HC Deb 27 July 1956 vol 557 cc862-8

3.4 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, to leave out "eight" and to insert "twelve".

The Chairman

This Amendment and the subsequent four, all in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), might be taken together.

Mr. Mitchison

I agree, Sir Charles.

The object of the Amendments is to provide for the separate sitting, and, therefore, by implication, for some degree of separate administration, of the Crown Estate Commissioners whom it is proposed to appoint.

The suggestion in the Bill is that there should be eight Commissioners. It is probable that separate sittings and some separation in the administration would mean rather more Commissioners, and we suggest 12 Commissioners instead of eight. We suggest that they should sit partly as regards London property; partly for other property in England which is certainly, but not entirely, agricultural; partly for the Scottish property, and partly for the very peculiar case of the foreshore.

I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee at any length either on this or, I hope, on subsequent Amendments. It may be said that this is a matter which the Commissioners could to some extent settle themselves. While I should be glad to hear that, I still feel that it is possible to have some provision made for it at this stage in the Bill and not to leave it over entirely until the third stage of implementing the Eve Commission's Report, which may be delayed for a considerable time.

I will give my reasons very shortly. The Scottish estates, if one takes one case under the proposals in the Bill and the Report taken together, would be administered by one chairman who would have other occupations. Sir Malcom Trustram Eve, as many of us know, is already very active in many public duties, including, for instance, the Chairmanship of the Church Estates Commissioners whom I hold up as a model in dealing with Mammon to the Crown Estate Commissioners whom we are now bringing into being. Clearly, valuable as his experience will be, his time will not be very much at the disposal of his new functions.

The second Commissioner will be a civil servant, or an ex-civil servant, since I notice that the Report strongly expresses the view that only those who have been through the Civil Service are really fitted to cope with its most ferocious manifestations and he will have his hands very full in doing so. I do not know how much the other six Commissioners, if they are all to sit together in London, can do as regards the Scottish estates. I cannot help feeling that they would be only called in occasionally for that sort of purpose if they were a general body. It has to be borne in mind that the whole object of the Bill is to get out of the position in which the actual main responsibility for the Crown Estate has resided in a single person. It is true that he had two Ministers to aid him, but, as the Report said, he was out on a limb.

If all these Commissioners are to be single body we shall put out on a limb, in practice, not one person but one and half, that is, the second Commissioner and half, or whatever the correct proportion is, of the time devoted by Sir Malcolm Trustam Eve. The other six dealing with remoter estates will have less to do. One wants to give them a real and actual responsibility. One is likely to do that by selecting the Commissioners, as no doubt they would be selected, with some regard to geographical positions and letting them deal with the part of the country with which they are best acquainted and with the problems of which they are best acquainted.

To take a point other than the Scottish point, it strikes me that a great deal of trouble in the past—there is no doubt there has been a great deal of, I do not say mismanagement, but insufficient management—has been due to trying to run considerably valuable urban property with scattered, and no doubt valuable but not quite so valuable agricultural and residential property. Surely it is only common sense to separate those functions of the Commissioners and put it in the form of having separate Commissioners whose duties in that respect shall be with urban and rural estates.

I notice that on Second Reading this was not merely my own opinion, but that it was shared, according to column 1575 of HANSARD of that date, by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) and also shared—although not quite so definitely, but, I think, quite clearly—by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). With that support from both sides of the Committee for the principle which it is sought to adopt, I hope that the Amendments will commend themselves to the Committee.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke)

I hope that when the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has heard what I have to say on this group of Amendments he will be inclined not to press them. I do not intend to take the point against him that, although he is arguing for Scotland, Scotland has not turned up on the benches behind him to press the Scottish case. I would mention to him only that London and Scotland are represented on the Treasury Bench, so that we have endeavoured to understand and appreciate the point which he is making for better administration of the Crown Estate.

Nor do I seek to rest my argument on the interesting little point that when he referred to this matter on Second Reading he expressed doubt whether the Bill would be the right place to take any action. I share that view and am inclined to think that if it were desirable—and I am not pre-judging it—to bring about any statutory fragmentation of the Commissioners' operations, it would be better to keep that for the second Bill, when the Commissioners have themselves had time to look round and see how successfully they can work, to use words of the Eve Report, in "the present statutory framework."

The effect of the Amendment would be to create a rigid separation of the powers to be exercised by the board between, on the one hand, the board as a whole in respect of general matters, and, on the other hand, committees of the board in respect of particular matters. The hon. and learned Member has recognised that it would almost certainly necessitate an increase in the number of Commissioners, but I will not argue against him on the Treasury point that it might cost a little more money.

I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to allow the Commissioners to see how they get on under these free and flexible arrangements. There is no doubt that the form of organisation which will be available to them if the Bill is passed in its present form will be more flexible and more adaptable to circumstances. It may be that in their experience they will find that there would be advantage if greater power or independence were given to committees of the board. I do not know, and I will not pre-judge these matters. I draw attention to the fact that under subsection (6) the board has the power to regulate its own procedure. No doubt, therefore, it will be able to make use in practice of the committee system, but without the rigid separation of powers which the Amendment would necessitate.

I hope I have shown the hon. and learned Gentleman that I have sought to take the matter seriously, and in all seriousness I advise the Committee that it would be wiser to leave the Bill as it stands.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. John Taylor (West Lothian)

I had not intended to enter the debate because I had every confidence in the knowledge and competency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) to deal with the point about Scotland not only because of his general Parliamentary experience and ability, but also because of his knowledge of the position in Scotland through his own associations there—an interest which he declared on Second Reading.

I listened, therefore, with care to the reasons advanced by the Financial Secretary. Frankly, I was not very well convinced by them. I have the greatest personal regard for Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve. He is a gentleman of the most amazing capacity in a very wide range of public endeavour. In this branch it would have been impossible to have selected anyone who could have given a more careful, experienced and cool an eye to the responsibility which the nation is here placing upon him.

I feel, nevertheless, that the amount of land in Scotland which is now to be transferred in this way to a closer and more modern form of management is of such an extent and character that the Amendment which we are discussing, and particularly the third Amendment, in page 2, line 18, would make the work of the Commission more efficient. I am certain that the provisions of the Bill are an improvement on the present position, but I do not think that that is alone a reason for not improving them still further.

There is no branch of law in which the law of England and the law of Scotland are more divergent than the law of land tenure. There are such substantial differences between the law of Scotland and England in the whole scope of land management that surely it would be an advantage if we were to have two of the Commissioners who would have particular and special responsibility for the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland. I venture for that reason, thus extemporarily, to support the Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison

I very much appreciate what the Financial Secretary has said, and I see the point of leaving the Commissioners some time to make up their minds on this matter. I still feel that there ought to be a separate management, particularly for Scotland, for the very reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) has just given. I still feel that the Financial Secretary is unwise not to accept the Amendment to enlarge the number of the Commissioners, because he is making it harder for them to try out any measure of separate working. There will not be enough of them for that purpose.

If we are content to leave for the moment the principle of separate representation until there has been a chance of examining the working of the Commission a little longer, I ask the Financial Secretary once more whether he should not at this stage accept the Amendment to increase the number to twelve, bearing in mind that it does not involve any extra expenditure. All these gentleman have to be appointed and all that would happen if the Amendment were accepted would be that there would be power to appoint up to twelve instead of up to eight. If the right hon. Gentleman can do that, it will be of great assistance to my hon. Friends.

Mr. H. Brooke

I regret that I cannot go as far as that, but perhaps I can help the hon. and learned Member. I am not saying that everything in the Bill, when it becomes an Act, must stay unamended when the later Bill comes before the House of Commons. Experience of the working of the new body may show that in size or organisation or in anything else further statutory provision will be required. As the hon. and learned Member knows, the Eve Report gave very careful consideration to the management of this Estate.

It was the Eve Committee that suggested that there should be eight Commissioners. It indicated also that in its opinion the House would be wise not to legislate restrictively in respect of what I might call the framework within which the Commissioners would operate. I certainly hope that the Commissioners will include someone with special knowledge of Scottish problems.

I also hope that the Commissioners will experiment with the committee system and I give the hon. and learned Gentleman this pledge, that if, after experience, the Commissioners should come back and present a report showing that in any way their statutory powers are too restrictive or their numbers too limited, I will not quote against that report any decision which the House may have taken in passing this Bill.

Mr. Mitchison

While I still feel that it would be more flexible to have 12 instead of eight, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I do not wish to move the subsequent Amendments in this group.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.