Clause 9.—(OVERSPILL AGREEMENTS.), (Hansard, 3 June 1957)

§ Mr. T. Fraser (Hamilton)
I beg to move, in page 8, line 5, after "therewith," to insert: and specified in the agreement.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I draw your attention to the Amendment in page 7, line 26, after "year", to insert: unless the authorities concerned agree otherwise. Do I understand that that is not being called?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)
That Amendment is out of order.

§ Mr. Ross
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Could you give us any guidance? This is a point which the Government said they were prepared to reconsider. Could you tell us how we can raise this matter with the Government in view of the promise which was given in Committee?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It should have been put down for Recommittal if the hon. Member wished to raise it.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
Further to that point of order. How can we secure redress, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? May I call your attention to column 819 of the Report of the Fifteenth Sitting of the Standing Committee in which a specific undertaking is given by the Minister?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
If the hon. Member did not put down the Amendment for Recommittal it is entirely his responsibility.

§ Mr. Lawson
Further to that point of order, is it not the case that if hon. Members were not strictly accurate in tabling the Amendment there should have been some measure of guidance?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
If an hon. Member asks for advice he will always receive it.

§ Mr. Fraser
If I may proceed to move my Amendment in page 8, line 5, it raises a matter upon which the Government, so 958 far as I can remember, did not make any specific promise of reconsideration but upon which the Government were not able to speak with one voice.
The Clause deals with overspill agreements, and subsection (5) which I seek to amend provides: An overspill agreement may provide for the making by the exporting authority to the receiving authority of such additional payments … and so on. It provides for the exporting authority to make additional payments to a receiving authority in respect of provisions for industrial development or other services which might be provided by the receiving authority—services considered to be essential to the proper settlement of the population that is being exported from Glasgow.
During the Committee stage, the Joint Under-Secretary was adamant in asserting that overspill agreements would only deal with housing. Then we wondered how on earth there could he provision for an additional payment to be made by the exporting authority to cover matters besides housing unless there were some reference in the agreement to the purpose for which the payment was being made. After about 12 hours' debate on Tuesday, 21st May, the learned Lord Advocate conceded that an overspill agreement which had a provision for an additional payment to be made by an exporting authority to a receiving authority would, as he put it, almost inevitably mention the services in respect of which the payment was being made.

§ Mr. Browne
What is the reference?

§ Mr. Fraser
About 10.30 p.m. on Tuesday. 21st May; that is as near as I can give it. It may have been at 27 minutes past.
My hon. Friends and I find it very difficult to believe that any exporting authority would commit itself to making a payment to a receiving authority and bind itself in the agreement to make this payment without there being in the agreement some mention of the services in respect of which the payment was being made. I could not imagine any authority doing that, and I doubt if any Minister could.
If Glasgow Corporation makes an overspill agreement with Kilmarnock or Kirkintillock, and Kilmarnock or Kirkintillock provide not only the houses but 959 some additional local authority services for the benefit of the people to be transferred from Glasgow, Glasgow Corporation undertaking to make an additional payment towards the provision of those services, does the Secretary of State believe that Glasgow Corporation will write into that agreement an undertaking to pay a specified sum of money in respect of unspecified services? I do not imagine that it would, and I do not think that any Minister does. But that is precisely what the Joint Under-Secretary was arguing in Committee, and then the learned Lord Advocate went so far as to say that he believed that the agreement would almost inevitably say what the money was for.
We believe that the agreement must say what the money is for, and that, we believe, is the effect of the Amendment I have moved. I need say little more about it. My only regret is that, as one reaches this stage of a Bill, one finds many Amendments one would like to discuss which are not selected for discussion. When one moves an Amendment which is selected one has only the one chance of making a speech, and, if it is not accepted, one cannot come back and reply to the Government. However, it seems that the case for this Amendment is absolutely plain, and I hope that the Government will not boggle at it.

§ Mr. Thomas Steele (Dunbartonshire, West)
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
The effect of the Amendment would be that if, and only if, an exporting authority decided to make a payment to the receiving authority in respect of industrial and other accommodation, the nature of that would have to be precisely stated in the overspill agreement. The reason I feel that we should be wiser not to accept the Amendment is that, in the case of, for instance, small burghs, the receiving authority would not be in a position to deal with industrial accommodation and the like until it had got authority to do so under a town development scheme. At the stage of the overspill agreement, it would not be possible to specify in the agreement precisely what the industrial accommodation was.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
If the hon. and learned Gentleman will read subsection (5), he will see that 960 An overspill agreement may provide for the making … of such additional payments … as may be specified in the agreement. The payments must be specified. If the payments are to be specified, why not the purposes for which they are made?

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
Because at that stage the receiving authority, at any rate, if a small burgh not having power to deal with industrial accommodation, is not in a position to say what industrial accommodation it can provide. For example, if Glasgow were willing to make a payment to a small burgh, it would not be in a position to do so unless the precise accommodation were specified in the overspill agreement, because, under the Amendment, the accommodation must be specified in the overspill agreement.
We do not want these words because we want to leave it open to Glasgow, for instance, to say that it will pay a percentage or a fixed sum in regard to expenses or deficits, without there being any need at that particular stage to state the precise services in respect of which the payment is being made. That is the reason. I assure the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that, in effect, his Amendment would prevent a receiving authority receiving a payment which, under the Bill, it could receive if Glasgow were prepared to make it.

§ Mr. Ross
I have heard many confusing explanations, but in that speech the Solicitor-General surpassed himself. He tells us that it is impossible to include what we ask for in an agreement because a small burgh may not have the powers to provide the facilities which may be specified. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take the trouble to read the Clause together with our Amendment? It reads: An overspill agreement may provide for the making by the exporting authority to the receiving Authority of such additional payments …as may be specified in the agreement"— It is after that presumption that there is something in the overspill agreement in relation to payments that there should, in our view, be a statement of the things for which those payments already written into the agreement are being made.
If the authority is not in a position to provide them, there is no need—indeed, 961 it is impossible—to have provision for the payments to be there in the first place. Our Amendment takes effect only on the presumption that there is, in the overspill agreement, something laid down in respect of the payments.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
My point was simply that, under the Bill as it stands, one has to specify what the payments are, but one does not have to specify the precise services. It is difficult, in some cases it may be impossible, to specify precisely what these services are, and that is the reason why I suggest that the House ought to reject the Amendment.

§ Mr. Ross
The intervention of the Solicitor-General is neither apt nor timely. We propose that words should be added in line 5, so that the subsection would read: … being payments towards the expenses of providing the housing accommodation to which the agreement relates, or industrial or other accommodation or other facilities provided or to be provided in connection therewith and specified in the agreement … There is nothing illogical in saying that, if one is making provision for a payment, one should say what the payment is to be for. That is all. Indeed, how on earth can one make provision for a payment for something if one does not say what that something is?

§ Mr. Fraser
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Ross
It is as simple as that. The Government have tied themselves needlessly by what they have said. How does even what the Solicitor-General has just said fit in with what the learned Lord Advocate said in Committee? I suppose there is some contact between the Law Officers. The Lord Advocate as much as said that it could be in the agreement and he said that if it was not, it would he an addendum to the agreement.
What is the difference? If it is possible to specify payments for certain items, surely it is inevitable that the things for which payment is made should be specified also. We are dealing not with general services, but with particular things, industrial or other accommodation or other facilities provided or to be provided in connection therewith ". 962 If we are providing for the payment, surely we should ensure that these matters are listed.
For the life of me, I cannot understand the heavy weather that the Government are making of the Amendment, which would not put them into any difficulty but would, in fact, start making sense of the Clause. I sincerely hope that the Government have not said their last word on it.

§ Mr. Lawson
I, too, hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will have more to say. I understand how an exporting authority, for example, might agree to a certain percentage on a given charge, but I cannot understand why it would agree to pay, say, 5 or 10 per cent. or a certain contribution towards the entire cost of a job without in some way specifying what the job should cover.

§ Mr. Ross
My hon. Friend will be aware, no doubt, that on 21st May the Lord Advocate said: Strictly speaking, an overspill agreement will make reference to additional payments, and will almost inevitably set out what they are for."—[OFFRIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee. 21st May, 1957; c. 1157.]

§ Mr. Lawson
I understand the desire for elasticity, but there is all the elasticity that is necessary. If, for example, additional sanitation was needed for an area, and if the exporting authority specified that it would make a certain proportionate contribution, or even if it said that if the sanitation cost more than was anticipated it would pay a certain amount more, it would still have to relate any payment which it made to something that was to be paid for. The figure need not be specified in all cases when the entire cost cannot be known if the work is done on the basis of a lump sum.
It may be desirable to have elasticity, but, surely, there will always be a sum paid towards a particular service and that service, surely, will be specified; it is desirable that it should be. I can hardly envisage an authority allowing an agreement to pass without specifying the items on which it was prepared to make a contribution. I cannot see why the hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to accept the Amendment.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
The reason that I am not prepared to recommend the acceptance of the 963 Amendment is that it might well deprive a small burgh of a contribution from an exporting authority which it would receive under the Bill as it stands. Naturally, in most cases, it will be specified in the overspill agreement whether contributions are to be made in respect of industrial accommodation and the like—not only the payment, but the accommodation to be provided.
There might, however, be cases where it was not specified, as the Amendment would have it, but stated in general terms. That is where the Amendment falls down, because it uses the word "specified". That would cut out the particular case where a specification had not been worked out in advance and had to be worked out later in the town development scheme. It is to avoid this trouble that I believe the proposed words are not merely unnecessary, but would be harmful.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
I wonder whether, in using "specified", we have chosen the right word. In view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I should like to know whether, if we withdraw the Amendment, he will put down an Amendment in another place to give effect to what he has just said so that there will be a general reference to the purpose for which the payment is made.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
That is a matter which local authorities can surely decide perfectly well themselves.