Clause 18.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES.) (Hansard, 25 April 1967)

Dr. Dickson Mahon
I beg to move, Amendment No. 23, in page 11, line 25, to leave out 'its' and to insert 'their'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)
Would it be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the following Amendments, Nos. 29, 30, 57, 58, 61, 65, 70, 71, 72 and 73.

§ Dr. Mabon
That would indeed be satisfactory Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I deeply regret that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) is not in his place. In Committee we had an argument over the question of whether or not a "board" or an "authority" in the context of the Bill are collective nouns. I freely concede—and I wish the hon. Gentleman were here to hear me—that in ordinary conversation this is not so. However, it has been normal practice in leglislation for a considerable time to treat the use of the words "board" and "authority" as collective nouns and to use the plural number. The Amendment is designed to make this clear. The Government have taken the long-established option in considering whether to use the singular or plural, and we feel that we should be consistent in this matter.

§ Mr. MacArthur
I was glad to see this string of Amendments on the Order Paper. Its presence warmed my heart, as it warmed the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). The Minister will recall that we had quite an entertaining debate on this point in Committee. I am still not altogether happy that the various boards which we are setting up should be regarded in the plural. I remember that when I raised this matter in Committee the Minister twitted me with the fact that my hon. Friends and I had on occasion referred to the Government in the plural. I suggest that if the plurality was ever deserved, the present Government deserve 1419 it. While I am not altogether happy about the use of the word "their" throughout the Bill—because in various parts of the Measure this seems to be a clumsy use of the word—I am in favour of consistency and I therefore urge my hon. Friends to accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Ross
I beg to move, Amendment No. 24, in page 11, line 36, at the end to insert: (5) Where the authority being a local authority have on or after 1st January 1967 used or have had available for use property of the local authority that property shall for the purposes of section 17(2) of the Act be dealt with in accordance with arrangements made between the board and the local authority. This Amendment is in accordance with a pledge given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) in Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister of State undertook to table a suitable Amendment at this stage dealing with the transfer of property where a local authority is also a local water authority and where the property is used jointly by various departments of the local authority. This happens in respect of water, roads, drainage and site servicing for housing.
7.45 p.m.
We know that a number of authorities have a single works and engineering department in which plant, machinery and vehicles are held and which collectively serve the various departments of the local authority. In some cases each department may pay a rent for the use of the property and in other cases the property may be owned jointly. The unscrambling of property which is shared may not be easy.
The Amendment therefore provides that where on, or after, 1st January, 1967, a local water authority has used or has had available for use property of the local authority, that property is to be dealt with in accordance with arrangements made between the board and the local authority. We think that local authorities and the boards can be expected to adopt a reasonable and commonsense attitude in reaching a fair settlement and that they will be prepared mutually to accept what I admit is rough justice in this matter. Failing agreement, however, a dispute between the board and the local authority would fall inevitably to be deter- 1420 mined by the Secretary of State or by an arbiter appointed by him under new Clause No. 3.
The operative date for the new subsection is taken as 1st January, 1967, to tie in with new Clause No. 1, dealing with the disposal of assets due to be transferred. New Clause No. 1 will not apply in relation to the joint use of property and it seems right, therefore, that the same date should operate in relation to this interest.