§ 3.19 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly:
§ [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
§ Clause 1:
§ Constitution etc. of joint Committees
§ (4) The expenses of a committee under this Act and of any sub-committee thereof shall be defrayed by the boards constituting the committee in such proportion as the boards may agree.
626
§
THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved in Clause 1, to add to subsection (4):
or as may, in default of agreement, be determined by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
§ The noble Lord said: I should like to be quite frank with the House in moving this Amendment. It arose as the result of a conversation which I had with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, after the Second Reading. I think your Lordships will agree that any suggestion which the noble and learned Viscount may make in regard to the structure and operation of any Bill has necessarily to be extremely carefully considered. It is for that reason that, after due consideration, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland have agreed on this Amendment, which we think is a slight improvement on the Bill as it stands. This is, roughly, how it will work. The two boards agree on a joint committee; the joint committee agree on their own procedure and the two boards then agree about defraying the expenses. But a disagreement might occur on the defraying of expenses—it sometimes happens that North Country people on both sides of the Border are obstinate in regard to that matter. I would draw this picture. A scheme or investigation might be carried out in Scotland, and the English Board might suggest that that is entirely a Scottish matter. The Scotsmen might perversely say that the benefit of the scheme goes to England, because the river concerned flows in that direction.
§ Or, conversely, a prosecution might take place in England, carried out by the English board, and the Scottish board, when asked to pay their share, might refuse, because they might say that they had given up the obsolete system of private prosecutions (which are invariably conducted in Scotland by the Lord Advocate) and they saw no reason why they should support that old-fashioned method. Those are only examples of what might happen. I do not think they will happen; nevertheless, provision is made in the Bill that, in the event of disagreement, the question will be determined by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I would add that the Ministers have given an assurance that when an issue arises they will sneak with one voice. I apologise to the Committee for having put this Amend- 627 ment on the Paper only this morning. I would ask your Lordships to permit the remaining stages of the Bill to be taken. I admit that that is a bad practice and one which the House rightly dislikes, and I apologise for adopting it. I think on reflection your Lordships will agree that this effects an improvement on the Bill and that I should have been wrong not to put the Amendment down. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 1, line 23, at end insert the said words. —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ LORD MORRISONNaturally it is with considerable trepidation that I venture to question the soundness of the advice which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, has given to the noble Earl on this matter, but, having looked at this Amendment, I fail to see how the difficulties which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has just envisaged can be resolved in this manner. As the noble Earl explained on Tuesday, the Bill sets up joint committees for the two rivers, the Esk and the Tweed, that are partly in England and partly in Scotland. I presume there may be a likelihood that these joint committees will not altogether see eye to eye on certain questions, particularly in regard to the question of who is going to pay for what, and the noble Earl now suggests, on the advice of his noble and learned friend Viscount Maugham, that the matter should be referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Housing and Local Government, for them to decide. The noble Earl has given an assurance that these two Ministers will resolve any difficulty. How can they resolve any difficulty? The Secretary of State for Scotland represents Scotland just as the Scottish committee represents it, and the Minister of Housing and Local Government is an English Minister who presumably will look after the interests of the English sides of these two rivers.
I would make the suggestion, with great trepidation in view of the learned advice the noble Earl has received, that a better solution would be to refer any such question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a United Kingdom Minister, instead of referring it to an English and a Scottish Minister to decide when an English and a Scottish committee have 628 failed to agree. As a United Kingdom Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not likely to take one side or the other. I cannot see how the assurance of the noble Earl that the English Minister and the Scottish Minister will agree can be fully carried out for all time. Therefore, I should have thought it better to add a few more words to the Agreement, to say that in the event of the Ministers failing to agree, then the matter would be referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know whether there is any great urgency for this Bill—I mean as between to-day and next week—and if my modest suggestion meets with any response from the noble Earl, perhaps he will be willing to defer putting this Amendment into the Bill until the Report stage, which could be taken early next week. He would then have an opportunity of looking at the point I have raised.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI have listened with great care to what the noble Lord. Lord Morrison, has said. He seems to think it would be quite exceptional for two Ministers to agree. Of course, he may be judging by his experience in the past. I very much hope, and I have reason to suppose, that that particular difficulty is not likely to arise. We could, of course, have an arbiter like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I suppose that where two Ministers disagree within the Cabinet, they could, in practice, ask the Prime Minister to decide. However, I think we are making a mountain out of a molehill. This is a small point. I doubt whether it is absolutely necessary for the Amendment to be in the Bill, and it would not break my heart if the House divided against me and rejected it. The whole purpose of the Bill is to bring about voluntary agreement, and we hope that the bodies concerned will carry through their work with the least Governmental interference. I think this provision adds a little to the structure of the Bill, and if the noble Lord would accept it, I should be grateful.
§ LORD MORRISONI never had any intention of pressing the question to a Division. It is only a small point, and I am prepared to let it go and hope for the best.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThank you.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
629§ Remaining clause agreed to.
§ Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution) the Amendment reported: Bill read 3ª, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.