§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ 10.44 p.m.
§ Sir S. CrippsMay I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the interpretation which, I understand, is now put upon Clause 5, it is intended to retain this definition of "local authority"? As I understand it—I may be wrong—this definition of "local authority" would include a parish council as being a local authority for whose expenses a precept may be issued for the levying of a rate. That means to say that under Clause 5 a parish council would be given authority to incur any expenditure for the purpose of making these provisions. Surely, if this wide power is to be given under Clause 5, it is desirable that the definition of "local authority" in this Clause should be limited to those local authorities who can make schemes, otherwise, you are going to get all sorts of councils who will want to make their own arrangements and who have no power to submit schemes. If you are to have a co-related inter-connected scheme for the whole of the country it ought to be local authorities who can make schemes and 2021 get their expenditure approved, otherwise you will give other councils a chance of incurring expenditure, indeed, encourage them to do work on air-raid schemes. You clearly do not want them to do this, because you have designated the particular authorities for this purpose.
§ 10.46 p.m.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe interpretation Clause includes such authorities as have power to levy a rate, say, for roads and sewers, and who can issue a precept for such expenditure and obtain contributions in the form of rates. Some of these authorities will make air-raid precautions without presenting any definite scheme. They are not included for the purposes of Clauses r and 2 as authorities which can formulate schemes. I will look into the point put by the hon. and learned Member. I think it is desirable that we should have a definition which is fairly wide, but I am not quite sure that it is necessary to have it as wide as it is in the Bill. The matter shall be looked into.
§ Sir S. CrippsI am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member. I was not dealing with the authorities to which he has referred, but I thought that the definition of a local authority should be coterminous with those local authorities who may send up air-raid schemes; otherwise there will be overlapping. The county council will send up their scheme, and a rural council will send up theirs. There will be chaos.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI will look into the matter.
§ 10.49 p.m.
§ Mr. SilvermanI should like to know whether under the Clause it is clear that any local authority within the definition may incur expenditure for air-raid precautions which is not approved, but which is by Clause 5 lawful, and if that is so, will the Solicitor-General tell us what kind of expenditure by a local authority which has a right to make a scheme is made lawful under Clause 5 without being approved expenditure under Clause 6 or under this Clause? In other words, what kind of expenditure is it possible for a scheme-making authority to incur which is at the same time reasonable and lawful; bat not a part of the expenditure 2022 approved for these general purposes by the Home Office?
§ 10.50 p.m.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe hon. Member is quite right in saying that by Clause 5 it is possible for a local authority to incur expenditure which has not been approved, but there is machinery to deal with the matter. But as regards his second point, the only kind of expenditure by a scheme-making authority that I can think of which is legal under Clause 5, but which does not rank for a grant, is the kind of expenditure which has been mentioned, namely, expenditure incurred before the passing of the Act; and for such expenditure it would be necessary to have words of this kind in, whether it is incurred in pursuance of an air-raid precaution scheme or not, because before the passing of the Act there can be no question of any scheme, and therefore any expenditure incurred before the passing of the Act is not expenditure which could be said to be incurred under an air-raid precaution scheme. That is the only kind of expenditure which I can think of which would be authorised by a local authority which is a scheme-making authority.
§ Sir S. CrippsThe hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite right there, is he? Supposing in such a scheme such an authority put out proposals A, B and C. Proposal A was turned down by the Secretary and could not be part of the scheme. It would be able to spend money on A.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. It might then have legal authority for spending the money on A in some cases.
§ 10.52 p.m.
§ Mr. SilvermanWhat then is the purpose of passing legislation to make legal what, without this legislation, was not legal, that is to say, the expenditure of money on air-raid precaution schemes which is so unreasonable as to disqualify for any share in the grant that the Government make? I am afraid I cannot accept the explanation that it is only expenditure incurred before. If you needed special words in order to cover expenditure incurred by forward-looking authorities before the enactment of this Measure, then you have amply provided by Subsection (2) of Clause 5. You did not 2023 need the other, and if you did need the other you would not have said "what is incurred," but you would have said, "what has been incurred." If you meant something other than past expenditure, then it is really the intention of the Government to say in the same Measure, "We will agree an approved scheme with you. You will do everything that is reasonable, and when you have done that we will bear the brunt of the cost, and you will bear some small share; but we will also in the same Measure pass new legislation in order to enable you to take precautions which are not legal, which we would not sanction, which we do not approve, and which you may carry out at your own expense." What is the purpose of doing that?