HC Deb 22 March 1948 vol 448 cc2715-27

Lords Amendment: In page 93, line 16, at end, insert: (4) A local authority who propose to borrow money for any of the purposes authorised under this Section shall, before applying to the Minister for his consent to the borrowing, publish in such local newspapers, and in such other ways, if any, as appear to them best suited for bringing the matter to the attention of persons concerned, notice of their proposal, specifying the amount which and the purposes for which they propose to borrow and the time (not being less than twenty-eight days from the publication of the notice) within which any objection to the proposal may be made to the Minister. (5) Where any such objection as is mentioned in the last preceding Subsection is made to the Minister within the time specified in the notice aforesaid and is not withdrawn, the Minister shall not, unless in his opinion the objection is frivolous, consent to the borrowing of any money for the purposes in question until he has caused a public local inquiry to be held into the proposal, and, in considering whether or not to give his consent to the borrowing of any money for those purposes, he shall consider the report of the person by whom the inquiry was held.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir Alan Herbert (Oxford University)

I really did expect that the right hon. Gentleman would say something about this Clause. This House has been grossly deceived. It is one of the most shocking examples of deception in my experience of this House. In this place, when this Clause was first introduced, we all, including myself, made high-falutin' speeches about art, culture, education, films, drama, music and so on. No other kind of entertainment was suggested. On the Third Reading, I suggested to this House that in my opinion this Clause covered all sorts of sporting entertainment, boxing, horse-racing, greyhound racing——

Mr. Speaker

It is not the Clause that is now being discussed, but only the Amendment made in another place.

Sir A. Herbert

I ask you respectfully, Sir, to be as elastic as you can in your interpretation of the rules of Order, because the House is in great confusion about this Clause. I say that this House has been deceived, and the right hon. Gentleman has made no explanation whatever. May I put it this way? We do not know what this Amendment means. We read that local a local authority may borrow money for the purposes authorised under this Section. We do not know what the purposes authorised are. Three Ministers here, and two in another place, have spoken on this matter, but not one of them has mentioned anything but art, culture, drama and so forth. I say that this Clause covers greyhound racing, horse-racing and other entertainments which (a) pay Entertainment Duty, (b) are always accompanied by betting. There may be much to be said for such entertainments, but this House ought not to allow these "purposes" to go forward under the cover of a Clause which pretends to be for the cultivation of art and drama and so on. My hon. Friend, the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) like me, is keen on the civic theatre but if this is going to allow civic betting to be made possible throughout the country it is a disgraceful thing.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Speaker

There is on the Paper an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, about betting. I was not going to call it because I considered it irrelevant to the subject of the Bill. Therefore, I cannot have betting discussed.

Sir A. Herbert

If you will bear with me for a moment Sir, this is relevant and ought to be discussed. This Bill and this Clause deal with entertainments to be provided by local authorities. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to consult the Law Officers, and he has not done so. It also covers horse-racing——

Mr. Bevan

The Clause, in my respectful submission, is not before the House.

Sir A. Herbert

This Amendment includes greyhound racing and horse-racing.

Mr. Speaker

The Amendment including greyhound and horse-racing is not before the House at the moment. I did not call the hon. Member to move that Amendment to the Lords Amendment because, frankly, it also is out of Order. Betting is irrelevant, and a licence is not required for greyhound racing or horse racing unless it is connected with betting. Therefore that Amendment is out of Order too. I am afraid I did not gather to what the hon. Member was addressing himself.

Sir A. Herbert

We are discussing the Lords Amendment in line 16. Now I think we have popped to line 20, dealing with boxing or wrestling.

Mr. Speaker

We have not got as far as line 20 yet.

Sir A. Herbert

We are now discussing the Lords Amendment in line 16, to which I have an Amendment about betting.

Mr. Speaker

Which, I regret, is out of Order, being irrelevant.

Sir A. Herbert

I am prepared to discuss this Amendment without going into betting if you so rule, Mr. Speaker, but I am saying again that this Clause which, according to Ministers, deals only with art, culture and the drama, does include horse-racing and greyhound racing. I am asking whether——

Mr. Bevan

This Lords Amendment does not concern itself with such matters at all. I respectfully suggest that we cannot discuss the contents of the Clause itself.

Mr. Speaker

We can only discuss the two Amendments to the Clause which are before the House. We cannot go into the whole Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

The Amendment says: A local authority who propose to borrow money for any of the purposes authorised under this section … I respectfully suggest that the construction of a greyhound racing stadium might reasonably be one of the purposes. I think my hon. Friend is intimating, in his view, that it would be undesirable.

Mr. Bevan

He may think it is undesirable, but in my submission his views as to whether or not it would be undesirable are entirely out of Order because all that this Amendment does is to say that there shall be a public local inquiry when loans are required for any purposes in the class of purposes which is now the subject of debate. It lays down what procedure should be followed in order to make local citizens aware of the intention of the local authority in question. There is nothing added here. It does not matter what the Clause includes.

Sir A. Herbert

I challenge the right hon. Gentleman—does it include greyhound racing?

Mr. Bevan

It may include blowing bubbles, but all the Amendment does is to lay down the fact that if a loan is required under the Clause there shall be a local inquiry and the local citizens shall be informed of that fact in order that they may make their views known. All that this Amendment really does is to impose on the Minister of Health the statutory obligation for a practice which, in fact, is always carried out, because when a local authority applies for a loan the Ministry of Health holds a local public inquiry. What this Amendment does is to write this practice on the face of the statute.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

It is true that the Clause so broadened the powers of the local authorities that the Minister has found it desirable to impose a limitation upon himself which previously did not exist by statute. That is so on the Minister's own confession, and I have been quoting his very words. Here the Minister has written into this Bill a limitation which, if this Clause is passed, would not have existed before, and it will be binding upon him and his successors, until, of course, Parliament alters it. Wide and sweeping powers are given to local authorities under the Clause. They are really wide and sweeping powers the precise nature of which it would not be competent to discuss at this time, but they were inserted in another place and I do not think the Minister would deny——

Mr. Bevan

It is one of the limitations under which Ministers suffer that when Amendments come back from another place neither the period of gestation which occurs in another place nor the facts surrounding the Amendment can be argued. One of the suggestions which originally arose was that there should be a limitation imposed on the operation of this Clause by insisting that the powers should not be exercised by the local authority until first a town's meeting and a ballot had taken place. That we cannot accept. In substitution for that grave limitation, we have accepted this Amendment because in practice it imposes no limitation whatsoever.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

That may be so —but it is in fact accurate to say that it does impose a limitation.

Mr. Bevan

No.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

In practice the Minister admits it imposes a statutory limitation; if it were not so it would not be here. The Minister has accepted the Amendment because of the wide and sweeping nature of the powers given under this Clause. It was to those wide and sweeping powers which the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) was addressing himself, and while he is grateful that a certain amount of limitation has been imposed, he would have preferred that a much greater limitation was imposed. He is perfectly in Order in complimenting the Minister on the distance he has gone and in regretting that it is not possible for him to go further. He has been handed a bouquet and a half-brickbat, and I am sure the Minister, who has so often employed either or both methods, would not object to one of them being applied in this case—or, indeed, both of them.

Mr. Benn Levy (Eton and Slough)

I do not want to confuse the issue of the question of betting with any other matters, but I am bound to say that in accepting this Amendment my right hon. Friend's incorrigible amenability has betrayed him because there must be very serious disadvantages. First of all, I am not very clear who conducts the inquiries and who appoints the persons. Is it a local man?

Mr. Bevan

It is the Minister's Inspector.

Mr. Levy

It seems to be far harder to ensure what exactly these persons have to inquire into. It seems to be quite clear, for example, that they can inquire into a material problem such as whether local rates should be raised or not for a theatre in a certain authority's area. There was a kind of logic in the original contention to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention and which provided for a plebiscite which would have been constructive. There is no reason for a plebiscite in this or in any other matter, but at least it made sense. What is this man delegated to find out? I should like an answer to that question before we go any further.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I welcome this Amendment. The Minister may remember that at an earlier stage I raised this point. I argued at the time that though the Minister's case was that the issue could be put to the local electors who elect a fit and proper local authority to carry out their desires, it was possible for a local authority so to commit itself to a long-term capital expenditure that its successor could give no redress to the electors, because the commitments would be so heavy that it would cost more to get out than to go on. While the limitation in this Amendment does not go so far as I would like, it removes a grave part of the danger. Whether the enterprise is one for blowing bubbles or pricking bubbles, does not arise under this Amendment. Possibly the Minister would agree that he was out of Order to that degree in that it would involve no capital expenditure so far as I know. At least, he is an expert on both and he will appreciate the feeling of his hon. Friend. With great respect, I would also say that he was blowing bubbles too without looking at the Amendment. He suggested that there was nothing to be inquired into, but I suggest he is entirely wrong, for there is a great deal to be inquired into. He seemed to omit Subsection 5, which gives consideration to whether the public local inquiry is to be held, but surely a local public inquiry exactly meets the needs which he mentioned so that the local electors could be asked exactly what the objection was. There is no point in putting an Amendment in a Bill to make it possible for people to object, unless it can be discovered what they are objecting to, and the public local inquiry will give an opportunity for discovering what the objection is, who is objecting and why.

Mr. Levy

But in the nature of the case the only conceivable objection that a man could make is, "I do not want it."

Mr. Orr-Ewing

That is a very limiting suggestion. If that were the only objection necessary by hon. Members in this House, there would not be any need of debate at all. All one side would need to do would be to say, "We do not want it," and that would be the end of it.

Mr. Levy

In this case what else can there be?

Mr. Orr-Ewing

In all seriousness there can be all sorts of objections. There could be an objection that capital was to be borrowed and invested in all sorts of schemes which could not possibly show a reasonable return. Again, a local authority might suggest entering into——

Mr. Levyrose——

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I am putting the arguments of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Levy

The hon. Member is putting them all wrong.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

The hon. Member was seriously suggesting that the case was much more simple than, in fact, it might be. Without the power to arrange for a local public inquiry the Bill was most dangerous. I welcome the protection that has been given. Might I submit, in conclusion, that it shows that though this House may be democratic, democracy is frequently, strongly and well protected by another place.

11.15 p.m.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh South)

I support this point strongly. In reply to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) surely he will consider this possibility: if the project is to build a theatre, say, for which the local authority is only desiring to borrow £1,000, it is obvious that that would be a farcical proposal, and the project would be doomed before it began. The holding of a local inquiry in that case would clearly preclude the authority embarking on futile operations inevitably bound for disaster.

Mr. Levy

Surely that is equally applicable to any other undertaking of a local authority. Therefore, there is no reason to discriminate in this particular instance.

Sir W. Darling

This is a complete departure from what local authorities have hitherto done. There is universal recognition of the need for projects connected with water supply, gas, or sewage, but the same view is not so generally held about the items under this Clause. Until public opinion is more enlightened on the desirability of local authorities providing cinemas and theatres, the hon. Member will have to wait for that happy occasion. While being grateful for what he has called the incorrigible amenability of the Minister, I would prefer him to return to the older Socialist idea of the referendum. It disappoints me to learn how many Socialist ideas are being abandoned. The referendum would have been a much more convenient method. None the less, I would prefer the Clause as it is. Too little or too much is the protection this Amendment gives. The local authority, presenting its proposals in either grandiose or simple fashion, secures its support. I f it is too grandiose, the electors, quite rightly, will leave it to others more competent to deal with these matters. I strongly support this Amendment. I suspect it will largely stultify the project that the local authorities should go in for the exploitation of art.

Mr. Walker-Smith

As one who has been a supporter of public local inquiries on all suitable occasions since I have been a Member of this House, I naturally welcome the inclusion of this Amendment. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Lang) shows himself a good deal less familiar with the machinery of local inquiries than with that of the theatre, of which he is so distinguished an ornament. Otherwise he would have realised that one of the good things about this provision is that it does not limit the scope of the objections, and he may rest assured that at these inquiries objections would be taken over a fairly wide front. The Minister's Department holds a great number of inquiries, and not a few in regard to local authority loans. There is nothing new in all that.

I would like to put to the Minister two points of detail in which, it seems to me, this provision is a little different from those we are accustomed to in regard to local inquiries. The first is in regard to the provision for notice by advertisement. The Home Secretary shakes his head, but there is provision, as there should be, for publication in local newspapers—that is in a general way notice by advertisement, as distinct from individual notice served on individual people. It is, of course, subject to the proviso in the Bill that it is only for publication in such local newspapers, and in such other ways, if any, as appear to them (that is, the authority) best suited for bringing the matter to the attention of persons concerned. It is not unusual to be a little more specific in providing for notice by advertisement and to specify either the number of newspapers in which such advertisement will occur, the number of times on which it will occur, or the period within which it will be repeated. I would like the Minister to inform the House why this normal precedent has been departed from on this occasion.

The second point of procedure to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is in the new proposed Subsection (5), where it says in regard to the withdrawal of objections, the Minister shall not, unless in his opinion the objection is frivolous, consent.… I would be the last to claim any cyclopaedic knowledge of precedents, but running over quickly in my mind the Acts with which I am familiar dealing with these subjects, I do not recall that particular form of words. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform the House, when he has finished his consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland, where these words are drawn from or whether they are peculiar to this Bill. It seems to me that one of the vices of our legislation is the increase of the discretion of the Minister in deciding upon matters such as this. I do not myself think it is necessary in this case that the Minister should be given the unfettered discretion of deciding whether or not an objection is frivolous without at any rate making some attempt to define what will be considered frivolous for the purpose of the Clause. Of course, if he can point to other Acts where this same form of words has been used, and used successfully and without difficulty, that would naturally be a very persuasive argument, but if these words are novel to this Act, then I for one would think them of very doubtful advantage indeed in this Amendment, which on the whole I, in common with most other Members of the House, would approve.

Mr. Bevan

I would not have accepted this Amendment at all if I thought for one moment that any such construction could be placed upon it as that put by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir, W. Darling). The purpose of this Amendment is very simple. When a local authority applies for permission to borrow money an inquiry is held in order that the Minister may inform himself of all the facts. That inquiry is held for a double purpose—not only to inquire into the facts of the case and give people an opportunity of stating objections to the project, but also to enable the Minister to give his consent to raise money. If the local authority was able to raise money without any consent at all, the Minister of Health and the Government would have no control whatever of the investment programme of the local authorities. There must be some relationship between the sum of money that local authorities propose to borrow and the capital investment of the country and the circumstances of the times. That is why the inquiries are held. But it would be an abuse of the power to give consent to a loan if any Minister of Health used such power to frustrate the intentions of the statute. The intention here is to give local authorities the power to do all the things set out in the Clause. No Minister would be doing his duty if he used the power to withhold consent to prevent a local authority doing what Parliament clearly intends it to do. Therefore, the construction placed upon this by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh is wholly erroneous.

Sir W. Darling

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this question for me? Under this Amendment, members of the public who disagree with the local authority will surely have the right to give evidence in support of their disagreement, and to this the Minister would give some consideration.

Mr. Bevan

But the Minister is not in a position to arbitrate between one section of the ratepayers and another. If a council did decide to build a theatre and a body of ratepayers said that it did not like the council's decision, the Minister of Health would be in a most invidious position if he had to put himself into the position of an arbitrator between the two bodies. The power to withhold consent to a loan is there, anyhow. All that is done here is to write into the face of this Bill a provision which is normally exercisable, but it does not limit the local authority.

Mr. Levy

May I point out that I did not say that it limited the local authority. What I meant to imply was that it gave a great opportunity for obstruction, and that that was the whole purpose of this Amendment from the Lords.

Mr. Bevan

It is not an additional opportunity for obstruction. The inquiry would be held, anyhow; it would be a public, not a private inquiry. My hon. Friend should realise that all applications for a loan by a local authority are the subject of a public local inquiry. Therefore, nothing is done here except, as I said earlier, to write into the Bill what is a normal practice in such circumstances. But I put it on record that it would be an abuse of a Minister's power if he used this right of consent to withhold from a local authority what Parliament obviously intends to give to it.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I am sure the Minister did not mean any implication that he was whittling down the last line of Subsection (5), which states that he shall consider the report of the person by whom the inquiry was held.

Mr. Bevan

I do not know how the hon. Member can read that into what I have said. If the Minister has sent an inspector to hold an inquiry he will read the inspector's report.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I am sure that the Minister does not in turn mean to whittle down the assurance given by his right hon. Friend, in another place, where, in his statement of Government policy, he said he agreed with the Amendment fairly and straightforwardly. Would it be fair and straightforward should the Minister, finding a considerable body of opinion against the expenditure and having the right to arbitrate in his hands, to give sanction to the loan? Was not that the policy stated in another place?

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 93, line 20, after "films," insert "or for boxing or wrestling entertainments."

11.30 p.m.

Sir A. Herbert

May I move the Amendment standing in my name, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

No, I did not select it, because it would have no effect whatever unless the Lords Amendment dealt with betting, and as I have ruled out betting as a subject extraneous to this Bill, it is quite unnecessary. It is purely consequential on the first.

Sir A. Herbert

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, it is the second Amendment. After "boxing and wrestling," I wish to add "or for horse-racing, greyhound racing or other sporting entertainments."

Mr. Speaker

It is quite unnecessary so long as it is not connected with betting, and I have not selected it.

Sir A. Herbert

Then, Sir, may I discuss the Lords Amendment?

Mr. Speaker

No, it has been agreed to.

Sir A. Herbert

I stood up in my place at once. I claim my rights. With respect, Sir, you are not holding to the promise of your inaugural speech, in my opinion, for standing up for minorities.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member will resume his seat.

Sir A. Herbert

I will get out of this place.

Lords Amendment: In page 94, line 17, at end insert:

  1. "(a) no money shall be borrowed for the purposes authorised under this Section except with the consent of the Secretary of State;
  2. (b) for any reference to the Minister there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Mr. Walker-Smith

I rise only to ask a question as to the variations between the English and Scottish procedure, and to express the hope that the Minister will be able to answer that point about procedure now, since he left unanswered the point I made in my previous speech.

Commander Galbraith

I would like to ask for an elucidation of this Amendment. The point at issue is this; what is the point of having paragraph (a)? Would the matter not be covered by paragraph (b)? There must be some point in it, or otherwise the Minister would not have accepted the Amendment.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn)

The point is that it is not necessary, in Scotland, to have the consent of the Secretary of State unless a council carries the decision by a two-thirds majority, under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1947. It is necessary to put this part in so that it will be an obligation on the council under this Clause.

Sir W. Darling

Do I understand that the two-thirds majority demand has now gone, and that the council will be required to produce an absolute majority?

Mr. Woodburn

No money shall be borrowed for the purposes in this Clause except with the consent of the Secretary of State.