Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1929/mar/20/local-government-bill
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:37:40+00:00

Document:
My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I desire to say that I am afraid there is a formidable list of Amendments in my name, but I can assure your Lordships that, with the exception of two or three, they 692 are purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
My Lords, judging from the number of Government Amendments that are down, the Government are still finding it very hard to satisfy themselves that they have really got the Bill in the form in which they want it. We can only wish that it were as easy for us to move Amendments from this side as it appears to be for the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to move Amendments from his Bench, and have them passed with very little discussion. I think it is hardly unfair to say that scarcely a single Amendment from this Bench has been accepted. It is, therefore, natural that we should feel that, even at this last stage, we must continue our opposition to the Bill, even into the Division Lobby. It is almost impossible, after there has been so much discussion of a Bill of this character, to lay any new material before your Lordships in order to persuade you at this last moment to change your mind. We can only as briefly as possible recapitulate our position, and place before your Lordships for this last time the reasons why we have opposed the Bill and will continue to do so.
We are all generally agreed that the whole of our rating and local government system needs a thorough overhauling. The whole structure is in such a faulty condition that any attempt to change it must begin from the very foundations. What we feel is that if these foundations are badly laid we may very well be worse off than we were before. It is not that we would contend that nothing good is done by the Bill, but that its main principles are unsound. In dealing with matters of principle a false start is even worse than no start at all. We contend that this Bill is not a real rating reform, and that it is not a reform of the Poor Law. It tackles the problem of the rates, as I shall hope to show in a minute, from the point of view of a subsidy, while it deals with the Poor Law merely in such a way as to effect a transference rather than a reform of its functions. The rating problem, as we see it from this side of the House, is that an injustice exists as between national and 693 local charges—between national and local taxation—and not as the Government maintains, as between productive and non-productive industries. The Government based their Bill on the distinction between productive and non-productive industries. It is, therefore, based, not on the needs of a rating system, but on what the Government contends are the needs of particular selected industries. It is, therefore, a subsidy, and not, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has stated, an act of justice.
This brings me to the main point on which we attack this Bill. If it differentiates as between one form of industry and another, if it is a selective subsidy, then, as we have asked before and shall continue to ask, why is it that the prosperous luxury trades, such as those that have been mentioned again and again—those of the brewers and the tobacco manufacturers and other prosperous luxury trades—receive relief, while the traders and shopkeepers, the householders and professional men, continue to pay rates on the same basis as before? We are told that we must not penalize efficiency. If this Bill were a real rating reform, that is, if it were a Bill for the removal from the rates of national charges such as main roads and unemployment, and if it applied to everyone who pays those rates, just and unjust alike, then of course there would be no case for criticism; but, being based, as it is, on an arbitrary selection as between one industry and another, the productive and the non-productive industries, it is quite another matter.
The Government have deliberately adopted a basis of selection and differentiation as opposed to wholesale reform, and what is more, they have adopted a particular form of differentiation which includes these prosperous luxury trades. When, therefore, the Government refuse to accept our Amendments on this point because they say they must safeguard the principle of their Bill, then they only further convince us of the essential unsoundness of that principle. Even granting the Government contention that these particular industries need special assistance, the moment you really examine what they are doing you must realise that their contention that this derating plan will be of any real assistance to in- 694 dustrial revival is a farce. I will give you one instance—the fact that it gives £3,000,000 a year in rating relief to the mining industry, which is losing over £13,000,000 a year. You will realise that the Bill in that case can give no real assistance whatsoever to relieve the unemployment problem in the milling industry.
Then with regard to the relief of agriculture, it has been shown by my noble and learned leader, Lord Parmoor, and by other noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, that ultimately every penny of that relief must go into the pockets of the landlords. It is not a question of the landlords being greedy and grasping individuals, who will at once raise rents. It is simply the economic fact that land as it is re-let will be re-let at its economic value. This is a perfectly fair point to make. Noble Lords on the other side of the House have told us that it is a mere electioneering point, fit only for the hustings, but it is a perfectly serious point that will have to be met on the platforms in the country at the next General Election.
Having very much reduced the revenue of the local authorities by this scheme of derating, the Government have had to devise a scheme whereby they could recoup them. Under this scheme they are going virtually to stabilise the expenditure of the local authorities for periods of five years. It is true that for the first period they have made a slight concession by reducing it to three years, and that the next, period will be four years, but after that they will go on the five years' basis. They are putting some of the social services, notably some of the health services, on a block grant basis, also based on this long period. The assumption is, of course, that, at the end of these periods, new money will be forthcoming from the Exchequer to meet the new demands of the localities. But it cannot be too strongly stressed that there is no guarantee whatsoever of that in this Bill. That is left purely to the future, to future negotiations which local authorities may be in a position to carry on with the Ministry at the time. Moreover, schemes of the local authorities start as from year to year, and not as from periods of five years or three years.
695 Let us consider how this will work out. Suppose a local authority has a big housing scheme next year and has to provide new social services in connection with that housing scheme. Where will they get the extra money from until the end of the first period? Or let us suppose that one of their industries becomes subject to a period of depression and unemployment starts. How are they going to meet the increased charge of unemployment for the next two years or so until the re-arrangement comes? Or let us suppose that a new industry starts in their district. Then they will suffer a double loss. Not only will the new industry bring increased population and a greater demand for social services, not only will they not receive grants towards those increased charges, but they will actually lose the increased rateable value that they would normally get from this industry in order to meet those charges. The Government tell us that it is not fair to say that expenditure is to be stabilised, and that there is a fund of £5,000,000 which can be used for meeting any increased needs. But I gather that some of that £5,000,000 has already been allotted and, in any case, £3,000,000 of that £5,000,000 comes out of the Road Fund, which would already go to the local authorities. There is, therefore, only a sum of £2,000,000 at the very most which can be distributed among the local authorities to meet these increased charges. Therefore, it is perfectly fair to say that this scheme does amount to virtual stabilisation of local expenditure for those periods over which the scheme is to run.
We are told that there will be greater freedom for local authorities under the block grant system. That is not a fair contention at all. There will be less freedom. What actually is the main restriction on local government expenditure? The first consideration is that local authorities will know that if they increase local expenditure they will not receive any assistance for a number of years from the State. They will, therefore, be very much less free to undertake the provision of new services. You may say that the Minister will still be in a position to ensure that the local services are maintained in an efficient condition because he retains the power to withhold grants in the event of his not being satisfied. But if you consider for a moment you will see that 696 that concedes our main claim of the greater efficiency of the percentage grant over the block grant, because by this clause the Minister is making the grant dependent on the services that are rendered. That is exactly what the percentage grant does to-day, only in a very much more efficient and smooth-running way. All that the Minister is doing here is to take to himself the power to bully local authorities, instead of leaving things as they are, with the local authorities retaining a real incentive to go forward. The fact of the matter is that the block grant is introduced as an economy. The argument against the percentage grant—we have heard it repeatedly from that side of the House—is that it encourages expenditure. That is perfectly true; but only after Parliament has laid down that a particular social service shall be encouraged by national grants, and only after the Minister himself has approved the particular expenditure that the local authority proposes to make. Under the percentage grant system this country has built up a most magnificent system of social services, and, speaking personally, I most sincerely hope that in two or three months the Labour Party will re-introduce the percentage grant system.
We believe that expenditure on social services is profitable expenditure, both from an economic and from a human point of view. The Conservative Party apparently think nothing, judging from the way in which they have dealt with our Amendments, of giving hundreds of thousands of pounds to brewers and hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Irish loyalists, and then they look to the public services for the wherewithal to foot the bill. Only the other day we had an instance of this in the reduction of £12,000 for milk for expectant mothers and babies. We believe that it is in this spirit that the Government apply the block grant system. It is bound to have the effect that they desire of restricting expenditure, and to our minds it is only another example of the niggardliness of the Conservative Party in regard to the problems of social reform. When they came into office four and a-half years ago we were assured from every platform that there really was a new spirit alive in their ranks, and that they really did mean business about social reform. They said: "We will stick to our Conserva- 697 tive principles, but within those Conservative principles we really do mean to tackle these great problems that are facing the country to-day." They will not be allowed to forget this when it comes to the struggle that we are going to have in the country. Like our point about the subsidies to the prosperous luxury trades, this will be a perfectly fair and honest point, and not, as has been suggested from the other side, a piece of cheap electioneering, fit only for the hustings.
I come to the question of the payment of expenses to members of county councils. We discussed this matter in Committee, and your Lordships will have another opportunity of discussing it today on an Amendment that is upon the Paper. We attach enormous importance to this matter, because we consider that it really does affect the vital principle of representation and the question of who ultimately is to sit on these bodies. The clause, as it stands, is left permissive. What does that mean? It means that there are a great number of county councils in this country which are very keen on this clause and will adopt it, but those reactionary county councils which most need new blood will be the very ones who will not adopt it. They will be left with their constitution unchanged, and a great number of People in those counties will be debarred for financial reasons, and for financial reasons alone, from putting up for election to the county council. Nor is expenditure under this heading to rank for grant—a clear indication that the Government is determined at any rate not to encourage the county councils to adopt this clause. Then there is the question of payment for lost time. This proposal was also refused, although it was drafted in almost identical words with those that we find in the Scottish Bill.
We have heard a good deal about the Scottish Bill from this side of the House, and very little from the Conservative side. The Scottish Bill is more generous in a great many ways. In the present Bill local authorities are to lose their right of discrimination as to whether they should seek to recover expenses for maintenance in one of their institutions. This was justified in Committee by insisting upon uniformity with the Poor Law. When, however, it was pointed out that the words in this Bill were "it shall be 698 the duty of" and that in the Poor Law the word was "may," the Government were forced to fall back upon that unfailing majority which they have received from your Lordships throughout the discussion of this Bill. In the Scottish Bill the position is as we should like to see it in this Bill. The discussions on this point were particularly interesting in so far as they showed how far it is possible for two members of the same Cabinet to disagree and for one member of a Cabinet completely to disclaim responsibility for the opinions and actions of another member of that Cabinet. It is perfectly true that the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack referred vaguely to the differences that exist between English and Scottish law, but he did not give us, or attempt to give us, a single instance in which England and Scotland differed in circumstances with regard to the particular matters that were under discussion. No doubt when we come to discuss the Scottish Bill it will be of interest to hear the noble and learned Lord dealing with these completely contrary and opposite clauses, and justifying them to us with that same mingling of persuasiveness and complete confidence that your Lordships will support him with which he has dealt with these clauses in the English Bill.
The only further point that I want to mention concerns the Poor Law. The Poor Law will remain, after the passage of this Bill, very much the same as it was before. Its functions are transferred to other bodies, but virtually it remains the same. The only clause in the Bill which offers any hope is Clause 5, which holds out the hope that the so-called pauper population will be split up and dealt with in the various classes to which it belongs. That has been made permissive. It does not deal with the problem of the able-bodied unemployed and the separating of them from the pauper population. By repealing the Unemployed Workmen Act it actually restricts the power of the county councils to deal with these men in any way except as paupers, because it makes it impossible for them to give special training or special temporary work to tide them over while attempting to find jobs else-where. The old, the sick, the infirm, and the unemployed are all by this Bill left within the ambit of the Poor Law, 699 and any real reform of the Poor Law must separate these classes, take them out of the ambit of the Poor Law and of pauperism, and deal with them as separate classes on their own.
These Poor Law provisions neither remove the stigma of pauperism from those who should not be called paupers, nor face the national responsibility for Poor Law charges. At the present moment the Exchequer bears only about 6 per cent. of the Poor Law charges that the local authorities have to bear, and when I give your Lordships that figure you will realise that it is fair to say that in leaving that distribution of expenditure as it was before, this Bill is shirking a very great problem of Poor Law administration and reform. In our opinion this Bill tackles neither the rating problem nor the Poor Law problem from a right of view, and in so far as they do move we believe that the Government are moving very largely in the wrong direction, and in a direction which will make it very much harder to proceed from in future if any Party comes into power to deal with these matters from the point of view of introducing real rating and Poor Law reform. It is because we feel that, that, without going into the details of the Bill, I ask your Lordships to reject the measure on its Third Reading.
My Lords, I do not think your Lordships will wish to have a long discussion on this stage of the Bill, having regard to the fact that the merits of the measure have been thoroughly thrashed out on the Second Reading in a long debate lasting over two days, and have been meticulously examined in a series of Committee and Report sittings, to which your Lordships have devoted a good deal of time. I only desire to say a very few words in reply to the noble Earl. He complains that comparatively few of the Amendments moved by the Socialist Party have been accepted. I think it is true that comparatively few Amendments have been accepted, and the reason is that those which were rejected were Amendments which, in the view of the Government and of your Lordships, were calculated not to improve but to wreck the Bill. He said that the Socialist view was that the real injustice did not lie in the 700 burden of rates upon industry, but in the division of expenditure between local and national resources. I gather his view is that what is required is the usual Socialist panacea of national extravagance, backed by a bureaucracy from Whitehall. Our view is that there is injustice in the existing system of rating, in the burden which it places upon productive industry, and, having that view, we have asked Parliament to correct that injustice, and I am glad to see that already the prospect of this Bill going through, and the measure of relief which the derating of railways has already conferred upon industry, are beginning to tell their tale in improving the industries of this country.
The noble Earl complains of what he describes as the niggardliness of the Conservative Government, which is starving the social services. Almost in the same breath he boasted of the fact that we had in this country a system of social services which is unequalled in the world. Under what administration has that been built up? Under that very Conservative administration with which he professes to find so much fault. In the scheme which we have submitted we have been careful first to secure that there shall not be undue extravagance, and at the same time to ensure that money shall go, not, as now, to whatever wealthy district desires to spend extravagantly, but to whatever poor district most needs help; and I think that that is more in accord with a true system of social services than any nostrum of the Socialist Party. He complains that the passage of this Bill will make it more difficult for a Socialist Government to bring in their so-called reforms. I dare say that is true, but it is also true that the passage of this Bill will make it much more unlikely, when people find out what the Bill does, that the Socialist Party will have any opportunity of introducing their proposals.
§ Resolved in the affirmative, and read 3a accordingly.
§ Special provisions as to functions of Poor Law authorities in respect of infant life protection and vaccination.
§ 2.—As from the appointed day the following provisions shall have effect with respect to functions relating to infant life protection and vaccination formerly discharged by Poor Law authorities:— (c) the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to administrative schemes, acquisition of land, and accounts and audit, shall not apply as respects the functions aforesaid.
§ thoroughly examined and understood by all your Lordships, after the careful consideration given to it in all parts of the House.
§ On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 3a?
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 11.
Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.) Scarbrough, E. Desborough, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Dynevor, L.
Bertie of Thame, V. Hampton, L.
Somerset, D. Cecil of Chelwood, V. Hardinge of Penshurst, L.
Wellington, D. Falkland, V. Hindlip, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.
Airlie E. [Teller.] Peel, V. Merthyr, L.
Cavan, E. Templetown, V. Middleton, L.
Cawdor, E. Younger of Leckie, V. Monson, L.
Cranbrook, E. Abinger, L. Ormathwaite, L.
Harrowby, E. Banbury of Southam, L.
Iddesleigh, E. Biddulph, L. Rayleigh, L.
Iveagh, E. Bledisloe, L. Remnant, L.
Jellicoe, E. Byron, L. Russell of Liverpool, L.
Leven and Melville, E. Carson, L. Sinclair, L.
Lichfield, E. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) Suffield, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Cranworth, L. Thurlow, L.
Mar and Kellie, E. Cushendun, L. Wharton, L.
Morton, E. Dawson of Penn, L. Wraxall, L.
Onslow, E. Desart, L. (E. Desart.) Wynford, L.
Beauchamp, E. Arnold, L. [Teller.] Parmoor, L.
Buston, E. Clwyd, L. Sandhurst, L.
De La Warr, E. [Teller.] Muir Mackenzie, L. Thomson, L.
§ is to enable councils to acquire land for the purposes of this Act.
committee, or that the members for the time being of any other committee, with such additional members as may be provided by the scheme, shall so act.
§ (2) Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing section, all matters relating to the exercise by the council of the functions transferred to them under this Part of this Act, except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money, shall stand referred to the public assistance committee, and the council before exercising any such functions shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report of the public assistance committee with respect to the matter in question.
(b) for the inclusion in the public assistance committee or among any members of another committee acting as such, of persons who are not members of the council, some of whom shall be women; so, however, that of the whole number of members of the public assistance committee or committee or body acting as such, two-thirds at least shall be members of the council."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is to meet a point raised by Lord Arnold. If it is wanted to co-opt members on an existing committee which becomes a Public Assistance Committee, this Amendment will enable that to be done.
My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
§ Guardians committees and sub-committees.
§ 7.—(1) In the case of a county the administrative scheme shall provide— (5) The scheme shall determine the place where a guardians committee and any sub- committee thereof shall sit, and any local authority shall allow a guardians committee 704 or any sub-committee thereof to use free of charge for the purposes of their meetings, at any time when not required for the use of the local authority, any premises belonging to the authority.
§ THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in sub-section (5), to leave out "and any subcommittee thereof." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is to render it unnecessary to determine in the scheme where sub-committees are to sit. It is thought that they can well settle that for themselves.
§ Consultation as to the provision, of hospital accommodation.
§ 13.—The council of every county and county borough shall, before making provision for hospital accommodation in discharge of the functions transferred to them under this Part of this Act, consult with such committee or other body as they consider to represent both the governing bodies and the medical and surgical staffs of the voluntary hospitals providing services in or for the benefit of the county or county borough.
§ THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to leave out "before" and to insert "when." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is to meet a point raised by my noble friend Lord Donoughmore, and to show that the consultation should be continuous. We prefer to move it in this manner.
Of course, when I put my Amendment down I thought it was in perfect form. On the other hand, I have no doubt my noble friend thinks the same of his. I accept it gratefully. He has met a real anxiety of ours by moving this Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to leave out "with" ["consult with such committee"] and at the end of the clause to insert "as to the accommodation to be provided and as to the purposes for which it is to be used." The noble Earl said: My Lords, these two Amendments are introduced by the Government with a view to meeting my noble friend opposite 705 as far as possible. We want to show that we really wish to meet in every way we possibly can noble Lords who represent hospitals, and we have endeavoured to do so by this clause. I understand that the noble Lord opposite will accept it. He said that he might not be well enough to be here to-day, and I am very glad to see him in place and to have the advantage of hearing what he has to say on the subject.
§ Page 10, line 44, leave out ("with").
My Lords, I should like to express my appreciation to the noble Earl opposite for trying to meet our view as far as possible. I do not pretend that it does all that we ask; but it is impossible to get all you want in this imperfect world, and what he proposes certainly goes further than the word "accommodation" only. Further than that, this clause does bring people into consultation. It brings the people who know into contact with those who have to administer. It is a beginning. I should like to point out that it does not go quite as far as it will be necessary for it to go in administrative matters. It has always been a very serious matter that the mass of the medical profession, has been divorced from having an effective voice in the health services. That did not matter very much so long as curative medicine was not concerned; but unless some steps are taken to bring the mass of the profession and those who know about these things into responsible contact with those who, for the first time, are to take such a large part in administering the Bill, I think the Bill is little likely to have the good effects that are hoped for from it. I recognise, however, that this clause gives the right of consultation, and I hope that out of this poor beginning larger things will grow as the years go by.
§ 17. Separate accounts shall be kept by the council of every county borough of their receipts and expenditure in respect of the functions transferred under this Part of this Act, and discharged by the council as 706 such, and those accounts shall be made up and audited in like manner and subject to the same provisions as in the case of a county council, and the enactments relating to the audit of the accounts of a county council and to all matters incidental thereto and consequential thereon, including penal provisions, shall apply in lieu of the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, relating to accounts and audit.
There is a drafting Amendment on this clause. I beg to move.
My Lords, all the Amendments in my name to Clause 18 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
My Lords, the two Amendments to this clause are also drafting.
My Lords, the Amendments standing in my name to Clauses 21, 22 and 28 are all drafting.
§ Page 20, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("an existing registration officer") and insert ("a registration officer appointed before that day").
§ 29.—(1) Every road which at the appointed day is a main road, or which would, apart from this section, at any time thereafter have become a main road, and every road as respects which a county council become by virtue of this Part of this Act the highway authority, shall be termed a county road, and all enactments relating to main roads shall as from the appointed day have effect as if for references therein to main roads there were substituted references to county roads.
§ (3) Section one hundred and nineteen of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (which relates to the maintenance of borough bridges), shall cease to have effect as respects any bridge which carries a county road, and notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of section thirty-five of the Local Government Act, 1888, no borough shall be exempt from contributing towards the costs incurred by a county council for the purpose of the maintenance, repair and improvement of, or other dealing with, bridges.
§ THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Every road," where those words first occur, and to insert "The council of every county shall be the highway authority as respects every road in the county." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to secure that the county council should be the highway authority for main roads in urban districts. Of course they perform the functions, and have done so for a long time. This is really a technical Amendment, and it makes no difference whatever to their powers, but it puts them on the right footing.
The next Amendment is consequential.
§ THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, at the beginning of subsection (3), to insert: As from the appointed day, the council of every county shall exercise the functions of maintenance, repair and improvement of, or other dealing with, every bridge in the county repairable by the inhabitants at large which carries a county road, and. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to make it clear that the county council are responsible for the repair of bridges which are repairable by the inhabitants at large, and those which carry county roads.
All the Amendments to Clause 31 in my name are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
All the Amendments in my name to Clause 32 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
§ Contributions by county councils to county roads maintained by urban district councils.
§ THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "maintenance and repair" where those words first occur, and to insert "of the road and any reasonable improvement connected with the maintenance and repair thereof, of such amount as may be determined in manner hereinafter provided; and". The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment.
The Amendments in my name to this clause are drafting.
§ Page 33, line 36, leave oat from ("based") to ("and") in line 40, and insert ("and shall send to the council of every district who have made application under this section a copy of so much of the statement as affects the district").
§ THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, after Clause 38, to insert the following new clause.
§ Application of 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55. s. 308 in certain cases.
§ " .—(1) In any case in which a public utility undertaking sustains damage by reason of the exercise by a county council, in relation to any road vested in them by virtue of this Part of this Act, of functions which before the load was so vested were only exerciseable in relation thereto by district councils under the powers of the Public Health Act, 1875, section three hundred and eight of that Act (which relates to compensation) shall apply as if for the reference therein to a local authority there were substituted a reference to the county council, and as if the, functions had been exercised under the powers of that Act.
§ (2) In this section 'public utility undertaking' means any company or authority which carries on a gas, water, hydraulic power, electricity, tramway, light railway or trolley vehicle undertaking, and the expression 'trolley vehicle 'has the same meaning as in the Bead Transport Lighting Act, 1927."
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, regarding the Amendment which stands in my name and in that of my noble friend Lord Askwith, I have to apologise to your Lordships that it was not brought forward at a previous stage. That was due to a misunderstanding between myself and my noble friend, and also to the rather sudden course that the Report stage took. I understand that His Majesty's Government are willing to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
§ THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This Amendment is drafting.
§ THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The two Amendments in my name are both drafting.
§ First general review of districts by county councils.
and shall forthwith after the review is completed as respects the whole or any part of the county, and before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, or such later date as the Minister may in any case allow, send to the Minister a report of the review, together with proposals as to the changes (if any) which they consider desirable: Provided that, before making any such proposals the county council shall consult with the councils of the county boroughs adjoining the county, and the Minister shall give those councils an opportunity of laying before him their views on the proposals made by the county council.
§ EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out the proviso to subsection (1). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I invite the special attention of noble Lords opposite to this Amendment. I will read the proviso which comes after the subsection. It runs:— Provided that, before making any such proposals the county council shall consult with the councils of the county boroughs adjoining the county, and the Minister shall give those councils an opportunity of laying before him their views on the proposals made by the county council. 712 I raised this question before, and I am driven to raise it again by the great strength of the representations that have been made to me by county councils outside and their indignation at this interference with their being masters in their own house. It is quite a new principle that county councils cannot re-arrange their districts without county boroughs, which have nothing to do with it, but happen to be in the area, having a finger in the pie. I would ask noble Lords opposite, many of whom, no doubt, sit on county councils and are interested in their work, whether they do not think that their own councils will resent such a proposal. The excuse made, or rather the explanation given by the Government, was that this was a recommendation of the Royal Commission, and that on that Royal Commission, I think, there were two representatives of county councils sitting.
I am obliged to the noble Earl. It has been represented to me that those three representatives had no authority whatever to agree to this on the Royal Commission, and that their agreement has been very much resented by other county councils. I do not know that we are particularly interested in preventing the Government before the Election embroiling themselves with county councils and getting themselves into ill favour; but we are interested in making this Bill workable, and I think many a county council, when it is faced with this order to consult the county borough as to how it shall arrange its own district, may say that it will have nothing to do with it, and that it will not, in that case, re-arrange its own district, but will leave the matter where it is. Except for the reference to the Royal Commission I have not heard from the Government any good reason why this obligation was put upon the county councils, or what useful advice the county boroughs are likely to give. I can assure your Lordships that it is very strongly resented by a great many county councils, and I think, even at this hour, it would be worth your Lordships' while to reconsider this provision. I beg, therefore, to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
My Lords, this was a recommendation of a Royal Commission on Local Government which, as the noble Earl opposite said, contained three representatives of the county councils, who were appointed originally by my noble friend behind me, Lord Melchett, a long time ago when he was Minister of Health, to serve on this Commission. They were Sir Edmund Turton, Lord Strachie, who I am sorry is not here to-day, and Mr. Samuel Taylor, who succeeded Sir Ryland Adkins. The history of this provision is this: The various associations gave evidence before the Royal Commission, and it was generally agreed that the rearrangement of districts within a county was desirable. As your Lordships are aware, municipal boroughs have the right, when their boundaries are altered, to go before Parliament. It was represented by the witnesses that this right to go before Parliament would be inconvenient in the case of a general review of every county throughout England and Wales—a general review of all the boundaries of all the districts of all the counties—and in order to get that done well and satisfactorily this right to go before Parliament in the case of an alteration or a borough boundary should be waived. The municipal boroughs agreed to that. They saw no objection to it for this one particular and special case.
The noble Earl opposite said this is a new principle. It is not a new principle. This reorganisation of all districts is a totally different step from any that has ever been taken before. The Association of Municipal Corporations thought it would be desirable that when this reorganisation of the whole county was being considered its bearing upon the county boroughs within the geographical county should also be considered, and that they should be called into consultation and be given an opportunity of expressing their views. No change can be made in the boundary of a county borough. The Act which your Lordships passed as the result of the first Report of the Royal Commission some two years ago still holds good, but, if there are arrangements which by agreement can be conveniently made in order to make a 714 better apportionment of the boundaries of the geographical county, it seems to me it would be very desirable that the county boroughs should have an opportunity of expressing their views. The Commission was certainly unanimous upon that point. It seems to be a most useful provision, and the objections which have been made to it seem to me to be based on a misconception. It is thought the boroughs are going to be given the opportunity of taking a, piece from the county without the county's consent. It is nothing of the kind. It is merely an opportunity for the re-arrangement of the whole of the districts in the county on a sound basis, and to enable everybody who may be concerned to be consulted and have an opportunity of giving his advice.
My Lords, I must confess I do not like the principle of speaking at the Third Reading stage upon Amendments which have already been settled and discussed in your Lordships' House on Committee Stage and on Report, but this matter is so important that I venture to ask your Lordships to allow me to say a few words upon it. It is an old question, and there are few questions which do stir county councils more than the fear of having a large quantity of their rateable value taken away from them by large boroughs on their outskirts. I have been personally acquainted with that fear as long almost as I have been in public life. I do not see very much difference between that fear on the part of the county councils and the expectation which was held out by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that there would merely be sonic re-arrangement of the boundary. It seems to me that there is very little difference between them and I am not surprised at the fear which is being expressed by the county councils in regard to this matter, nor at the strength of the protests which have reached me in respect of it from more than one direction in this country. I also think the Minister of Health would be overwhelmed by applications in regard to this matter. County boroughs who have been casting envious eyes for a long time upon desirable spots will seize this opportunity of beseeching the Minister of Health to allow them to take over these valuable spots. Quite apart even from the point of view of whether it 715 is desirable or not that this should be inserted in this Bill, I feel sure the Minister of Health will find himself almost overwhelmed by applications and by controversies upon this subject. I have very little hope, however, at this late stage, that His Majesty's Government will accept the Amendment.
My Lords, I should like to be allowed to say a word on this matter, because it is a point which has been made from all sides of the House, and we have been overwhelmed by protests against the proposals contained in this proviso. Perhaps that applies to me in rather an especial degree, because in the old days I was very much associated with the discussions of readjustment as between the county council districts and the county borough districts. I thought after a good deal of alteration in the methods of procedure it was determined that this should be a question to be decided by Parliament itself, and by no other authority. There was a good deal of controversy in the old days when there had been a local inquiry in the first instance and the conditions of the local inquiry were brought before a Committee of this House which dealt with local government matters. I think in every case the Chairman of the Committee of this House held that it was for the Committee of this House to consider and determine these questions, and not for an outside authority. Under this proviso it appears to me that on every reorganisation within a county you give the right to object to an adjoining county borough. That is a very serious matter when you are dealing with county reorganisation. At the present time the adjoining county borough has no locus standi, nor ought it to have under those conditions; and so far from a provision of this kind assisting in reorganisation, as the noble Earl thinks, I believe it will have the opposite effect. It would in every case prevent necessary reorganisation being carried out. Reorganising within the county is one matter, and to raise on such an occasion all the questions of a very acute kind between adjoining borough authorities and county authorities would be a very serious obstruction to better reorganisation. I have often heard the noble Earl explain matters in a very lucid manner, but I admit I did not understand his explanation why a provision of this kind has been introduced, for it must 716 interfere with, and not help forward, that reorganisation which I understand he so much desires.
There is a drafting Amendment next.
§ 50. The council of any county or borough, or of any district, and the common council of the City of London and the council of any metropolitan borough shall make to the Minister such reports and returns and give him such information with respect to their functions as he may require.
§ THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after "metropolitan borough," to insert "and any joint committee or joint board appointed jointly by two or more such councils as aforesaid." The noble Earl said: This is to secure that the terms from Joint Boards and Joint Committees shall also be available for the Minister. I beg to move.
§ THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, at the end of the clause, to add "(2) This section shall extend to the county of London." The noble Earl said: This is drafting. I beg to move.
§ 51.—(1) As from the appointed day it shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be lawful for the council of any county to defray any expenses necessarily incurred by members of the council or of any committee thereof to which this section applies in travelling to and from meetings of the council or committee or in travelling by 717 direction of the council or committee for the purpose of carrying out any inspection necessary for the discharge of the functions of the council or committee.
§ (2) No expenses which a county council have, apart from this section, power to defray shall be defrayed under this section, and this section shall not affect any such power.
§ (3) No expenditure by a county council under this section shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining the amount of any sum payable to the council out of moneys provided by Parliament.
§ (4) This section shall apply to any committee of a county council appointed for the discharge of functions throughout the whole area for which the county council is charged with those functions, and shall also apply to any sub-committee or joint committee so appointed as if it were a committee of the council.
§ (5) In this section the expression "subcommittee" means a sub-committee of a committee of a county council, and the expression "joint committee" means a joint committee or joint board appointed by a county council jointly with the council of another county or of a borough or with a court of quarter sessions.
§ " .—(1) It shall be lawful for a county council to incur expenditure in paying allowances at uniform rates to be prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State in respect of travelling and other personal expenses necessarily incurred and time necessarily lost from ordinary employment by members of the council or of any committee or sub-committee thereof in attending meetings of such council, committee or sub-committee.
§ (2) Any such expenditure as aforesaid incurred in respect of meetings of the council shall be defrayed in like manner as general administrative expenses of the council, and any expenditure incurred in respect of meetings of a committee or of any subcommittee shall be defrayed in like manner as expenditure on the functions for which the committee or sub-committee is appointed."
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I agree with what has been said about the desirability of not again raising matters which have already been raised in Committee and on Report, but the condition in this case is peculiar. This is the first time in considering this matter that the House has had before it the actual terms of the Scottish Bill, and, if our proposal is carried, the terms of the Scottish Bill will be substituted for the terms of the English Bill. From that point of view, 718 I think that a matter of considerable principle is involved. The point really is—it was referred to in the admirable speech of the noble Earl who voiced our opposition to the Third Reading of the Bill—that, unless you have these expenses paid, no member of the poorer classes or the working classes can become a member of a county council. That is a very serious matter. If a Bill of this kind is to work well, you ought to make your county councils entirely representative, because not only do they decide questions of policy as regards the Poor Law but they hold the purse strings and in addition make all the appointments of officers and officials. I do not think I ought to detain your Lordships because this matter has been argued before, but I do sincerely hope that the Government will realise that the position, as it is left by this Bill, is extremely unsatisfactory and that there is no reason whatever why, in this matter, there should be differentiation between the Scottish Bill and the English Bill. I beg, therefore, to move my Amendment.
My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has quite truly said, this is a matter which has been discussed in Committee and I think also on the Report stage. The noble and learned Lord further said that, for the first time this afternoon, your Lordships' attention has been directed to the Scottish Bill. I cannot help thinking that he cannot have listened very carefully to the debates in Committee and on the Report stage, because the Scottish Bill was the main argument adduced in favour of this Amendment at those earlier stages, and I remember a strong protest was made from the Government Benches against the suggestion that whilst we were discussing the English Bill we should be troubled with the Scottish Bill which might be governed by quite different considerations. If it were true that this was the law in Scotland now and that we were endeavouring to assimilate English procedure to Scottish procedure it would be very relevant to see what the law at present in Scotland has to say. That is not so, however. The Scottish Bill has only had a Second Reading, and may or may not be amended before it is passed by your Lordships' House.
719 Since the noble and learned Lord has again brought up the matter of the Scottish Bill, I should like to point out that the positions in England and Scotland are, in fact, quite different. I am not in the least arguing the Scottish Bill. I am not responsible for it in your Lordships' House, and no doubt any proposed Amendment will be discussed on its merits, but in fact in Scotland to-day with regard to the education committees the position is that the members do at this moment receive travelling and subsistence allowances, and also payment for lost time. Therefore, when the Scottish Bill was being discussed in another place it was thought desirable to maintain, with regard to the Scottish county councils to whom the powers of the education committees are being transferred, what is the existing law with regard to the education committees. For better or worse—personally I think very much for the better—we have not got that right in England. It is not the law to-day that in England members of county councils or of those other bodies whose functions are being transferred to the county councils, get their travelling expenses. Therefore, what we are doing in England is to introduce for the first time a power which does not at present exist in England, and we are saying that in England there shall in future be power, which there is not to-day, for county councils to pay travelling expenses if they see fit so to do. How it can be said that a Bill which introduces for the first time power to pay travelling expenses is a Bill which is depriving the working classes of the right of representation on the county councils passes my comprehension. It seems a pure piece of Socialist propaganda.
The fact is that we are conferring on county councils a power which does not at present exist, and when we are told that not only should travelling expenses be paid, but that lost time should be paid for, and that the absence of a provision making it compulsory for county councils to make these payments is a move to deprive the working man of representation on county councils, all I can say is that a great many county councils have a large number of Socialist members to-day, and that on more than one there is actually a Socialist majority. Therefore, that seems an idle argument. The matter has been thrashed out before, but since the Scottish Bill has been 720 brought before your Lordships I have thought it right to inform myself, as the matter is not within my personal cognisance, of what the position is in Scotland, in order to explain the apparent anomaly upon which the noble and learned Lord puts so much stress.
My Lords, I think the noble and learned Lord has rather missed the point with regard to the Scottish Bill. When the matter was previously discussed, the Scottish Bill was still in another place, and all we knew about it was in the nature of rumour. Now it is in the possession of this House, and we can see the Bill itself. I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord himself did not make the suggestion that this provision might not be there when the Bill reached us. Therefore, it is rather interesting, now that the Bill is before us, to look at it, and it is particularly interesting to notice how far these Scotsmen who told us they did not want this power at all have gone in their Bill. All that the English Bill provides is that county councils shall be able to pay these expenses for travelling to members of committees which cover the whole county. I think that is the limitation. If you look at the clause which the noble Lord has moved, and which is taken verbatim from the Scottish Bill, you will see that it shall be lawful for a county council to pay allowances at rates prescribed by the Secretary of State in respect of travelling expenses without any limitation as to a committee covering a whole county or any part of the county. It does not stop there. It goes on to say "other personal expenses necessarily incurred." Nor, my Lords, does it stop there. It still goes on, and says payment may be made for "time necessarily lost from ordinary employment."
It is quite remarkable what an advantage the other part of the Kingdom has got over this part in this matter. I think it is perfectly legitimate to refer to this, and to ask why this remarkable differentiation is made. I do not quite understand the argument of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to this being an entire novelty in England and no novelty in Scotland. He said travelling expenses are now paid to members of education committees in Scotland. But there are 721 some statutory committees, such as asylums committees, in this country whose members have had their travelling expenses paid in the past. Therefore, it is not an entire novelty in this country. The novelty is to give county councils power to make a general rule. However, if your Lordships, without any explanation or reason, desire to pass these two Bills in different forms, we have no power to prevent you.
§ Relations between county councils and district councils in respect of public health functions.
§ (3) Where it appears to the Minister that the council of any district wholly or partly within a county have made default in providing their district or any part thereof with a sewerage system or sewage disposal works or an adequate supply of water, or in discharging any other function relating to public health which it is their duty to discharge, the Minister may cause a local inquiry to be made into the matter, and— (b) if the function is not discharged by the time limited in the order, the Minister may by order transfer to the county council the function with respect to which default has been made either for a definite period or until he may otherwise direct, and the order may apply any of the provisions of section sixty-three of the Local Government Act, 1894, with such modifications and adaptations (if any) as appear necessary or expedient.
My Lords, the Amendments which I have put down to this clause and to Clause 62 have the 722 same object. They are to enable superannuation and transference provisions to be applied in cases where functions are transferred from district councils to county councils.
§ Amendment of 18 d 19 Geo. 5. c. 44. s. 3 (2).
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, the question has been raised whether the Bill makes it clear that there shall be no distinction in the matter of rate relief between two industrial premises merely on the ground that in one a man works with assistance and in another by himself, or with a son or brother. This pro-posed clause makes it clear that the distinction does not exist. The addition of this clause will entail a consequential alteration in the Title of the Bill.
My Lords, I think I understand the noble Earl, and I entirely agree with him. This is to meet the case of which the illustration was given of a blacksmith working by himself in his own shop.
§ " .It shall not be necessary for any rating authority in defining by resolution the class of hereditaments whereof the owners are to be rated instead of the occupiers, to define the class by reference to the interval at which rent from time to time becomes payable or is collected, and accordingly the following amendments, shall be made in subsection (1) of section eleven of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, that is to say, after the words 'and also' there shall be therein inserted the words 'where the rating authority so decide,' and in the proviso to that subsection the words 'the rent of which becomes payable or is collected at quarterly or any longer intervals or 'shall cease to have effect."
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have ventured to put down this Amendment to meet a certain difficulty that arises in some of the East Anglian areas, where the present system of compounding will cease to have effect unless this Amendment is made.
My Lords, before the Question is put, I should like to say one word. I imagine that this is an entirely new matter that has not yet been brought before your Lordships. We have had no very adequate explanation from the noble Earl of the purport and effect of this clause. If, as I rather suspect, it increases the burdens on agricultural landowners and cottage owners, I venture to hope, bearing in mind the very serious difficulties under which estates are conducted, that the House will not accept this Amendment. In any case, I think it requires a little more explanation than we have received.
My Lords, if I may speak again with your Lordships' permission, I will make a further statement. I was abbreviating my remarks only because I thought that the hour 724 was late and that your Lordships would like me to say as little as possible. This Amendment arises out of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, where provision is made for the so-called compounding of rates where the owner of the land or buildings pays the rate instead of the occupier. Owing to the fact that the Act was drawn with a limit of time as well as of the amount of money paid for a cottage, a number of cottagers in East Anglia will not have the privilege that they have enjoyed in the past. In East Anglia there are a number of districts where cottagers pay their rent, if it is less than £13 a year, once a year, often at the end of harvest or at some other appropriate time. Owing to the fact that the Rating and Valuation Act provides that the rent must be paid at periods of not less than a quarter, these people will not be able to have the privilege of having their rates paid by the landlord, and accordingly the proviso in the other Act which says that the rent must be paid at more frequent intervals than once a quarter requires attention. The purpose of this Amendment is to allow the old custom to go on, so that these people will not have their rate demand note served on them. I am told that there is one district where this point affects as many as 67 per cent. of all the hereditaments in the area. This would cause considerable difficulty to the particular rural council, it would cause a great deal more work than in the past, and it is therefore a matter of rural economy, as well as of convenience to all concerned, that we should carry on a custom that has obtained for a great number of years. I hope that I have made myself clear to your Lordships.
I do not know if I am in order, but I should like to ask the noble Earl whether, if cottages are left vacant, as I take it they sometimes are in East Anglia, then under this compounding system, if this Amendment is accepted, the landowners in East Anglia will have to pay more than they are paying at the present time.
I imagine that things will go as they always have. I should not think that it makes any 725 difference at all. In fact, I am so advised.
My Lords, I am advised that it is thought that this Amendment will be in the interests of everybody concerned—of local authorities, owners and tenants—in order to avoid upsetting existing arrangements and to enable the status quo to be maintained as far as possible. I understand that this is the object of my noble friend's Amendment, and that it will have that effect. Without it you will have a new system introduced which would be inconvenient to owners, local authorities and tenants alike.
My Lords, all the Amendments standing in my name—and they are the only Amendments on the Paper—down to and including Clause 123 are drafting Amendments.
My Lords, my Amendments to this clause, to Clause 132 and to all the Schedules down to the end of the Eleventh Schedule are drafting.
PART III.—REPEALS CONSEQUENTIAL ON PART III OF THIS ACT.
41 & 42 Vict.c. 77 The Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act 1878. In section sixteen, the words "in pursuance of this Act."
PART VI.—REPEALS CONSEQUENTIAL ON PART VI OF THIS ACT.
1 & 2 Geo. 5.c. 2. The Revenue Act, 1911. Section eventeen, except so far as it relates to Scotland.
In section eighteen, subsection (1).
PART VII.—REPEALS CONSEQUENTIAL ON PART VII OF THIS ACT.
9 & 10 Vict. c. 74. The Baths and Wash-houses Act, 1846. In section twenty-four the words "and of the "guardians of "the poor of the "parish (if any) "and of" and the words "such "guardians or "in."
§ THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in Part III after "in pursuance of this Act," to insert (in the third column)" Section twenty." The noble Earl said: My Lords, in certain counties, I think in the North of England, the roads are occasionally charged upon the hun- 730 dreds. That is provided in the Act of 1875. Owing to the provisions of this Bill, that section should be repealed, because the roads all become a county charge. I beg to move.
The rest of my Amendments are drafting.
§ Page 176, leave out lines 44 and 45.
§ Page 178, line 38, leave out ("and of").
§ An Act to amend the law relating to the administration of poor relief, registration of births, deaths, and marriages, highways, town planning and local government; to grant complete or partial relief from rates in the case of the hereditaments to which the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, applies; to discontinue certain grants from the Exchequer and provide other grants in lieu thereof; and for purposes consequential on the matters aforesaid.
My two Amendments in the Title are consequential on the new clause after Clause 67 which your Lordships were good enough to insert in the Bill, on my Motion.
My Lords I beg to move that this Bill be now passed.
§ Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.
Back to MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Forward to DEAD SEA SALTS CONCESSION.

References: § 2
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 

§ 7

§ 13

§ 17

§ 29

§ 50

§ 51