Orders of the Day — Civic Restaurants Bill – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 31 March 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)
Mr Thomas Fraser
, Hamilton
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.
Colonel Sir Alan Gomme-Duncan
, Perth
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.
Mr Charles Williams
, Torquay
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.
Mr Walter Elliot
, Combined Scottish Universities
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.
Mr Thomas Fraser
, Hamilton
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.
Colonel Sir Alan Gomme-Duncan
, Perth
Far too many.
Mr Thomas Fraser
, Hamilton
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.
Colonel Sir Alan Gomme-Duncan
, Perth
The Joint Under-Secretary has given us more and more cases of how the Secretary of State for Scotland is giving up his powers.
Mr Douglas Clifton Brown
, Hexham
This is not the occasion on which we can discuss the giving up of powers.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
Secretary of State was originally the title given to the two officials who conducted the Royal Correspondence under Elizabeth I. Now it is the title held by some of the more important Government Ministers, for example the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
During a debate members of the House of Commons traditionally refer to the House of Lords as 'another place' or 'the other place'.
Peers return the gesture when they speak of the Commons in the same way.
This arcane form of address is something the Labour Government has been reviewing as part of its programme to modernise the Houses of Parliament.
The cabinet is the group of twenty or so (and no more than 22) senior government ministers who are responsible for running the departments of state and deciding government policy.
It is chaired by the prime minister.
The cabinet is bound by collective responsibility, which means that all its members must abide by and defend the decisions it takes, despite any private doubts that they might have.
Cabinet ministers are appointed by the prime minister and chosen from MPs or peers of the governing party.
However, during periods of national emergency, or when no single party gains a large enough majority to govern alone, coalition governments have been formed with cabinets containing members from more than one political party.
War cabinets have sometimes been formed with a much smaller membership than the full cabinet.
From time to time the prime minister will reorganise the cabinet in order to bring in new members, or to move existing members around. This reorganisation is known as a cabinet re-shuffle.
The cabinet normally meets once a week in the cabinet room at Downing Street.
The House of Commons votes by dividing. Those voting Aye (yes) to any proposition walk through the division lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting no through the lobby to the left. In each of the lobbies there are desks occupied by Clerks who tick Members' names off division lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the Members are counted by two Members acting as tellers. The Speaker calls for a vote by announcing "Clear the Lobbies". In the House of Lords "Clear the Bar" is called. Division Bells ring throughout the building and the police direct all Strangers to leave the vicinity of the Members’ Lobby. They also walk through the public rooms of the House shouting "division". MPs have eight minutes to get to the Division Lobby before the doors are closed. Members make their way to the Chamber, where Whips are on hand to remind the uncertain which way, if any, their party is voting. Meanwhile the Clerks who will take the names of those voting have taken their place at the high tables with the alphabetical lists of MPs' names on which ticks are made to record the vote. When the tellers are ready the counting process begins - the recording of names by the Clerk and the counting of heads by the tellers. When both lobbies have been counted and the figures entered on a card this is given to the Speaker who reads the figures and announces "So the Ayes [or Noes] have it". In the House of Lords the process is the same except that the Lobbies are called the Contents Lobby and the Not Contents Lobby. Unlike many other legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords have not adopted a mechanical or electronic means of voting. This was considered in 1998 but rejected. Divisions rarely take less than ten minutes and those where most Members are voting usually take about fifteen. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P9 at the UK Parliament site.
Whitehall is a wide road that runs through the heart of Westminster, starting at Trafalgar square and ending at Parliament. It is most often found in Hansard as a way of referring to the combined mass of central government departments, although many of them no longer have buildings on Whitehall itself.
