Clause 2.—(CONTENTS OF IMPROVEMENT ORDER.) (Hansard, 26 March 1958)

§ The Lord Advocate
I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, after "land", to insert: (hereafter in this Act referred to as 'endangered land') specified in the order as being". 457 Perhaps it would be convenient to the House if, with this Amendment, we discussed the Amendments in page 2, line 45; page 3, line 10; in Clause 8, page 8, line 6; and Clause 18, page 12, line 34, which relate to the same point.
These Amendments are designed to meet a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in Committee, when he said that the expression "any land", in Clause 2 (1, d), might possibly be construed as including land which had not been specially referred to in the original order. We saw the force of his suggestion. To make quite clear that "any land" referred to in subsection (1) should be limited to the land which was referred to in the original order these Amendments have been put down, so that the interested parties will know from the very beginning exactly what land may be affected.

§ Mr. Willis
I beg to move in page 3, line 11, at the end to insert "and maintenance".
If this Amendment were accepted, the Clause would read: An improvement order shall … specify the estimated cost of improvement and maintenance. We had a lot of discussion on this point in Committee, and it is was suggested that the authorised persons should he given some indication of what would be the cost not only of improvement but of maintenance. It was agreed by the Opposition, when we moved Amendments to this effect in Committee, that we could not expect to have a very accurate figure, but at least we thought it possible that some indication should be given of the likely costs that would be involved. We felt that an estimate of the burden could be made and that it ought to be indicated. It would, of course, only be an estimate, not only of improvement but of maintenance, too. We thought that it would be helpful to the people involved, and would enable them to determine whether or not to go ahead with a scheme.
458 In Committee, it became apparent that there were many factors which tended to act as disincentives. It was felt that we ought to remove as many of those disincentives as possible, and I think I am right in saying that if a person did not know exactly what he was involved in he might be disinclined to proceed. Therefore, we felt that he ought to be given some idea of this, so that he knew what was involved and so that the disincentive would be removed. We felt also that we would get rather more done than possibly we would get if these words were omitted.

§ Mr. Hoy
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Lord John Hope
I see now, as I saw in Committee, what has been worrying hon. Members opposite. I have considered the point with great care since. and I think that the objections to making an Amendment of the kind suggested are as strong as they seemed to be at the time when the matter was first mooted.
I fully appreciate that those concerned in wanting to go ahead with a scheme would, naturally, want to know as soon as possible what sort of figure might be involved. I think that the practical answer is to say that they will certainly be helped as much as possible by administrative action. We would, of course, do as much as we could to help them to arrive at a reasonable figure, but that is a different thing from putting an obligation in black and white into the Bill.
Partly because of its merits, which would be unsatisfactory, partly also from a legislative point of view, the proposed Amendment would be inappropriate, because unlike the estimated cost of improvement, the estimated cost of maintenance has no statutory significance and would serve no purpose in relation to any other provision in the Bill. There is that clear distinction on legislative grounds. I hope that the administrative undertaking which I have given—because that is what it amounts to—will be accepted.

§ Mr. Willis
I do not follow the hon. Gentleman on this point of legislative significance and the meaning of "cost of improvement" as against "cost of maintenance." This is a legal matter which I do not understand.

§ Lord John Hope
All I meant was that the estimated cost of improvement is a 459 very relevant part of the whole operation, as opposed to the cost of maintenance which has no relevance in terms of the machinery. The two things are on different footings. There is nothing complicated from a legislative point of view.
As I say—and this is, I think, the commonsense answer to the very real difficulty which hon. Members feel—we will do what we can, as any Department would do, to help owners in arriving at some sort of cockshy of what the estimated cost might be.

§ Mr. Willis
On the understanding that something will be done to assist, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ The Lord Advocate
I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, to leave out "and" and to insert: (h) if the Secretary of State thinks it necessary, prescribe the procedure to be followed by the authorised persons in taking any decision relating to the discharge of their functions under the order; and, The purpose of this Amendment is to avoid any possibility of difficulty in procedure when the various interested parties have to make any particular decision. An improvement order will confer powers and impose duties on them, and it may be desirable, in certain circumstances, that a rule should be laid down on, for example, what decisions should be arrived at by a majority. It is purely to safeguard possibilities of trouble.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I think that this Amendment arises from the question whether there should be a committee to administer on behalf of the owners if there were three or four of them. In Committee, we had a long discussion about who exactly would be responsible for carrying out the job if there were several owners.
Do we understand that by this Amendment the Secretary of State may prescribe the procedure according to the number of owners or according to the circumstances, and decide how those owners are to share the responsibility and how they will delegate the responsibility to carry out the work, and also the procedure for the execution of the work? The Amendment appears to provide for all that, but the Lord Advocate did not say that the Amendment is in response to the debate 460 we had in Committee. However, it looks to me as if it is.
I can recall that debate by a pertinent observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), who quoted a remark of a noble lord, "Marriage is a committee of two with power to add to its numbers." For me, at least, that is a lively reminder of the discussion which took place on this question of who should be responsible on behalf of the owners for carrying out the job. I take it that the Secretary of State, with this power, will prescribe the procedure necessary to ensure that the work is carried out and who shall be responsible.

§ Mr. Willis
I am bewildered by this Amendment, because Clause 3 provides that: An improvement order may, where the whole of the agricultural land situated in the improvement area is not in the ownership of one person, provide for the establishment of a committee.… It goes on to lay down that the improvement order may prescribe how the improvement committee should be appointed, and that its members shall be appointed by the authorised persons from among their number.
Subsection (2) says that an improvement order may provide for a very wide range of things set out in eight paragraphs in subsection (2), including the size of the quorum; that the proceedings of the committee shall not be invalidated; the constitution of the committee; how it should keep its accounts; whether it can engage full-time staff; how much it shall pay its staff. Clause 3 (2) covers almost everything of consequence.
Why, therefore, do we have this Amendment, saying that the Secretary of State can, if he thinks it necessary, prescribe the procedure to be followed by the authorised persons in taking any decision relating to the discharge of their functions under the order"? That would be done by the committee already provided for. Surely this Amendment is unnecessary in the light of Clause 3. If it is not unnecessary, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why? Up to the present I do not think that he has told us why this new paragraph is necessary.

§ The Lord Advocate
I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) is probably 461 right in saying that this matter was mentioned at some stage during the Committee stage. There were various questions arising out of the provisions proposed for the improvement committee, and I have no note of this point.
4.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked why, in view of the provisions in Clause 3, we need this additional provision which, in certain circumstances, may be inserted in an improvement order. He will note from Clause 3 that even though there may be more than one party interested there is not necessarily an improvement committee. There may be an improvement committee. It would seem unnecessary to set up an improvement committee just to have rules made how the members should carry out their functions. I do not think the Secretary of State will necessarily find it very necessary to do this on every occasion, but I think it is right that the power should be there to be used possibly to accelerate the procedure.

§ Lord John Hope
I beg to move, in page 3, line 44, to leave out from the second "the" to "and" in line 46 and to insert: agricultural land owned by that person which is situated in the improvement area, being land the productivity of which is likely to be improved in consequence of the execution of the drainage works specified in the order".

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)
I think the next two Amendments in the name of the Secretary of State go with this one.

§ Lord John Hope
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) moved an Amendment during the Committee stage to define an "improvement area" in Clause 1 (3) to secure that the improvement area would consist solely of land to be improved. His desire was to ensure that an owner's share of the cost of improvement would be related to the agricultural land actually to be improved by the drainage works and not, for example, to the whole agricultural holding of which the land formed part. He withdrew the Amendment on receiving an assurance that we would look into the question he raised. It has not been found desirable, because really it has not been found necessary to amend the definition of "improvement area" exactly in 462 the way my hon. Friend suggested, but this proposed Amendment to Clause 2 (4, a) achieves the end that he sought, the end being that each owner's share of the cost of improvement could be related to the extent of the agricultural land owned by him in the improvement area the productivity of which is likely to be improved in consequence of the execution of the drainage works. The other two Amendments are consequential.