is in the old Act.

(Clause 1 is passed.)

Chairman.] I happen, myself, to have gone minutely through the Bill and the notes, and there are a certain number of absolutely verbal or almost printer's errors, a few things of that sort, and I do not propose to point them out as we go through the Bill; I think that it would occupy time and, probably, when we have got through the Bill I shall ask for authority to go through those things with the draftsman and settle them.

ON CLAUSE 2. Chairman.

40. There is a note on Clause 2, though I think the effect of the note is chiefly to show that "Poor Law Union" is the proper expression to use throughout the Act? And is justified.

Mr. Neville.

41. It is the only one, is it not?-Yes.

Lord Warrington.

42. "Board of Guardians" is defined by the Interpretation Act, and "Poor Law Union " is defined by the Interpretation Act? Yes, but the object of