HC Deb 04 June 1951 vol 488 cc713-6
Mr. Lindgren

I beg to move, in page 10, line 12, to leave out from "order," to the second "the," in line 21, and to insert: (2) Any order made under paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection, if objected to by any of the local authorities concerned, shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure. (3) Where the Minister makes an order under the said paragraph (b). This is really a drafting Amendment, because the county council is not required to be specifically recorded in the paragraph.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 22, leave out "direction," and insert "order."—[Mr. Lindgren.]

Mr. Arthur Colegate (Burton)

I beg to move, in page 10, line 25, to leave out "determined by the Minister," and to insert: referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1950. The reason for advocating this particular Amendment, which has been put down under advice from the local authorities, is that under the subsection as at present drafted the local authorities would have no appeal at all against the financial terms eventually determined by the Minister in default of agreement. In the case of a development corporation, which would act to a large extent as the agent for the Minister of Local Government and Planning, this would put the other local authorities in a very unfair position, because, in effect, the Minister would be deciding a question in which he himself had an interest. Therefore, the local authorities think it would be very much more satisfactory, if agreement were not reached, for the matter to be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1950. I think that is a very reasonable request on their part, and I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Nugent (Guildford)

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Lindgren

I am surprised to get the information from the hon. Gentleman that this is in accordance with the desires of the local authorities, because that is not the information which I have. At the moment, the Minister has power under the Public Health Act to approve when local authorities agree to a joint sewerage scheme. Under this Bill—for the purposes of the prevention of pollution and the control of pollution—the Minister has power to direct that such a scheme shall be a joint scheme. Where that is so, and there is disagreement on terms, it is subject to the Minister coming in and settling the terms with the local authorities.

That has been a process which has been going on for, I was about to say, centuries, but at least for generations. The old Ministry of Health, the Local Government Board and Government Departments, generally, have had more experience in regard to this matter than anything else owing to the length of time that public health and such matters have been under discussion with them. Surely, the better way of coming to an agreement is through the Government Department and its inspectors rather than by forcing on the local authorities, as this Amendment proposes, arbitration, which can be very costly indeed.

My information is that the local authorities prefer the method of discussion and negotiation between themselves, and for my right hon. Friend or his successors, in the event of disagreement, to appoint an inspector to go into the matter with the local authorities and to come to an agreement. That, as I understand it, is the view of the local authorities, and, that being so, I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his Amendment. We prefer agreement rather than arbitration, which is very costly.

Mr. Colegate

May I clear up one point at once? I have here a letter from the County Councils' Association, dated 24th May, in which they press this point. I cannot understand where the hon. Gentleman has got his information to the effect that the local authorities are not in favour of this Amendment. On the face of it, his information cannot be true, and he must be misinformed by the Department. The other point which—

Mr. Lindgren

May I butt in for a moment? That letter may be from the County Councils' Association, but as the hon. Gentleman must know, with his great experience of local government, county councils are not normally sewerage authorities, and in very rare instances, except on joint schemes for the provision of finance in rural districts, are they involved. In those districts they are not the operating authorities, but are merely contributing bodies to the rural districts.

Mr. Colegate

It still remains untrue to say that the local authorities are not in favour of arbitration. The insertion of the word "some" might put a little more truth into it. I do not understand the Parliamentary Secretary's reference to what has been going on for generations, because never before to my knowledge has the Minister—in the old days it would have been the Local Government Board—had a personal interest in the matter as he will, in effect, have in the new development corporations. That is the significant difference.

5.0 p.m.

The Minister of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Dalton)

The Development Corporation has been expressly mentioned, but I do not understand why the hon. Member thinks that is very relevant. I accept at once, of course, his statement that he has had a letter from the County Councils' Association. I have not had any representations from them on the matter, but if this Amendment were accepted local authorities would be found to be put to unreasonable expense on arbitration, such as legal fees and so on. It is not at all difficult for any Minister holding this office finally to have an agreement with the authorities. He would act as an unofficial and free arbitrator, and I should have thought it very much better than going through the other procedure. Personally, I have had no representation in favour of this proposal.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Obviously there is a slight difficulty here, in that the letter from the County Councils' Association has not come under the personal consideration of the Minister. I think it might be better for my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) to withdraw the Amendment if the Minister would undertake to have some search made for the letter and afford the County Councils' Association the opportunity to put their view between now and the next stage. We understand, of course, that the Minister will make no commitment on this matter—indeed, on this question there might be an unholy alliance between the two Front Benches. Having been a Minister, I look with uneasiness on procedure which would burden us with too much arbitration machinery, as against what, as a Minister at the time, I always thought the simple and just expedient of determination by myself. That view is not always shared by everybody else, and the County Councils' Association quite rightly put the point forward.

In view of the fact that correspondence from an important body has been mentioned and has certainly reached some hon. Members on this side of the House, I should be grateful if the Minister would undertake to look at it before the Bill goes through its next stage.

Mr. Dalton

I am very willing to do that, without any commitment of course; if we take the view of one side of local authorities, we must also take the view of any other which might be competent.

Mr. Colegate

A little confusion has arisen because this is a slightly revised form of an Amendment put down by myself and my hon. Friends in Committee. I think the Minister will find there was an official letter on that occasion from the County Councils' Association, but in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.