§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, the object of this Bill is to make provision for the payment of the travelling expenses incurred by persons in the discharge of their duties in connection with assessment committees, guardians committees and certain other committees mentioned in the Bill. The principle of payment of the travelling expenses of members of public bodies was first introduced by the Local Government Act, 1929, which enabled a county council to pay the travelling expenses of members of the council attending its meetings or attending committees within the area of the county. Provision had already been made for payment of travelling expenses of members of councils outside the area of the council. The Act of 1929 was repealed by the Local Government Act, 1933, and this provision in regard to travelling expenses was re-enacted in that Act. The Act of 1933, by Section 294, provided that the county council may defray the expenses necessarily incurred by members of the council or of any committee in travelling to and from the meetings of the council or committee, or in travelling, by direction of the council or committee, for the purpose of carrying out any inspection necessary for the discharge of the functions of the council or committee.
There is also a further provision in the section enabling the county council to pay the travelling expenses of a member attending a meeting of a sub-committee or a joint committee or joint board appointed 326 by a county council jointly with the council of another county or of a borough. This provision has given rise to a curious anomaly. Take, for instance, the guardians committees. The guardians committees have been appointed by county councils for different areas throughout the county. In a few counties there is only one guardians committee for Me whole county, and the extraordinary position arises that under the Act of 1933 which I have quoted the county council can pay the travelling expenses of their own members attending meetings of the guardians committee, but they cannot pay the travelling expenses of members appointed by borough councils, urban district councils, or rural district councils, nor can the latter bodies do so. Yet, the county councillors are often in a better position to pay their own travelling expenses than, for example, members of urban district councils. The members sit in the same room transacting the business of the committee, but only those who are members of county councils are entitled to receive their travelling expenses, although the members of the other bodies—the borough councils, the urban district councils, and the rural district councils—may have travelled long distances to attend the meeting. The same point arises in regard to a joint committee or a joint board which may be appointed by a county council along with the borough councils. There the members of the county council attending the joint committee or the joint board receive travelling expenses, but the members of the borough councils do not. The time has come to remove these anomalies, and one of the objects of the Bill is to do so.
Then there is the case of the assessment committee. Before 1925 the area of the assessment committee was, speaking generally, the area of the old board of guardians. That was an area of limited extent, and the travelling expenses of members attending meetings of the assessment committee were negligible. But under the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925 the area of the assessment committee was considerably enlarged, sometimes comprising the area of a county and in the larger counties a larger division of the county than the area of the board of guardians. In addition the work of the assessment committee has 327 been greatly increased in accordance with the larger area and more frequent and more prolonged meetings are held. This is a grievance which has been felt for a long time. Members of the assessment committee have in many cases to travel long distances—ten, twenty, and even thirty miles—to attend these meetings, and some of them unfortunately are not in a financial position to afford the expense. The result is that in many cases men who are in a position to do useful work on the assessment committee are unable to attend and, in some cases, attendance at the meetings of the committee suffers.
The payment of travelling expenses of members attending assessment committee meetings has been a burning question ever since the passing of the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925, more particularly among urban district councils. In 1927, two years after the passing of the Act, at the annual conference of the Urban District Councils Association, attended by eight hundred delegates, a resolution was passed in favour of an amendment of the law to enable travelling expenses to be paid. A similar resolution was passed at the annual conference held in 1930 and, passing over the next few years, in 1935 a resolution was passed at the annual conference pressing the Government to introduce legislation not only to meet travelling expenses in the case of assessment committee meetings, but also in the case of the other committees I have mentioned such as the guardians committee, joint committees, and joint boards. Parliament has recognised the principle of payment of travelling expenses in other directions. In the Local Government Act for Scotland wider provision is made than is claimed in this Bill, but the provision therein made includes the payment of travelling expenses. Certain Acts forming joint boards have contained special provisions for the board to pay the expenses of members attending meetings of the board—for example, the Fylde Water Board Act, 1935, and the Kingsbridge and Salcombe Water Act, 1936. The matter has also formed the subject of a discussion in another place. Last December it was debated at considerable length, and a Resolution was adopted nemine contradicente in favour of the payment of the travelling expenses incurred by 328 members of district councils, urban and rural, attending meetings of assessment committees and other committees as detailed in this Bill. Following upon that debate the present Bill was drafted giving effect to the principle of the Resolution.
The Bill has the support of the Urban District Councils' Association, and I think I am right in saying has the sympathy of the Minister of Health. The Bill does not go nearly so far as the provision in the Local Government Act of 1933 in regard to county councils. That Act, as I have stated, authorises the payment of the travelling expenses of members of county councils attending meetings of county councils and committees. This Bill does not authorise the payment of the travelling expenses of members attending meetings of the municipal corporations, urban district councils or rural district councils. All that it does is to enable the travelling expenses incurred in attending meetings of the guardians committee, the assessment committee, joint committees, and joint boards to be paid. The Bill was backed by members of the various Parties in another place. It passed through its various stages there without amendment, and I submit it to the favourable consideration of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amulree.)
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOLDo I understand the noble Lord to say that members of a county council, when they sit on committees appointed jointly by the county council and other bodies, such as rural district councils, receive their expenses?
§ LORD AMULREEIf I understand the noble Earl's question, it is whether members of a county council travelling to a meeting entailing expense are reimbursed. The answer is, "Yes."
VISCOUNT GAGEMy Lords, I rise only for the purpose of saying that this Bill is welcomed by the Government and we are glad of its provisions to do away with the anomalies which the noble Lord has described.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.