§ Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. AlisonWhat further income for the Exchequer and local authorities is likely under the Clause? I do not believe that it is intended to diminish this money, although the Explanatory Memorandum suggests that it may give rise to powers to waive or abolish some trivial payments like those for posting notices. The principal source of local authority income hitherto has been the registration of births, deaths and marriages—about £800,000 a year. Do the Government intend to help local authorities here?
12.30 a.m.
A cursory glance at the figures in the Local Government Financial Statistics for England and Wales for 1964–65 suggest that they are substantial losers on their services in respect of the registration of births, deaths and marriages. On revenue account, total expenditure in 1964–65 was about £2½ million and the income—from fees, rents and other recoupments—amounted to about £800,000. It seems, therefore, that the local authorities have a large gap to close. Will they be empowered to increase the fees under the Clause?
The fees for the registration of births, deaths and marriages have increased only twice since 1837, once in that year and again in 1952. In view of the debits being incurred through some Government expenditure—for example, on milk—public opinion would probably not feel outraged if a modest increase was made in the charges for some of these licences to help local authorities close this gap. In other words, is the Minister taking powers to increase rather than diminish these charges?
Under this heading, for central Government income, substantial sums are obtained by way of road accident payments by those treated in hospital after accidents. I understand that in 1965–66 such payments totalled between £600 million and £700 million—[Interruption.] I may be wrong. Total receipts under this healing in respect of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, made to management committees, hospital boards and so on were at out £633,193. Whatever the 1114 figure, are these charges fully in keeping with the true costs incurred by the authorities which receive these payments? I imagine that those who make them are fully covered by insurance and would not suffer hardship if they were increased.
It must be a matter of concern when a Clause offers scope for the Government to at least double their income in certain respects, particularly since the present income of about £800,000 under some outdated charges could be increased to about £1,600,000. I hope that the Chief Secretary will be more forthcoming now than he was on Second Reading, first in his remarks about what the Exchequer may receive and second about what the local authorities may receive.
§ Mr. DiamondI am grateful to the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) for the general welcome he has given to the Clause, which was implicit in everything he said. Where fees are being collected which cost more to collect than the net income they bring in, power is taken to abolish them. Apart from that the whole purpose of the Clause is to increase fees which have been left undisturbed for many years, in some cases for a century and in some altered only twice in a century.
I should have thought that the whole Committee would share our view that this is a sensible way of proceeding. In the first case, negotiations are going on with local authorities, which have been consulted on this matter and in the second case, as the hon. Member rightly said, in many cases the liability will ultimately fall on the insurer rather than on the insured party. A later Amendment deals with that point. There will be an opportunity for increasing fees if the House thinks fit, by bringing forward an Order.
The Clause is an enabling Clause, no more than that. As it gives the Government power to bring Orders before the House, it would be a gross insult to the House to estimate in advance what the views of the House might be on those Orders. It would not be right to attempt to say what decision this House might come to at a future stage about a number of items involved in the powers in this Clause. Therefore, I am sure the hon. Member will realise that it is not that I am unwilling to give an estimate, but that this is the sort of topic 1115 on which no estimate could properly be given.
I am grateful for what the hon. Member said in recommending the Clause, and I hope that it may now be allowed to stand part of the Bill.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.