HC Deb 09 May 1961 vol 640 cc386-96

12 m.

Mr. Willey

I beg to move, in page 22, line 39, to leave out "reasonably" and to insert "properly".

Mr. Speaker

Possibly it would be useful to discuss with this Amendment the next six Amendments:

In line 39, after "by", insert "or on behalf of".

In line 40, after "official", insert "or courtesy".

In line 40, after "visits", insert: whether inside or outside the United Kingdom". In line 40, at end insert: Provided that, in the case of a visit within the United Kingdom, the amount defrayed under this section by a river board in respect of the expenses of any member or officer of the board shall not exceed the payments which he would have been entitled to receive by way of travelling allowance or subsistence allowance under section one hundred and thirteen of the Local Government Act, 1948, if the making of the visit had been an approved duty of that person within the meaning of that section. In page 23, line 2, after "services", insert: whether inside or outside the United Kingdom". In line 2, after "services", insert: or local government services inside or outside the United Kingdom".

Mr. Willey

I am sure that would meet the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the Government will accept them all.

We are now dealing with the payment by a river board of expenses for official visits and that sort of thing. We had a discussion about these expenses in Committee and the Amendments have been put down in the light of that discussion. The provision is: A river board may defray any travelling or other expenses reasonably incurred. I suggest that the words should be "properly incurred". We have in mind the district auditor. If we define the expenses as "reasonable" that introduces the test of reasonableness. Whether expenses are reasonable or not is more difficult to decide than whether they have been properly incurred. This Amendment is to help to provide an easier definition. The subsection goes on: by any members or officers of the board As we are dealing with other expenses, we should include the words "or on behalf of". It is possible that there may be expenses incurred which will not be directly incurred by any officers or members of a board and it would improve the Clause to include this provision.

The Clause refers to: making official visits on behalf of the board. I suggest that we might extend that to "official or courtesy visits." That is to provide rather more definition in the expenses incurred.

The next Amendment, to take them in order, is to make it clear that the visits would cover visits inside or outside the United Kingdom. In Standing Committee it was generally conceded on both sides that officers or members might make visits abroad as well as in this country.

Mr. Turton

No.

Mr. Willey

I think that if the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) looks at the Official Report of the Standing Committee he will see that that is so. This was commonly agreed. I had better say, in deference to the right hon. Member, that it was agreed by some members of the Committee that it might be quite proper for members and officers of a board to visit Holland. That might help them in the conduct of their responsibilities as members of a board.

The fifth Amendment is rather different. There is provision at present in regard to local government in the Local Government Act, 1948. In making provision for expenses in these circumstances it is well to be consistent and to see that the expenses are in line with those at present provided in local government.

The sixth Amendment deals with subsection (2) and the defraying of: any expenses incurred in the reception and entertainment of members of the boards. The Amendment is designed to make it clear that that covers those entertained whether inside or outside the United Kingdom.

Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

Before leaving that, would the hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks they cannot now go outside the United Kingdom? Where is the restrictive Clause?

Mr. Willey

The hon. Gentleman was not, I think, a member of the Standing Committee. I do not know whether he has looked at those discussions but, if he has, he will know that some doubts were expressed about it. This Amendment seeks to make it quite clear that such provision can properly be made. We are here dealing with the relationship between the boards and the district auditor. In many cases, difficulties do not arise, but I think that it is unfair for people carrying on public duties and responsibilities to be put at risk. When we are legislating on expenses we should, as far as we believe it proper, make clear that this provision can be made.

The other Amendment, again, seeks to clarify the position by making the last words of the subsection refer not just to "such persons" but to "such or other persons." This matter was also referred to in the Standing Committee. If, as I anticipate they will be, these Amendments are accepted by the Government, they will clarify the purpose of the Clause and make it easier for the members and officials of the boards to discharge their responsibilities.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I have some sympathy with these Amendments because I have been on one or two of the annual tours of their works arranged by various boards. I particularly remember enjoying an enormous luncheon as part of a tour under the hospitality of the late Mr. George Dallas, very well known to hon. Members opposite, and a much-beloved figure among hon. Members and people outside of all political complexions.

These Amendments awaken a memory, which I have not yet had an opportunity to verify, that the Auditor General has been asking some rather awkward questions about some of the annual tours carried out by those boards, and that a certain amount of restriction has had to be imposed. That is rather a pity, not because it is very good for anybody to have an enormous luncheon too often but because, throughout the year, these boards do a very good job, and it is quite wrong that they should not, at least once a year, be entitled to entertain those whom they think ought to see the work that is being done.

These tours are designed to fulfil that purpose. Some commissioners who live higher upstream are sometimes interested to come down from, say, Northampton to see the lower reaches of the Nene, or from up Bedford way to see the lower reaches of the Great Ouse. I am not quite sure whether the Clause as it stands covers another category. If my right hon. Friend will look at paragraph 106 of the Heneage Report, he will find that it says: The Middle and North Level Commissioners, who are constituted under local Acts, and who derive some of their powers from these Acts, occupy a unique position in the land drainage administration of this country. They are responsible for the principal drainage works in very large areas in the Fens in which the drainage systems are of paramount importance. Not only are the Commissioners' areas internal drainage districts in themselves for the purposes of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, but they also comprise within them many internal drainage districts administered by boards whose interests and systems of drainage are largely dependent on those maintained by the Commissioners. The point I am trying to make is simply that, to all intents and purposes, they carry out in their districts very much the same rôle as river boards carry out in other districts as well as in the river board areas themselves. I am not quite certain whether these Amendments or the Clause cover them in so far as subsections (1) and (2) are concerned. Certainly I think that they should. As, unfortunately, I was indisposed when this matter was raised in Committee, these Amendments give me the opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend—if he has not already thought of it—if he will look into the matter and, perhaps in another place, make sure that what is considered necessary for river boards is certainly made to cover also the Middle and North Level Commissioners because they are practically all my constituents. I speak from personal experience when I say that the job which they do is second to none in the matter of land drainage. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will feel fairly amenable to meeting the point which I have in mind.

Sir R. Nugent

May I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for putting down this series of Amendments which includes some of those which I put down in Committee? The effect of the Amendments will be to widen the Clause a little and to make it quite clear that the boards have a statutory right to arrange all reasonable entertainment and to provide for all reasonable visits. The hon. Member was quite right in saying that occasionally the district auditor has made difficulties, but in most cases he has been quite reasonable. Obviously, it would not be right for river boards to be at risk in these matters when they are carrying out perfectly reasonable and responsible activities. It is in order to put the matter beyond issue that these Amendments have been put down, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept them.

Mr. Soames

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for putting down these Amendments following the considerable discussions we had on the matter at the instigation of himself and of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) and others upstairs in Committee. This is always a tricky point—just how far we should go in writing into Statutes what the expenses arrangements should be for an authority. One has to endeavour to hold the balance. I dare say that in the Bill—it is certainly my feeling, I must say, after the discussion upstairs and the deliberations on the matter afterwards—that we held back a bit too far and were a bit mean about it.

What these Amendments do, broadly speaking, from the first one in page 22, line 39 to the one in page 23, line 2 on page 2357, is to set the river boards on the same basis as local authorities except that—we shall be discussing this in later Amendments—it confines those whom they may entertain and for whom they can claim expenses to those people directly connected and associated with them in similar work. They do not extend the facility, as do the local authority ones, to other local authorities. This would not seem to be appropriate. Broadly speaking, they are put on the same basis as local authorities, but at the same time they are confined to the entertainment of and visiting, both to and from, of people engaged in the same type of work.

I think that this is a fair way of dealing with the matter, and I do not think that it can be considered to be excessive in any way at all. I welcome the Amendments, as I say, up to the one in page 23, line 2. That is as far as I can go in accepting these Amendments, but as far as that I will gladly accept them.

12.15 a.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) referred to the case of internal drainage districts. I agreed that there are some internal drainage districts which are bigger than others, but this is a river boards Clause and, broadly speaking, it is the river boards which are responsible for the major works and it is they, and not the internal drainage boards, which will make the visits to Holland and so on. Many of the internal drainage districts are small and many of them do not have large funds. The Clause has always been a river boards Clause and in that respect has not been altered from when the Bill went to Standing Committee.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I appreciate that my right hon. Friend may not have thought of this before, but I ask him to give an assurance that he will study paragraph 106 of the Heneage Report before finally making up his mind.

Mr. Peter Kirk (Gravesend)

Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is accepting the Amendments up to the third Amendment in page 23? We are going as far as the first of those three Amendments, are we not?

Mr. Soames

That is correct.

Mr. Speaker

That is my fault. I invited discussion of this batch of Amend- ments down to and including the second Amendment in page 23, but the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) did not refer to that, but did refer to the third of those three. I shall put them separately and when we come to them we will see with precision where we are.

Mr. Willey

I realise that I went as far as discussing the eighth Amendment when you, Mr. Speaker, indicated that we should go as far as the seventh of this group of Amendments. It will help if I say that I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply and, as he is accepting most of the Amendments which I put forward, I will not wish to move those which he has indicated he is not willing to accept.

Mr. Speaker

I am not even sure that I know which those are, but I will proceed and the House will determine.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 22, line 39, after "by", insert "or on behalf of".

In line 40, after "official", insert "or courtesy".—[Mr. Willey.]

Amendment proposed: In page 22, line 40, after "visits", insert: whether inside or outside the United Kingdom".—[Mr. Willey.]

Mr. J. Wells

I have endeavoured to listen to the argument so far, but this Amendment goes too far and I will oppose it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 22, line 40, at end insert: Provided that, in the case of a visit within the United Kingdom, the amount defrayed under this section by a river board in respect of the expenses of any member or officer of the board shall not exceed the payments which he would have been entitled to receive by way of travelling allowance or subsistence allowance under section one hundred and thirteen of the Local Government Act, 1948, if the making of the visit had been an approved duty of that person within the meaning of that section.

In page 23, line 2, after "services", insert: whether inside or outside the United Kingdom".—[Mr. Willey.]

Mr. Speaker

Does the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) desire to move the Amendment in page 23, line 2, after "services", insert: or local government services inside or outside the United Kingdom".

Mr. Willey

No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker

It may be convenient to discuss the next Amendment, in page 23, line 2, at end insert "or other", with that in the name of the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger), in line 3, at end insert: (3) A river board may defray any reasonable expenses incurred in publicising its activities.

Mr. Willey

I beg to move, in page 23, line 2, at end insert "or other". I do so in order to pave the way for my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) to move his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Jeger

I beg to move, in page 23, line 3, at the end to insert: (3) A river board may defray any reasonable expenses incurred in publicising its activities. I move the Amendment with a certain amount of hope that the Minister will accept it because this is his last chance of accepting a non-Ministerial Amendment to the Bill. All the later Amendments which have been selected have been tabled by the right hon. Gentleman, and consequently I hope that he will make a concession and accept this Amendment.

This question was discussed at considerable length in Committee upstairs and I was greatly encouraged by the reply given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. If hon. Members refer to the proceedings of the Standing Committee on 31st January, columns 434 and 435 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am sure that they will share my optimism. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to concede that we had made a case for further consideration of the powers which should be given to river boards in respect of the transmitting of information about their activities to those who resided, and worked, in their areas.

The Minister was kind enough to say that the Clause limited the information to those who were invited to lunch instead of being given to the general public. He considered that a case had been made for looking at the Clause again. He said that one did not want to limit them, that is the river boards, to the giving of information under the risk of getting into trouble; that there was certain information which it would be better to disseminate more widely.

It is true that that was said on 31st January, a long time ago, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have not had second thoughts of a sadder and more negative nature than they were kind enough to express on that occasion.

The river boards have certain functions to fulfil, not least of which is to inform the public who pay the drainage rates exactly what those functions are and what benefits they will get from the rates they pay. They sometimes stage exhibitions in a tent or marquee at agricultural shows and they get into trouble with the district auditor for spending money on disseminating information in that way. The purpose of the Amendment is to put them out of risk of trouble with the auditor by allowing them to spend a reasonable amount of money on providing information at agricultural shows and similar events to the people to whom they are responsible.

Not long ago at a Yorkshire show the local river board spent about £100 on the hire of a marquee and the dissemination of information. The board had a long argument with the district auditor about it, although the show by the board was rather mean and inadequate to portray its activities. If river boards were allowed to spend a reasonable amount, within their own point of view and after discussion with the district auditor, it would remove the fear that the district auditor would make trouble for them. By the look on his face, I think that the Minister will accept this Amendment and therefore I see no reason to prolong the discussion.

Mr. Soames

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman really expects me to accept the Amendment, because it is not long ago that we were having correspondence about it. I was not trying to mislead him by the expression on my face into thinking that I should accept the Amendment. I think that we had correspondence—

Mr. Jeger indicated dissent.

Mr. Soames

If we have not had correspondence I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I would have written to him had I done so—[Interruption.] It must have been two other people.

This matter was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman during the Committee stage discussions and we said that we would consider it. We have done so. We do not regard river boards as authorities which need to go in for a great deal of publicity. Perhaps sometimes it is not a bad thing to disseminate information about the activities of the boards when people gather at shows or some such function, but in a Bill where we are setting out the duties of river boards we did not want to put the accent on publicity. Neither would this be the proper way to spend a great deal of money. It is a matter between the board and the auditor who may not object to some comparatively small sum being spent in this way. On consideration I hope that hon. Members will agree that this is not a matter which should be written into the Bill as being an appropriate item of expenditure. It is better left to the good sense of the board and the auditor.

Mr. Peart

I agree with the Minister that we do not want to have the accent on publicity. We live in a world where there is too much publicity, and too much money is spent on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) wishes to safeguard the interests of the river boards regarding a reasonable amount of publicity. He quoted the case of a river board which spent a small sum of money on a small exhibition at a show. There is an example of the type of thing that he had in mind.

Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary said in the Standing Committee: Nobody thinks it necessary for the river boards to engage in the sort of propaganda which we see on all sides, because their work is not of the sort that needs it. On the other hand, there is much to be said for river boards and other authorities explaining exactly what they are trying to do, how they do it and how their money is spent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 31st January, 1961; c. 434.] That has been conceded by the Government, and that was the purpose of the Amendment.

12.30 a.m.

I think it was right for my hon. Friend to raise the matter. It may help river boards to do what is legitimate in conjunction with the district auditors. While the Minister is not prepared to write this into the Bill, I am sure that my hon. Friend has done a service in ventilating the matter.

Mr. Jeger

If I may, by leave of the House, speak again before I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, I should like to say that I am sorry that the Minister has not accepted my proposal or the spirit of it.

I am sure that the Minister will take steps in the near future to put right the impression he has created that river boards are engaged in some frivolous activity—washing whiter than white, or something like that. That matches the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, who said that he does not accept the fact that river boards should indulge in propaganda in order to attract tourists. Will the Minister do something to redress the damage that his remarks and those of his hon. Friend have done to the prestige and status of the river boards? If so, I would wish to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Soames

If I may speak again by leave of the House, there is no question of doing any damage to the river boards, and the hon. Gentleman knows it full well. Of course there is not. The river boards undertake such publicity at the moment as he has in mind. That is perfectly understood. It is not required to take it any further, and that is all there is to it.

Mr. Jeger

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.