HC Deb 02 March 1931 vol 249 cc99-107

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill, which was introduced in another place, and has passed through all its stages there without amendment, seeks to amend in one small particular the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, with regard to the machinery of arbitration on questions of disputed compensation where land is required for certain public purposes. At the time when the Act of 1919 was before the House it was anticipated that many cases would arise for reference to the official arbiters provided for in the Act, and that there would be room for perhaps five of such arbiters in England and two in Scotland engaged whole-time in the work. Although different opinions were expressed on the merits of putting these posts on a whole-time basis, the view of the Government of the day was that, since there would probably be ample work to keep a number of them fully occupied, it would be preferable to put them on a whole-time basis.

The experience of the 11 years that have elapsed is that in England only two arbiters have been required, and, as might therefore be expected, in Scotland there has not been sufficient work to keep one fully employed, so that the State has been paying out about £1,300 a year in the salary and expenses of the official arbiter, and obtaining in fees from parties an annual sum far short of this cost. Actually the net cost to the State of each award has been about £73. The expenses of maintaining a whole-time post could not be reduced, and the fees taken from parties cannot be well increased. It seemed to the Government that, in these circumstances, this was a suitable field for effecting an economy in State expenditure. The only way in which it could be done was by abandoning the whole-time principle, so as to permit arbitrations to be referred to qualified men engaged in private practice, whose services would be remunerated in accordance with the fees taken from parties under the existing scale. The scheme would thus be self-supporting.

This is not only a question of economy, however, because the arrangements as they have worked out in Scotland meant that under the Act of 1919, when the official arbiter was unable to attend to his work from illness or any other cause, the whole business came to a standstill. This has happened quite recently, and I am sorry to say that the official arbiter had a prolonged illness, which held up cases, and he has unfortunately died. Pending a decision on this Bill, no further appointment can well be made, and if, as I hope, the House is prepared to pass it, steps will at once be taken to empanel suitable men to whom cases can be referred. Some cases of importance and urgency will arise in the near future, for example in connection with drainage schemes of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland under the Act of last year. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members on all sides will co-operate in giving us, without much discussion, this very necessary Bill.

Sir FREDERICK THOMSON

I view this proposal with a good deal of sympathy. The right hon. Gentleman must he creating almost a record for this Government in coming before the House to ask for the Second Reading of a Bill which proposes to effect an administrative economy. It is true that he is taking but a small step, but I would commend it as an example to various of his colleagues. As he pointed out, the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, which has provisions dealing with the assessment of compensation where land is acquired compulsorily by Government Departments or public or local authorities, provides for an official panel of arbiters: a special panel for Scotland, and another for England. It also provides that these arbiters shall not be able to take private work. This Bill simply provides that that provision shall no longer have effect, and that the arbiter shall be allowed to take private work. That is an entirely reasonable proposal. It is true that it was expected, when the Act was passed, that there would be a considerable volume of work to be done by the official arbiters, and that in Scotland two whole-time arbiters would be required. It has, however, been found that there is not enough work for one whole-time arbiter. It was hoped that this office would not be a burden on the State, and that the fees recovered from parties who appeared before the arbiter would be sufficient to pay for the salary and expenses of the arbiter's office. That has not been the case.

I have looked at some of the statistics, and I see that in the last five years there have been only 69 awards by the official arbiter. It can easily be seen, therefore, that that is not sufficient work for one man. The post is costing the Treasury a salary of £1,000, with another £300 for clerical expenses. The total receipts in fees by the Treasury are only some £300, so that the State is losing £1,000 a year on this post. The awards average about 13 a year. It is interesting to note that no fewer than 81 per cent. were for compensation of less than £1,000. In more than half, the compensation sum awarded was less than £200, and only nine were cases in which sums of over £3,000 were awarded. The fees charged are as large as can be asked from the parties. They are on a scale fixed by the Treasury, and therefore no more can be expected in the way of income from fees. The Secretary of State made a very good case for this Bill when he told us that the average gross cost to the State per award was £94. The State got £21 in fees, so that the net cost to the State for each award was £73. Working on the basis of 13 or 14 awards each year, that brings the cost to about £1,000. The reference committee which appoints a panel of arbiters in Scotland consists of the Lord President, the Lord Justice Clerk and the President of the Scottish Branch of the Surveyors' Institute. The Lord President, who is chairman of the reference committee, approves of the change, and needless to say, it is welcome to the Treasury.

As I understand the provision, if this Bill becomes law, a panel of part-time arbiters will be appointed, and they will be paid by the fees chargeable on those who appear before them, and that, therefore, there will be no cost to the Treasury. As an economy Measure, though it be a small one, we on this side of the House welcome the Bill. The Secretary of State made another important point in favour of the Bill. There is only one official arbiter in Scotland, and if anything happens to him, unless the parties agree to adopt some other form of machinery, the whole procedure is brought to a standstill. The right hon. Gentleman told us about the illness of the late arbiter, who seems to have done his work admirably. His illness held up the work for some months, and there are several cases pending, but nothing can he done until a new panel is appointed. Therefore, there is a case for urgent action, and we on this side of the House will encourage the Government in this effort to improve the machinery. I feel disposed to congratulate the Secretary of State on having ventured to take this small step in the direction of economy.

Mr. MACPHERSON

I rise to give my support to the Bill. I never could understand why Sub-section (3) was inserted in the original Act. It is against the common practice in Scotland, where there is no such word as "arbitrator." The word in Scotland is "arbiter." The Subsection states that the arbitrator cannot possibly engage in private practice or be a partner of anybody engaged in private practice. My experiences of arbitrations in Scotland has been that in almost every case the arbiter in cases affecting farming is a farmer, and in cases affecting industry a man who is in an active industrial occupation. I am glad that the Government will save by this Bill£1,300—

Sir F. THOMSON

£1,000.

Mr. MACPHERSON

I understood from the right hon. Gentleman that we were saving £1,300 a year at least. I am glad of the saving. It is a sign that even late in the day the Government are beginning to see that even a small amount of saving may have a beneficial effect on the country.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD

That is the effect of Liberal pressure.

Mr. MACPHERSON

I should not be at all surprised. The fairest way for arbitration is to have a panel composed of men distinguished in their profession, and carefully selected by the President of the Court of Session; and when an arbitration takes place, the arbiter should be selected for a particular purpose and paid fees accordingly. I cannot understand why that principle was deviated from in 1919. I gladly welcome this Bill, which is a good and useful Measure, and will improve the work of arbitration in Scotland.

Mr. STEPHEN

One of the arguments in favour of the Bill is that it will facilitate a small economy, and the hearts of the Opposition rejoice greatly at the saving. I have looked up the original Act, and I am not clear whether this saving must necessarily materialise. The Secretary of State said that the people on the panel would be paid according to the fees, but there is nothing in the Act to show that that will necessarily be the case. As the Act is amended by this Bill, it will still appear as if a certain salary could be paid. I do not want to see a man getting for a part-time job practically what the previous individual got for a full-time job. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) could not understand why the Act had been framed so that the arbiter or his partner could not be in private work. I have a suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government who was responsible for this legislation. Perhaps that is why he could not understand it.

Mr. MACPHERSON

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. If he will look at Section 4, he will find that the arbiter is to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. This, however, is really an English Act, and Scotland was simply added to it. It is not really a Scottish Act at all.

Mr. STEPHEN

It may be as the right hon. Gentleman has said, but the Act does apply to Scotland, and it appears to me that there is nothing in the Act to suggest that this expenditure will be controlled by the amount of the fees. Then there is the point that the right hon. Gentleman said he did not know why the arbiter or his partner should not be in practice. I think there is a very sound reason for that prohibition, the idea being that the arbiter should not be some solicitor who was, possibly, conducting the conveyancing in connection with the estate, or had same other sideline in the business. The idea was that the arbiter should have no business connections which might make him appear to be a partial individual. In this Measure we are going to depart from that principle. If the arbitrations over the acquisition of land were to continue on the limited scale that they have been in the past, possibly one might not feel inclined to make any great ado about it; but the Secretary of State suggested the possibility of there being a great deal more arbitration; and while I am not anxious to create any soft jobs, such as the arbiters seem to have had in the past, we ought to keep in view the point that the arbiters, if they are in practice, may possibly have some connection with the land that is to be acquired, and may fix higher prices.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

OT lower.

Mr. STEPHEN

Or lower. I would not mind that at all. The cheaper the public get the land the better it would be. From my point of view, I think they ought to get it without paying these people anything. At any rate, I do not want to see any one appointed as arbiter who, from business connections, might be regarded as likely to fix a higher price than ought to be paid.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

This Bill is not nearly so simple as the right hon. Gentleman led us to believe. As has been explained by the hon. Member who is the leader of one of the sub-parties below the Gangway opposite, under this Bill we are definitely going away from a principle. I am perfectly prepared to abolish all officials everywhere, and I feel that the country would not be very much worse off if we did so; but when it was laid down in 1919 that the arbiter should not engage in private practice the idea was to secure a man who was not mixed up with any of the parties concerned. This afternoon we have been informed that a panel is to be appointed from which the various parties concerned will choose the arbiter they will have. May I ask how many men it is proposed to put on the panel and whether the members on the panel are to have anything in the way of a retaining fee? If some 10 persons are appointed on the panel and we pay them £200 a year each, whether they have anything to do or not, there is not going to be much economy. At any rate, it will be the sort of economy which those of us who listen to Scottish Debates know is the modern Scotsman's idea of economy.

Further, are we right in assuming that the whole cost of the arbitrations will be paid for out of the fees, that is to say, that there will be no cost to the taxpayer? If there is to be any cost to the taxpayer, will it arise in the shape of retaining fees? What has come out clearly is that originally there were two arbiters, and afterwards there was one, and that there has been practically nothing to do. It is just one instance among thousands of others where we could afford to cut down staffs considerably. May I make a further suggestion which I am sure would be popular with the great majority of the House? This is in the main English legislation, and if we are going to set up a panel of this kind why not have a panel set up for the two countries, with some half-dozen people representative of the two countries? Then the people of Scotland would have a really wonderful chance of getting an arbiter drawn from England, which would really help them more than anything else in this Bill. I would point out, also, that this is only one more Bill which we have had to bring in to amend Acts of Parliament passed by people legislating in a hurry. One of the things to be learned from such a Bill as this is that it is extremely inadvisable to hustle legislation through the House of Commons, because it only means a waste of much money until there is a chance to bring in amending legislation, and the very act of introducing amending legislation wastes public time. Though I hope the Bill will go through quickly, I trust that it will be adequately discussed. It is, however, a very fine example of the appalling folly of too much legislation. That is a point which this Government might very well hear in mind, although their legislation generally passes only a few of its stages and then is dropped, because they have no fixity of purpose in their minds.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston)

The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) asked two specific questions. The first question was whether there is anything in the Bill which limits the amount of fees which can be paid to these spare time arbiters; and then he asked for a reasonable assurance that the saving under this Bill will not be divided up amongst these spare time arbiters. By Clause 3 (6) of the Act of 1919 it is laid down that the fees to be charged in respect of proceedings before official arbiters shall be such as the Treasury may prescribe. The Treasury have a fixed scale, an ad valorem scale. A day's hearing before one of these official arbiters results in a cost to the Treasury of £6. 5s., plus, I think, reasonable travelling expenses where these are necessary. The travelling expenses are to be paid by the parties to the arbitration. The £6 5s. for a day's hearing is the minimum.

Mr. WILLIAMS

What is the maximum?

Mr. JOHNSTON

As I have said, it is an ad valorem scale. If there is a long and elaborate hearing, with many witnesses, which may occupy many days, there is a different fee; but all the charges are on a scale prescribed by the Treasury.

Mr. MACPHERSON

I do not think the hon. Gentleman has made the point, quite clear. I understood the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) wished to know whether the taxpayer was to lose anything under this new scheme.

Mr. JOHNSTON

I am coming to that. I was doing my best to answer the questions put by the hon. Member for Camlachie. I give him and the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) the assurance that, while the £1,300 will not be all saving, it is a fair estimate that £1,000 of it will be saving to the State in the course of a year. The hon. Member for Camlachie said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland had said there would be a large number of additional cases, and that therefore there might be a necessity for a full-time arbitrator. What he did say was that cases of importance and urgency will arise in the near future, and, unfortunately, two or three of them may come on at the one time. Therefore, it is inadvisable that we should have only one arbiter, because that would mean that the third, fourth and fifth cases would have to be postponed.

Mr. STEPHEN

The Secretary of State for Scotland referred to cases that would be coming on as a result of the Bill dealing with agriculture, and I said that might mean that there would be a good deal more work in the future.

Mr. JOHNSTON

It is not the case that there will be a great deal more work, but the cases may come on two or three at a time—my right hon. Friend was referring particularly to drainage operations—and as we do not want to hang up drainage schemes it is advisable to have a larger number of arbiters. The hon. Member for Torquay also wanted an assurance that the savings which will accrue to the Treasury will not be dissipated by being divided up amongst the members of the panel. I can give him that assurance very readily. The reference committee for Scotland is composed of the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk and the chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Surveyors' Institution. Those three gentlemen have to select the panel. It is a panel which is absolutely necessary, all parties are agreed upon it. I trust the House will now let us have the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for To-morrow.—[Mr. William Adamson.]