HC Deb 07 December 1966 vol 737 cc1517-28

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment No. 24: In page 23, line 22, to leave out from "date" to the end of line 24.

Mr. Swingler

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The effect of the Amendment, which is similar to that which was discussed at considerable length in Standing Committee, would be to make it mandatory on the Minister of Transport to assume responsibility for outstanding loans and loan charges in respect of lighting installations on trunk roads which she takes over under the transfer provisions in the Clause. The Bill, as originally drafted, expressly debarred the transfer of loans and loan charges to the Minister. The Amendment therefore raises an important point of principle for us.

The background to the provisions relating to loan charges is that when we first discussed this matter with the local authority associations we proposed that outstanding loan charges should remain the responsibility of the lighting authorities which had incurred them. In principle, we did not think there was a good case for highway authorities to assume the responsibility for any loan charges outstanding in respect of lighting systems which they took over. Highway authorities will not, of course, be taking over any sources of revenue from which the loan charges could be met, and this clearly distinguishes this state of affairs from, for example, undertakings like gas, electricity or other assets transferred together with rateable values as a result of a boundary change.

Mr. Rippon

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that there had been discussions with the local authority associations. Did even one of them agree with the Government's view? Would he not agree that the action which they have taken is unprecedented, apart from one case in 1936?

Mr. Swingler

The right hon. Gentleman is closely associated with precedent in this respect, in view of his membership of a former Administration. We will come to that in full, particularly in view of what the right hon. Gentleman did on a previous occasion.

I am explaining that in our original discussions with the local authority associations we proposed no transfer of loan charges in respect of a service from which no revenue is gained because this provision, among other things, would not benefit those local authorities which pay for their lighting systems not out of loans but out of revenue. We would be landed in the further difficulty of naturally having to provide for some system of payments for those local authorities which had been prudent enough to cover their expenditure in that way.

11.0 p.m.

When our proposals were put to the local authority associations, they unanimously asked for mandatory provision for local highway authorities to assume responsibility for any loan charges in respect of lighting systems transferred to them. That was the matter which was discussed. After negotiations, we did not think that we could refuse this request in respect of transfer between local authorities, since all the local authority associations, including the County Councils Association, were agreed upon it. That was why provision for that was made in the Bill.

The desire of local authorities to provide for the transfer of loan charges between themselves does not constitute any reason why the Minister should do the same in regard to trunk road lighting. We have accepted that the transfer of loan charges in these circumstances is normal practice amongst local authorities, but it does not follow that the practice should automatically be extended to transfers of property between central and local government.

There are a number of precedents, and I am coming to the important one. If precedents are to be held to be important here, the most relevant one is Section 228 of the Highways Act, 1959, which provides that there is no transfer of loan charges when a local authority road becomes a trunk road. This was based on a previous Act of Parliament, namely, the Trunk Roads Act, 1936, and in respect of all roads being trunked or detrunked that has been the position for several decades.

Mr. Rippon

Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree that the 1959 Act was not just based on the 1936 Act but was a consolidation Act? The real precedent, which is a dubious one, is the 1936 Act. There is no subsequent precedent.

Mr. Swingler

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in 1959 he and his right hon. and hon. Friends had a wide open opportunity, and they had many other opportunities, if this was the thing on which they wished to insist in the transfer of loan charges as between central and local Government, to take this action. The right hon. Gentleman should not be so stupid as to pretend HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He knows quite well that, had the Government at that time wished to establish that position about the transfer of loan charges between central and local government, they had the power to do it. I am merely pointing out that they maintained the position that had existed ever since 1936, that there should be no transfer of loan charges in respect of highways in this fashion. I say that is the precedent which is most relevant to this situation and the principle that we are embodying in the Bill.

Therefore, in respect of this, which is distinguished from revenue-producing services or things such as gas and electricity, there is a difference between local government practice in the treatment of loan charges and the practice established between central government and local government. It has been accepted by several Governments—there have been many Governments since 1936—that there should not be the acceptance of a transfer of loan charges in this way.

It was on this basis that we commenced our discussions with the local authorities about this part of the Bill. It was because of their insistence that we accepted the insertion into the Bill of the provision for the transfer of loan charges as between local highway authorities. We hope that the House will uphold what was done previously in the Standing Committee, and disagree with this Amendment.

Mr. Arthur Jones

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point of the difference in the position of the highway and lighting services, would he not accept that there is a complete difference in the point he is making? The highway, in the event of its becoming out of use, is owned by the owners and occupiers of the land which faces on to it, but we are here dealing with lighting equipment, where there is a transfer of assets. The same cannot be said of the highway, because it is impossible to transfer the assets of a highway which is only temporarily, as it were, in the public ownership.

Mr. Swingler

We are transferring something from which no revenue is derived. It is a service, the cost of maintaining which will be taken over by another authority. One public authority has provided for it, and paid for it either out of revenue, as in some cases, or out of loans. It is transferred to another authority, which is now to shoulder the burden of maintaining it, renewing it and replacing it. There is no revenue to be earned from it.

I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that in the case of the transfer of roads that is how the practice has been established over many years as between the central Government and local government. Since we are now accepting that the lighting system should be recognised as an integral part of the provision of roads, it is natural that we should apply the same principle to the transfer of the lighting system.

Mr. Temple

This debate has now taken place three times—once in the Standing Committee and twice in another place—and if it had not been that Mr. Speaker did not select it for debate on Report this would have been the fourth debate on a subject which we regard as of very great importance. We agree with the Parliamentary Secretary when he says that a matter of principle is involved, but I have never seen a Government change position more in their arguments than this Government have on this subject.

I am not now concerned with precedents, because I do not think that the precedent of the 1936 Act is important. Funnily enough, I think that the hon. Gentleman agreed with me in Standing Committee, because he did not at that stage lay much stress on the 1936 Act as a powerful precedent. He said that he regarded the question as one of principle. However, when the Minister without Portfolio spoke in another place on 21st November, he said that the best precedent he could find for such an Amendment as this was that the 1936 Act contained just this very thing!

On that occasion, the Minister without Portfolio gave an undertaking that he would look at the matter again between the Committee stage and Report in another place, but when he spoke on it on Report the moment of truth came upon him. He said that the Government were dealing with the matter on an "ad hoc" basis. There was no precedent that weighed with the Minister without Portfolio; he was dealing with the question on an ad hoc basis. But the Government are not dealing with it on an ad hoc basis, and that is why we regard this as a matter of very great importance.

I notified a Treasury Minister that tonight I would have something to say about the Treasury. A Treasury Minister should be moving this disagreement with the Amendment from another place. Here we are seeing Treasury sleight of hand. The local authorities were the gentlemen of the party; when they saw the first draft of the Bill they made representations to the Government that where a service was transferred from one local authority to another the loan charges that went with it should also be transferred. That is sanity, that is equity and what I would call common sense. That then is the position when a service is transferred from one local authority to another.

But here we have the grasping hand of the Treasury showing through the negotiations. Where there is a transfer of those functions from a local authority to a Department of State the Department says that it will take over the assets but not the liabilities that go with them. That is the matter of principle on which we disagree entirely with the Government.

My right hon. Friend was perfectly correct. All the local authorities associations are absolutely united in their opposition to what the Government propose. Very significantly, an erstwhile Member of the House, now the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, speaking comparatively recently on this matter in another place, entirely supported the point of view which I am putting forward.

Therefore, our point of view is very well supported in all places, except, apparently, on the Government Front Bench. I believe that this bodes extremely ill for negotiations going on at present between the central Government and the local authority associations on the rate support grant. That is why I said that I wanted a Treasury Minister here. There is no doubt that if the Treasury can insist on a trick of this nature being put across there will be very scant hope for ratepayers getting a satisfactory deal when the rate support grant is brought before the House.

Therefore, I have no hesitation in advising my right hon. and hon. Friends that there is a principle involved here, that it is a principle with which we heartily disagree and I very much hope that they will follow me into the Lobby.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson (Penistone)

Whatever my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary may have said a few minutes ago about his discussions with local authorities, he will be aware that many local authorities are bitterly opposed to the provision he is now defending. There can be no doubt about that. That is particularly true of rural district councils, like the Wortley Rural District Council in my constituency and others in many other parts of Yorkshire.

The first point involved here is the principle of equity and good sense, and my hon. Friend has given no adequate reply on that. The people in my area and the members of the Wortley Rural District Council are not greatly impressed by references to precedents in 1936 and whether another Administration failed to change that precedent in 1959.

Here we have an administrative function being transferred from local authorities to the Ministry of Transport, and while the Minister of Transport will have sole authority in these matters from now on, and the local authorities will have no further say, the Minister and the Department refuse to take over the loan charges. That is the core of the argument.

I submit three points to my hon. Friend. First, this will be particularly unjust to local authorities which have been enterprising and energetic in this matter, and have therefore spent far more money than some other local authorities. They will be left with the charges where others will get new lighting development on trunk roads through their areas and make no financial contribution.

My second point concerns a matter that should go a long way with my hon. Friend, and that is the question of precedents in other legislation. I wish to quote only one. There is the precedent of Section 6 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, under which there was a transfer of all local authority hospitals to the Minister of Health, and the Minister became responsible for all the outstanding loans and loan charges. Clearly, this is a precedent, coming from the year 1946 at the time of the administration of the party to which both he and I belong, which ought to go a long way with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.

11.15 p.m.

My third point, which is equally important, relates to the liability which has been undertaken by a local authority, say, a rural district council, which has provided not only an asset in the street, the light which can be seen with the naked eye, but also, in conjunction with the electricity authority, an asset beneath the ground. This will be a continuing asset of some importance, and, what is more, it will be used for further extensions which will be much cheaper because of the original investment undertaken partly with local authority finance. It is unfair in these circumstances that the Government should refuse to transfer the loan charges to the appropriate Ministry.

The sums involved may in some cases be only small, but there is a principle involved here which very much concerns the local councillors in my area and in many others. It is not a matter to be made light of, although I am receiving the unaccustomed support of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) in putting my argument. I beg my hon. Friend to discount that unaccustomed support from the benches opposite and have at the forefront of his mind the serious concern which many local authorities and councillors feel on this matter.

We may be moving into a period when, either to ease the burden on local authority finances or to make improvements in central administration, functions will have to be transferred, and rightly so. But we shall be putting the cart before the horse and creating a very bad atmosphere among local authorities and councillors when such transfers come, quite properly, to be discussed if they feel that they do not receive fair treatment after a transfer has taken place.

Sir D. Glover

I have had many representations from my local authorities on this matter. I would have made exactly the same speech which the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) has made. As he has put all the points I had in mind to put, I shall do no more than endorse and reinforce what he said and beg the Government to think again.

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson (Walthamstow, East)

At first glance, this Amendment looks extremely attractive and equitable, and, in normal circumstances, of course, one would accept that on a transfer of assets the loan charges also should be transferred. But I wonder whether it is right to say that a question of principle is necessarily involved on the transfer of all assets of whatever description. May I say that, as I live on an arterial road where the rate of destruction of lamposts is extremely high, I would describe these as very much wasting assets.

Having gone into the situation and discussed it with my local authority, I wonder whether one ought to look at the practical effect to see whether local authorities are suffering or are likely to suffer hardship in this respect. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that, under the present financial arrangements, a local authority receives no reimbursement whatever of loan charges in respect of these lighting installations. If this be so, the fact that responsibility is transferred will make no difference whatever because, if the local authority maintained its ownership, it would continue to have to pay the loan

charges without any reimbursement from the central or highway authority.

I am informed also—again, I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that the lighting authority receives only reimbursement of one half of revenue expenditure in connection with these installations. If this be so, the local authority now bears the loan charges and half the revenue expenditure. Under the new arrangements, it will continue to bear the loan charges but will have complete reimbursement of the revenue expenditure. It seems to me that, under this arrangement, the local authority benefits and does not suffer from the previous arrangement.

Mr. Swingler rose—

Hon. Members

Divide.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak again except by leave of the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 106.

Division No. 224.] AYES [11.21 p.m.
Alldritt, Walter Dobson, Ray Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Allen, Scholefield Doig Peter Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Archer, Peter Driberg, Tom Hunter, Adam
Armstrong, Ernest Dunn, James A. Hynd, John
Ashley, Jack Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Eadle, Alex Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Baxter, William Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Beaney, Alan Edwards, William (Merioneth) Judd, Frank
Bence, Cyril Ellis, John Kelley, Richard
Binns, John English, Michael Kenyon, Clifford
Bishop, E. S. Faulds, Andrew Lawson, George
Blackburn, F. Fernyhough, E. Leadbitter, Ted
Boardman, H. Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Lestor, Miss Joan
Booth, Albert Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Forrester, John Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Bradley, Tom Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton) Lomas, Kenneth
Brooks, Edwin Galpern, Sir Myer Loughlin, Charles
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W) Garrett, W. E. Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Buchan, Norman Carrow, Alex Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. McBride, Neil
Cant, R. B. Gourlay, Harry McCann, John
Carmichael, Neil Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) MacCoN, James
Carter-Jones, Lewis Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony Macdonald, A. H.
Coe, Denis Gregory, Arnold McGuire, Michael
Concannon, J. D. Grey, Charles (Durham) Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Mackintosh, John P.
Crawshaw, Richard Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Maclennan, Robert
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Dalyell, Tam Hannan, William McNamara, J. Kevin
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Haseldine, Norman Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Hattersley, Roy Manuel, Archie.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hazell, Bert Mapp, Charles
Davies, Edmyfed Hudson (Conway) Heffer, Eric S. Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Davies, Robert (Cambridge) Henig, Stanley Mendelson, J. J.
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey Hooley, Frank Millan, Bruce
Delargy, Hugh Horner, John Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Dell, Edmund Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Dempsey, James Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Morgan, Elysan (Cardiganshire)
Dewar, Donald Howie, W. Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Rhodes, Geoffrey Wallace, George
Newens, Stan Richard, Ivor Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Oakes, Gordon Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Wellbeloved, James
Ogden, Eric Robinson, W. O. J. (Waith'stow, E.) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
O'Malley, Brian Roebuck, Roy Wilkins, W. A.
Orbach, Maurice Rose, Paul Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Orme, Stanley Ross, Rt. Hn. William Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Oswald, Thomas Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) Sheldon, Robert Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Paget, R. T. Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.) Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Palmer, Arthur Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Park, Trevor Silverman, Julius (Aston) Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham) Small, William Woodbum, Rt. Hn. A.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Spriggs, Leslie Woof, Robert
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Swingler, Stephen Yates, Victor
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) Thornton, Ernest TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Price, William (Rugby) Urwin, T. W. Mr. William Whitlock and
Probert, Arthur Varley, Eric G. Mr. Ioan L. Evans.
Redhead, Edward Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
NOES
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Onslow, Cranley
Astor, John Hawkins, Paul Osborn, John (Hallam)
Awdry, Daniel Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Page, Graham (Crosby)
Batsford, Brian Heseltine, Michael Peel, John
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Hill J. E. B. Percival, Ian
Bessell, Peter Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Pink, R. Bonner
Biffen, John Holland, Philip Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Biggs-Davison, John Hooson, Emlyn Pym, Francis
Bossom, Sir Clive Howell, David (Guildford) Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Brewis, John Hunt, John Russell, Sir Ronald
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hutchison, Michael Clark Sharples, Richard
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Sinclair, Sir George
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Smith, John
Burden, F. A. Jopling, Michael Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Chichester-Clark, R. Kimball, Marcus Stodart, Anthony
Clark, Henry King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Cooke, Robert Kirk, Peter Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Dalkeith, Earl of Kitson, Timothy Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Lambton, Viscount Temple, John M.
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Lancaster, Col. C. G. Thorpe, Jeremy
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Errington, Sir Eric Longden, Gilbert Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Eyre, Reginald Lubbock, Eric Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Farr, John MacArthur, Ian Wall, Patrick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Cromarty) Weatherill, Bernard
Fortescue, Tim Maginnis, John E. Whitelaw, William
Foster, Sir John Maude, Angus Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan Miscampbell, Norman Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Glover, Sir Douglas Monro, Hector Wylie, N. R.
Grant, Anthony More, Jasper Younger, Hn. George
Gresham Cooke, R. Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Gurden, Harold Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hall, John (Wycombe) Murton, Oscar Mr. R. W. Elliott and
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Nabarro, Sir Gerald Mr. Peter Blaker.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill; that Mr. Greenwood, Mr. MacColl, Mr. Rippon, Mr. Swingler, and Mr. Temple be members of the Committee; that three be the quorum.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what would happen if we did not agree to this Motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

Let us wait and see whether or not the House does agree.

Question put and agreed to.

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.