HC Deb 18 February 1948 vol 447 cc1241-7
Mr. J. Edwards

I beg to move, in page 73, line 35, at the end, to insert: (2) Where, by or under any statutory provision other than this part of this Act, a body to which this Part of this Act applies has power to defray the expenses incurred by the members of the body on account of travelling for the purposes of the performance of approved duties as members of the body, or otherwise to relieve the members of the body from the burden of meeting those expenses, that statutory provision shall cease to have effect in relation to the members of the body, but subject as aforesaid nothing in this Part of this Act shall affect any such statutory provision: Provided that where a local education authority in England and Wales or an education authority in Scotland incur expenditure under this Part of this Act in paying or contributing towards the expenses of a member thereof on account of travelling for the purpose of attending a conference, being a conference in respect of which the authority is authorised to incur expenditure by or under Section eighty-three of the Education Act, 1944, or, as the case may be, Section twenty-eight of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, the first-mentioned expenditure shall, for the purposes of determining the amount of any sum payable to the authority out of moneys provided by Parliament, or out of the Education (Scotland) Fund, be deemed to have been incurred under the Education Acts, 1944 and 1946, or, as the case may be, the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946. Some authorities may have local Acts or other powers enabling them to pay travelling expenses, or relieve members of travelling expenses, in circumstances similar to those covered by the Bill. This Amendment is moved in order to provide that any such powers shall be exercisable only in conformity with the general scheme of the Bill. The first part of the Amendment is concerned with that. There is a proviso which secures that certain payments by local education authorities on account of the expenses of their members will continue to rank for grant under the Education Acts.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

This Bill, with its astonishing power of traversing from China to Peru, has now passed from the vexed questions of the hypothetical house, or whether electricity should be rated centrally or locally, and comes down to the question of expenses of members of local authorities. It may be that the long study of this Bill is making me a little confused, but I find these words difficult to understand. I have cudgelled my brains about them, but I must say that I would not like to pass an examination as to what exactly they mean, either by themselves or by reference to the rest of the Clause. I listened carefully to what the Parliamentary Secretary said and really it comes down to a case of whether he can assure us that he is perfectly certain that he himself has understood the Amendment and that he has given the Committee a full description of the effect of these words. Frankly, we must be in his hands as far as this is concerned. If he would assure us that it goes no further than the explanation he gave, I think we on this side of the Committee would be content. I beg him to accept that as a trust, because on this occasion I do not intend to detain him or cross-examine him. I merely ask him if he can give an assurance that he has given us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about these words.

Mr. Turton

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after "statutory," to insert "or other."

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give a little more detailed description of his Amendment. I think it is a good one. I think that it is one made in answer to a request by me, but I do not think it is very clearly worded, particularly where it refers to: … any statutory provision other than this part of this Act … I doubt whether that is sufficient, because there is a later Amendment, in page 74, line 19, at the end to add: (5) In the application of this section to Scotland any reference in subsection (2) to a statutory provision shall be construed as including a reference to a rule of the common law. That applies this provision to Scotland. Never before had I thought that a rule of the common law was in the same genus as a statutory provision. I had always been taught that they were two very different birds. I should have thought that it would have been wiser to insert something wider than a statutory provision at the beginning of this Subsection. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my suggestion that the words should read: … any statutory or other provision … I presume that a local Act of Parliament is a statutory provision. I imagine that that has been held by the courts, but I should like to be reinforced in that view. I know that in Scotland, with the systems of common good and burgh and barony funds, very curious perquisites are obtained for members of local authorities. Clearly, they are not statutory provisions. I do not know under what authority members of local authorities are granted free passes at present. I do not think that it is always by a statutory provision. Therefore, I think that we need something wider than that. Let us have a notable advance in this part of the Bill in granting proper travelling allowances to members of local authorities at a fixed standard for all local authorities provided the journey is for more than three miles. Let us not have some local authorities going back into the past and enjoying perquisites not enjoyed by others. I am sure that it is in the interests of the great reputation which local authorities enjoy that we should wipe out in this Bill the whole stream of perquisites, and I believe that is the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary in this provision, though I wish it were put more clearly. I therefore hope that he will accept the Amendment.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Edwards

I cannot accept this Amendment, because, quite honestly, I do not think it is necessary. What the hon. Gentleman says, in effect, is that the word "statutory" will cover most things, but there may be some others, and so he wants to put in the words "or other." So far as England and Wales are concerned—I do not speak for Scotland, because there is another Amendment on which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will speak—I am not aware of any provision other than a statutory provision. We have looked at this very carefully, and that is the advice given to me—that the words "or other" are quite unnecessary, because there cannot be any other provision which can apply. I hope that, with that assurance, the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

May I say, at the same time, that what we have tried to do in our Amendment has been to put in legal terms what is required by accepting the principle that local authorities shall all have the same powers and all be subject to the same restrictions, and that sort of principle, which I am sure commends itself to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, is the one accepted. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that, having started from that, I am assured that the form of the words, difficult though they may be to understand, is the form of words which the adoption of that principle really requires if we are to deal with any local Acts which may be in operation in this respect at the present time.

Mr. Turton

I am quite clear, from what the Parliamentary Secretary said, that the habit of some local authorities, of providing their members with free passes not by statutory provision, has no foundation at all, and that was the view of the Departmental Committee that examined the question. I have made the point clear, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted.

Further Amendments made: In page 73, line 38, after "expenses," insert: (other than expenses on account of travelling.)

In page 74, line 1, at beginning, insert: Subject to the provisions of Subsection (2) of this Section.

Mr. T. Fraser

I beg to move, in page 74, line 19, at the end, to add: (5) In the application of this Section to Scotland any reference in Subsection (2) to a statutory provision shall be construed as including a reference to a rule of the common law. This Amendment is consequential on the first Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend. It is necessary, however, to have this further Subsection to the Clause in order to secure that any payment that would be made to a councillor, and could be made to him, out of the common good fund would be taken into account; that is to say, to secure that the council cannot have it both out of the common good fund and the general fund of the local authority.

Mr. Turton

The effect of this Amendment is quite different and far more desirable. As I understand the reference to Subsection (2), it is saying that, in Scotland, the rule of common law shall be a statutory provision, and that it shall no longer be possible to pay members' travelling expenses out of the common good fund. That is something very different from that which the Parliamentary Secretary said. If it is paid out of the common good fund, it will be taken into account; in fact, it will not any longer be legal to pay the …26 a year which I know a certain authority in Scotland pays for the travelling expenses of its members.

Mr. Fraser

That is right. I was wrong in saying that it was to secure that payment would not be made from both funds. It is provided that payment will be made, in the first place, out of the general fund, and we are here making it quite clear that expenses cannot, in addition, be paid out of the common good fund. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the mistake in my original statement.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

We do not blame the joint Under-Secretary for occasionally tripping up in the jungle of Scottish law. I think it is a pity that, on the point made by my hon. Friend, who is learned in the law, and which, apparently, has substance, we should not have had one of the Law Officers here to explain it. I am a babe in these matters, and I do not complain of the Joint Under-Secretary not being able to distinguish clearly between a statutory provision and a rule of the common law. I was lost in admiration when my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) said he had been taught in childhood that these were different things. I think, perhaps, it was somewhat arid literature for childhood, and not perhaps as friendly fare as Grimm's "Fairy Tales."

Have we now got it right? As I understand the Under-Secretary, in the case of Glasgow, a luncheon is provided out of the common good fund and certain travelling expenses are also paid. The Under-Secretary's statement, I understand, will mean that in future, if these payments are made, they will be debited against the sums which any councillor may be entitled to receive, and, therefore, he will not be able to be paid twice over, and that that is the general purpose of the provision here set out. I should like to know if I am right in that interpretation.

Mr. Fraser

I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has taken too much out of the words which I have just uttered. I do not think that the Amendment we are now discussing, or the first Amendment, upon which this is purely consequential, would have the effect of barring the Glasgow Corporation from providing meals out of the common good fund in their restaurant in the City Chambers, but, where travelling expenses and the like can be paid normally out of the common good fund, we now provide under this new Amendment that it shall not be done out of the common good fund. I think that is the effect, and the only effect of the Amendment I have moved.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Just what class of expenses has the Joint Under-Secretary in mind? He states that certain expenses previously met out of the common good fund will still continue to be paid out of that fund, but that certain others, previously paid out of the common good fund, will still be paid from that fund, but will be deducted against other receipts which a councillor might otherwise have. I am only anxious to get the matter clear, because it is difficult to deduce the meaning from the words on the Order Paper. It would be very difficult for any of us to get either a lunch or a railway ticket out of those words.

Mr. Turton

Is not the position that, under the new Subsection (2), it will no longer be possible to get free travel out of the common good fund, and that under the old Subsection (2), which was the original draft of the Minister, it would have been illegal for free meals to be provided out of that fund? I hope it will be the frequent practice of local authorities to provide meals, but that they will charge their members for the meals, as is done in this Parliament. I think that is the position that will lie under this Amendment.

Mr. Fraser

I do not think it does. This Amendment is consequential on the one we discussed a moment ago, which really deals with the travelling expenses of members of local authorities in carrying out their functions as members of the education authority. It is nothing more than that.

Commander Galbraith

This is a point which we want to try to get clear. Does not this Amendment simply mean that where as, previously, the members' expenses have been paid out of the common good fund, they will now be paid and charged against the appropriate account—that the common good fund will be relieved of that payment, but that the fund will still remain to meet expenses other than those which can be charged against any particular account?

Mr. Fraser

I think that is so. I am sure the effect of the Amendment is not that the common good fund in, say, Glasgow, for instance, would no longer be able to bear the cost of providing lunches or teas in the lunch-room of the City Chambers. That would not be the effect of the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I think it would be a pity to pursue the matter further just now. Perhaps, when it comes up again on the Report stage, it might be possible for you, Major Milner, to allow, and for the Minister to give, a somewhat fuller answer, dealing with some of the points we have been discussing.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.