§ 8.56 p.m.
§ Mr. GUYI beg to move, in page 23, line 27, to leave out "with the consent of the Treasury."
This Amendment raises the vexed question of Treasury control over the Road Fund. That question was fully thrashed out, as regards grants out of the Road Fund, in the discussions on the Finance Bill, and I do not propose to traverse that ground again. Clause 19 of the present Bill deals only with the expenses under the Bill which fall on the Road Fund. Sub-section (1) reads:
Such part of the expenses incurred by or in connection with the roads department of the Ministry of Transport as the Minister may from time to time, with the consent of the Treasury, determine to be expenses incurred in the carrying into effect of this Act shall be paid out of the Road Fund, and there shall be included in the expenses to be so paid such charges in respect of superannuation and other allowances and gratuities payable on death or retirement as the Minister with the like consent may determine.Apart from the question of Treasury control over payments out of the Road Fund, there is serious objection to Treasury control over the actual day-to-day expenses coming out of the Road Fund. I know that a rigid scrutiny over the expenses of the other Departments is exercised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who keeps a watchful eye on the taxpayers' money. But the Road Fund is a special case; it is not the taxpayers' money, but money contributed by motorists through the horse-power tax. It is important from the general transport point of view that the administration of the Ministry of Transport should not be fettered by anything in the nature of a cheese-paring control. It must be borne in mind that Parliament has placed many duties upon the Ministry of Transport in recent years, and the carrying out of these duties entails additional expense upon the Road Fund. A great deal of the success of measures for the restriction of ribbon development and roads improvement, of schemes for pedestrian crossings, and so on, depends upon adequate funds being available for carrying out these schemes, that is to say, for adequate staffing of the Ministry. I understand that the Ministry of Transport to-day has no legal department, and, if that be so, I think it should be corrected at the earliest opportunity. I have no doubt 2410 that the Minister, if he had a free hand, would set up such a legal department, instead of relying upon the Home Office—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI must point out to the hon. Member that he is now going very far beyond the scope of the Amendment.
§ Mr. GUYI do not wish to pursue that point; I am only using it as an illustration. To come back to the question of Treasury control over the expenses, it is true that the words "with the consent of the Treasury" appear in the corresponding Section of tae Roads Act, 1920, but I think it will be generally accepted, from a reading of the Debate on the Bill of 1920, that it was the intention of Parliament in 1920 that the Road Fund should be left entirely within the control of the Ministry of Transport. This point was not raised in Committee upstairs. I do not know whether that was due to an oversight, or to the fact that the Committee did not wish to carry such an Amendment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not appear to oppose it, but I notice that on the Front Government Bench to-night neither the Chancellor of tie Exchequer nor the Financial Secretary is present. This, therefore, is an opportunity for the Minister of Transport to break through the shackles of Treasury control over expenses paid out of the Road Fund, and I would ask him to take the opportunity.
§ Mr. LIDDALLI beg to second the Amendment.
§ 9.1 p.m.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAMy hon. Friend is so valiant a champion of the Ministry of Transport that I regret very much to be in the position of not accepting his Amendment. He conceives me as an innocent lady tied to a tree by Treasury ropes. He comes and offers to release me, and I refuse to quit. I agree that that is not only romantic but unsatisfactory. At the same time, this does not seem to me to be the appropriate place at which to raise the major question of policy as to how far the poor Minister of Transport should be under the control of the cruel Treasury. That is a major question, but all that this Bill provides is that the poor officials of the poor Ministry of Transport who carry this Bill into operation shall be paid something, subject to the conditions 2411 which the Treasury may lay down, and presumably they will be conditions governing the whole Civil Service. That does not seem to be an unreasonable provision. I have no doubt that the Treasury will treat our officials in the same way as all officials are treated, and that proper rates will be paid and superannuation on a suitable scale. This does not seem to me to be the occasion for a complete examination of the important issues at stake, which my hon. Friend did raise in connection with the Finance Bill this year, and upon which, happily, it was not my duty to reply.
§ Mr. GUYIn the hope that there may be a more favourable opportunity later, I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.