Orders of the Day — Civic Restaurants Bill – in the House of Commons am 12:00 am ar 31 Mawrth 1947.
Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 15, after "that," to insert:
(i) where the Minister of Food is satisfied that the council of any county in Scotland are unreasonably refusing to exercise their powers under this Act in any district of the county he may by order direct that the powers of the county council, so far as relating to that district, shall be exercisable by the district council instead of by the county council; and
(ii)
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House is aware, I think, that, in the closing stages of the Debate on Report in this House, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State undertook to have considered this Amendment in another place when it was found, I believe, to be out of Order at that time for technical reasons. The Amendment is an endeavour to meet the point made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that in some of the rural areas of Scotland—or, at least, the non-urban areas in Scotland—county councils might not be disposed to exercise the powers conferred on them under the Bill, and that the district councils, in those cases where the district councils represent fairly populous areas, would make a better exercise of the functions. It was represented to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of Food that, in certain instances, the county councils might be disinclined merely to delegate the functions if we should add the district councils to the Clause dealing with delegated powers. We undertook to provide that, where we could be satisfied that a county council was unreasonably refusing to exercise the powers, they would be transferred, or might be transferred, to the district councils.
As we closed our Debate on an earlier occasion one gathered from the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) that he took exception to the Minister of Food s being the Minister permitted to interfere with the local authorities in Scotland in this way. We gave this matter very careful consideration before we came before the House on an earlier occasion, and we have given it careful consideration since; but I would ask the House to appreciate that, if a Minister of the Crown is to exercise this function of determining whether a local authority is reasonably or unreasonably exercising its functions under the Bill, then that Minister, in this case, must clearly be the Minister of Food. I do not think, really, that it could be argued that the Secretary of State is in a better state than the Minister of Food to determine whether or not a local authority is carrying out its duty under the Bill. I commend this Amendment to the House.
I think that the state- ment of the Joint Under-Secretary of State leaves us precisely where we were before I can think of no reason why the Secretary of State, who is, after all, our sole representative, should give up his powers in favour of the Minister of Food, however much the Minister of Food may know about these things. Surely, the Minister responsible to the Cabinet is the Secretary of State for Scotland, and not the Minister of Food. The Secretary of State for Scotland is the only safeguard we have, and it is he, and not the Minister of Food, who should deal with these things. Surely, it is clear that the Minister of Food should advise, from the food point of view, the Secretary of State, who should decide for Scotland.
This is a very curious Amendment. There is, first, the rather interesting provision that the Minister can say that he disagrees with the county council, which is the senior authority, and allow the district authority to act. As far as I understand the Amendment, that is the system that would apply to Scotland, although I do not think it applies to England. Scotland may accept it—that is their concern—but it is not a good thing to interfere in a general way with a senior authority, and to take away its powers and give them to a junior authority. To do that means that there will be piecemeal orders and rules in which sometimes it is a question of the county council and sometimes the junior authority, and that position is fundamentally wrong. One or other of the authorities, alone, should have the power to administer this Measure.
I am astonished by the fact that under this Amendment it is proposed to take away the powers in this respect of the Secretary of State to administer Scotland. I notice that the representatives of the Ministry of Food are present in full force, and that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is at least as able a fighter as the Minister of Food in many ways, has been driven out of the field. I can only say that if I represented a Scottish Division, which I do not—for the very simple reason that I am much happier where I am—I should certainly oppose this Amendment tooth and nail, since under it the Secretary of State for Scotland loses power, and the Minister of Food gains power. I always imagined that Scotland was very anxious to keep its own administration as far as possible. This Amendment is another illustration of the way in which things are being concentrated quite needlessly in Whitehall, and power is being given to Whitehall which is completely unnecessary. I cannot conceive that anyone in London can really judge, between two Scottish authorities, which of the two is administering things in the right sense for a Scottish district. This Amendment shows how utterly the Ministry of Food are out of touch with the affairs of the country, and I regret that this sort of thing should be tried on Scotsmen.
Mr. McKie:
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) was right when he said that we in Scotland are very jealous of our autonomy and control of our own affairs, but I am partially in favour of this Amendment, because on the Report stage I said I thought it would be in keeping with our democratic institutions in Scotland if we were to concede this power to the district councils. I remember that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said that it would be very unlikely that this power would be exercised on any occasion. It is likely in the development of new centres that district councils might, in certain cases, be better vehicles or media to administer powers such as this. So far I am in favour of the Amendment.
Nevertheless, I protest at this process of constantly putting power into the hands of the Minister of Food. For a very long time and ever since there has been a Secretary of State for Scotland by that name all the powers of administration in regard to Scotland have been concentrated with him. If we accept the Amendment, as I appreciate it will be accepted because of the overwhelming number supporting His Majesty's Government, we shall be departing largely from those principles to which we have for so long adhered. I await with interest anything that the Joint Under-Secretary of State may have to bay, or the Minister of Food—I should appreciate hearing the Joint Under-Secretary of State—on why it is necessary to put this power in the hands of the Minister of Food, outwith Scotland.
We have not heard the arguments in favour of the Amendment. The Joint Under-Secretary said that he had thought this matter over very carefully and had come to the conclusion that the proper Minister was the Minister of Food, but he did not give us the benefit of the reasoning which had led him to that conclusion. That is what we are rather awaiting. It is right that there should be the district council. We are grateful to the Government for having inserted the provision that the district council should, in certain cases, administer this matter, and for that reason we do not propose to divide upon the Amendment. It carries out a reform which we desire. On the other hand it gives us what we are continually finding in the case of this Government and what we protest against. Is it necessary to transfer administration and initiative in these matters from Edinburgh to Whitehall? We do not see why that should be so. If the Joint Under-Secretary of State could give us a few words of explanation on the matter, I am ready to give him an opportunity to do so.
Perhaps I may be allowed to speak again, with the leave of the House. I thought I had said when I was on my feet that it seemed clear that the Minister of Food was the one who was competent to determine whether a local authority, being a civic restaurant authority, was reasonably exercising the functions and the powers given to it under this Measure. I should have thought he was the Minister who would have the facts available to him on which such a decision could be reached. This is not a case of transferring power from Saint Andrews House to Whitehall. We have not any restaurant powers at Saint Andrews House at the present moment. It is not unusual for Ministers whose headquarters are in Whitehall to exercise powers in Scotland. Many Ministers do so, and have done so for a very long time.
Far too many.
The local authorities are in almost daily consultation with the Minister of Transport and not with the Secretary of State. As regards building licences the Minister of Works is responsible, and not the Secretary of State for Scotland. In discussing with a Government Department matters concerning gas undertakings, the local authorities do not go to Saint Andrews House to have a chat with the Secretary of State. They discuss the matter with the Minister of Fuel and Power. There are lots of precedents for the local authorities in Scotland having to consult with a Minister other than the Secretary of State for Scotland. If my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food is to be made responsible for feeding the people of this country, and is to be made responsible for the distribution of food, and is to be answerable to this House for the successful operations of the Civic Restaurants Bill, I suggest that he is the Minister and the only Minister who can be asked, on application by a district council, for powers under the Bill, and he is the only Minister who can determine on the facts available to him whether or not a county council are making a reasonable exercise of their functions.
The Joint Under-Secretary has given us more and more cases of how the Secretary of State for Scotland is giving up his powers.
This is not the occasion on which we can discuss the giving up of powers.