Mr. Chamberlain's Feat
MUCH the most impressive performance of . the past session has been that of Mr. Neville Chamberlain. When Mr. Churchill introduced the derating scheme, the Unionist Party, and many members of the Opposition in secret, were enraptured. To the Unionists it was a delightful surprise-packet, a real elec- tion-winner. Second thoughts, however, brought a cloud of gloom. It was seen that the consequential Bill for the reform of Local Government would be intensely com- plicated, and so difficult to understand that it would be next to impossible to make it alluring in the consti- tuencies. Mr. Chamberlain recognized that the derating scheme itself could not possibly lose its attractiveness as an aid to industry, so he set himself at once to prove that the drudgery of recasting Local Government—he did not try insincerely to pretend that there would not be a great deal of drudgery—was well worth it for the prize to be won. He has succeeded. He has rolled back the gloom. He has put a shining face upon the Local Government Bill.
His method has been his own. His first draft of his Bill was not tabled in the House of Commons, but was circulated among all the local authorities and associations interested in Local Government. He got plenty of criti- cism, and his next move was to sit down in conferences and talk things over in a manner partly friendly and partly dispassionate, which was admirable. At various stages of the work he issued a White Paper explaining what progress had been made. At last he presented his Bill to the House, and no one will forget his second- reading speech which, as a feat of exposition, was one of the most memorable in modern Parliaments. Even after this triumph he did not act in the spirit of the Roman generals, who passed their captives under the yoke. He still wanted to make things easy for everybody, and up to the last moment he has been promising altera- tions wherever it could fairly be pointed out that the new shoe would pinch.
On Thursday, December 20th, he made the latest of his concessions. Many objections have been raised in the House of Commons by the Opposition—and we note that some Unionists, including our. Parliamentary Corre- spondent, have joined in them--to the speed with which the Bill, with the help of the guillotine, is being passed through Committee. -How, it is asked, can such an intricate measure be properly examined in so short a time ? It ought to be remembered, however, that Mr. Chamberlain has caused a great deal of the essence of Committee work to be done by experts outside the House in the manner we have described. We do not notice that allowance has been made for this.
Yet one more White Paper is to be issued. This will appear during the recess, and will explain the significance of the latest concessions and show what amendment's in the Bill will be necessary. We are sure that no one of ordinary intelligence who reads Mr. Chamberlain's great speech of Monday, November 26th, and the White Paper which is about to al). peai, will have any difficulty in mastering, the sense of _the Local Government Bill. There never was a feebler objection than that tlie. Bill is incomprehensible. It is enough to reflect that if our present chaotic system of Local Government were gathered up into the four corners of a Bill it would present such a nightmare of contradictions and conun- drums that Mr. Chamberlain's Bill would seem very easy reading by comparison. _ _ Mr. Chamberlain thinks that the most notable of his new concessions is that which affects the distribution of the block grant among the non-county boroughs and other county districts within a county. Every such borough or district is to be guaranteed against any loss for .five years, and if there should be any increase of expense after that period it will be spread over a further period of fourteen years. Another concession which affects both county and county-borough councils is the provision that there shall be two periods of three and four years respectively at the outset of the scheme (instead of only one period of five years), during which' local authorities will receive 75 per cent. of their loss of. rates and grants. The effect, of course, will be to make the transition to the point when the whole distribution will be governed by the famous formula even more gradual than was at first proposed. Yet, again, a load of anxiety will be lifted from these same local authorities by the promise that late claims for derating—provided that they are made before October 1st, 1930—will be met by the Exchequer.
The very natural misgivings of many local authorities, that they may have to create new services without the money to pay for them, are met by the promise that, if such new services are required by Parliament, Parlia- ment must stipulate that the Exchequer shall provide the necessary help. As regards health services we are still not quite convinced that the block grants will be sufficient for maternity and child-welfare services, but Mr. Chamberlain has been so handsome in his promises to remedy any proved grievance that there is nothing to fear in the long run.
There are a few local authorities—in seven counties and eleven county-boroughs to be precise—which, although they are guaranteed against loss by means of a minimum grant, feel that they ought to share in any increase of the general Exchequer contribution. Mr. Chamberlain has satisfied them by promising that, over and above the guaranteed gain of is. per head for all time instead of for only five years, they shall share in any general increase.
A very interesting and important statement was that Mr. Chanibeilain hopes to provide for a Census every five instead of every ten years. The advantage of this in connexion with the working of the famous formula for determining the degree of need in any rating area is obvious. The formula is based in the main on population, and it is therefore highly desirable to know what the popu- lation is at frequent intervals. A period Of ten years would involve . some injustice, or else some hazardous . guess-work, in the later years of the period.
Although much satire has been directed at it, the formula has survived on its merits. The principal factor which determines the need of a district is rightly popu- lation, and yet population is by no means the only measure, of need, for there -are rich populations and poor populations. Population is, therefore, considered in the Bill in connexion with the rateable -value per head, and the number of children under five years of age. These considerations are used 'to weight " the population- in other words to justify its claim to larger grants than would fall to a similar population with a higher rateable value per head and fewer children under five. It has been argued that the " necessitous" areas are the very areas which have' not many young children, because they cannot afford them.. The answer simply 'that the argument does not happen to be true. • _ . Two other factors.'of the formula come into operation only m abnormal circumstances—exceptioal' unern- ployment, and such sparsity of population in rural areas as makes the cost of administration unduly higli. 'It there is a better formula it has yet to be found. Mr. Chamberlain, in any case, has promised an inquiry into its operation before the end of seven years.
Altogether Mr. Chamberlain is to be heartily congra- tulated.. When he came into contact with the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Urban District Councils Associa- tion—all vixens fighting for their cubs—we expected the fur to fly. But the prospect now is of general peace and real benefits for the whole country.
Previous page
