COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION EXPENSES (AMENDMENT) BILL. (Hansard, 20 February 1947)

§ LORD WALKDEN

My Lords, this is a short Bill to enable county councils in England and Wales to increase their subscriptions to the County Councils Association which, as your Lordships know, is a body which aids the councils in many ways and saves them a great deal of time, trouble and expense in connexion with important sections of their work. A similar measure regarding county councils in Scotland and their Association was passed in November last. In both cases the terms were agreed between the councils and their respective Associations.

The present rate obtaining in England and Wales is a maximum of £157 IOS as per annum. That was fixed some years ago, and it is now found to be inadequate by reason of the greatly increased volume of work which has to be dealt with, largely arising from recent legislation. For example, the Education Act, 1944, the recent Police Act, the Fire Brigades Act and the Town and Country Planning Acts all involve a great deal of additional work for the staff of county councils and their Association. It is therefore more necessary than ever that the Association should be able to carry on its valuable work unimpaired by lack of financial assistance, especially as it is helpful to four or five Government Departments who utilize its services, as well as to the 61 county councils.

858 This Bill seeks to raise the maximum subscription to £262 10s. 0d. per annum. That figure will apply only to the largest councils, those that have populations of over I,000,000. The contribution will be scaled down according to the size of the council's population to about one-third of the maximum rate in cases where a council has a population of less than I00,000. The Bill provides that any subsequent change in the rates of subscription which may be found to be necessary can be made by Order in Council, and this will obviate further legislation. I beg to move.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, I rise to say that we on these Benches have no objection whatever to the measure of which the noble Lord has just moved the Second Reading. I was wondering, when I originally read it, whether somebody had gone into an abstruse calculation as to what really was the alteration in the cost of living since 1937. Perhaps this is not a bad shot at it—that what £157 0d. would have bought then now takes 262, nos. 0d. As a matter of fact, I should not think that that is very far out. I was rather wondering why, in a Bill of this sort, we were so meticulous as to the Ios., and why we did not make it a good round sum such as £265 or something like that. I believe it is a maximum charge, but I suppose that somebody, for some reason, has gone rather meticulously into these figures. We know that these bodies do good work, and they ought to have the wherewithal to carry out such work, as the noble Lord said, without always having to see whether they were financially able to undertake what they ought to undertake.

For myself—and here again I am in an unusual capacity—I rather look forward to the provision by Order in Council. I think it is a good thing that a figure like this, in a Bill of this sort, should be capable, if the value of money changes or the duties which these organizations have to perform change, of being altered without going through the procedure of Second Reading, Committee stage, Report, Third Reading, and so on, before both Houses of Parliament. So here again, rather oddly—exceptionally I may 859 say—I welcome subsection (2) of Clause 1. I only wish that all our Regulations could be restricted to matters of this kind, which are quite properly dealt with from time to time by such Regulations. As it is, we from these Benches support this measure, and I am obliged to the noble Lord for explaining it to us so clearly.