§ Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
§ [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to cancer, it is expedient—
§ 10.52 p.m.
§ Mr. ElliotWe have already had a very full discussion on the Bill, and indeed on the financial aspect of it, but at the same time I readily agree that this brings us to a point where, admittedly, there is not the same unanimity of view as there was 1756 about the Bill itself, and the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) indicated that he would have more to say when we came to the Financial Resolution. He did, in fact, set out his position fairly fully on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I think it was gone into also very fairly fully by the Under-Secretary in his reply just now. I do not wish to keep the Committee, and to go over again in detail the arguments that were then advanced, but it is worth while simply to indicate to the Committee why I think that this Financial Resolution is a fair and just Resolution and should receive assent.
There are two sections of it, first, the provisions as to the advancing of moneys generally and the provisions for advancing the loans for radio-therapeutic treatment and other means for treating the disease. I do not think the Committee will desire to go into those provisions at any length. It is really on the other point, the relation of the central to the local government, as it is interpreted in this Resolution, on which I think the right hon. Gentleman wishes further to bring arguments and, if possible, to persuade the Government. Of course I will listen with great interest to what he has to say, but I fear it will be impossible, as I am at present advised, for me to change the position which I previously expressed.
Let me point out first of all the position that in regard to a great deal of this Resolution the right hon. Gentleman and myself are agreed. The right hon. Gentleman and myself are at one with the hon. Member for the Welsh University (Mr. E. Evans) in the view that the provisions with regard to the proportion of 50 per cent. are reasonable and fair. They go a long way. Take the case of Wales, which has been referred to as one of the difficult spots coming under the Bill. When I look over the provision for Wales, I find that Newport gets a grant of 61 per cent., Swansea a grant of 64 per cent., and Merthyr Tydvil a grant of 85 per cent. The only town which the right hon. Gentleman could mention as being under 5o per cent. is Cardiff, and even there the grant works out at 49 per cent. Then if we take the counties we find that Carnarvon gets 71 per cent., Cardigan 76 per cent. and Merioneth 84 per cent. Those are the lowest grants in the Welsh counties because then come along, in a 1757 solid phalanx, Denbigh, Anglesey, Carmarthen, Glamorgan, Pembroke and Monmouthshire each with 85 per cent. I do ask the Committee to consider that for the poorer districfs of the country, the financial resolution makes a not unjust provision.
§ Mr. J. MorganAt the expense of other local authorities
§ Mr. ElliotNot at the expense of the other authorities at all. The Act of 1929 laid it down, and this Financial Resolution bears it out, that a grant should be made towards the expenses of a new service as a whole, and that the money should be divided according to the formula, "From each according to his means, to each according to his need." It is not such a novel principle, and I am sure hon. Members opposite will recognise it. I think, at any rate, it would be fair to say that this Resolution, like the curate's egg, is good in parts, and the question is whether the Committee ought to vote against it because of those parts which the right hon. Gentleman opposite says are not so good. But I do think that the case which has been put up by the Under-Secretary indicating that, at any rate for this service, the contribution should be less for the great cities is a reasonable proposal and can be substantiated to the full. Admittedly great national sums of money have been spent in the capital and in some of the great towns, but let me point out this. The right hon. Gentleman himself and the London County Council have been developing this service without any grant at all.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonIs that a crime?
§ Mr. ElliotIt is surely no crime on my part that I should come along with a grant to help him and to supplement that work. This is something which he previously thought was so important that he was doing it without any assistance, and now I come along with a handsome cheque to help him to do it and the right hon. Gentleman seems to think that I am committing some sort of offence. I think that is scarcely just.
Let me make a further point. The sums for this service will be merged eventually in the block grant, and the right hon. Gentleman's authority will directly profit from the expenditure which other counties are now about to undertake. 1758 Many local authorities will directly profit from the service which these other counties are now about to undertake. He knows the working of the block grant system, and he knows that money expended on a new service in the other parts of the country will tend to float up the grant which comes to his and other authorities which have been ex-Pending this money "on their own." The right hon. Gentleman says London is a special case, and quite rightly, as London is the doyen of all the local authorities, whether Conservative or Labour, he quoted the cases of Eastbourne and Hastings and other South Coast resorts. He says that owing to the varying nature of other factors in the block grant, London will derive no advantages from a possible increase in the block grant.
I will undertake to review the position of London and other towns which might suffer in that way specially before the new block grant comes into existence, not merely with regard to this service, but with regard to the midwives service also. If he is about to suffer injustice in that way, I will do my best to see that it is at any rate considered, though I can give no pledge as to what action will be taken. That is, I think, as far as I can go to meet the right hon. Gentleman now. The proposals of the Resolution give great help to many of the poorer areas in the country, and even in the other areas I do not think they are unfair proposals if you take into account the considerable advantages which those areas now enjoy and the new special factors which affect more particularly London, that is to say, that owing to the falling-off in the factors which would otherwise increase their block grant, they might be caught between the hammer and the anvil. I will undertake a special investigation into their position before the next block grant comes into existence. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will let us have this Resolution without having a Division against it, though he and his friends might think it necessary to put some further arguments before the House finally comes to a decision.
§ 11.2 p.m.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonDo I understand, Sir Dennis, that the Chair is of opinion that my Amendment is out of order?
§ The ChairmanYes:
§ Mr. MorrisonWould you be so kind as to say why you consider it so?
§ The ChairmanIt is out of order, because it clearly gives the possibility of considerably widening the limits within which grants can be made.
§ Mr. MorrisonI admit the possibility of that, but I thought that in drafting the Amendment we had got it into a form in which it did not necessarily involve any increase in the charge on the Exchequer.
§ The ChairmanThe possibility is enough.
§ Mr. MorrisonOn that point, I wish to make this observation, by way of argument not with you, Sir Dennis, but with His Majesty's Government. It will be remembered that some time ago there was appointed a Select Committee on Procedure relating to Money Resolutions, and when its report was received that Committee was found to recommend that the House should pass a Resolution affirming the principle that while proposals for expenditure should be initiated only by the Crown, the Government, in framing the Financial Resolutions, should endeavour to frame them in a way that did not unduly fetter the discussions of the House about the details of a Bill. Indeed, the Prime Minister in the Debate in the House on 9th November, 1937, announced that he caused a Treasury Minute to be circulated in which it was stated:
I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury to invite your attention to the report of the Select Committee on Procedure relating to Money Resolutions and to a reply given by the Prime Minister to a question in the House of Commons on 19th November, 1937, and in particular to the declaration that it is the definite intention of His Majesty's Government to secure that Financial Resolutions in respect of Bills shall be so framed as not to restrict the scope within which the Committee on Bills may consider Amendments further than is necessary to enable the Government to discharge their responsibilities in regard to public expenditure, and to leave to the Committee the utmost freedom for discussion and Amendment on details which is compatible with the discharge of those responsibilities.I am bound to say that in watching these Financial Resolutions I cannot see that they have changed in the slightest degree since the Report of the Select Committee, the specific undertaking in the Treasury minute, and the statements that were made by the Prime Minister at the time. The Parliamentary officers of the local 1760 government associations, their Parliamentary agents, as well as the solicitor and the Parliamentary officer of the London County Council have examined this Financial Resolution to see whether we can see any Amendment of it that is in order. The best we could find is the one I have put down which has met the sad fate you, Sir Dennis, have indicated to the Committee. If it be the case that we are to have Financial Resolutions of this kind which make it utterly impossible for any financial point to be raised, then let the Prime Minister come to the House again and say he never meant a word of that Treasury minute or of his declaration to the House; that the whole thing is a farce, and that his undertakings have been deliberately evaded by Ministers, including the Minister of Health.The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have done the very thing I indicated they would do. They have tried to make this a battle of London versus the rest, and particularly of the rest versus London. One of the most shameful things for a Minister of the Crown to do is to set the House of Commons attacking the capital city of His Majesty's Dominions. It really is a wrong thing to do. Is the reason why Ministers make a dead set at London and try to set the whole House against London because the citizens have dared to elect a Labour majority to the County Council? Is this where we have got to, that if a city dares to have a Labour majority Ministers set about it and try to prejudice the whole House of Commons against it? Did I not say when I spoke before, with the greatest deliberation and every authority and justification, that I was speaking not only for the London County Council on the financial aspects of this matter, but, with the reservations I mentioned, that I was speaking also for the Association of Municipal Corporations and for the County Councils' Association? Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly try to get it into his ministerial head and into the head of his Parliamentary Secretary that on this matter and on the Financial Resolution I am speaking for the Associations of local authorities—the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils' Association and the London County Council?
Far from this being a London matter, I have shown in my earlier speech, and 1761 I must say it again because the right hon. Gentleman and his assistant have not understood it, that 52 out of 83 county boroughs will get less than 50 per cent. grant. Two-thirds of them will get less than 50 per cent. grant. Nineteen out of 63 county councils will get less than 50 per cent. grant. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I gave him a list of the boroughs, some of which are definitely poor areas, which will get less than 50 per cent. grant? May I give the example of Salford? Its rate in the t now is over 17s., and it will be about 18s. when the rate is made this year. Salford will get less than 50 per cent. grant. The city of Manchester—and there are Tory Members here who represent the city of Manchester—will get 38 per cent. grant. Poor West Ham will get less than 50 per cent. I gave a long list of areas of some difficulty where they will get less than 50 per cent. Preston will get less than 50 per cent. I want to know what the two Members for Preston are going to do about it. I want to make it abundantly clear that no one on this side complains that the Welsh counties are to get up to 83 per cent. Good luck to them. I would not say a word to bring the percentage down a point. They deserve a high grant, and ought to have it, but that is no reason why it should be at the expense of other authorities, including those which I have mentioned. These other authorities, including the city of Bristol, which the Parliamentary Secretary did not mention although he represents it, are going to be skimmed in order to save the Treasury their responsibility for the depressed areas.
The Parliamentary Secretary defeated his own argument. I never listened to such a contradictory speech. He said, "If you pay more than 50 per cent. to local authorities, local government ceases, because the State must control the expenditure. Therefore, in the interests of true local government, you ought not to go above 50 per cent." Later he was arguing the virtues in certain cases of going up to 85 per cent. If in a large number of areas the State can go up to 85 per cent. without destroying the fabric of local government why should that cease to be the case in the other areas? The truth is that the Government, when 1762 faced with the claim of the depressed areas, the irresistible claim, have, instead of footing the bill from the Treasury, imposed a levy upon other places in order to make up the money. All we get in answer to our protests is this constant sneer at London, this constant attack upon London. I want the Government to understand that London returns 62 Members to this House and I am going to watch what those 62 Members do. They will hear more about it. We shall have a lovely bill for the next General Election: "What the National Government has cost the London ratepayers." It will be a devastating bill. I warn the London Members that unless they are alive on this matter and play their part they will hear more about it, and I warn the Conservative Members for Lancashire in the same way. The County of Lancashire is going to get below 50 per cent. That is why the great local authority associations are asking that the Government should not disturb the high grants to the poor areas and saying that all areas ought to get a minimum 50 per cent. grant.
I have spoken with some feeling because I am rather tired of the right hon. Gentleman trying to sidestep the issue on the basis of London and Bournemouth. I do not see why I should necessarily be mixed up with Bournemouth. If I were the Member for Bournemouth I should be doing my job to-night. I do not know where he is. New impositions are being made upon the local authorities, and yet Conservative Members will go "on the stump" in the country and denounce us for the increase of rates. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) has been earning considerable publicity as an authority upon local government—why, I do not know—by addressing conferences of ratepayers' associations and denouncing the increases in the rates, and yet to-night he supports this Bill which will impose new charges on the local authorities and never says a word in defence of the local authorities getting a reasonable minimum from the State. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) has been doing the same thing, running vigilance committees and denouncing his local authority for increased rates. Where is he to-night? He has introduced a Bill to relieve certain properties of rates by methods which will increase the burdens on other properties. 1763 I am getting tired of hon. Members opposite who go about the country denouncing high rates. Ministers do it. The Prime Minister himself did it only a few years ago. Not a municipal election passes but the Prime Minister's denunciation of high rates is used; but where are they, when a reasonable fight is being made for the ratepayers? I say that it is the duty of this House—not in any way to damage the interests of the poor section, because I will be no party to their being damaged—to see that every local authority is entitled, when a new duty is being imposed upon them by the State, to a minimum and reasonable financial consideration at the hands of the State, especially in a social service such as the treatment of cancer.
Therefore, while on this side of the House we have no wish to prevent the necessary finances being carried through for the operation of the Bill and we have assented to the Second Reading, because we are in favour of the principle of the Bill, and while we specifically assert that poor areas are entitled to every penny of assistance that it is proposed to give them, we shall nevertheless divide the Committee on the question that when the Government are imposing new duties upon local authorities, the latter have a right to a minimum of financial consideration at the hands of the Treasury and at the hands of His Majesty's Government.
§ 11.17 p.m.
§ Sir Percy HarrisHon. Members may be surprised at the indignation of the right hon. Gentleman. It is unfortunate. This is a good Bill, and we all congratu-
§ late the Minister upon getting its Second Reading without a Division, but we may have to modify the Bill in Committee, and we shall no doubt have the cooperation of the Whole House in that respect. It is rather sad that we have to have a wrangle over the distribution of the cost. For 28 years I was a member of a great London local authority, and the Minister must know that this is not merely a matter raised by the Labour party. For years he and his predecessors have been concerned in the same wrangle over London rates. We had to go through the struggle between the Government and the local authority, particularly with new services. There was a sound principle, which was followed in reference to education, but unfortunately was departed from when some ingenious civil servant invented that horrible formula relating to the factor of weighted population, which I am sure few hon. Members can understand. What we say is that no authority in any part of the country shall get less than so per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] I cannot understand hon. Members above the Gangway, who permitted their own man to speak and are not permitting another hon. Member to speak. We want the Minister to accept the principle of equal partnership. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept that principle, he would not only get the Second Reading of the Bill without a Division but the financial provisions as well.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 106.
1765| Division No. 16.] | AYES | [11.20 p.m. |
| Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) | Cazalet, Capt. V A. (Chippenham) | Goldie, N. B. |
| Albery, Sir Irving | Channon, H. | Grant-Ferris, R. |
| Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's) | Christie, J. A. | Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) | Gridley, Sir A. B. |
| Apsley, Lord | Clarry, Sir Reginald | Guinness, T. L. E. B. |
| Aske, Sir R. W. | Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) | Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. |
| Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) | Craven-Ellis, W. | Hannah, I. C. |
| Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) | Critchley, A. | Harbord, A. |
| Baillie, Sir A. W. M. | Craft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Crooke, Sir J. Smedley | Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. |
| Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Partsm' h) | Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. |
| Bernays, R. H. | Crowder, J. F. E. | Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- |
| Bird, Sir R. B. | Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) | Hepworth, J. |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Dugdale, Captain T. L. | Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) |
| Bracken, B. | Duggan, H. J. | Hogg, Hon. Q. McG. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Duncan, J. A. L. | Holdsworth, H. |
| Briscoe, Capt. R. G. | Edmondson, Major Sir J. | Holmes, J. S. |
| Broadbridge, Sir G. T. | Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. | Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. |
| Brocklebank, Sir Edmund | Elliston, Capt. G. S. | Hopkinson, A. |
| Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.) | Emery, J. F. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) |
| Bull, B. B. | Fildes, Sir H. | Hunloke, H. P. |
| Butcher, H. W. | FIndiay, Sir E. | Hutchinson, G. C. |
| Campbell, Sir E. T. | Fremantle, Sir F. E. | James, Wing-Commander A. W. H. |
| Cary, R. A. | Furness, S. N. | Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) |
| Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Nall, Sir J. | Storey, S. |
| Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) | Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. | Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) |
| Leech, Sir J. W. | Orr-Ewing, I. L. | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Peake, O. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Levy, T. | Perkins, W. R. D. | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) |
| Liddall, W. S. | Petherick, M. | Thomas, J. P. L. |
| Llewellin, Colonel J. J. | Pickthorn, K. W. M. | Thorneycroft, G. E. P. |
| Lloyd, G. W. | Ramsay, Captain A. H. M | Titchheld, Marquess of |
| Mebane, W. (Huddersfield) | Ramsbotham, H. | Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L. |
| MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. | Ramsden, Sir E. | Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan |
| McCorquodale, M. S. | Rankin, Sir R. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) | Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend) |
| Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) | Rayner, Major R. H. | Waterhouse, Captain C. |
| Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest | Reid, W. Allan (Derby) | Watt, Major G. S. Harvie |
| Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Remer, J. R. | Wedderburn, H. J. S. |
| Markham, S. F. | Ropner, Colonel L. | Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham) |
| Maxwell, Hon. S. A. | Rowlands, G. | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. | Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R | Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) | Womersley, Sir W. J. |
| Mitchell, H. (Brantford and Chiswick) | Salt, E. W. | Wood, Hon. C. I. C. |
| Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R. | Samuel, M. R. A. | Wragg, H. |
| Morris-Jones, Sir Henry | Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) | |
| Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) | Shepperson, Sir E. W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) | Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J. | Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. |
| Munro, P. | Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) | Grimston. |
| NOES | ||
| Adams, D. (Consett) | Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) | Oliver, G. H. |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) | Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) | Owen, Major G. |
| Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford) | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Paling, W. |
| Alexander. Rt. Hon A. V. (H'lsbr.) | Harris, Sir P. A. | Pearson, A. |
| Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. | Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) | Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F W. |
| Barnes, A. J. | Henderson, J. (Ardwick) | Price, M P. |
| Barr, J. | Henderson, T. (Tradeston) | Pritt, D. N. |
| Bartlett, C. V. O. | Hills, A. (Pontefract) | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Bellenger, F. J. | Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) | Richards, R. (Wrexham) |
| Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. | John, W. | Ridley, G. |
| Bevan, A. | Johnston, RI. Hon. T. | Riley, B. |
| Broad, F. A | Jones, A. C. (Shipley) | Ritson, J. |
| Burke, W. A. | Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Seely, Sir H. M. |
| Cape, T. | Kelly, W. T. | Sexton, T. M. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kirby, B. V. | Silkin, L. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lathan, G. | Smith, E. (Stoke) |
| Collindridge, F. | Lawson, J. J. | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Dalton, H. | Leach, W. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) | Leslie, J. R. | Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) |
| Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) | Lipson, D. L. | Summerskill, Dr. Edith |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Logan, D. G. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Day, H. | Lunn, W. | Tinker, J. J. |
| Debbie, W. | Macdonald, G. (Ince) | Tomlinson, G. |
| Dunn, E. (Rather Valley) | McEntee, V. La T. | Viant, S. P. |
| Ede, J. C. | McGhee, H. G. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) | MacNeill Weir, L. | Watson, W. McL. |
| Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. | Marshall, F. | Westwood, J. |
| Frankel, D. | Mathers, G. | White, H. Graham |
| Gardner, B. W. | Messer, F. | Whiteley, W. (Blaydon) |
| Garro Jones, G. M. | Milner, Major J. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) | Montague, F. | Williams, T. (Don Valley) |
| Gibbins, J. | Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster) | Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) |
| Green, W. H. (Deptford) | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) | Woods, G. S. (Finsbury) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. | Muff. G. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Grenfell, D. R | Nathan, Colonel H. L. | |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbre, W. | Noel-Baker, P. J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Adamson and Mr. Anderson. |
§ Resolution to be reported To-morrow.