I would like first to take this opportunity of referring to the passing of the new Mutual Aid Act of the Canadian Government, to which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister referred in a message which he has recently sent to Mr. Mackenzie King. It is, I need hardly say, and as I will explain a little later, material to this Vote of Credit. This is the first Sitting of the House since the Bill received the Royal Assent and became law, and I am sure that the Committee would not wish this moment to pass without testifying once again the high appreciation of this House, on behalf of all our people, of this further measure of Canada's magnificent assistance to us and to all our friends and Allies united in the common cause. This new contribution on Canada's part makes a substantial difference to the sums which v5e are called upon to find from our own resources for the prosecution of the war. The action which Canada has now taken goes far beyond even the generous gift of 1,000,000,000 dollars in money which Canada gave this country last year. It represents the acceptance by Canada of new financial liabilities of a very large order; it will enable the United Kingdom and other United Nations, which lack Canadian dollars to obtain from Canada the war supplies they need; and it will do this without the accumulation of those war debts between nations which we so much wish to avoid. I feel sure that the Committee will join with me in expressing our gratitude and admiration for these magnanimous and far-reaching measures.

Hear, hear.

I have to ask the Committee for a further Vote of Credit to meet expenditure on the war. In view of the close proximity of the Budget and the Finance Bill Debates on our general financial policy, I propose to confine my remarks to-day to a very few facts about our Vote of Credit expenditure. The original Vote of 1,000,000,000 for the financial year 1943, passed by the Committee on 26th January last, is likely to be exhausted in 'the early part of next month, and I accordingly now ask for a further sum of £1,000,000,000, which, on the basis of such estimates of the probable rate of expenditure as can be made at present, should suffice to cover expenditure on war services up to about the month.of August, before which time I shall doubtless have to approach the Committee again. When I addressed the Committee in January I explained that our expenditure on war services was then at the rate of about £14,000,000 a day, which figure included £11,000,000 a day on the Fighting and Supply Services. Before the end of the financial year these figures had risen tai something like £15,000,001 and £11,500,000 respectively.

In the present financial year the amounts of the Votes of Credit will be affected by the different arrangement made by the Government of Canada with regard to the generous measure of assist ance which, as I have explained just now, Canada is again giving us. Last year the gift of a billion dollars was a money receipt in our Revenue accounts, and all our expenditure in Canada was included in the charge to the Votes of Credit. This year the Canadian Government are making provision of essential war supplies in kind, and in addition are accepting direct financial liability for the cost of the Royal Canadian Air Force personnel serving overseas, as well as purchasing for cash certain capital assets concerned with production in Canada. Thus, considerably less provision is required in our Votes of Credit for expenditure in Canada, and no provision is required for the Canadian air personnel overseas. ' The effect of these changes is to reduce the totals of the Vote of Credit expenditure below what would otherwise have been necessary. In the new financial year the rate of Vote of Credit expenditure has not so far been affected by the arrangements for Canadian supplies in kind or for meeting the cost of Canadian air personnel, but the net expenditure has been, reduced in recent weeks by the Canadian Government's purchase of the assets to which I have referred. The result is that the average rate of expenditure in the seven or eight weeks since the, beginning of the financial year cannot be regarded as an index of the prospective rate of expenditure over the financial year as a whole.

The rate during this period has in fact been about £13,500,000 a day, of which about £11,000,000 a day has been on the Fighting and Supply Services. But lest anyone should be tempted, despite the special temporary factors I have mentioned, to look on the somewhat lower figures as reflecting some slackening in our war effort, let me remind the Committee that the total Vote of Credit expenditure for which I have 'budgeted in the present financial year is £4,900,000,000. To bring that figure on to a basis comparable with. the Vote of Credit expenditure last year, we must add last year's Canadian Government contribution of £225,000,000, the cost of the Canadian air personnel which we have previously borne, and the amounts which we are receiving in return for the transferred capital assets. Further, as the Committee will remember, the Vote of Credit estimate makes only nominal provision for war damage, whereas the payments actually made were included in last year's Vote of Credit expenditure. Since the realised total of the Vote of Credit expenditure last year was only £4,840,000,000, the Committee will see that this year's Vote of Credit represents a substantially larger provision for the war than last year. As far as actual expenditure in the current financial year is concerned, the position is that at the moment, in view of the new arrangements with Canada which T have just described, we have no common basis of comparison with the daily rate of war expenditure in any previous period. But by the time I have to ask the Committee for the next Vote of Credit I may be able to give some further information of the trend of our current expenditure on the new basis. I would therefore ask the Committee to grant me this further Vote in the hope that I expect I shall be able to give some further particulars on the next occasion.

The Committee will readily—

On a point of order. Might I ask whether we are now passing from consideration of this Measure?

No.

The first thing I should like to do is to associate this side of the Committee with the acknowledgment which the Chancellor has, rightly, made of the magnificent gesture by Canada. I do not think that even on the last occasion we fully appreciated the range and magnitude of this form of assistance. It is only right that those who speak for Parliament and for the British people should recognise it.

I desire to take the opportunity of this new Vote of Credit, which Parliament will no doubt readily grant, to raise one matter. The facility with which the Chancellor has hitherto got his Votes of Credit indicates a general endorsement of his policy. I want now to discuss a phase of our 'financial policy, namely, the stabilisation of prices. I make no apology for doing so, because the Chancellor himself emphasised in his Budget Statement the importance of the matter. He said:

"In the forefront of the measures which we have taken during the war to remove the threat of inflation is cur policy of stabilisation of prices. It has wide significance, and it involves a considerable annual charge upon the Exchequer. In my Budget speech of April, 1941, I undertook to hold the cost-of-living index number, apart from minor seasonal changes, within the range of 125 to 130 in term: of the pre-war level. That endeavour has been rewarded with a full measure of success."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1943; col. 952, Vol. 388.]

That applies to the stabilisation of food prices. I think the Chancellor can claim a full measure of success for that policy. In the Debate on the Ministry of Food Estimates the other day, I expressed appreciation of the value of the food subsidies, pointing out the immense and favourable repercussions that that policy was having on the whole of our war effort. I reminded the Committee that a pound each of six primary commodities, butter, margarine, lard, bacon, cheese, and sugar, cost 7s. 11¾ld. in 1917, and only 6s. 2d. in May, 1943, showing a total saving of Is. 9¾c1. on a pound of each of these six commodities alone. That is an outstanding justification for subsidising as a method of controlling food prices. In this policy of stabilisation, however, it is not possible to follow the method Of subsidy to any extensive degree, although with regard to basic food supplies, it is, in my view, quite unsound in war time for the Government to follow other methods.

Later we see a further working-out of this policy in the development of utility lines. I submit that the Government policy has not been pursued with the same vigour, and has not met with the same success, in regard to general price and commodity controls as it has in. the case of subsidies. I would press for an extension of the policy of developing utility lines. While the retail index is suitable for food, it is not, in my view, fool-proof in respect of the general range of goods. I do not say at this stage that the Chancellor has been inaccurate, but I want to query a subsequent statement of his, that,

"apart from price increases deliberately brought about. by higher indirect taxes, the whole volume of consumption goods and services, including luxury goods and other non-necessaries, has not risen in price by more than 36 per cent."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 12th April, 1943; col. 952, Vol. 388.]

Everyday experience does not bear out that statistical assertion. It is ail very well to use statistics, but the average housewife could proceed, and rightly, from her own experience. Let me state the price of clothing. I want the Chancellor, if he will, to note these figures. By 1st January, 1942, the price and general index figure of clothing had reached 93 per cent. above that for 1st September, 1939. The policy of utility lines was developed by the Government three years after the war started. That shows how slowly the stabilisation policy has been followed, in this direction, in contrast to the promptitude with which subsidies were _applied. It is interesting to note that it was not until utility lines were introduced that the general level of clothing prices began to fall. Now they have declined to 70 per cent. above September, 1939. If you take the other general lines of consumption goods, they were 30 per cent. above September, 1939, on 1st January, 1942, and they are now 50 per cent: above. This is the real issue that the country has to face in regard to this problem of stabilisation. Stabilising food prices at 20 per cent. above those for September, 1939, permits of a continuation of that figure after the war. If one reflects, one can see the immense advantage of stabilising food prices at their present levels, in framing our post-war agricultural policy, if we do not have to pass through a period of deflation with regard to food supplies.

When we turn from food supplies to general consumer goods, the point here that I desire to make is that the importance—I really wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be absorbed while I am presenting an argument of some substance—of this general range of consumer goods is reflected in respect that it is to' this class of goods coming into normal manufacture that we shall look for the absorption of a considerable proportion of our demobilised labour from the Services, the Civil Defence services and from war production. If the prices of this general range of goods are higher than is necessary—and I claim that 78 per cent. is too high for a certain range of goods, and I shall point out that others are still higher—just at the time when we want stability of prices to develop maximum production, we shall have uncertainty if we have to face a deflation period. The Government are the largest buyers of goods in this country to-day, and therefore we need to keep prices stable, because it is of advantage in our current war expenditure. If we get an accumulative advantage from the stabilisation of prices in war-time, it will give us security and stabilisation when we move from war to peace production.

I have already asserted that, in my view, the prices of clothing and general merchandise have been allowed to reach too high a level. There are statistics, but I want to quote some figures taken by an Oxford test—the Oxford Bulletin of Statistics—to show that, when one applies a test to retail establishments, the figures are much higher than the percentages which I have given, and which again are double those of the Chancellor. This test carried out in Oxford, taking the figure of 100 per cent., in 1938, showed that clothing and footwear had reached 168 per cent. in 1943, furniture 250 per cent., household textiles 265 per cent., hardware and household stores 185 per cent., leather and travel goods 185 per cent., fancy goods 185 per cent., and drugs and toilet goods 156 per cent.

Can the hon. Gentleman help us by giving the range of that test?

The goods there cover practically every form of domestic, household and furnishing equipment.

Over what area?

It is taken in Oxford, but it is no use suggesting that Oxford is not a sound test in this respect, because I am prepared to give another test. Here is an interesting comparison of prices made by the Council for Art and Industry. In 1937 it gave the cost of completely equipping a working-class home, and the estimate for 1936 was £52 10S. 4d. If you took that same range of goods for equipping the same type of house in 1942, it would cost £167 11S. 10d. If you took off the Purchase Tax in that range of goods, it would mean a reduction of £31 3s. 2d., leaving the comparative cost in 1942 £136 8s. 8d. as against £52 10s. 4d. before the war. If you take the ordinary simple daily test and you try to buy a tin kettle to-day which used to cost 6½d. and 10½d. for a two or four pint kettle respectively, you will have to pay 1S. 7d., 1S. 9d., or 2s. or 2s. 6d—you find the prices vary very considerably in different shops. If you take the ordinary scrubbing brush which the housewife uses in her home for which she used to pay 8½d. or 10d., she will now have to pay 1s. 11d., 25. or 2s. 6d. My contention is that there is no similar control of prices; that the machinery of price control on this range of goods is not working as effectively as it might do. The interesting thing is that, if you study this very wide range of goods, the introduction of the utility lines marks the first occasion upon which the general rise of prices was arrested.

The introduction of utility lines is having the same effect on this range of goods as the subsidy on the basic lines of food. Directly we follow the policy of subsidising the major basic food items it exercises the same influence on the whole range of food supplies, although the whole range is not subject to the subsidy policy. Since utility lines have been introduced the same influence has been observable with regard to dry goods and hardware and similar things. That is a definite advantage. I am not inexperienced enough to suggest to the Chancellor that the utility principle could be introduced over the whole of this very wide range of goods, but it could be extended much more than it has been. The whole policy was 'too slow; prices were allowed to rise to a high artificial level before it was introduced. We already have the evidence that after a few lines had been covered, it exercised a moderating and declining influence on prices. Therefore, before I leave this' subject, I want to urge upon the consideration of the Chancellor, who fully accepts the policy of stabilisation and has stated that to be his policy, the need for the picking-out of a number of additional articles that exercise a good influence on prices generally and the extension of utility lines to cover the position as much as possible.

Is it not the case that prices of unrationed or uncontrolled goods have risen very largely owing to the scarcity of labour? How is it possible to control the prices of these goods unless by a complete Order of control and unless at the same time we either supply labour or control prices?

There is price control running through all these articles, hut it is impossible, in view of the present position, to exercise proper supervision over these prices. Therefore when one is faced with a situation of that character it is desirable to look to experience to see what factors operate normally in all industry to hold prices to a reasonable figure. When one observes this factor and discovers that the subsidy in respect of certain basic food supplies has had a more arresting influence than your general price legislation, and when you find that since utility lines have been introduced the tendency of prices for this range of goods has been to remain stable, and to some extent to decline, whereas previously they had been steadily mounting, it is worth while Parliament giving attention to these matters in so far as we cannot hope to establish an extensive inspectorate to see that breaches of price regulations are not taking place.

The third phase of policy on which, it appears to me, the Government are depending to secure some form of stabilisation is the exercise of the machinery of their commodity control. As regards the general distribution of goods, we have subsidies, utility production and price control. When it comes to the more important materials of industry the Government fall back on their commodity control machinery. I put this definite point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Do the Treasury and the Government suggest that their own commodity control as regards both the acquisition and the pricing of material, the machinery with which they operate prices and releases to the trade, is working efficiently? It is very difficult to justify the prices of materials released by some of the commodity controls.

I take timber as an illustration, and I can give only one illustration, because I understand there is a desire that this,Debate should not occupy too much time. The price of super beech in 1938 was 3½, a foot. The price fixed by the Timber Control is 9⅝d. an increase of 175 per cent. The question of the difficulty of importation has, in my view, nothing to do with it. We are doing without the timber that we cannot import, and I submit that there is no justification for an increase in price of this description. Super American oak was 4d. a foot in 1938, and the control price is 1s. 1⁝d. Admittedly this has to be brought from America. but surely there are international arrangements by which space can be found for cargoes which are necessary, and if a cargo is necessary, it is not desirable that prices should be increased to such an extent. A standard of deal in 1938 cost £16 15s. The price fixed by the Timber Control is £47 7s. 6d., an in- crease of 182 per cent. Birch ply in 1938 was 7s., and the price fixed by the Timber Control is 34s. to 36s., an increase of 385 per cent.

Here we have a Government machine which ought to be able to exercise complete control over prices, apart from any natural or inevitable increases resulting from the war. Follow the effect of this through industry. It is impossible to get timber to-day except for essential work. Nearly all of it goes on Government account, and therefore increases of this kind permitted by the Timber Control are added to the cost at every stage of production. In the case of utility furniture, for instance, you are faced with the position that the timber must come from the Timber Control; the wholesaler has his margin, and the retailers have their margin, and if you start off with a highly priced raw material, your wholesale proportion, your manufacturing proportion, your retail proportion are subject to the cumulative effect.

Therefore, I submit that from the standpoint of national economy, and having regard to post-war reconstruction, the policy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated to be the official policy of the Government, namely, stabilisation of prices, is not being pursued as thoroughly or as efficiently as it could be. I have raised this discussion for the purpose of getting over one or two points in that connection. I regret that I have had to do so rather hurriedly and that I have not had time to support my remarks by the evidence which I should otherwise have wished to bring forward. I have however curtailed my remarks to meet the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he, in return, will re-emphasise his policy and give an assurance that it will be pursued more vigorously and more efficiently in the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) will forgive me if I refrain from making any comments upon the interesting and important argument which he has just presented to the Committee. We are now in the midst of the discussions on our financial arrangements for the year, and you, Mr. Williams, have already been good enough to afford me an opportunity of speaking on some aspects of our financial position, and I would not have intervened on this occasion did I not feel bound, in few but none the less sincere words, to associate my hon. and right hon. Friends who sit on these benches with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said regarding the passage of the Mutual Aid Act through the Canadian Parliament. This is indeed a remarkable action by the Canadian Legislature. The conception of Lend-Lease which owes so much to President Roosevelt, and now this great act by the Canadian nation, which will be of the utmost practical value to us, seem to me to indicate the opening of a new era in international finance.

We have reached a stage in the war when it is our duty to devote such time and attention as we can divert from the immediate prosecution of the war, to the consideration of the arrangements to be made after the war. We want to ensure the continuance, in the difficult financial times which will follow the war, of that unity of purpose which is to-day bringing us steadily nearer victory over our enemies. It is not the actual size or magnificence of this transaction, great as it is, which is most remarkable. I think- the most remarkable thing about it is that it should have been done at all. As I say, it is the indication of a new era, and I rejoice that it should be so. The financial and economic transactions of Lend-Lease and the Mutual Aid Act which our Canadian brethren have passed are signs of that higher standard of conduct in international finance which we shall have to maintain if the world is to be made a place fit for human habitation.

At' the outset, may I briefly associate myself with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead {Mr. Graham White) about the action of the Canadian Government? I only hope that they are not as misled as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, by the bogus money which is being created, and it is in order to make a protest on that particular aspect of this Vote of Credit that I rise to address the Committee. It is not because I am annoyed with my right hon. Friend for his quips at me during Question time. I can take it, and I may add that I think I can, on this occasion, return it with interest. But I am bound to make this remark to my right hon. Friend, that from the studied expressions of amusement which I observed in the Gallery at the side it seemed to me that some of his supplementary retorts were inspired, and I desire first to make a protest on a particular point—one which I have made before. I greatly regret, as I am sure other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen also regret, the ever-increasing habit of Ministers reading their speeches, and I look forward to the day when I shall be able to send my right hon. Friend a bouquet—

The hon. Member has already wandered round at least two subjects which are out of Order. I hope he will now proceed to deal with the Vote of Credit.

I want to move the rejection of this Vote of Credit, and I want the Committee to be fully apprised of why I take that view. I do not want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be too much hurt by what I say, and I was merely remarking that I would like to be able to send him a bouquet, if and when he gives me occasion to do so. There seems to me to be no sense whatever in voting money to a Government when it would appear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know where his money is coming from.

We cannot discuss on this occasion where the money comes from.

I am not discussing where it actually comes from, but I am contending that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know where it comes from.

We cannot discuss whether the right hon. Gentleman knows or does not know where it comes from.

It is surely in Order when we are discussing a Vote of Credit for £1,000,000,000 to point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not really know what the money is. I put that to the Chancellor—as I have done on previous occasions when he has not seen fit to answer me, not because his Department did not know, but because they.did not want to tell the truth£that he, as the responsible authority, should tell the House how much of the money he borrows is bank-created money.

That is just the point we cannot discuss just now; we can only discuss how the money is spent.

I do not know quite how to put this, but my point is that the Chancellor does not know what money is. However, I suppose I shall have to sit down without developing my argument and reserve my words of wisdom for a future occasion [Laughter]. It is all very well for the Chancellor to laugh. My historical recollection is that Departments only do that when they are in a jam—

If the hon. Member does not know how to put his case, that is no reason for giving a general lecture on matters which have nothing to do with this Vote of Credit.

Then I must conclude my remarks. It seems to me a matter of concern that this Committee should be asked to vote £1,000,000,000 when the Chancellor does not know what money is. Perhaps I may emphasise this point. We have heard a great deal lately about unconditional surrender. I want to say to the Chancellor that unless he achieves unconditional surrender of privately controlled money power, we shall never get the peace we want.

I think I had better pass over the speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) in case I, too, am ruled out of Order. First of all, I would like to thank the Committee for the references they have made to our financial administration. In particular, I appreciate the observations of the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes). I would not have expected the Committee to do otherwise than associate itself with my remarks concerning the generous help we have had from our Canadian friends. I have no doubt that reports of this Debate will appear in Canada, so that our friends there can see how much we appreciate what they have done and are doing. I wish the hon. Member for East Ham South had had a little more time to develop the case he put forward, because he is an authority on that subject, which is one well worth our deliberation and consideration. He did, however, have time to put forward some part of his case to-day, and while in view of our other Business I do not wish to trespass on the time of the Committee, I would like to make one or two observations on what he said and to tell him that I will carefully study the points he has raised and communicate with him later, if I may.

I would like to give some explanation to the Committee about the figure of 36 per cent. which is in the White Paper. That figure relates to the average increase in aggregate retail prices which has taken place since the outbreak of war, excluding the effects of indirect taxes and subsidies. The figure is an average for the calendar year 1942, during which period the average of the Ministry of Labour's cost-of-living index was 29 per cent. above pre-war level. I want to make it quite clear why these two figures are different. The reason is, as was pointed out in the White Paper, that the two figures measure different things. The cost-of-living index measures the increase in the cost of buying a fixed collection of goods, based on samples of working-class consumption, and for the most part this collection of goods consists of what may be termed the necessities of life. The figure in the White Paper covers all classes of goods, not by any means confined to necessities, and relates to practically the whole of the aggregate personal expenditure of the community; it is not confined to any particular budget of consumption.

In addition to this difference in the basis of comparison, the White Paper excludes the effects of indirect taxation and subsidies, the result being to give an indication of the aggregate movement of retail prices which has taken place apart from the deliberate action of Government policy in the spheres of taxation and subsidies. The stabilisation policy, which operates by means of subsidies, has, of course, been to a large extent concentrated in the field of the most essential goods, with which the cost-of-living index figure is chiefly concerned. I think the hon. Member for East Ham South will agree that that was the right thing to do and a good concentration to take. Naturally, the cost-of-living index, which reflects the stabilisation and subsidy policy, shows a lower price increase since the beginning of the war than the White Paper figure, which has regard to the total collection of all -L-Asses of consumption over the community as a whole. As I said in my Budget speech, I think that when regard is paid to these factors the rise of 36 per cent. over the whole field, apart from taxes and subsidies, is in an appropriate relationship 'co the cost-of-living index. The hon. Member, with his usual fairness, expressed appreciation of the Government's policy in the field of foodstuffs, but he said that he did not think that we had been so successful in another class of goods, particularly those which come within the sphere of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. It is quite true that food prices have risen less than those of most other goods and services, but we must not forget rents, which have not risen at all.

I am quite ready to admit that when the Government first embarked on the great new experiment of our stabilisation policy two years ago we concentrated our efforts at first in the field of food, and I do not think anybody will quarrel on that account. Quite clearly the first and most important thing to do was to try and stabilise the prices of those staple articles of food which appear week by week on every housewife's shopping list and on which there must be steady, uninterrupted, weekly expenditure. Nevertheless, since then a great deal has been done to extend the stabilisation policy over an even wider field. I will give these instances. Clothing prices have now been successfully stabilised and in the case of utility clothing have even been reduced. I think everyone has praise for the exceedingly good value for money represented by utility clothes for which the President of the Board of Trade is responsible, and which he has done so much to make successful. Of course, this has been assisted by the exemption of utility clothes from Purchase Tax, and this has been followed by similar exemptions in respect, first, of utility furniture and now, as I announced in my Budget speech, of the various forms of household textiles. Some 80 per cent. of all the clothing that is now produced is utility clothing and is thus exempt from tax. In the case of furniture 100 per cent. of current production, excepting only certain old stocks now being worked off, is utility furniture and is also exempt from Purchase Tax. When you take this very wide range of things—food, clothing, furniture and so on, I think we have gone a very long way to meet the objects my hon. Friend has in mind by means of a properly co-ordinated policy of stabilisation and price control, coupled with the exemptions from Purchase Tax in relation to the various classes that I have mentioned. I will take note of what the hon. Member has said and carefully study the suggestions he has made and, if necessary, confer with the President of the Board of Trade concerning them. I hope he will feel that, taking the policy as a whole, and all that we have done during the year. there is a substantial amount to the credit of the policy introduced some time ago. I regard this as one of the main features of our finance introduced during the war. It is true that it is costing a large sum of money—£180,000,000—but I think it has met with a full measure of success and has certainly done a great deal to help the great body of people, particularly those with small fixed incomes, whose case must be very much in our mind at present.

What about the Timber Control?

Yes, I will look into that. I thank the hon. Member for his useful and informative speech, and I will certainly take into account all that he has said and study it.

I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out lines 15 to 21.

Under the existing law as contained in Section 10 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, provision is made in regard to the interim development of land within an area to which a resolution to adopt a planning scheme applied and that Section gives some but not sufficient control to the planning authorities in regard to developments that may take place prior to the actual making of a planning scheme. The defect in the Section is that a person can still develop land notwithstanding the planning authority's refusal of consent if he is prepared to risk the inclusion in the scheme as eventually made of a provision depriving him of compensation in respect of the building which has been erected contrary to the development. It is suggested that no serious hardship is experienced by landowners by reason of the interim control of development given by Section 1o, as all decisions of the planning authority may be the subject of an appeal to the Ministry of Health. The purpose of this Clause 1 (1) of the Bill is to bring those parts of the country which are not already the subject of a town planning.resolution within the scope of the interim development control, and it provides that areas in which a town planning resolution is not already in force shall be deemed to be subject to such a resolution, that is,

"that it shall be deemed to have been duly passed by the local authority for the district in which the land is situated."

These words, of course, mean the local authority by virtue of the provisions of the Act, namely, as respects the City of London the Common Council of that City, as respects the County of London the London County Council, and elsewhere the councils of county boroughs and county districts. The expression "county districts" means urban rural districts and non-county boroughs. We put this Amendment forward largely on behalf of the Urban District Councils Association, whose view is that interim development control should be exercised by the local authority as defined and that it should not be open to the Minister to make an order transferring the responsibility to another local authority or to a county council or to a joint committee. There is no provision in the Act of 1932 for a compulsory transfer of this kind. There are provisions for voluntary transfer, and^* it is difficult to see why the Minister should wish that different provisions should be applicable to the interim control which is exercisable under the Bill.

Under Section 2 (2) of the Act, the council of a county district may at any time by agreement relinquish in favour of the county council any of their powers or duties under the Act. There have been many cases of relinquishment of this kind. Under Section 3 two or more local authorities may appoint a joint committee for the purpose of acting jointly in the preparation or adoption of a scheme, and they may delegate to that committee any powers under the Act other than the power of borrowing money or levying a rate. Again, under Section 4, the Minister, where it appears to be expedient that two or more local authorities should act jointly in the preparation or adoption of a scheme, may, at the request of one or more of them, by order provide for the continuance of a joint committee for that purpose. We propose largely that those things should be continued. We feel that in this proviso you are taking away the voluntary association of various councils with the desired object in View. It cannot be said to be in the nature of a default power, as the local authority could not be said to be in default merely because Clause i operates in regard to land which has not already been the subject of a standing resolution. If it should be suggested that the proviso is only operative where there is something in the nature of default, the answer is that these powers are already contained in Section 36 of the Act of 1932. The omission of the proviso has already been proposed to the Minister by the Urban District Councils Association. The Ministry, while not replying to the Urban District Councils Association, has sent a letter to another association, and if that were made applicable generally, it would be accepted. The Ministry wrote:

"As you are aware planning powers in respect of areas which have already been planned have in some cases been relinquished under Section 2 (2) and 3 (1) of the Act of 1932 to the county council or delegated to a joint committee, and in others are being exercised by a neighbouring authority. In such cases it may be convenient that a new area coming under planning for the first time under the provisions of the sub-section should also be planned by the county council or the joint committee or other authority as the case may be. The only object of the proviso is to enable the Minister by order to give a direction accordingly."

If such an assurance embodied in those words could be put into the Bill, the Urban District Councils Association would be satisfied, but without it the proviso is wide enough to permit of an Order being made by the Minister transferring the power to an entirely different local authority in respect of a part of the district, although in the rest of the district the existing powers are being discharged by the local authority itself. While I am ready to admit that present conditions may warrant any great interference with the Minister having new powers, we should endeavour to get as much local agreement as possible. I therefore move this Amendment and ask the Minister for some assurance on the matter.

I hope that the Minister will not be carried away by the eloquence of my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. If I have any criticism of the words which my hon. Friend desires to delete, it is that they are of too limited a character. They apply only to areas or parts of areas where no resolution has been passed, and the Minister has to exercise his power before the expiration of the three months from the passing of the Bill.

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to discuss, with this Amendment, the Amendment which stands in his name, in page 1, line 15, after "may" to insert:

"after consultation with the local authority for the district in which the land proposed to be specified is situated."

or would he wish to discuss it separately? It might be convenient if we discussed both together.

I think that would be convenient. The real criticism of town planning areas at the present time is that they are far too small. I had hoped that in this Bill my right hon. Friend would have done something about the reorganisation of local government, at any rate from a town planning point of view. If he were not able to do that—and possibly it is asking a great deal to reorganise local government in a town planning measure—I would have liked him to take far greater powers to amalgamate areas or to substitute areas one for another for town planning purposes than he has done. May I quote the example of the Metropolitan traffic area? In that area there are 117 town planning authorities. One can well imagine the kind of patchwork of planning which one could expect if each authority were to prepare a scheme for itself based entirely on its own needs, or what it regards as its own needs, regardless of conditions outside. I regard this proviso as the bare minimum which the Minister ought to be empowered to carryout. If I may refer to my Amendment, before the Minister brushed any local authority on one side he ought at least, as a matter of courtesy, consult it and give reasons why in his view it would be better for some other local authority to carry out its functions. I do not object to the principle. All I suggest is that the Minister, as I am sure my right hon. Friend would wish to do, should pay the local authority the courtesy of consulting it before he takes any action.

The proviso to Sub-section (1) has certainly been drawn in very wide terms and it has aroused among planning authorities a certain amount of apprehension. I understand that my right hon. Friend's purpose is to exercise the powers which the proviso gives him only in those cases where there has already been a relinquishment of planning powers either to a joint committee or to a county council. The apprehensions which the proviso has aroused 'in certain quarters would be allayed if my right hon. Friend could assure us that it is his intention to exercise the powers which the proviso gives him in that way and not to use them for the purpose of transferring the interim development powers to a new authority in cases where there has not been any relinquishment to a joint committee or a county council.

Let me first allay any suspicions that may naturally enough arise from the words of the proviso that it is the Minister's intention to exercise his powers by transferring to strange authorities powers which normally ought to reside in the locality. If the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Collindridge) will look at Sub-section (1) he will see that the notional resolution which is necessary to bring the whole of the country under a planning resolution is deemed to have been duly passed by the local authority for the district in which the land is situated. As he told us correctly, under the 1932 Act there have been changes from the position where each local authority planned its own land. There have been reliramishments, there have been joint committees, and so on. It may happen that when Clause 1 becomes operative a small section hitherto not subject to a resolution, situated it may be in the very middle of the area which has joined up for joint action, will, if we have not the proviso, be its own authority for planning. It would be undesirable within an area of that character to have a division of planning functions-between one large body which has voluntarily come together or is the result of a voluntary relinquishment and another authority holding a small place in the middle of the area; and that there should be no powers on the part of the Minister to tidy up the position and make an effective planning body governing the whole of the land in question.

It is for that purpose and no other that the proviso exists. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance on that matter. It is necessary in the case of those areas brought under a notional resolution to tidy them up and to secure that there is one authority which will function in an efficient manner for the whole area. I do not anticipate that the areas which are now brought for the first time under planning will feel any reluctance at the proviso. If I were suddenly confronted as an administrator of local government with the task which would be imposed on me, I would welcome inclusion in an area which is already provided with planning powers, and I anticipate no trouble in this provision being accepted. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) that it would be wrong for the Minister of Town and Country Planning to make these alterations in authorities without the fullest consultation with the authorities concerned. It is not only a question of courtesy, although that is involved. I hope that courtesy will always be a feature of our administration in this country and that those who take upon themselves the burden of public affairs, whether locally or at the centre, will always treat each other with the greatest amount of respect.

Apart from that, there is involved a sound administrative point. A Minister of Town and County Planning who attempted to carve up areas without consultation would not only be extremely discourteous but very foolish, because he would be depriving himself of that local knowledge which is essential if planning is to be effective and popular. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment for this reason. Consultation is a piece of administration and a Minister would be foolish if he did not indulge in it to the full, but the place to check errors in administration is Parliament where the Minister is subject to scrutiny by his fellow members. It is one thing for the. Minister to be obliged to consult by rules of good administration and Parliamentary criticism, and it is another thing for him to be subjected on the matter of consultation to the jurisdiction of the law courts. If we alter the Statute and put these words into it, it opens the door for people to ask: "Did you actually consult before you made the Order?" Possibly years after, when a local authority in good faith has made orders affecting property rights, some cantankerous individual might come along and say that everybody had not been consulted to the full and, therefore, the Order was ultra vires.I am not anxious to avoid the fact of consultation, but I want to avoid cluttering up the Statute Book with possible rocks of offence for the future. The word "consultation" itself is extremely vague in its import. We know what it means, but what degree of consultation is necessary for it to be effective in the words of the Statute? If a Minister likes to be high-handed it could be the most perfunctory consultation, and that would be no safeguard. Nothing but good administration can secure that. I give the assurance, on the one hand, to the hon. Member for Barnsley, of what the proviso is intended to accomplish, and on the other, to the hon. Member for Peckham that the fullest consultation will be necessary and will be carried out. I hope, therefore, that they will not think it necessary to press their Amendments.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I shall have pleasure in withdrawing my Amendment, but I would like to tell my right hon. Friend that the 1932 Act is full of references to consultation, and I hope he will have a look at it.

It is a bad precedent.

The hon. Gentleman did not actually propose his Amendment. Perhaps he will formally move it, so that it can be withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page line 15, after "may," to insert:

"after consultation with the local authority for the district in which the land proposed to be specified is situated."

I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end, to add:

"(3) There shall be set aside around all towns and cities of fifty thousand or more inhabitants a strip of land approximately five miles wide to form a green belt and, within three months of the passing of this Act, this shall be considered as subject to planning resolution and no new development or building schemes shall be planned for future construction within this space without the consent of the Minister."

This is rather a drastic Amendment, but I would point out that all the land in this Island of ours can be administered at the Minister's discretion three months after the passing of this Measure under an interim development Order. The position as to the use of land is rather vague, and I think it is most desirable that the use of the land be more definite, and this Amendment sets out that areas five miles wide around towns and cities with a population of 50,000 and over should be reserved as a green belt. The Minister may wish to vary the width to four or six miles, but I have thought it right to bring the matter forward in order that local authorities should have some knowledge of where they can undertake developments. Both the Ministry of Health and the former Minister of Works and Planning have called upon local authorities to plan boldly, but it will be difficult to plan boldly until they are sure how land can be used. Local authorities must prepare plans for future housing estates, for factories and for development generally, but until the Government have given a definite lead they cannot know whether or not their proposed developments will be located in some future green belt, and if that should prove to be the case all their work will have been wasted. This situation is very important from a practical point of view.

More than the questions of law, it is the question of the physical working of the principle that has disturbed me. Our future housing, health and happiness are to a large extent involved, for if plans are not ready when the war ends, the great pressure there will be for houses will make it necessary for us to go ahead under possibly ill-considered arrangements. Green belts, which are advocated, as I think the Minister will agree, by all planning authorities, affect the congestion of our cities and towns. They prevent the improper use of good agricultural land, and they introduce possibilities of control, instead of leaving the lay-out to the merry whims or nebulous chance of land speculators or poorly-advised authorities. In its concluding words the Amendment leaves this matter very largely in the discretion of the Minister, but gives him the opportunity of allowing the growth of communities where possible and permits the extension or the introduction of industry in desirable cases. It will also allow him to define the appropriate size of built-up areas and will certainly stop ribbon development without his consent and I am sure we have had enough of our rural areas spoilt by ribbon development.

Without this Amendment local authoritise may plan their affairs in a very inconsiderate and unfair manner, without regard to any long-term planning ideas of the Minister. We have to face the fact, and this to my mind is most important, that the planning, the making of the drawings, the letting of the contracts, the carrying out of much administrative work will not take less than about 18 months. We have all seen in the papers to-day that General Smuts has said the war will end suddenly, even though the end may not come in a very short time and we shall certainly not get a warning, and if the principle of the green belt, which has been advocated by every authority on the subject is to be introduced, now is the time to do it, so that local authorities may have the opportunity to deal not only with their legal problems but with their physical problems. They will want to get some guidance. If the Minister will accept this Amendment, it will undoubtedly lighten the work of his Ministry, which is going to be tremendous, but this Amendment goes to the root of one of the great uncertainties of the national position and is an essential step in town and country planning.

Can the hon. Member explain how he would make a green belt between Stockport and Manchester, where there are only zoo yards between the one town and the other?

I think that is a very justifiable question. Obviously it would be totally impossible, and I should think that my hon. and gallant Friend, in putting his question, knew that it would be impossible. It was a very amusing suggestion on his part under the circumstances.

I would ask the hon. Member to give a fuller explanation of his Amendment. It seems to lay upon the Government the obligation to see that there must be a green belt round every town of a certain population. Is that to involve the pulling down of houses on a vast scale? It would be quite impossible in a great area of the Black Country to carry out any policy of this kind. It would be very desirable, but there are no green belts now in the neighbourhood of many large towns. At the same time this Amendment calls upon the Minister to preserve such belts. I really cannot understand how it would work out. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that this should be done in so far as it may be practicable? The words of his Amendment say that it must be done everywhere.

In an old country like ours it is obvious the principle of green belts could be only done where it is possible and practicable. As I said in my opening remarks, the Amendment is rather a drastic one, but I hope the Minister will accept the principle of it, and introduce any words which may be necessary to make it workable. My desire is to get the principle of having green belts where possible introduced into the Bill, so that local authorities can go ahead with their physical planning work for many of them are now much disturbed by the absence of this information.

I support very strongly the principle of this Amendment. I think the objection raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) in no way touches the principle of the Amendment. It would be very unfortunate if, because one cannot ensure a green belt around certain towns in the Black Country or between Manchester and Stockport, the Minister did not take powers to see that a green belt is provided in the large number of other cases where it would be quite practicable. Therefore, I hope the Minister will accept the principle of the Amendment and redraft it in words which are suitable. Because things are so dismal and miserable in the Black Country, we ought not to fail to make provision for the future where that can be done.

I am sorry that I have not been able to take much part in these proceedings on planning, but the principle raised by this Amendment is one that has been in my mind a great deal, as it must have been in the minds of most thoughtful people who are looking forward to the proper development and planning of this country. As the Commission which sat before the war discovered, all experience shows that there may be unexpected and rapid developments of population in different parts of the country, without any arrangements having been made for preserving the amenities of those areas and for maintaining those natural surroundings which are even more desirable than the things one learns in school. I think it is very necessary that the Minister should give his attention to the question of ensuring that there are green belts around certain areas. Anyone who has noticed the developments which are taking place during the war knows that industry springs up in quite unexpected places, and unless the principle of the green belt is adopted we may find ourselves in a very parlous condition.

There is another very important reason why I am interested in this proposal. It seems to suggest a limitation on the population in certain areas, a limitation of the size of towns, and I feel that in a country like ours that matter deserves serious attention. As a people who believe in democracy and in the development of the individual's personality, we suffer from the danger of communities growing to a size at which the communal sense is lost. That is an outstanding problem in this country and one of the great dangers which we run. It has been pointed out—and London provides a particular example of it—that in many places one lives alongside one's neighbours without ever getting to know them. In the shelters a communal sense developed. People gathered together there and learned to know who their neighbours were. I have known many families who have had to come from the North to the South of England. I was never one who was against transference, because I have felt that the change from one locality to another enlarges one's outlook and education, but men, and women too, have often said to me when speaking of life in the outskirts of London: "We get better wages, it is a better living and there are other advantages, but we do not know anybody; there is no social life for us here." That is a psychological consideration which should not be overlooked. There is a very subtle danger to this country there. While it is very necessary to have a green belt round large areas of population in order to provide the amenities which are necessary—for I feel that trees and landscape are far more important than books in the general development of one's mental outlook—it is also important that some attention should be given to the limitation, in a rough and ready way, of the size of the population in these areas, in order that we may redevelop the communal sense upon which our real British character is based.

I do not know whether the Amendment in its present form can be accepted, for the reasons which have been pointed out, but if not I hope the Minister will at least do something about this very important matter. As the hon. Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Lawson) has said, it is of the greatest importance that people should not live in such large communities that they lose their community sense, and it is also of great importance, especially to the children, to have ready access to what are commonly known as the green belts. In my native city 5o or 60 years ago there was a delightful green belt accessible within easy walking distance to all the children in the city, but since that time I have seen buildings cover more and more of those green spaces until to-day the distances that have to be travelled in order to reach the countrified surroundings are very great and put them out of reach of a great many of the children. For that reason I support very strongly the principle which lies behind the Amendment, and I hope that if the Minister cannot accept it in its present form, he will at any rate do something which will help us to realise the ideal.

Nearly 300 years ago Sir Christopher Wren proposed something of this sort for London, but his ideas were entirely neglected. I wonder how many of us now regret the treatment of Wren. No one feels it was a good thing that he was not allowed to carry out that plan. Very few large towns exist around which some green fields cannot be found. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has pointed out that there are big places in the Black Country where no green belts can easily be provided, but I do not think there is a town, even in the Black Country, where there are no fields within five miles. Very likely between Wolverhampton and Dudley there is comparatively small scope for leaving still unbuilt upon such agricultural land as exists, but there is some, even there. In the area of Sedgley, where I happen to live, there are still green fields and farms, and it is half-way between those towns. North of Wolverhampton and West of Dudley there are beautiful stretches of country, a bit spoiled perhaps, still not absolutely ruined by modem industrialism. Round West Bromwich, and Eastward at any rate, there is similar country. It is of vast importance that we should preserve our heritage and make provision for preventing gradual ribbon development and the spread of ugly industrial building, unplanned, over the countryside. As a piece of English literature the Amendment, it is possible, might be improved upon, but in its spirit and ideas it is perfectly admirable. I ask the Minister to give it that sympathetic and friendly consideration for which he is so justly famous in this House and beyond.

I support in full every word that has been said on behalf of this Amendment. I would give the Minister every power he desires in order to prevent our countryside being spoiled by the monstrosities which have been built up along our highroads, but the question I would put to him is, Is this Amendment necessary? Has he not already the power? The Bill states that all land not already the subject of a scheme in force shall be the subject of a scheme. The Minister can exercise his power. I want to give him these powers, but I should like his assurance as to whether he will have these powers already by the terms of the Bill.

I am heartily in agreement with what my hon. Friends have said on this subject, but my hon. Friend who has just sat down has brought up a point upon which I also would like an assurance from the Minister. Although it would appear from the Clauses generally that the Minister has the power to regulate a matter of this kind, I do not see how he can insist upon local authorities doing the work which has been suggested without taking upon himself some central authority. That is the point which he knows very well is disturbing many of us, namely, the relationship between the central authority which is to be the directing force and the local authorities who are to carry out the work. There is a word of warning to be said on the Amendment. I agree that the wording is perhaps not right, but we must not come to regard green belts as public parks. In those green belts are to be performed acts of cultivation which cannot be properly performed if the townspeople are continuously trespassing upon and looking about various fields full of corn, and so on. Those fields may also contain stock, and in particular T.T. milk herds. The warning ought to be given in regard to this idea of a five-mile belt that the belt cannot be regarded as a playground of the towns on either side. A further warning is that we ought not to try to make concentric ring around towns the limitations which may be imposed by an Amendment of this sort, otherwise there would be one ring after another till the town, instead of being limited, would be extended still further.

I have seldom found myself so entirely in agreement with the course of a discussion as I have upon this Amendment. The Committee is unanimously in support of the spirit which prompted my hon. Friend to put his Amendment down. There was a great deal in what was said by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), that it is sheer destruction of communal life to allow unregulated expansion all over England of vast communities of shapeless form, and that every effort ought to be made, by good town and country planning, to secure that the community sense is maintained which is one of the priceless possessions of the ordinary man and his friends and neighbours. The loneliness of vast cities is a very grievous matter. Access to the countryside is of importance not only for children but for grown up people to enable them to get away from the cities and disport themselves in the beautiful countryside.

If we were writing on a completely clean slate in this matter, which we by no means are, it would be a desideratum in every ideal urban community that a man could get out of it into the country without undue expenditure of time and money when he wanted to go there. That by no means says that cities and. towns cannot themselves be objects of beauty, refinement and dignity, as they certainly can be and as we shall endeavour to make them. The old saying is true of the Amendment as was said about many other things: "The spirit maketh alive, but the letter killeth." To adopt my hon. Friend's Amendment in the form in which he has drafted it would lay it open to the animadversions passed upon it by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower). We are not writing on a clean slate, and to adopt the Amendment and so make statutory a proposal of this kind, would be impossible. My hon. Friend's mistake—I suggest it to him with affection—is in trying to put a plan into the Bill. We ought to concentrate upon getting the machinery for good planning right. That is properly a matter for the Bill. If you try to put into the Bill a plan for all England and Wales, you will find cases here and there to which the plan is inapplicable. I would like to assure those who have asked me the question, that we have in the Bill ample powers to secure the great object which we all have at heart. The mover of the Amendment suggested that the green belt should be the subject of a planning resolution. This is possible under the Bill, as are his further suggestions that no development should take place without the Minister's consent and that no development should be allowed in a planning scheme except with the Minister's consent. Under the present law the Minister's approval to a planning scheme is required, and this object can be achieved.

There are one or two other points. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major York), who asked about the relationship between central and local planners, I would point out that there is an invaluable link, which I hope to strengthen and make more perfect as a matter of administration, in the regional planning officers who are situated in various parts of the country and who are in close personal touch with local planning officers and committees of local authorities who deal with this matter. I hope they will be very powerful in helping to secure consistently good planning throughout the country. There must be a lot left to local authorities, because local authorities know their own problems. We hope to secure that harmonious working of local enthusiasm and initiative with the central direction in the way I have suggested. I hope that what I have said will satisfy my hon. Friend that I am entirely in sympathy with the motives which prompted him to put down the Amendment. For technical reasons—I put it no higher—the Amendment cannot be accepted.

Is it not a fact that very often the local authority are the guilty people in the production of ribbon development? They do it because they do not want the expense of making roads, and so they IAA their council houses on the main road. Will the Minister take power in the Bill to stop local authorities from destroying the countryside?

Yes, Sir, I am taking that power. I am aware of some deplorable instances in which the local authorities have been bad offenders, and I will take power in the matter in future.

I was glad to hear the Minister speak so sympathetically of my Amendment. I beg of him to give advice to the local planning authorities throughout the country, if he cannot go further than that, and to ask them to arrange where possible to apply the principle of the green belt so as to make possible the many things which have been advocated during the discussion on the Amendment. He should not forget that the desire to get ahead is being interrupted, and he should realise that until the green belt principle is substantially approved local authorities will not know where to put their housing development and matters of that sort. I am glad of the Minister's assurance that he will help in this and the country's requirements in this matter, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end, to add:

"(3) Any local authority required by the Ministry to prepare a scheme shall also prepare a schedule of buildings of architectural and historical merit which are deemed to be worthy of preservation."

We have been discussing means of preserving one of our national heritages, our green fields. I wish to discuss the possibility of preserving another, namely. buildings, many of them constructed in a bygone age, of architectural or historical value. The Amendment is very small, and I fear it will not go far towards achieving the result which many of us want: But as it is small I hope the Minister will be able to accept it. Under the principal Act local authorities have been empowered to prepare schedules of buildings which are deemed to he worthy of preservation. Such schedules do not in fact ensure that the buildings will be preserved. They merely ensure that there shall be a list which can be referred to, and that the local authority itself, by the very preparation of the schedule, shall be cognisant of every individual building in its district worthy of preservation. I understand that the new Bill, when it becomes law, will refer in the main to local authorities which I think I might call backward in so far as they have not previously prepared schemes of their own. It cannot be assumed that those authorities which have been backward before will, in fact, prepare schedules simply because they are asked to do so. I would submit that they must be told it is their duty to prepare schedules such as have been prepared by the L.C.C. and many other local authorities. I would ask the Minister, if he cannot accept this precise form of words, whether he will not do something which will compel all local authorities to prepare these schedules in the same way as some have already prepared them, so that we may at least know what buildings there are in the land worthy of preservation, whether or not we do preserve them.

I feel a good deal of sympathy with this Amendment. If I thought that what my hon. Friend proposes was likely to accomplish the object he has in view, I should press upon my right hon. Friend that this Amendment should be adopted. But, on the contrary, I think that the effect of what my hon. Friend proposes would be the direct opposite of what he anticipates. What will happen will be this, that the local authority would prepare a schedule of buildings of architectural and historical interest—and, of course, local authorities are likely to take different views of what sort of buildings ought to be included in a schedule of that nature—but the moment the schedule had been prepared, it would be regarded as a licence to demolish every other building in the district.

God forbid.

When proposals are made for re-development which will involve the demolition of buildings to which people in the neighbourhood have come to attach importance because perhaps of their historical associations or their architectural interest, this schedule, in which they have not been included, will be invoked as an argument that they possess no historical or architectural interest at all. 1 see my hon. Friend is laughing at that suggestion, but I would remind him that that is exactly what has happened in places where these schedules have already been prepared by the local authorities. It is much wiser for the planning authority not to prepare, any schedule in advance but to deal with each application for re-development as it is made to them, and as it arises and, when they deal with the application, to consider whether the buildings it is proposed to demolish possess historical or architectural merit which would justify their preservation. I warn him that if a list is prepared beforehand it will in a great many cases be used as an argument against those persons who desire to preserve buildings of the kind which he has in mind.

I think we are indebted to my hon. Friend who has put down this Amendment for raising a matter of very great importance which I am sure is near to the heart of the Minister. If he is not able to accept this particular Amendment, I hope we may be clear that the object of the Amendment is one which he has very much in view. We are far behind France in our arrangements for the preservation of ancient and historical buildings. The classification in French law of first, second or third class monuments of historic importance, with corresponding obligations for the State, the Department, and the minor local authority for their maintenance and repair, is one I should gladly see adopted in this country. This Amendment does not go more than a very little way in the direction of preserving buildings of architectural value and historic interest.

I feel sure that the danger my hon. and learned Friend opposite anticipates is hardly likely to arise. There has not come about a general destruction in France of buildings which are not classified, while there is a careful preservation even of buildings of comparatively minor interest, and an obligation is put upon the local authority to do it. That may come in this country later, but I think we need at this particular stage provision made for a survey of those buildings, whether in the form of this Amendment or in some other way. In many cases quite a small building could be preserved which would otherwise go, the ancient cottage, for example, dating back perhaps to the 15th century or earlier. I can think of one such falling into decay with no one taking an interest in it, and actually disappearing little by little. If we had a classification of this kind, the attention of local antiquaries would in some cases be called to small buildings which have escaped their notice, and you would have the county architectural and archaeological societies interesting themselves in the preservation of such buildings. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see his way to meet the object which the Mover of this Amendment had in view in putting down these words on the Order Paper.

My hon. Friend, in moving this Amendment, has raised a very interesting and important point. It is unfortunately the fact that while permission is generally required to put up a building, no permission is required of anybody to pull down a building. Consequently, we have lost a considerable number of important buildings which have an architectural value or an historical interest, merely because the owner of such building thought it would suit him financially to pull it down. I think some action ought to be taken to deal with that possibility in the future. Under Section 17 of the principal Act the local authority may make an Order regarding any particular building. They are under no obligation to make an Order but may make an Order, and in that event the building may not be demolished without the consent of the local authority. I would like something of that sort extended in the present Bill. I am not sure that the words meet the case, because the mere making of a survey does not seem to me to be carrying the matter very much further. I think that local authorities should be required to make an Order in respect of any buildings they regard as being of architectural value or of historical interest, and those buildings, after consultation with the owner, should be properly safeguarded. I attach importance to consultation with the owner. At the present time in London surveys are being made on behalf of various Churches regarding the buildings which in their view should be preserved after the war. It happens that there are many churches of architectural value and of historical interest which are of no importance as churches, and the ecclesiastical authorities are anxious not to be burdened with the cost of maintaining them purely as museum pieces. That does give rise to a problem, and if the local authority made an Order that those buildings were not to be demolished, it would put upon the owner the burden of maintaining something which is of no importance or interest to him.

A very good thing too.

There are many churches which are very beautiful but have no congregations at all. It is therefore important that the owner should be consulted in those cases, and it should not be entirely for the local authority to order that the building should be preserved or maintained at the cost of the owner without any consultation with him. Subject to that, I think the present law needs to be strengthened. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurance that, perhaps in another place before this Bill is parted with, some Amendment will be introduced which will more effectively deal with the present situation.

It is a great pleasure to support my hon. Friend and neighbour in the representation of a Black Country constituency, who incidentally bears what is perhaps the most honoured of all names in English archaeology. It is rather more the spirit than the letter in this case which I should like to support. It is extremely important that such a list should be made. I am not perfectly certain that the local authority is always the best body to make it. I have lively recollections of the Royal Burgh of Edinburgh having torn down some of the most important archeological and historical buildings in that city for no good reason at all. I am still extremely sore about my defeat over Taylors' Hall.

I do not think there is so much difficulty about churches and castles—buildings of obvious importance that go back for centuries. About cottages there is far more difficulty. Some of the ancient cottages to which my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) referred to are damp and difficult to bring up to modern standards. I think it can generally be done if there is an honest desire. It must be done. Some of our by-laws about old cottages are obviously out of date and absurd. My attention was drawn in Cambridge a few years ago to the fact that one of the finest chambers in that University, the famous Long Gallery at St. John's College, which forms the Combination Room, could be destroyed under our ridiculous laws as not being sanitary because the distance between the oak floor and the moulded plaster ceiling is not sufficient! It is perfectly ridiculous to condemn old buildings simply because the height of their rooms is not according to modern ideas, but cottages to be lived in must be made sanitary. I want very strongly indeed to support the spirit of this Amendment. We do want a far better arrangement to preserve ancient buildings than we have.

I am not so awfully certain that the bouquets handed to France are entirely deserved. In the city of Caen they shaved off the chancel of a medieval church for a road improvement in a way that seemed to me to be extraordinarily unnecessary. We are not by any means good at preserving our own buildings. This war has, unfortunately, destroyed a great many, and that seems to me to make it more urgently necessary than it would be otherwise that every old building we have should be preserved.

Personally, I would rather these lists were made by His Majesty's Inspectors of Ancient Monuments, in whom I have the very utmost confidence, than by the local authorities. But the really important thing is that the lists should be made, and that we should not merely rely on the inventories of really important buildings, that county by county are now being compiled by the Office of Works. We desire lists of small buildings—it may be that they do not go further back than the Regency—which really have architectural interest of such a character that the country would be very definitely poorer by their destruction.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) that perhaps the local authorities are not the best persons to compile a list of this kind. The experience of a great many of us has shown that familiarity often breeds contempt, and that local councillors and others who walk by a building every day are quite incapable of appreciating its historical value and arc not much concerned if an attempt is made to pull it down. I think you want the intervention of people with a specialised, or wider, outlook, such as the Ancient Monuments Board or representatives of the Royal Fine Art Commission, who would be in a position to look at these buildings from the national point of view which they represent. I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say on this subject. It is one of great importance, which should be dealt with in whatever is the most suitable manner. I am inclined to think that my hon. Friend's suggestion is not perhaps the best that could be devised.

I want to associate myself with this Amendment. The old Office of Works had considerable experience in preserving historical monu ments, and from that experience the Ministry should be able to get a very good idea of the number of historical monuments that we have up and down the country. One of the most shocking experiences one can have when passing through some of our towns or villages is to see something which, when you know really what it is and how it came into being, you want to treat it with reverence, and then to see it suddenly flanked with a glaring red headline, "Woolworth's Stores," or something of that kind. It gives one hope of a future civilisation if one finds that there is a realisation of the need for the preservation of those links in our life which are concrete evidence of what our forefathers did for the love of God—because all great art is that, and nothing else.

I am not sure that we should follow the example of France. I remember being over there on two occasions and seeing those marvellous Gothic figures on the facade of Chartres Cathedral. When I touched them, I found, to my horror, that they were coming away as dust in my hands. I immediately reported this to the Ministry of Fine Arts in Paris, and had an interview there afterwards. They asked—would you believe it?—if I would make a report on the subject, and on what steps might be taken to preserve one of the greatest facades known to man. What did I find on making my inquiry? That such was their sense of proportion and reverence for this thing, which belongs not to France but to mankind, that they had put an aerodrome behind the Cathedral and an engineering shop nearby, thus inflicting the atmosphere which was destroying that delicate facade. It would be true to say that in certain ways the French are concerned about historical buildings, but there was a lapse in French minds when their reverence for things religious lapsed also. Anything which was regarded as religious tended to be disdained. I would suggest that the Minister himself, with that alertness which I know is innate in his character, and probably with some assistance from his Parliamentary Secretary, who is also alert in these matters, might compile a list of things which want preservation.

When I am asked whether local authorities should decide which historical monuments should be preserved, I think of Criccieth. Go down to Criccieth, and you will find a very ugly cottage, where some Member of this House lived. Both his memory and that house, I think, should be extinguished, but you will find the people there want them to be preserved. I also want to speak of a matter near to my own constituency. We have there Croxted Abbey. One of the greatest blasphemies in England is that we have allowed a main road to be constructed right through the nave and what used to be the chancel, right through the centre of this old structure. I want the Minister to put a stop to that in no uncertain fashion. Then we have another spot known as Abbey Hulton. The local authority, with that precise and almost uncanny tenderness for things artistic, stuck on it one of those marvellous creations called a corporation housing estate, and when they found the spot where the original altar stood they covered in the whole of it with asphalt, to make it a playground. I hope we shall not be too keen to give local authorities custodianship over local monuments or sites. I would rather plead that the Minister should have the courage to get on with the preservation of these structures through his Department and through the experience of the old Office of Works.

I sincerely hope that this proposed schedule will be prepared, but I doubt whether the local authorities are the best people to prepare it. They are only too prone to regard the exact width of a road as being far more important than the preservation of an ancient or beautiful building. That has been my experience in several unfortunate cases. I think that the weak spot in this Amendment is the word "deemed." Who is going to deem buildings to be worthy of preservation? Some authority has to do it, and I do not think that the local authorities are the best qualified. I hope that we shall have some higher authority to decide. However, I hope that in some appropriate form the idea behind this Amendment will be put into the Bill.

I rise to say, in general, that I desire to give my support to the Amendment; but there is one caveat that I should like to lodge, in regard to cottages. I was brought to my feet by something that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah). He said that he would like to see old cottages preserved, as well as historical buildings. Delight ful as it is, from the aesthetic point of view, to see the old cottages and villages we have in this country, it is hardly fair to the inhabitants of those cottages to expect them to live in them, unless they are repaired under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act.

I definitely said that some cottages were damp, and should be improved.

That may be done under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. But if you go into some of these old cottages, and see the condition in which the inhabitants and their forefathers for generations past have lived, you will agree that it is up to the Government to see that nobody continues to live in that sort of a house. Having made that protest, I give general support to the Amendment.

I think the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale) has initiated a most useful discussion, particularly as many of the things that have been said in the course of it are also germane to Amendments which will come later. Nearly every Member who has spoken has expressed the hope that the Government will accept the spirit behind this Amendment. That, I have no hesitation in saying, we are doing. Perhaps I may incur slightly less suspicion in making that statement than a Minister sometimes incurs, because I have served on the Executive Committee of the National Trust and of the Georgian Group for a very much longer period than I have been a Minister in this House. I hope my own sympathy with this cause will not be suspect. Many Members have indicated that the problem is not so simple as might at first sight appear. I am not suggesting for a moment that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment thought it was a simple problem.

Doubt has been expressed in certain quarters on the question whether the local authority itself is the most suitable body to prepare a list of this kind. There are, as the Committee will be aware, such organisations as the National Buildings Record, and other outside organisations that are concerning themselves very much with this question. However, I think there is more in the desire of the mover of the Amendment than that, and more that deserves our respect. I agree in part with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for 1lford (Mr. Hutchinson) that there is always the risk in compiling a list of things of merit that some people will assume that things not included in the list have no merit. Nevertheless, I think it is the duty of the planning authority to concern itself with ascertaining what are the buildings of architectural and historical merit in its area. I do not think it right that we should put this Amendment—or another to the same effect, because this has certain technical defects—into the Statute, because there are many things which it is the duty of the local authority to do in making a survey. We shall certainly impress upon them the importance of this subject—and, indeed, on that subject the opinion of this Committee has been unanimous—but if we selected one particular duty of an authority in making a survey, and put that into the Statute, that might cast doubt on the question whether certain other things which we say are their duty are really so important as we say they are. I would much rather leave it to be a matter for administrative action than put it into the Statute in this form. Indeed, if we found it necessary to make a regulation making the preparation of a schedule obligatory, we have sufficient power under the principal Act to make such a regulation.

One hon. Member mentioned the Ancient Monuments Acts, and in dealing with this whole problem—and I agree that further control to achieve the object which we all have at heart will be necessary-careful collaboration with those responsible for the administration of the Ancient Monuments Acts will be necessary. The Ancient Monuments Acts do not completely cover the field. That was one of the reasons for the enactment of Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act; 1932, to secure the preservation of these buildings. I think further action is necessary, but I do not believe that the Amendment is the way to achieve our purpose.

The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) drew attention very rightly to what is the essence of the problem, that a person can pull down a fine building without any permission, and he went on to say that owners frequently did this on financial grounds. That may be true. I am afraid it is also true that local autho rities sometimes do these demolitions because they wrongly think them to be improvements, and when we are mentioning the one case we should not be blind to the other. I think that that covers the points raised by various Members in the Debate. I would suggest to my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment—and I should have to criticise it on technical grounds—that he has achieved his object by moving it and obtaining the unanimous opinion of this Committee in favour of 'the idea that lies behind it, a unanimous opinion which my right hon. Friend and I very much welcome. I would ask him whether in these circumstances he now sees fit to withdraw the Amendment.