Clause 12.—(EXTENSION OF MAXIMUM PERIOD FOR REPAYMENT OF SUMS BORROWED FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.) (Hansard, 15 May 1958)

§ Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)
On a point of order. May I have some guidance, Sir Charles, as to the intentions about proceedings? My information was that yesterday had to be devoted to recommittal of the Bill, and that half of today had to be devoted to the Report stage and other half to Third Reading. Does it not now seem likely that the Recommittal stage will endanger the Report stage? If so, does that mean that the period originally set aside for the Report stage is to be diminished, or that the period set aside for Third Reading will be diminished?

§ The Chairman
The period set aside for Third Reading will not be diminished. At 7 o'clock tonight, when the Committee stage finishes, we go on to Report, and there will be no debate. We shall then go on to Third Reading.

§ Mr. Rankin
Do I understand from that, Sir Charles, that the Report stage may possibly be almost non-existent?

§ The Chairman
Yes; that is to say, except to take Government Amendments.

§ Mr. Rankin
What about Opposition Amendments?

§ The Chairman
The House has already decided that. Under the Guillotine, they fall.

§ Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)
When we adjourned last night, I was in process of moving this Amendment, Sir Charles. I had explained its purpose, and I had pointed out that I thought that purpose was in accordance with what the Government keep on telling us is their purpose. I was hoping, therefore, that the Amendment might have been accepted, but there seems to be some doubt about that. I also indicated that I felt that this was a sphere in which the local authorities could quite well be left with the freedom to do what we want them to do. I pointed out that most of the local authorities—in fact, I think all of them—have officials competent to do this.
I would also point out that, in any case, whatever is done has to be sanctioned by the Secretary of State, so that the Secretary of State is always in the position of safeguarding any particular national interest that may be involved, though I do not know what are the interests that are involved here. It seems to me that this Amendment would give the right hon. Gentleman that power. I do not want to take up a great deal of time, because, owing to the Government's Guillotine, we are in a difficulty in not having enough time to debate this point adequately. However, in view of what I have said, I trust that the Government will have had second thoughts since last night and will accept the Amendment.

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne)
I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) will be reassured when I have briefly explained the position to him. The principle behind the Sixth Schedule of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, is that the period of repayment should have regard to the life of the object. It is not, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has said, that the Government know best. It is simply a question of sound finance.
We have already made Amendments to Clause 12, and they are much welcomed by the local authorities, but I do not think they would—in fact, I am certain they would not—welcome a reduction to sixty years from the eighty years' repayment period which can now be applied to the acquisition of land and for housing. Neither would they welcome a fixed maximum period in 619 place of the present provision in some fields where there is no fixed limit at all. Among these are harbours, piers, and ferries, and certain projects under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts.
I am sure, also, that the hon. Member did not intend that his Amendment should have another effect, but the Amendment as drafted would leave district councils with their position not defined. To reassure the hon. Member further, may I tell him that since Clause 12 was drafted we have been having discussions with the local authorities, and that we hope to put down in another place Amendments proposing increases in the maximum borrowing periods for crematoria, for land not included in another provision of this Schedule and also for homes for old people? We appreciate the hon. Member's arguments, and we are most anxious to meet, as far as is possible, the needs of the local authorities.

§ Mr. Willis
Will the hon. Gentleman specify some of the things for which the period is less than sixty years?

§ Mr. Browne
I would not wish to weary the Committee, and I have not got a copy of the Act with me.
I was going on to say that all these matters have been discussed with the local authorities, and that we have met all their wishes on this matter. We believe, and I think that the local authorities agree with us, that it is wiser to take each case on its merits, and that it is certainly not wise to reduce any period that is now over sixty years or to limit to sixty years periods that now are not defined. This Clause extends five headings about which we have talked to the local authorities, and three more headings will be extended in another place. We therefore hope that the hon. Member will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

§ Mr. Willis
I certainly agree that we do not want to reduce the period where it is over forty years, and I quite accept the argument that there are certain works for which the period would be longer than sixty years. I should also like to express my appreciation of the fact that the matter has been looked at again, 620 and that at least some extension is being made in respect of certain other services.
What I would have liked to know, and what the hon. Gentleman has not told us, though I think we are entitled to know, is what are those services for which the period is less than sixty years. We know the general principle, that it is less than sixty years because of the fact that the capital work involved will not last for a longer period, but surely the local authorities are able to judge that. The local authorities know that equally well as the Government, and if a local authority does not know it, this Amendment still leaves the Secretary of State with the final word, so that he still has power to refuse an extension of the period of sixty years if he thinks the local authority is doing something unwise.
Therefore, the essence of the matter has not, in fact, been answered by the hon. Gentleman. Why should not this be left to the local authorities? I know quite well that the hon. Gentleman or the Department has been having conversations with the local authorities about this, but I understand that the local authorities would have liked rather more than they got. Obviously, they agree with the Government in getting some extension, but the hon. Gentleman has not told us whether they agreed with the Government in refusing certain extensions. I would ask him to come to the crux of the matter, and tell us why, in certain places, the period is less than sixty years and why it is felt that the local authority is not able to decide the period for itself.
Why does the hon. Gentleman assume that the local authority knows less about the possible length of life of the capital works than the Government, and why, even if the local authority did make a mistake and we permit the Secretary of State to have the final say, the Government could not give the local authority this particular power?

§ Mr. Browne
I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that all this has been discussed with the local authorities; that we have increased the period where the local authorities have wished it; that it is simply a question of sound finance, and that there is no disagreement whatever between the local authorities and ourselves. The Sixth Schedule is so very 621 long and complicated that it would take up far too much of the time of the House to go through it, but I can assure him that he has not got the point on which the local authorities would support him.

§ Mr. Willis
I cannot accept as an argument that when we raise matters here we can be prevented from discussing them just because the hon. Gentleman says to us, "I have discussed it with the local authorities." That is not a good enough answer. We are entitled to discuss these matters. If we ask questions, we are entitled to a reply. Whilst we are very pleased that the Secretary of State did discuss the matter with the local authorities, it does not take the place of discussion here. The hon. Gentleman is really doing an injustice to his own Government in putting forward an argument like that. To permit that argument to pass unchallenged would undermine the authority of the House. We are entitled to discuss these things, and to have an informed reply on them.

§ Mr. Browne
The hon. Gentleman is speaking of an Amendment which would have the effect of reducing the borrowing periods. It would not be in the interests of local authorities for us to accept that Amendment. He is now raising another point, not covered by his Amendment, on which I have sought to reassure him. I have a long list of the details here, and I will give him one or two examples. They include such things as clinics and occupational centres, coast protection, parks. Such things, are, by their very nature, limited to thirty years. That is a policy with which the local authorities agree, but it is not relevant to the Amendment.

§ Mr. Willis
The hon. Gentleman must come to the Committee better prepared for a Scottish debate. All he does is to come here with a brief that is inadequate and expect us to accept it. I object to that practice very much. It is not the fact that the Amendment deals only with those objects in respect of which the period of borrowing is over sixty years. The Amendment deals with them all—under and over sixty years. Whilst I accept his argument that it would be wrong to diminish the period where it was over sixty years I have still not been told why the period below sixty years 622 should not be increased to that figure. The Under-Secretary said, "I have a long list, and I do not want to go through it all", but he mentioned one item. He mentioned certain centres which, I presume, are buildings. Why are they less likely than other places to last for longer than thirty years? Why? I do not know. Let him tell us.

§ Mr. Browne
It is not a matter of the Secretary of State saying why. It is a matter of the estimated life of the object for which the borrowing takes place.

§ Mr. Willis
This is really becoming more fantastic than ever. The hon. Gentleman says that it is not for the Secretary of State to decide this, but the present legislation gives him that final word. This Bill gives him that final word, and my Amendment seeks to do the same. Of course, the Secretary of State is responsible for this. I am surprised at the inept and foolish argument now seriously advanced by the Under-Secretary. I could understand it if, as he said last night, he was having a bit of fun, but he advances this argument seriously.
It is, of course, the Secretary of State who decides it. That has been decided by the House in legislation, but, as we are now changing the legislation, we have a right to know why the Government refuses to accept the alterations that we propose. The hon. Gentleman cannot escape according us that right by saying that he has discussed it with the local authorities. The right of the House of Commons cannot be dismissed in that fashion. It would be very foolish and dangerous to do so. Let the hon. Gentleman give us one or two examples where the period is less than sixty years, and let him tell us why it is not possible to extend it.
I had thought, Sir Charles, that we could get past this quickly, but we cannot let the matter go in this way. Once again, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to show that at least he understands what we are talking about, and try to give us an answer. He may be unable to do so, but, at least he should, let us see that he is intelligent enough to know what we are trying to do.

§ Mr. Browne
One example is parks and gardens, for which the borrowing limit is thirty years.

§ Mr. Willis
Why not extend it? Parks may last for hundreds of years.

§ Mr. Browne
I quite agree with the hon. Member. One can extend the time to any period at all, but one has to consider the life of the object. The very fact that we have extended—I think I said seven headings—shows that all these have been looked at. All those which my right hon. Friend and the local authorities think need extending have been extended. The hon. Gentleman wants to extend further, but he does not know what his Amendment says. It is to that Amendment that I was speaking, and I cannot accept it.

§ Mr. Willis
The Under-Secretary produces an unintelligible argument in the abstract. He said that we should not borrow for periods longer than that for which the object is likely to last. I asked, for an example, and the example he gave was a park. He could not have given a worse example. A park can last for two or three hundred years. It does not wear out, or fall down or collapse. It does not become out of date. Admittedly, the local authority might decide to put the land to a different use, but a park, as a park, may last for an enormous length of time.
The complete ineptitude of the Government in considering the simplest matter intelligently is typical, and I must register my most violent protest at this off-hand manner of dealing with a serious argument. If the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have treated local authorities and electors in Scotland in this way, no wonder the Government are losing votes right and left.