HC Deb 14 December 1948 vol 459 cc1147-54

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made and Question proposed: That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend State management to new towns and adjoining areas and to make further provision as respects State management districts, to provide for the payment of allowances to members of licensing courts and courts of appeal in Scotland, and to make provision for other matters, it is expedient to authorise— (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Secretary of State incurred under the said Act in the State management of the liquor trade in the existing State management districts, in new towns and in adjoining areas, and the payment into the Exchequer of the receipts of the Secretary of State arising therefrom; (b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, being an increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to the payment of allowances to members of licensing courts and courts of appeal in Scotland."—[Mr. Ede.]

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

The importance of this Money Resolution has been enormously increased by the not very wise speech of the Lord President, which has tended to show a possibility of widening this Resolution out of all proportion to what the more innocent people in the House thought something like 45 to 50 minutes ago. The Question I want to ask is this: precisely what estimates have the Treasury made of the sums which may be needed under paragraph (a) of this Money Resolution? These sums must be fairly considerable in that they apply to any possible new towns and also to the adjoining areas. The sums which many of us had in mind not very long ago have been extended because of the Lord President's speech, in which he referred to the possibility of leaving Carlisle as an experience on one side and experiments taking place in large industrial areas as well.

For that reason, I think it is far more important than ever that we should get from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Money Resolution some estimate of what the taxpayers of this country may be called upon to hand over to this profligate Government in order to deal with this Bill which nobody wants, and which has caused such an appalling shrinkage in the brutal Government majority—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Although I am deeply grateful for the encouragement I am receiving from hon. Members opposite, I hope it will not take the form of a further interruption because, Major Milner, I am trying to help you to get this business through.

Could we have some explanation of Paragraph (b). Under that paragraph, apparently, we have to pay certain allowances to members of licensing courts and courts of appeal in Scotland. Before we grant any sum of money for that purpose, we would like to know, as far as the Government are capable of finding out, precisely how much money will be required, and by what number these courts will be increased. I am sure that before they come in on a Bill of this sort, the Treasury take very great care to work out these details. If the right hon. Gentleman is properly briefed, they will have been, able to tell him what are the increases. I see that the Secretary of State for Scotland has a knowing look on his face, and I am sure that he will be able to answer that question. even if the Treasury cannot.

There are two questions I wish to ask as far as the estimates are concerned. The first is whether any allowance has been made for the vast extension of this scheme, which must mean a vast sum of money. The second is how are we going to finance the actual building up of this new trade and industry into which the Government propose to enter? Before we grant this money, can we have any sort of authority from the Government to show whether the money, which we must regard as an investment, will be a paying investment or otherwise? If I could have an answer to those questions, even though I dislike the Resolution intensely, I might not be forced to vote against it.

10.29 p.m.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), would like some further information about this Money Resolution. As the House is aware, we have heard very little from the representatives of Scotland on the Treasury Front Bench with regard to this important Measure. This may be a suitable opportunity for one of them to say something about it. I would remind the House that there are three existing areas involved in this Money Resolution. One of them, Carlisle, is in England, and the other two State-managed areas are in Scotland. It is a matter of some considerable importance to Scottish representatives that the position should in some way be clarified.

I am in the difficult position that I have been asked by some hon. Members why it is that expenses are being paid in Scotland when it appears that no such solatium, or whatever description we give to these payments, is being paid in England. I shall be glad to have an answer to that question. I feel sure that the Secretary of State, anxious to indicate that he has secured something for Scotland, which is very rare, may care to tell why he has been able to secure the payment of allowances to members of licensing courts and courts of appeal in Scotland, though his right hon. Friend has been unable to make any similar equivalent provision for those who undertake not dissimilar duties in England. We should be gratified to have his views on this point.

For the rest, I share my hon. Friend's opinion regarding the vagueness generally of the Money Estimate. It may be that I am seeking a meticulous precision which cannot be achieved, but let us know how much, within a few thousands, this involves. What kind of amount of money is State management going to entail over a period of five years? There must be some kind of estimate. This is a planned society in which we move. It would not be unfair to ask those who favour a planned society how much it is going to cost. I support the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay. He rarely requires any support, but I support the proper curiosity which he evinces and await the reply which very properly should be made by someone representing the Government.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. McKie (Galloway)

I wish to reinforce strongly what my hon. Friends have said, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W Darling). If I may seek to break a lance with him, he seems to think that we in Scotland are going to get some increased benefit under this Money Resolution in comparison with the authorities in England. I at once agree with my hon. Friend that we in Scotland should not he greedy. I do not think we have ever been accused of being greedy throughout our long history.

Sir W. Darling

Will not the hon. Gentleman agree with me that we can reasonably anticipate getting a little more than eleven-eightieths in this case?

Mr. McKie

That is the point I was coming to. My hon. Friend rarely exhibits the impatience which he has exhibited tonight. We in Scotland have not been over-greedy in the past, but we are certainly always willing to obtain any crumbs of comfort that fall from the rich man's table—on this occasion, from the Socialist Government's table. I think my hon. Friend, on further reflection, would agree with me that if Scotland were to secure some slight benefit over England on this occasion, we should not he gaining out of turn.

Having endeavoured to deal with that, let me say how much I appreciated the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). We Scottish Members on the Opposition side wish to hear from the Government a little more about the way in which this Resolution is drafted. Why is it necessary to make this special mention of licensing courts and courts of appeal in Scotland? I see that the Principality of Wales is not singled out for special mention. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate-General, who is probably in a better position to answer this legal point, will enlighten us. Is it that they are afraid that we in Scotland, who in the past—certainly in the last two centuries since the Union—have been more law-abiding than the Sassenachs— I see you looking at me, Major Milner, and I assure you I am going to keep sedulously and strictly within the rules of Order. In the last 250 years we have been certainly as law-abiding as the citizens of England and Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) can point out, if he wishes to do so. where I am wrong. I do want to know whether it is intended, by making this special invidious mention of the licensing courts and courts of appeal in Scotland, to cast any aspersion upon the law-abiding qualities of the citizens of the North. I hope that, whoever comes to reply—and I very much hope that it will be the Secretary of State for Scotland—we shall be informed why it has been necessary to introduce this special form of words.

Mention has been made of the Carlisle scheme, which was introduced some 30 or 25 years ago. I think you will agree with my remarks, Major Milner, because you, a Yorkshireman, will remember that that scheme was not altogether a success. We are now going to introduce something of that kind again. Many people who are as old as I am, though I am not one of the oldest Members of the House, will have considerable apprehensions. Speaking as one from the Scottish side of the Border—and I think the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) will agree with me—we certainly do not want anything of that kind reintroduced. I buttress what I have said on the general principle, the invidious mentioning of the licensing court and courts of appeal in Scotland in this Money Resolution, and call attention to the dire failure of the Carlisle scheme. I now invite whoever is to reply for the Government to deal with these points. I hope many of my hon. Friends will follow me. If they do not, I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be in a position to reply to the matters I have raised.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn

It is certainly a most interesting position for me, as Secretary of State for Scotland, to have to deal with the many points put forward apparently for Scotland by hon. Members opposite. At one time they are complaining that Scotland is not getting a fair deal, and now apparently they are complaining because Scotland is having some privileges. It is difficult to know how to adjudicate. To some extent this appears to be a privilege for Scotland, and I hope that hon. Members will recognise it and accept it as such without complaining too much; otherwise the British House of Commons may regret having taken this action.

It arises from the different type of licensing courts in Scotland. There are four types of courts affected. They are the burgh licensing court, consisting of magistrates of the burgh; the burgh court of appeal, consisting of magistrates and an equal number of justices of the peace; the county licensing courts, which consist of specially elected county councillors and an equal number of elected justices; and the county courts of appeal, which consist half of county councillors and half of justices of the peace. Part VI of the Local Government Act, 1948, provides for the payment of expense allowances for members of local authorities for approved duties.

The Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace recommended, in Chapter 7 of its Report, which was published in July, 1948, that expense allowances should be paid to justices of the peace for expenses incurred in their duties. The position is that in these mixed courts provision must be made so that all the members shall be paid on the same basis. Subsection (2) of the Bill provides that the cost of these allowances shall be borne by the town councils and the county councils under the Licensing Act, 1903.

The question was raised as to the cost of these allowances. To the best of our information it should not exceed £1,500 a year, because these courts seldom meet more than twice a year, and in most cases the meetings do not last more than four hours. I think that that answers the point which has been made, and I hope that hon. Members who appear to be so interested in Scotland will agree that the Government have treated Scotland well.

Mr. Ede

I should like to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and to say that no alteration of policy was announced by my right hon. Friend the Lord President this evening. We are here dealing with the new towns and one of their distinguishing characteristics we hope, will be that each will contain an appropriate industrial area having regard to the size of the town concerned. That led to the allusion he was making that we desire these new towns to show bow industry can be carried on in congenial surroundings without the slums and the dirt which we associate with so much of the industrial area which grew up during the late eighteenth, and early nineteenth, centuries.

With regard to adjoining areas, the brewers themselves recognise that if any planning is to take place they want a surrounding protecting ring to prevent any destruction of the planned scheme by the introduction of a few houses on the perimeter of the area that they are planning. One of the deplorable things which happened between the two wars was the way in which some benighted local authorities had housing schemes from which they excluded all forms of social organisation; no pubs, no clubs, and sometimes even no churches. The result was that around such towns some of the land acquired extraordinary values because it was available for licensing purposes, and licensing schemes grew up which had no relation to any proper sort to the social needs of the area.

In the schemes I think that it is necessary to have a small fringe around—it may vary in width, but I understand it would not mean more than a quarter of a mile—in which it will be necessary to have a plan for the central residential part rounded off and protected from being spoilt by the erection of public houses not in accordance with the general scheme. I would hope that, in most cases, this would not be a very expensive matter because most of the new towns will be surrounded by what we have come to call in modern planning parlance "green belts," inside of which it is unusual for any building of this type to be allowed, and therefore I do not think this will be a very expensive matter so far as the new towns are concerned.

So far as cost comes into the matter, and whether State management will be a paying concern, I would point out that, after all, the capital sunk in Carlisle was paid off out of the results of the undertaking in 11 years; which is a satisfactory financial conclusion for an enterprise of this kind. The profits are announced annually to the House, and I see no reason to anticipate that the results of these schemes will be less satisfactory from the financial point of view than the schemes which have been undertaken in the past. I hope the hon. Member for Torquay, with this explanation, will feel the same.

Mr. C. Williams

Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he give an idea of the total amount?

Mr. Ede

No, quite clearly I cannot do so at the moment. This will be a matter of comparatively slow development. It is not like Carlisle, where the whole of the houses were required in a very short space of time. These houses will be built as the towns go up, and the rate of progress will depend on the availability of labour and materials. I can assure the hon. Member that we have no reason to fear that we shall be less successful in these enterprises than we have been in the others.

Mr. Williams

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer and, of course, I can realise that, as in all other financial estimates we have had in this Parliament, he has not the haziest idea of what the total amount will be. That loose standard of finance is now accepted as one of the troubles of the present Government and one of the reasons why our credit is so low. The other thing for which I thank him is for informing me that which I knew—that the capital for Carlisle was paid off in 11 years; but I should like to point out to him that in those days one had financially a sound Government which was of either Liberal or Conservative origin, whereas this Government, when it nationalises things, always seems to make a loss. Though I admit any reasonable Government would make it pay, the chances with this Government are very slim indeed.

As far as the Scots position is concerned, all I can say is that I cannot see why the Scots people should have these special paid officials. I can understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland explained the position to the satisfaction of Scotsmen and that they get away with it. I should like, on a suitable occasion, to see this financial legislation applied only to Scotland and both it and the Bill to cut out England. Let us try this on Scotland and not on England at all.

Resolution to be reported tomorrow.