LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (Hansard, 1 February 1951)

§ THE, PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON)

My Lords, as noble Lords will have noted, this short Scottish Bill is put forward with a two-fold object, which can be very briefly explained. The first object is to raise certain limits on the expenditure of town and county councils, which have been in force for many years and are found to be unworkable at the present time. The second is to put in statutory form, for an initial period of three years, the control of local authority borrowing at present exercised under Defence Regulations.

Clause 1 raises to 4s. 6d. in the £ the present rate limit of 3s. in the £ on the expenditure which a town council in Scotland may incur on certain essential services, including police, street lighting and cleansing; and it provides that in particular cases, where there is need, the Secretary of State may authorise a higher limit. May I emphasise: that there is no question here of encouraging town councils to incur additional expenditure in these times of stringency? Several town councils of large burghs are finding that they cannot run their existing services efficiently under the present limit of 3s. which was fixed in 1919—over thirty years ago. Since that date prices have risen, but the valuation of property for rates has not increased correspondingly. At present they have no power, even with the consent of the Secretary of State, to exceed the limit, and so they are faced with a legal obstacle to the maintenance of their existing services. The new limit of 4s. 6d. should be sufficient in most cases, and the power to raise the limit will be used only exceptionally.

Clause 2 raises from 9d. to 2s. 6d. in the £ the present limit on the amount of the rate which may, without the Secretary of State's approval, be levied in special lighting and scavenging districts. The present limit, which was fixed in 1894—over fifty years ago—is 9d.; and its inadequacy may be judged by the fact that in 1949–50 applications for the Secretary of State's approval to exceed the limit were made by county councils 151 in respect of 326 special districts—more than one-third of the total number of 836 special districts. If the limit were raised to 2s. 6d. nearly all these applications would be unnecessary, with a consequent saving of man-power. Here, again, it is not the intention to encourage local authorities to spend more but merely to remove an obstacle which they meet with in maintaining their existing services. Clause 3 is common form and does not call for comment. Clause 4 provides for the approval by the Central Department of local authority borrowing. This borrowing provision is at present contained in the Defence (Local Government) Scotland Regulations; in the present financial situation the control cannot be relaxed and it is preferable to have it in an Act of Parliament rather than in Defence Regulations. The clause will remain in force for an initial period of three years. All these proposals have been fully discussed with the Scottish local authority associations concerned and are generally acceptable to them. Finally, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to add that this Bill has already passed through another place. During its passage it was discussed at considerable length by the Scottish Standing Committee, both in relation to the principle of the Bill and to the clauses in detail. No Amendments were put down for discussion at any stage. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this is a short Bill and that it is necessary. I also think that it is regrettable. As the Secretary of State, himself, said it is worrying. No one questions for a moment that the services which are carried out under Clauses 1 and 2, the permissive expenditure on which is being raised, are necessary. No one questions that there is extravagance in their maintenance. But I am afraid that this added cost is the direct result of the inflationary policy by which the expenses of all local government, and indeed all government, continue to rise. It is for that reason that we must regret, not that this Bill is here but the causes behind it. It is no use the Chancellor of the Exchequer telling us, as he 152 did yesterday, "We do not want to raise taxation any more than is strictly necessary"; unless currency is stable, taxation will continue to rise. I have no further comments to make on this Bill. As the noble Lord has said, it has been through the other place without a Division and I am satisfied that local authorities find it necessary to raise additional money from the rates.