Clause 10.—(NEW LIMIT OF EXPENDITURE BY TOWN COUNCILS ON HALLS, ETC., FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS AND ASSEMBLIES.) (Hansard, 14 May 1958)

§ Mr. J. N. Browne
I beg to move, in page 8, line 12, to leave out subsections (1) and (2).
When we were discussing in Committee the raising of the limit in this Clause from 3d. to 1s., the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) made a statement to which I could not then give a wholly satisfactory answer, but which this Amendment now answers completely. He said at column 620: We are not objecting to the raising of the figure from 3d. to 1s., but that there should be a limit at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 22nd April, 1958; c. 620.] At that time Clause 11 had not yet been discussed. That deals with my right hon. Friend's overriding control over borrowing by local authorities. Now that Clause 11 is still in the Bill as originally drafted, we can and, I believe, we should turn for guidance to the Sorn Report—the Report of the Scottish Valuation and Rating Committee. At the top of page 65 it is stated: 506 As regards the general case put to us for abolishing the limitations, it might indeed be thought unnecessary to retain them in so far as they relate to capital expenditure if it should be intended that central control over local authority borrowing … should be made permanent. On this basis the limit on expenditure on public halls, which we gather has caused practical difficulties in some areas, might be abolished. We agree with the Sorn Committee. If we keep Clause 11 in its present form there would in effect be a double check on expenditure by local authorities and this would not be in keeping with our desire to give maximum freedom to local authorities. So I hope the Committee will support this Amendment and a second one which is consequential and clarifying.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
As the Under-Secretary has said, my right hon. Friend and I and those on this side of the Committee pressed Her Majesty's Government to drop Clause 10 altogether, and the Under-Secretary argued stoutly for its retention. I will quote his final words at col. 622: Of course it is … a wise measure of control. The local authorities have accepted it as part of municipal life, and I see no reason to do what hon. Members ask us to do, namely, to cancel Clause 10 and make large amendments to the 1947 Act. With that explanation, as I know hon. Members have 507 other important matters to discuss, I think I will sit down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 22nd April, 1958; c. 622.] Which he did, and the Question was put.
8.45 p.m.
However, on another occasion, together with his right hon. Friend, he had to make some promises to supporters on his side of the Committee who had objected to the next Clause of the Bill. The Secretary of State undertook to consider whether he could take it out of the Bill, as we had also requested. It is now clear to me, and it was clear when I saw the state of the Order Paper, that the hon. Gentleman tried to temper the anger of his hon. Friends who had supported us on Clause 11 by making a concession on Clause 10 and asking the Under-Secretary to call in aid once again Lord Sorn. We would rather have had the cancellation of Clauses 10 and 11, but we asked for this proposal in Committee, and we are grateful for small mercies. We shall accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Hannan
I should like to express my thanks for the Amendment and add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has said by saying that on the previous occasion, when the Amendment on this side was refused, the Joint Under-Secretary quoted the Sorn Report, not in support of what he is now saying, but against the Amendment. He has, therefore, quoted for and against the proposal, which surprises us. He went on by proposing to raise the limit from 3d. to 1s., thereby making the local authorities four times freer than before. This leads us to think on this side that the Government have been in a shady nook by a babbling brook, spelt with a capital B.