LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDITURE ON SPECIAL PURPOSES) (SCOTLAND) BILL (Hansard, 6 June 1961)

§ LORD CRAIGTON
My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to amend Section 339 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. That section permits a town or county council, with the approval of 1078 the Secretary of State, to make, and I quote: any payment for any purpose which, in the opinion of the Council, is in the interests of the Council or of the area of the Council or any pant thereof or of the inhabitants thereof This Bill was born of disasters to which the Secretary of State could not approve charitable aid. For many years when there was a disaster in Scotland, the councils, if they felt so disposed, under Section 339 gave subscriptions to disaster funds promoted by other areas. But some three or four years ago a legal ruling placed an unexpectedly narrow interpretation on Section 339, to the effect that the contribution could be made by an authority to a disaster fund only if some person within the area of that authority might possibly benefit.
In 1959 we had the first of three major disasters, for all of which local funds were raised: the Auchengeich Colliery, then the loss of the Broughty Ferry Lifeboat "Mona" and then the Glasgow whisky warehouse fire. In each case local authorities all over Scotland wished to contribute, whether or not anyone in their area had been affected, and in each case, under the legal ruling, my right honourable friend had many times to refuse permission to contribute. This caused grave public concern.
This Bill provides that certain types of payment may, without further test, be regarded as being in the Council's area. This overcomes the difficulties to which I have referred. The Bill, like Section 339, which it amends, is permissive. The need for the Secretary of State's approval applies here as to the original Section 339. This is proper, because we and the local authorities realise that there must be some check on the type of body to whom the gift is made. A local authority, for example, might not know that a certain body had political affiliations.
In spite of the widening of Section 339 by this Bill the upper limit to giving is still retained as the product of a 2d. rate. Local authorities in fact hardly ever spend anything approaching this figure under this section. This limit was raised in 1947 from 1d. to 2d. and as the result of the revaluation which has now taken place a 2d. rate will in the future be worth considerably more than it is now; 1079 so this limitation has, in fact, kept pace with the decrease in value of money.
Turning to the Bill, I would point out that three types of giving for Scotland rather than for the local authority area will now be permitted, if not already permitted under other legislation or powers: under paragraph (a) to any charitable body; under paragraph (b) to such bodies as the National Trust or the Royal National Lifeboat Institution; and under pargraph (c), to the disaster funds which, as I have said, highlighted the need for this Bill. The Bill has been welcomed by the local authorities; and such criticisms as have been directed at it have not been on political lines. So far as the Government are concerned we have no Amendments to make to it and, I trust your Lordships will give it a safe and easy passage. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

§ LORD LATHAM
My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether these extended powers are possessed by English local authorities?

§ LORD CRAIGTON
Subject to correction, Yes.

§ LORD HUGHES
My Lords, I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has said on this Bill. I have done so because of my previous connection with at least one of the disasters to which he referred. I cannot, however, say that I am satisfied that there is any legal need whatsoever for this Bill. May I quote from what was said in another place by the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who perhaps did not choose his words so wisely as the noble Lord has done this afternoon? He quoted Section 339, and I think it would bear repetition here. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Scottish Grand Committee, 29th Nov., 1960, Col. 5]: That section provides that a town or county council in Scotland, with my right hon. Friend's approval and subject to its spending in total not more than the product of a 2d. rate in any one year, can make "— and now we come to the actual quotation of Section 339— 1080 'any payment for any purpose which in the opinion of the council is in the interests of the council or of the area of the council, or any part thereof or of the inhabitants thereof'. Such payment must relate to purposes which are not competent to the local authority under any other statutory provision. He went on to say: As I have said, payments under the Section require the approval of my right hon. Friend. Difficulty has arisen because my right hon. Friend has been advised that the terms of the enactment are such that he can only approve payment, which will result in a direct and tangible benefit to the area of the local authority making the payment or to its inhabitants. My Lords, it is quite a common misapprehension in certain quarters that belief in the wisdom of local authorities started only in 1951. That is far from the case. For example, the phrase "in the interests of" is obviously one which is capable of quite different interpretations. One person could say in all sincerity that it was in the interests of the inhabitants of an area to do a particular thing, while someone else, with equal sincerity, could deny that it was in their interests. But in 1947 Parliament decided that there must be some way of determining easily what was "in the interests of" a local authority or of its inhabitants, and they decided that the test should be the expressed opinion of the council.
This applied right up to 1956, until local authorities sought to make donations for Hungarian relief, and at that time there was obtained this ruling, presumably from the then Lord Advocate. I submit to your Lordships that the legal opinion which was then expressed, and by which the Secretary of State has felt himself bound ever since, was far from being a reasonable interpretation of what Parliament said in 1947. In fact I suggest that it is a complete re-writing of the section; and my only regret is that no local authority in Scotland took this matter to the Law Courts. I can think of at least two Lords of Session who would have had great difficulty in 1956 in upholding the opinion expressed by the then Lord Advocate. It is a long time since the expression "Am I my brother's keeper?" was first used, and the follow-up question "Who is my brother?" I would suggest to your Lordships that Scots did not approve the answer given by the Scottish Office to that latter question: that if it was an 1081 Edinburgh man his brother had to live in Edinburgh; and if it was a Glasgow man his brother had to live in Glasgow, and so on. Rather, I would suggest that the Scots believe that where there is no compassion there is no civilisation—and we do think that we are a civilised country in Scotland.
Not only is the Scottish Office's interpretation an inhumane one; it does not even make common sense. I was Lord Provost of Dundee when the Broughty Ferry lifeboat disaster occurred. Broughty Ferry is part of the City of Dundee, but at one time it was a small borough in its own right. If it had continued to be a small borough in its own right the Secretary of State would have said that it was in the interests of the people in the glens of Angus that they should contribute to the Broughty Ferry Lifeboat Disaster Fund, because seven of the widows would have been ratepayers in the county of Angus. But because Broughty Ferry in years gone by had become part of the City of Dundee it was not in the interests of anybody in Angus to make such a contribution, and the Secretary of State denied them the opportunity.
I recognise just as well as does the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that, despite all that has happened since 1956, Ministers are not proposing to repudiate the foolish advice which they received in 1956, but I recognise also that they are not prepared to put the Secretary of State for Scotland in the permanent position of being accused of being hardhearted and mean, as he so frequently has been in the last five years. I do not believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland is a hard man. At the risk of being misunderstood on the benches opposite, I would go so far as to say that I think he is a good Minister. I believe he would be an even better Minister if he were allowed to act on his own natural judgment. If he had been permitted to use his own judgment in the matter he would not have done what he has been compelled to do in these five years.
In the absence, therefore, of a repudiation of the 1956 doctrine, the Bill serves the merciful purpose of taking the Secretary of State out of the impossible position he is now in. It would be churlish of me in the extreme if I were to attempt to deny him this very necessary measure of relief, particularly at 1082 this time when he is being beset by educational problems caused by once again having to follow other people's decisions.
In this Bill, however, the previous position is not completely restored. No help can be given further than Scotland. I understand that that follows the English pattern, but how ridiculous can we be made to look! The fact that it is being done in England is no sound reason for a Scottish Minister inflicting that on Scotland. If a disaster were to take place in the extreme North of Scotland, under the terms of the Bill the Secretary of State would hold that it was perfectly competent for a local authority right down in the., South, on the English Border, to give assistance. But if the disaster—no matter how great, no matter how crying the need—were to take place just those few miles South of the Border, the same sympathetic authority would be told, "You cannot do it". The Secretary of State has therefore amended the situation slightly only in that he now permits people to say, "My brother lives in Scotland". In the past, Scottish authorities have contributed frequently to English funds. The Lynmouth disaster, the Gresham Colliery disaster, the Lord Mayor of London's National Flood Distress Funds, are examples which come readily to mind. But this new Bill will not permit us to do that once again. I shall probably move on Committee stage an Amendment to paragraph (c) in the new subsection (1A) to delete references to Scotland in lines 20 and 21. I believe that that would be in accord with Scottish sentiment as expressed by past actions, because I am sure that what we really believe in Scotland is that He who needs my help is my brother".

LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL
My Lords, this its a very short and, I think, very useful Bill. Its usefulness has been stressed by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who brought gout very clearly the difficulties in which local authorities have been placed in the past in not knowing for what type of disaster, for what type of fund, they were entitled to contribute. Whether Scottish funds, public money funds, should be used Ito contribute towards disasters in England is a very 1083 moot point. After all, the money is largely the ratepayers' money, and I think it is right that there should be a fixed limit as to the boundaries beyond which that money should not be spent. After all, I think all local authorities have semi-private funds, in the nature of "common good" funds. They are much restricted, but such funds can be used for various purposes. So, as I say, I think it is right that there should be a boundary.
I also think it a good plan that the Secretary of State should be required to give his approval. These applications will be purely formal, but I think it useful to have in the background, somebody in the nature of a trustee, to give or to withhold approval. The 2d. rate will produce a good deal more since the Bill was drafted and revaluation in Scotland has taken place, but I hope that my noble friend will not find it necessary to reduce this sum by a comparable amount. I think that a 2d. rate, even on the new valuation, will not lead to any serious hardship. With those words, I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.

§ LORD CRAIGTON
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell for his welcome to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was bolder than I. He was bold enough not only to disagree with my right honourable friend's ruling and interpretation but even to refer to it as "foolish". I would remind him that, as he pointed out to your Lordships, nobody challenged my right honourable friend's ruling in the Courts, though many disagreed with it—and how right they were to do so! Clearly, as he elaborated to your Lordships, the situation was thoroughly unsatisfactory. Hence this Bill. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?

§ LORD HUGHES
Yes. I should like the noble Lord to explain how it was possible to challenge the ruling of the Secretary of State. So far as I can see, the only people who had an interest in challenging the Secretary of State did not have a case which they could competently place before the Court. If I could have done it in Dundee I would have taken it to the Courts. But I had 1084 not been denied: it was the burghs of Craile, Anstruther, Carnoustie and all the rest of them.

§ LORD CRAIGTON
My Lords, if the noble Lord had been able to do so, perhaps this Bill would not have been necessary.
The noble Lord raised the point that no help can be given South of the Border. The noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, said that, after all, we are talking about the ratepayers' money. There are many other ways of giving money for good causes in England, or anywhere in the world. We had to draw the line somewhere; we draw it at the Border, where England also drew the line.