May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make about Business this week?

As the House is aware, we meet specially to-day to conclude the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill. In view of the understanding reached last Friday for dealing with Part II of the Bill, we shall not now take the Report and Third Reading of the Bill on Thursday and Friday of this week. The altered Business will, therefore, be as follows:

Thursday, 12th October—Committee and, if possible, the remaining stages of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill.

Friday, 13th October—Resumed Debate on Second Reading of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill [Lords]; further progress with the Unemployment Insurance (Increase of Benefit) Bill, if not previously disposed of; and the Committee and remaining stages of the Liabilities (War-Time Adjustment) Bill [Lords].

May I take it from what was said on Friday and from the change of Business this week, that it is the intention of the Government to proceed with and complete all the stages of the Town and Country Planning Bill this Session?

Yes, Sir, we want to get on with that next week.

Are we to understand from the reply, that the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) will be carried out, and that discussions will be organised for dealing with Part II, so that we shall have a complete Bill and not a truncated Bill, and avoid the necessity for a separate Bill dealing with finance being introduced next Session?

That is the intention.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to elucidate the point he has just made in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)? He said that all stages of the Bill will be completed this Session and he added something about next week. Does that mean that the Government are coming forward with their compensation proposals next week? If so, does that mean that agreement has now been reached in the War Cabinet?

If agreement can be reached, as I hope it will be in the course of this week, we shall try to get through this Bill next week.

Have the Government considered the advisability of fixing up a time table for the Town and Country Planning Bill?

That is a rather different matter. We are getting on very well. May I take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member on his birthday?

Why should the Government limit themselves in this way? Is it not possible to extend the life of the Session, so as to give the Government more time?

We have not limited ourselves at all. We must consider that the Bill will have to go to another place.

Last Friday the Prime Minister said that he could not agree to, the postponement of the Clauses but that they would have to be dropped, because it might not be possible to end the negotiations for the revised Clauses before the end of the Session. Is not that putting the Government, unnecessarily, in a strait waistcoat?

No, I do not think so.

Am I correct in understanding my right hon. Friend that the financial provisions for compensation will be part of the Bill, and not a separate Bill as was at one time thought?

That is so, if we can get agreement.

With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's announcement that the discussion on the Second Reading of the Diplomatic Privileges Bill will be resumed on Friday, can the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the circumstances under which the discussion was broken off, give the House some indication of what course the Government intend to take when the discussion is resumed?

The House will be informed when we come to discuss that Bill, whether any discussions have taken place and what has been the result.

That really appears to me to be a most unsatisfactory reply to give to the House of Commons. It is quite exceptional for a Second Reading of a Bill to be taken in the House and for the Government to adjourn the discussion on it and then for a Minister to come down to the House merely to announce that the discussion will be resumed without giving any indication of what steps have been taken. That seems to be lacking in ordinary Parliamentary courtesy.

The answer is that I can give no information at the present moment.

My right hon. Friend has intimated that there was disagreement in the War Cabinet on this matter. Has it occurred to him that it might be desirable, in order to fortify the War Cabinet, to put the matter simply before the House and let it decide the issue, so that the War Cabinet might be duly informed of the opinion of the House itself?

That is a very good suggestion if it were a simple matter, but it is by no means a simple matter.

With regard to the Diplomatic Privileges Bill, are we to understand that a new Bill is to be introduced on Friday, or will it be the old Bill? There was a certain amount of noise at the time, and I found it difficult to hear what was going on, but I was under the impression that the Bill was to be withdrawn and that it was to be re-drafted and re-presented to the House. Can we have some information on that point?

I understand that discussions are going on to see whether it is possible to put Amendments on the Paper to make the Bill generally acceptable to the House.

Are we to take it from what the Deputy Prime Minister has said that we are dropping the compensation Clauses from the Town and Country Planning Bill absolutely, without any guarantee of their being restored before the Report stage?

I am afraid that the hon. Member has not recollected what was said. It was exactly the contrary.

It is very desirable that we should not part with this Clause even for the time being—I suppose that later on someone will come along with another Clause 46—without discussion but that we should discuss the Clause, in order to make up our minds about it. Clause 45 has gone overboard; Clause 46 is, of course, related to Clause 45, and whatever form Clause 45 may take presumably there will be something in the nature of another Clause 46. We ought to consider very seriously the nature of what is in Clause 46. It is probably the most extraordinary provision ever introduced into any Bill. It says that compensation is not to be related to the person, to his circumstances and to the amount of loss incurred, but to something quite different. It is like rewriting the Ten Commandments. I remember an interesting speech made by one of the hon. Members for Sheffield when we were discussing the Betting and Lotteries Bill, in which he used the analogy of the Ten Commandments. Hon. Members who were in that Committee will remember it. In this case, Subsection (1, a) roughly boils down to this: "Thou shalt not steal, except from a man who happens to own a hereditament of a rateable value of more than £100 in the Metropolitan Police District, or the City of London, or, in the case of a property elsewhere, £75; Thou shalt not murder anybody, whose hereditament is less than £100 in rateable value in the City of London or, in the case of a property elsewhere, £75." I miss out the Seventh Commandment because I do not quite see its adaptability but I could go on in each case showing that the Ten Commandments did not apply to offences committed against men who happen to be worth more than £100 in the Metropolitan Police District or the City of London, or more than £75 elsewhere. That is the most extraordinary proposal that has ever been put before what is supposed to be an intelligent assembly.

If I had a property anywhere that was worth 100 carrots or loaves of bread, or any other form of currency except that which is recognised by His Majesty's Government, and if it were taken from me, I should get 100 carrots or 100 loaves of bread for it, but under Clause 46 I should get 100 pieces of paper which were less in value than 100 pieces of similar paper were when I bought the property and would buy fewer carrots. I say carrots, because the Bill is intended for donkeys.

On a point of Order. I understood that Clause 45 had been withdrawn and was no longer open to discussion. Is the hon. Member justified in referring to Clause 45? If so, will that not re-open the whole discussion and put us back where we were at the end of our Debate last week?

The right hon. Gentleman was not quite right in saying that Clause 45 has been withdrawn. It was negatived. Clause 46 may be discussed on its merits, but that discussion should certainly have regard to the fact that Clause 45 has disappeared from the Bill. It is true, as he has reminded me, that Clause 46 still refers to Clause 45 but the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the Committee ought to have in mind the fact that Clause 45 is not now in the Bill.

In view of the very first words in Clause 46 is it not impossible to ask the Committee to pass Clause 46 as it stands? Would it not be better for the Government to withdraw the Clause?

Having regard to the fact that Clause 45 is no longer in the Bill, I was hoping that the Committee might think it right to disagree formally with the Motion when put from the Chair that Clause 46 should stand part of the Bill, but I am entirely in the hands of the Committee.

In pursuance of that point of Order, I should like to ask your guidance, Major Milner, on this point. It seems to be clear that, on the discussion of this Clause, reference to the provisions of the previous Clause is not in Order; yet reference to the relationship of this Clause to the previous Clause, or to its absence, must be in Order. Consequently, I think it is in Order, on this point of Order, to raise a question about Amendments to a Clause with which the Government do not intend to proceed. I should like to ask for your guidance, in order to avoid anything like a false precedent being created, and it is on the point whether or not all Amendments pat down to a Clause become out of Order as soon as it is clear that the Government do not intend to ask the House to pass that Clause. If not, we are in some danger that it may appear to follow, from our procedure to-day and last Friday, that when it suits the Government's convenience the Chair naturally omits to call any Amendments to the whole Clause.

On the same point of Order—

It might be better if I gave an answer to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). It would not be in Order to discuss now our proceedings on Friday. I understand that the hon. Gentleman addressed himself to the question that no Amendment had been called on Clause 46. Selection of Amendments is in the hands of the Chair, and those Amendments have been considered. Having regard to the fact that Clause 45 has been deleted, it would not have been proper to have submitted those Amendments which deal with the Bill when it included Clause 45 to the Committee, and for that reason I have not called any of them.

May I ask the guidance of the Chair on another and cognate matter? Suppose these three Clauses are all negatived—45, 46 and 47—and that at a subsequent stage new Clauses are sought to be inserted in the Bill and the Bill is recommitted: will the fact that we are now discussing these matters prejudice our right to discuss them when the Bill is recommitted?

The hon. Member is putting a rather hypothetical question. Clearly, the House of Commons has full control over the proceedings of the Committee, and no discussion can take place here which can prejudice any future discussion at other stages of the Bill.

You said a moment ago, Major Milner, that you were in the hands of the Committee with regard to Clause 46 standing part of the Bill. I should like to submit to you, as a point of Order, that you are not in the hands of the Committee on that matter and that, in view of the fact that Clause 45 has been negatived, and that Clause 46 as it stands now does not make sense, it should be—I respectfully submit to the Chair—the duty of the Chair to prevent a discussion taking place—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—upon a Bill which, in view of the omission of the previous Clause, does not make sense.

I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member, but I must point out that it is not within my power to do what he suggests. I can select Amendments but I cannot prevent the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," coming before the Committee, and it is a matter for the Committee now to take note of the hon. Member's views and if they think fit to act accordingly.

Is it not about time that I was permitted to resume my entirely orderly speech?

On a point of Order. Further to the points which have already been made, and to your own expressed hope, Major Milner, that the Committee might have thought fit to deal with these Clauses as a formal matter, I would point out that the country knows very well that these Clauses are going to be withdrawn, and that it does no good to the House of Commons that it should seem to the people outside to be engaged in wasting its time.

Hear, hear. It is a waste of time.

The Committee is as well able to express an opinion on that matter as I am.

Will you accept a Motion, Major Milner, "That the Question be now put"?

I do not think I should be able to accept such a Motion at this moment.

Perhaps the Committee will now allow me to resume my perfectly orderly speech. The points of Order are rather interesting. I was amazed at the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) that the Government should withdraw the Clause. The Government have no power to Withdraw the Clause.

On a point of Order. I agree, but if it and the Clause that follows are to be negatived, it is quite senseless to go on discussing them.

That is not a point of Order.

On that point of Order. I want to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) has said. The marginal note to Clause 45 states:

"Assessment of compensation in connection with acquisition of land,"

and so on. Clause 46 has a marginal note which says:

"Additional sum to be paid to occupiers of certain land whose compensation is assessed in accordance with preceding Section."

How can the Committee be asked to discuss and decide upon what compensation shall ultimately be paid, when that compensation is based upon a Clause already deleted from the Bill?

I would like to remind the Committee that the Bill which we are now discussing is for the acquisition of land for town planning purposes. That necessarily means that there must be some basis upon which the land will be acquired; that is inherent in the Bill. Clause 46, which we are now considering, deals with variations from that basis in particular circumstances, and whether Clause 45 has gone or not, Clause 46 is bound to make sense, as it deals with variations on a basis which must be in the Bill.

On the point of Order I would reiterate that the question of what is to be done with Clause 46 is not for the Chair, but for the Committee.

Take a vote.

The hon. and learned Member who raised the last point put his finger on the essential point, which is that Clause 46 has its merits or demerits, irrespective of what later may replace Clause 45. To say that this matter is in the hands of the Committee is not true. It is only in the hands of the Committee if somebody moves the Closure, and so long as my remarks are in Order I am entitled to speak. The suggestion that you, Major Milner, should suppress the discussion and take a vote is, of course, an indication of the Fascist mentality.

On a point of Order. Surely the hon. Member must be aware that Clause 45 has been negatived and that the other compensation Clauses hung upon it. Is not prolonged discussion of Clause 46 likely to cause a most unfortunate impression outside?

I am not interested in that. Hon. Members appear to be afraid of what may be said about them outside, but that is the lowest form of attitude to take in this House of Commons. I always say what I think to be right, irrespective of what is said outside.

I wonder.

Hon. Members are anxious that we should get on with the discussion, but they have already wasted a quarter of an hour on points of Order, most of which were invalid. They ought to read Erskine-May before they raise points of Order. Let us look as this matter again. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Hughes) has pointed out that Clause 46 deals with additions which are to be made to compensation, whatever they may be. Clause 45 having gone overboard, we do not know what the basis of compensation is to be, but Clause 46 deals with additions, and certain principles under which those additions are to be made, and it is important that we should discuss them in order that when the War Cabinet have settled their row inside, and come to some conclusion, they may know precisely what our view is with regard to these additional matters. If hon. Members will take the trouble to look at Sub-section (2) they will see the words:

"Where the interest is an interest in such land as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of the preceding Sub-section"—

that, is the preceding Sub-section of Clause 46—

"the additional sum recoverable as aforesaid shall be a sum equal to the prescribed percentage of so much of the compensation as is ascertained by reference to the value of the interest."

May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? When he has the good intention of raising the salary of somebody employed in some business with which he is connected, does he inquire what the salary is?

I do not see what that has to do with the point, and I do not understand why hon. Members should want to cease to be Parliamentarians and think that they have to bow the knee to the Government Front Bench. Hon. Members will see that the rate of interest is something that is to be prescribed, and not as laid down by the Lands Clauses Act, as the Attorney-General has said. We have in relation to Clause 46 to consider Clause 47 where it states that the rate of interest shall, in lieu of being five per cent., be prescribed by the Treasury. Then we come back to Sub-section (2). These matters are worth considering and this impatience of hon. Members is not conducive to good legislation.

2.30 p.m.

We are going to have a rate of interest prescribed by the Treasury. We have only one example of a rate of interest being prescribed by the Treasury. True, it is prescribed by Act of Parliament, but in the War Damage Act, where you cannot get cash at once, the sum to which you are entitled has interest added to it, at the rate of 2½ per cent, per annum, though we know that in mortgage payments the interest is 4½ or 5½ per cent. There are people to-day who are building up claims for interest which are considerably larger than the interest which is being added to their value payments. We come back to exactly the same thing in this Bill, where people are not going to have a rate of interest equal to what they are paying either to insurance companies, building societies or to holders of mortgages, and which is less than the rate of interest represented in many cases where they own the building and somebody else owns the land underneath, and people are building up a vast debt under the War Damage Act.

The hon. Member is going into great detail now on Clause 47 which deals with the rate of interest. May I suggest, Major Milner, that this is the first real obstructionist speech in this Debate?

It is not in Order for hon. Members to make suggestions of obstruction. I was listening to the hon. Member, and I gathered he was merely referring to this Clause having some relation to Clause 46. He is quite entitled to do that.

Do let me develop the subject. I know hon. Members opposite are angry because they do not like to listen to what I am saying, but that is no reason for objecting. When you get questions such as the amount of cornpensation—and that comes into the question of the percentage of interest with regard to compensation—it is surely obviously right that we should draw attention to them, because, whatever happens inside the Cabinet with regard to these matters, we have still to make the final decision. We are not a subordinate body. We are a sovereign power. It is true that the Cabinet is a part of us, but it is not all of us; and it is not our master. Going on to examine Sub-section (4) of Clause 46, in which there is, again, a reference to the prescribed percentage, I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford (Major Thorneycroft) that it says:

"such percentage as may be determined by the Treasury and prescribed by order made by them as appropiate for the purposes of the operation of this Section. …"

Here you have a body of people, not Parliament, saying what people are to get—not us, the elected representatives of the people, but a body of people in Whitehall writing out orders prescribing what compensation people are to get. Yet hon. and right hon. Members object to the discussion of this vitally important thing which is going to give effect, not by Act of Parliament, but by delegated legislation, to compensation affecting scores of people. I think a great deal of time could have been saved if hon. Members had read Clause 46 before they came here. Then we get Sub-section (5). Again:

"The Treasury may make an order for the purposes of the last preceding Sub-section as respects such periods falling within the five years beginning with the commencement of this Act (whether before or after the making of the order) as appear to them to be appropriate. …"

It is bound to be the case that when the Government come back with their new compensation Clause, there will still be something in the nature of Clause 46. Surely, it is important that we should incorporate in Clause 46 sensible provisions, and not leave them all to be made into law by officials sitting in Whitehall. It it perfectly true that these orders will, no doubt, come before Parliament later on, but where orders do not come before Parliament they cannot be amended. We can only say "Yes" or "No" to them. With positive orders the Government have to move affirmative resolutions and, alternatively, if orders are laid on the Table it still remains the fact that we can only say "We do not like the order." We cannot amend it.

It is of the utmost importance that these things should be dealt with in the Act far more precisely than is at present intended, and I hope hon. Members—who I now observe are listening because they realise this is not an obstructive speech, but one dealing with matters of substance—will devote some thought to this, and indicate to the Government how these matters ought to be dealt with. Then, a little later in the definitions in Sub-section (8), we find the words:

"rateable value on the appropriate day'"—

A nice phrase. I am not surprised the Government are proposing to negative this Clause. It goes on:

"shall be construed in accordance with the provisions in that behalf of Section seven of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1939, with the substitution for the reference in Sub-section (2) thereof to the county court of a reference to the court in which the sum in question is sought to be recovered under Subsection (1) of this Section."

I hope the Noble Lady opposite, who is so anxious to get on with it, really understands what all that means.

The hon. Member is a hypocrite.

May I ask, Major Milner, whether it is in Order for the Noble Lady to describe an hon. Member as a hypocrite?

If that statement was made, it must be withdrawn.

I am perfectly willing to withdraw it, if the hon. Member, who intimated that I was an idiot, will withdraw his remark also.

No, Major Milner, that was not what I intimated. The Noble Lady is too fond of implying improper motives.

I gathered that the Noble Lady had withdrawn her remark.

Yes, Major Milner, I agreed to withdraw my remark if the hon. Member withdrew his, but as I do not want to waste the time of the Committee any further, I withdraw what I said, gallantly and reverently.

Well, of course, we all have our own interpretation of good manners and I will leave it at that.

These words about the "rateable value on the appropriate day," which I have read out, I, frankly, do not understand. It is obvious that whatever settlement is arrived at with regard to what I will call the fundamental basis of compensation, there will be a number of exceptional cases outside that fundamental basis. For that reason, it is of the utmost importance that the Committee should indicate to the Government the nature of that exceptional compensation. Naturally, the precise details will vary according to the terms of the new Clause 45, but there are features of this Clause which call for careful consideration. There is the reference to Clause 47—I must not go beyond the reference—which has a very important bearing. There is the question of the extent to which the compensation is not to be decided by the Statute Book directly, but indirectly through the authority conferred upon the Treasury, and I hope that when this Clause has been negatived, and when it is re-presented in some different form, it will be more precise and will contain a rate of interest which is more appropriate to the circumstances of those who have interest in land, whether as owners, payers of ground rent or as lessees. The normal rate of interest in these matters is not 2½ per cent., but 4½ or 5 per cent. as everyone knows, and unless that is taken into account great injustice is going to be inflicted, and not only on a few rich people.

They are not the people concerned. There is a poor old lady in my constituency—[Interruption]—Yes, I know there are no feelings of compassion about other people's constituents—who owned eight houses. She lived in one of them. Flying bombs demolished the lot. She has lost her home, and her income, and is now dependent on the Assistance Board, because no payment is to be made at once in respect of the complete wiping out of her income. These are the people I am concerned about and in my constituency —the most bombed constituency in Britain —I have hundreds of people in this position. I am entitled to fight for them, and I am going to fight for them.

I hope the Committee will not think I am trying to truncate a useful discussion or to interfere with the rights and privileges of hon. Members, but I do make an appeal to them to get on with the Committee stage of this Bill. I am very anxious, if I can, to take advantage of the two suggestions which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) made, in our preceedings on Friday. Therefore, at this stage, I do not want to say anything at all about merits, but I hope the Committee will decide to go on, and enable us to finish this Committee stage.

I am as anxious as anyone that progress should be made with this Bill and to respond to the Minister's appeal, but I wish, when he was at the Box just now, he had said that he would pay some attention to the case of injustice cited by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). There cases will remain unless the Government undertake to reconsider Clause 46 as well as Clause 45. I particularly ask for an undertaking that my right hon. Friend will pay attention to the fact that the power of regulation given to the Treasury in this case is a very unusual power, a kind of power about which the House of Commons has been anxious. To meet the case where an individual has been unfairly treated, there should be included in the new Clause 46, the right of appeal.

I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the terms of the Clause itself which, apparently, the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has not read. He talks glibly enough about people not having read different Clauses, and he addressed the Committee on this Clause, as to the setting out of a rate of interest by the Treasury.

No, I did not.

The hon. Member talked about Clause 46 giving the Treasury power to appoint a rate of interest, but in reference thereto, he, in fact, read Sub-section (2) and blamed an hon. Member opposite for not having read it. What does Clause 46, in fact, do? It establishes a right for a person in occupation of a house or agricultural land to get a higher price than the 1939 level. I cannot refer to discussions on previous Clauses of the Bill, but I would remind the Committee that instances of this have been quoted in reference to previous Clauses when they should, in fact, have been referred to under Clause 46. There is no one more anxious than hon. Members on these Benches to see that those who have been deprived of homes should get homes, but arguments which have been produced in relation to the 1939 standard are, I suggest, completely irrelevant. Clause 46 makes a proper distinction between the persons who have lost their homes and require to get other homes, and those who have been deprived of an investment.

As far as those who invested money are concerned, they have been amply and sufficiently warned from the first days of the interim Report of the Uthwatt Committee that the purchase of property is attended with the risk that it may be acquired, at any time thereafter, at the 1939 price. [An HON. MEMBER: "Value."]I accept the word "value." I am not arguing now whether it was a ceiling or a basis. All those who have property as an investment have been told. That, I submit to the Committee, should remain, and there should be put upon it, as Clause 46 suggests, and as we on these Benches approve, a provision to enable those who have lost their homes to get proper compensation that will enable them to get other homes. What Clause 46 does, in short, is to say that, above the 1939 figure, there shall be assessed an additional percentage, that additional percentage to be worked out in relation to the economic conditions of the moment when it is paid.

I cannot understand the scorn poured by the hon. Member for South Croydon upon the fact that we establish two first-class checks in relation to the kind of percentage that is to be put on. First we get the Treasury to work out exactly how much more, in point of cash, above the 1939 price we should give to somebody who has been deprived of a home and who wants a home. I can imagine no Government Department more competent to work it out than the Treasury. That is not the only check. That additional percentage does not become effective until a resolution has been affirmatively passed by this House. There is a proper way of assessing proper compensation for those who want homes. The compensation is properly checked and arrived at. In my submission to the Committee, the principles of Clause 46, without arguing all its exact terms or methods, ought to be retained in any method of compensation in regard to the acquisition of land.

I have been very impressed by the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes), because he has made no distinction between the various types of property which may be dealt with under this Clause. Clause 45 has gone, and rightly so, because it depended upon a dishonest principle. I am speaking at the moment on behalf of many of my constituents who have had their homes, which have a greater assessment value than £75, destroyed. If it is right to give special consideration to a man who has had his house, assessed at £75, destroyed, surely it must be right that a man who has had his house, assessed at £750, destroyed is just as much entitled to this kind of consideration with which Clause 46 deals. Therefore I hope the Committee, in fairness to the Government, will decide that Clauses 46 and 47, as well as Clause 45, should be taken back for reconsideration, so that we can, at least, give justice to everybody, and not merely justice to one particular class.

I was particularly interested in your statement, Major Milner, at the opening of the proceedings of the Committee, that on Friday we had actually negatived Clause 45, because I was under the impression, probably quite wrongly, that the Government had withdrawn Clause 45. I understood from the speech of the Prime Minister that what was happening on Friday was that Clause 45 was being withdrawn, and that that would apply to Clauses 46 and 47, in order to give the Government an opportunity of readjusting their differences.

In reply to the hon. Member it is not, of course, possible to withdraw a Clause which has once been brought before the Committee. It has to be accepted or negatived.

Thank you, Major Milner. That is precisely the point to which I shall address my remarks, because some very interesting conclusions follow from a technical difference between the withdrawal and the negativing of a Clause. We have now, I understand, negatived Clause 45, and for reasons which we all understand, hon. Members opposite are not anxious to re-discuss it to-day. All the general arguments advanced by the Prime Minister are equally appropriate to Clauses 46 and 47. If I may say so, they would be as much out of Order to-day, as they were on Friday, and as much in Order to-day as they were on Friday. We are now asked by the Government to negative Clause 46. We shall be asked to negative Clause 47. If these three Clauses are taken out of the Bill, we want to understand what is to follow. The Committee is not clear about what is to follow. We heard from the Deputy Prime Minister before the resumption of the Committee stage to-day a few ambiguous phrases about what was going to happen. What is the intention of the Government? Is it a firm intention that before the end of the Session these compensation Clauses of the Bill shall be re-inserted, and the Committee given another opportunity of considering them, as indeed they must; or is it intended that after the Clauses have been dropped, we shall proceed with the other stages and other parts of the Bill, and leave it to another Bill to deal with compensation.

Let us be clear which of these two procedures we are to follow? I understand, that is conditional upon agreement within the Cabinet—agreement between whom? Obviously, not between the two sides of the Government because the Labour side has unfortunately already surrendered the main position. I will try to show, if I may, how they have done so. If these three Clauses are negatived and the Bill is recommitted, as indeed it must be, I understand that in such Circumstances the same Clauses cannot be put back in the Bill. They will have to be different Clauses. The Chairman shakes his head. I may be wrong, but we should have guidance on this matter, because I understand that if a Bill is recommitted, the House is then allowed to discuss, not all the Bill over again, but only those parts of the Bill concerning which recommittal has in fact taken place.

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but it would be quite possible for the House, if it so wished, to put back the same Clauses.

Can we in fact have a second discussion on these matters? Can we have a second discussion on the same matter in the same Bill, in the same Committee in the same Session?

That would be so, on recommittal.

I am sorry to persist, but with all due respect I think you will find, Major Milner, there is some difficulty on this matter. I think we should be quite clear what we are doing. It will be very nice if the leaders of the Government come here later and say, "We cannot do this in the course of the same Bill—there are technical difficulties. Although we intended to do it, unfortunately we cannot do it. We shall have to bring in a new Bill, and compensation will have to be discussed separately from town planning and redevelopment." That is exactly what certain sinister interests on the other side of the Committee want. What happened last Friday was that the Prime Minister—not, I understand, under pressure—came out as an enthusiastic volunteer in defence of land racketeering. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."]It is no use saying "Nonsense." He made a lie of his broadcast of last March.

Are we entitled to discuss on this Clause the proceedings in the Committee last Friday?

I did not understand the hon. Member to be discussing last Friday's proceedings directly. He referred to them in his argument.

The only reason we are being asked to negative Clause 46 now, is not because of the contents of Clause 46, but because we negatived Clause 45. That is why the Government are making no defence. The reason why we negatived Clause 45, was because there was a quarrel inside the Conservative Party—

Because the Clause was dishonest.

—now bringing pressure to bear on the Prime Minister to rat on his broadcast of last March. Last March the Prime Minister made a pledge over the radio. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) has pointed out, it was only one of a series of pledges made since 1939. What were these pledges? They were that improvements in value, that additions to land values and property values during the war, should not be exploited by speculators in order to get larger sums of compensation from the State. Was not that so?

rose—

I will not give way. I wish to finish my argument. Those of us who have been reading the history of this matter—

No one interrupts other people so much as the hon. Member.

No one gives way so much.

No one talks so much either.

The mantle of private secretary lies very heavily on the shoulders of the hon. Member.

I would do my best to give the hon. Member a job if I could.

Since 1941, when the Uthwatt Committee presented its interim Report, as they were asked to do by the Government, in those days when the nation was having to put up with the blitz, and it was therefore necessary to sustain morale by telling Tory lies—in those days the Government said to the Uthwatt Committee, "So urgent is this matter of the appreciation of land values that we ask you to give us your guidance by way of an interim Report." We had that Report, and that advice was to proceed at not higher than 1939 values.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Uthwatt Committee said that there should be an adjustment in case of a fall in the appreciation of money?

There were several conditions in the Uthwatt Report, but the main principle was accepted on behalf of the Government by the Lord Privy Seal in another place, and was continually repeated. But there was on this side of the House grave suspicion of the intentions of the Tory Party; so suspicious had we become, that last March the Prime Minister made a broadcast on behalf of the Government—

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer collects Death Duties, not on the basis of 1939 values, but on the value at the time of death?

That has nothing to do with the stand taken by the Government. Unfortunately, I cannot argue the merits of this matter. All I can do is to argue the reasons why we should or should not negative Clause 46. Last March, as I was saying, the Prime Minister took it upon himself to make a broadcast. I was looking at the terms of that broadcast last night. What did he say? He said that land was to be treated as special property, that it was to be treated differently from other forms of property and that compensation for land needed for town planning would be paid on 1939 values.

That is what everybody understood, and the Prime Minister would not have made his broadcast had it not been for that purpose. Now we are considering a Bill for town planning, and the same Prime Minister said on Friday that national unity was being impaired. By what? Anything from this side? All we were doing was insisting that the Government should honour the promise which had been made. There was no disturbance of national unity from this side — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—although the Prime Minister did his best, like the good, national leader he is, to create as much mischief as he could by references to members of the Cabinet. That was the contribution made by the Prime Minister to national unity—to violate the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility by awarding prizes within the Cabinet, in public. But there was no disunity on this side, or any danger of the Government being broken up by any difference. We were standing for what we had been standing for all the time, and for what the Government, and the Tory Party in particular, had been standing for up to now. Now we are asked to withdraw these Clauses, in order that the Conservative Party may separate the compensation Clauses from this Bill. Once a Bill dealing with the rebuilding of our blitzed cities has gone through the House of Commons, the impression can be given that immediate attention can be given to their claims—

I would ask the hon. Member to be careful. I am concerned for the safety of the head of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha).

Hon. Members on this side have had experience of what hon. Members on the other side are capable of doing, when they are defending their bank balances. They reduce Parliament to a farce, and do everything they possibly can to save their swag and their friends' swag. They are asking the Committee to postpone the compensation Clauses now in order to give leisure and opportunity to the land racketeers to get their hands into the public purse—

May I ask the hon. Gentleman—

No.

On a point of Order. Is it correct, Major Milner, for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) to impute motives to every hon. Member on this side?

The hon. Member is not entitled to impute motives to an individual Member.

I am not exempting any individual Member from the charge. The position ought to be made clear to the country, and it is not being made clear now. The Prime Minister enjoys, and in some respects deservedly enjoys, high prestige in the country as a whole, and it is, therefore, singularly unfortunate that that reputation should have been tarnished for such squalid ends, as was done last Friday. It is indeed the harbinger of what we may expect. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that that reputation, built up in most difficult years and sanctified to a large extent by sufferers among our population, should be capitalised and exploited on behalf of the most selfish interests in Great Britain.

It would be interesting to follow the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in the first of his new series of election speeches, but I ask the Committee seriously to consider what we are doing. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) that he made two mistakes. The first was when he said that we did not like hearing him. That is wrong. The Committee always looks forward to hearing him. My hon. Friend's second mistake was in thinking Members rose to points of Order merely because they had not read the Bill. I want to say that all the arguments we have heard to-day, apart from some of those just uttered, are bound to come up again when the new compensation Clauses come forward. I suggest, therefore, that we are wasting time in view of the fact that we shall have to have the discussion all over again.

But we have a new procedure now. Before we have any legislation we have a White Paper stage. Surely this is a White Paper stage.

With a good deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Warlaw-Milne) has said I agree—

On a point of Order. Would it not be as well if Members who hate other Members like poison, simply referred to them as the "hon. Gentleman" or the "right hon. Gentleman"?

I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, and whether I am to call him my Friend or refer to him only as "the hon. Gentleman," it is quite clear that last Friday we rejected Clause 45. We did it on the definite understanding that we were to have substitute Clauses, differently framed and worded. I am prepared to negative Clause 46, which I think is unfortunate and cumbersome, in the hope of getting a better one, but I do so on the definite understanding that before the end of the Session the new Clauses will be introduced. I agree with much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) about the principle of the values. I think it would be a pity to depart from them. I think we ought to give the Government another chance of showing that they can do better.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

On a point of Order. Why are we not proceeding with the Division, Major Milner?

The Chairman: Because the Tellers for the "Noes" were not put in within the two minutes allowed by the Standing Rules.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," accordingly put, and negatived.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

It gives power to authorise purchase by a local planning authority in an area where land is held by another authority. The short point here is that, while the Bill gives wide powers to local authorities to purchase land outside their own area, often the case may arise where it is more convenient for the authority of the area to which the people are going, to be the local authority holding the land, and this gives them that power.

I want to put a point to my right hon. Friend. I suppose this is not in conflict with, and in no way makes an inroad into, Private Bill legislation? Could the Minister given an assurance?

I can give my Noble Friend that assurance.

I should be very much obliged if the Minister will explain a little more clearly what the purpose of this Clause is. On the face of it, it seems to mean this. Local Authority A wants to purchase a piece of land and the Minister says "No, you cannot purchase it, but Local Authority B shall purchase it." That does not seem to provide for the needs of local authorities, but to put a fifth wheel upon the coach. Here is a local authority dealing with the replanning of its area, and it is given power to purchase land outside that area. Then, the Minister is proposing to take powers himself to prevent the local authority from exercising the power he has already given to it, and transferring that power to some other local authority, which has nothing to do with the planning scheme. Surely, the Minister can make the purpose of this Clause clear, if it has a good purpose?

There is no sinister intention behind this proposal. As power is given to planning authorities to purchase land, without reference to whether it is inside their area or not, it may often be convenient that the authority holding the land in the overspill area, should not always be the authority exporting the population, but the authority in whose area the land is situated. That is the sole purpose of this Clause, and I think it will be a good and useful thing in many cases.

Would the Minister explain this further point? My right hon. Friend says it may be desirable for the authority in the external area to hold the land. Does that mean that that authority is going to build the necessary houses and that the planning authority will be relieved of that obligation? If so, how is that result to be brought about? Or does it mean that the one authority is going to own the land, and the other authority is going to build the houses upon the land, in the area of a different authority? If so, it is a very curious position, and, so far as I know, not in line with any legislation we have ever had.

The intention is, that in the case of two authorities applying for land, the circumstances of each case would be taken into account, and, if they agreed that the course provided in this Bill should be followed, the order would then make that possible.

There may be a number of areas where this Clause will be applicable. Let us assume that Authority A desires to acquire land in the area of Authority B. Both Authority A and Authority B have development schemes. What we want to be quite clear about is that, where Authority A is empowered in this Clause to develop an area of land in the region of Authority B, it will be ensured that the development will be in accordance with the rest of the development in the area of Authority B. We do not want an enclave of disharmonious development inside the area of a planning authority.

The desirable result which my hon. Friend asks about would be achieved by the giving consent in the appropriate case. Far from creating disharmony, this may be a very potent means for creating harmony, resolving suspicion and avoiding dividing and overlapping authority.

I take it that my right hon. Friend's answer really is that the Minister would take these considerations into account before exercising the powers in this Clause?

Exactly, and I anticipate that there will be very few cases where this power shall not be exercised by the Minister, at the request of both authorities concerned.

Reference has been made to Authority A buying land in an area adjacent to its borough. Personally, I do not like the Clause. I can see the possibility of a great deal of friction. There are certain boroughs which are fully developed. Does the Clause admit of any borough in London acquiring land, say 20, 30 or 40 miles away, and, if that is so, what is the inducement for a London borough to buy land in such a position that they would be erecting property for the benefit of another area? I feel that this Clause needs to be more clearly defined on the point of exactly how far local authorities may go, because it does not say that the land shall be acquired by agreement. It might be that a local authority was buying land in an adjacent area, and meant it for the purposes of ultimately extending its area. What is the safeguard against that possibility?

I should like to ask the Minister for some assurance that these powers granted to a planning authority would be used sparingly, because I can visualise possibilities in the unlimited granting of these powers. Planning authorities may produce a great deal of undesirable urbanisation of the open country, and the effect will, inevitably, be to remove the town population further and further away from the country, in which they are accustomed to take their leisure. I understand that a majority of authorities very much dislike the idea of "building up," but a great many people in London have become accustomed to living in blocks of fiats, without, so far as one is aware, any unfortunate effect upon their health. Anybody who has seen these blocks of flats would surely agree that the open spaces made available to the people there have been a very great advantage. I want to feel sure that the best possible use is made by the local authority of the land within their area, and I should like an assurance that this is not going to persuade local authorities to make themselves responsible for a great deal of undesirable development in the countryside.

A planning authority may purchase land away from its own area. I wonder what is going to happen in the case of a development area in London, and I have in mind, and particularly, what is called the Green Belt. I am wondering if, in the exercise of the powers that no doubt will be given to them, these authoriites could go from London beyond the Green Belt for the purpose of purchasing land to house their own people. If they can, I should, personally, be very glad, because, frankly, I cannot see the possibility of the people in many of the congested London districts finding any possible housing accommodation, without creating other congestion. The authorities have every desire to avoid that congestion, and are determined to move their population out, if they can, into the Green Belt area, but, unless they have the power to go beyond that Green Belt area, obviously, they will be in very great difficulty. I was glad the point was raised by the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis), and I would like to know, as a matter of information, whether, in fact, we, who live in the London area, and have to consider the housing of our very congested population, knowing that we cannot help this congestion unless we can find outside land, may visualise the probability of going beyond the Green Belt.

I would like to make it quite clear that what is proposed in this Clause does not confer any additional powers of purchase upon a local authority. We have granted the powers already, under Clause 2, Clause 9 which deals with obsolete areas and Clause 10 which gives powers to purchase land for general planning purposes. All that this new Clause does is that, the powers having been settled, it gives an option as to which planning authority should exercise them. In reply to the case put by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. McEntee), it certainly is possible for a planning authority to purchase land on the far side of the Green Belt, and I think the Committee would agree that such power is necessary if we are not to have the congestion repeating itself. In reply to the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis), this confers no new powers of public purchase. It only gives discretion as to which authority shall exercise them. On the matter of borough boundaries, my hon. Friend will be aware that there is a new Clause on the Order Paper, and I will deal with the point when we come to it. The hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) brought before us certain general planning considerations, and I will bear in mind what he said, but, of course, they arise on the consideration of what is good planning and what is not. I hope I have explained the matter.

May I ask a question? Shortly, another Clause is to be moved by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). The Clause which he is to move is to give planning authorities the power to initiate a procedure under which planning authorities may extend their areas. This Clause deals with the point of a housing estate being bought outside the boundary, and I want to understand the effect of it on the other Clause which is to be moved. Does it mean, for instance, that, if Sunderland or Plymouth wishes to extend its boundaries, and there is no right procedure to that end, my right hon. Friend, under this Clause, can authorise a neighbouring authority to acquire a housing estate which normally would be administered by Sunderland or Plymouth? If so, that is a very derogatory provision.

May I ask the Minister to make the case a little clearer? He said that the Clause confers no additional power of purchase, but this is how I understand it. Authority A, a war-damaged area, requires to build outside its own boundary in the area of Authority B, in order to provide for replacements. This Clause, apparently, confers upon Authority B the power to buy land from Authority A. That is an entirely new power which Authority B would not have had, except for this new Clause. I want to know the meaning of the words, "in the like manner and subject to the like conditions." Does that mean that Authority B will have to provide the accommodation which is necessary for the replacement upon the land which is so acquired; that it will take over the liability of Authority A to provide the houses, make the drains and do the other things which are required? If it does not mean that, what is the respective position of the two local authorities?

I have had great difficulty in understanding the object of the Clause. The marginal note is completely incomprehensible. I should like to ask the Minister, further arising out of the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), if there is any connection between this Clause, apart from its necessity, and the subsequent Clause which is to be moved?

May I ask the Minister if, in answer to the Debate, he will deal with a concrete case? The London County Council have hitherto purchased considerable areas of land outside the County of London for the purpose of housing the people who could not be housed in the county. Hitherto, the County Council has bought the land and built the estates and owned and managed them. Would there be any alteration under these powers? Would the authority pass to anyone else in that particular regard?

The question of my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot) seems to be the problem which has been expressed in various ways by hon. Members. It may be that as we go on with the task of reconstructing, say, the London region, a very good purpose might be served, if some of the population, now being displaced, were made part of a smaller town and administered by it; and it might be convenient, both for London and for the town, that the land, even though London were going there, should be owned by the town itself. There is nothing beyond that in this Clause. It would only be desired, as I say, where it was convenient to everybody. I do not think myself that the Committee would like the Bill to pass from it with this sort of situation imposed upon authorities—that is to say, that if it is found desirable to take over land near a growing community for the purpose of accommodating some of London's surplus people, that London would necessarily want to own the land, perhaps in or near the borough boundaries of, say, Colchester, or some town of that sort. It might be for everybody's convenience that the authority providing the services and collecting the rateable value should own the land and that a clear job should be made of the whole proceeding. I hope that that will answer the point of my hon. Friend.

Who builds the houses?

The housing authority.

Which one?

We ought to be clear about the meaning of the Clause. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) pointed out, the marginal note is completely incomprehensible, when it says:

"Power to authorise purchase by local planning authority for area where land is in lieu of by another authority."

Particularly in view of that marginal note, we ought to understand where we are. I only intervened because my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) has a most important Amendment coming on, and I do not want this Clause, if the Committee carries it, to be used an an answer to that Amendment. Let us be clear what we are doing. Sunderland, for example, has a planning scheme which involves the over-spilling of its population into a neighbouring area. It would like a procedure whereby it could extend its boundary, but, owing to the obstinacy of my right hon. Friend, that position is refused, so it does the next best thing—

We must not go into anything that has to do with boundaries here, otherwise we shall be cutting out the discussion on a later proposed new Clause.

I am saying that it does the next best thing, and it purchases land outside its boundaries, which is what this Clause authorises.

It only authorises in certain cases.

It says that any authority can be authorised to purchase land. It does the next best thing and buys land outside its authority and establishes a housing estate there. My right hon. Friend says "I will give permission," but the other authority over the boundary says that the administration of the estate may be in the hands of a less enlightened authority. I want to know the purpose of this Clause. If Sunderland is forward enough to create a housing estate outside its own area, why should my right hon. Friend refuse his permission and then give permission to another authority to house the previous inhabitants of Sunderland? If the drafting of the Clause is wrong—and certainly the marginal note is wrong—perhaps my right hon. Friend will give me an assurance on that point, because I do not want the further new Clause which is to be moved to be rejected on the ground that my right hon. Friend has taken some power here.

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman addressed his mind to the specific point put by my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas). We all know that this Clause gives power for Authority B to purchase land in their area to house people from area A and all my hon. Friend asks is: Who is going to do the development? It is true that Authority B will own the land but is Authority A to develop the land, and, therefore, on what sort of tenure is Authority A to build houses on the land of Authority B? Is Authority B to give a lease to Authority A so that it can develop the houses? That is precisely the point my hon. Friend has put and the right hon. Gentleman has so far not answered it.

I do not know if I can make the matter any clearer but the position is as follows. I apologise for the punctuation of the marginal note and I agree that it has a high measure of incomprehensibility but the marginal note is not part of the Bill. To come to the New Clause, the first Sub-section gives no powers of acquisition whatsoever. They are already given by Clauses 2, 9 and 10 of the Bill, but where it is desirable that a particular area shall be acquired say for over-spill—that is a horrible expression and I can assure the Committee I did not invent it—under these Clauses the question is which is the authority that shall do the purchasing? Very often that is conveniently done by the exporting authority. There may be a case, however, where the land to be acquired is on the edge of an existing community which it is desirable to expand, and in that case it is clear that the more convenient authority may be the authority of that area. It is to meet that case that this Clause is necessary. My hon. Friend then mentioned development. The position here is that development follows ownership and, therefore, if the other authority—what I may call the importing authority—does the acquisition, it would also do the development. I hope that I have made the position clear as it will be under this Clause. The second Subsection is merely to enable the local planning authority to acquire by consent what it can acquire compulsorily. I do not know if that has answered the question in the minds of hon. Members but I hope that they will give us the New Clause.

That just leaves one question that I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. How do we secure that the overcrowded population of area A get the houses which are built by Authority B and not some other people who do not need the accommodation so urgently?

There is one point which I think has been overlooked. Assume that locality A buys land and builds houses in locality B. The borrowing powers of local authorities are based their rateable value. Will the rateable value of this property that Authority A has built in district B, be brought into the rateable value of area A, for the purposes of borrowing powers?

That is too wide.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The whole basis of this Bill is that the local planning authority should be preparing good plans, even if it has not completed them, and should apply to the Minister for consents and so forth on the basis of the plans which it is making. The purpose of Sub-section (1) of the proposed new Clause is to make it clear on the face of the Statute that it is the duty of the planning authority to give to the Minister particulars of the plans which it has in mind so far as they have been formed. That enables the Minister to know what the plans of the local authority are and to give advice and to take the many Ministerial decisions which he has to take in the light of a full knowledge of the local authority's plan. Needless to say, it is the custom of good local authorities to give this information to the Minister, but this Sub-section makes it clear on the face of the Statute that it is their duty to do so.

Sub-section (2) supplements some powers which we took in the Statute of last year. In that Statute the Minister has power to call upon the planning authority for information in regard to interim development applications received by them, but at the moment he has no power to call for information on how such applications have been dealt with in the past. It will be clear to hon. Members that a local authority may have made wrong decisions on interim development applications in the past, which have not yet been acted on, or decisions which, though they may have seemed right at the time, are no longer right in the light of subsequent events. In any event it is desirable that the Minister should have the right to seek information on this matter, and Subsection (2) remedies that slight omission from the Statute passed last year.

Whilst I recognise that it is the duty of the local planning authority to furnish all the information desired, can we have an assurance that when that information has been submitted there will be no undue delay in giving consideration to the proposals submitted, and that we shall not have to wait months and months, as has been the case in the past, for a decision to be taken?

While I have no objection to a local authority being asked for or giving all the necessary information experience teaches me that it may be quite a big job to get together the information, involving a considerable amount of labour, even necessitating the engagement of new staff. If that should be so, what will be the position of the local authority in regard to meeting any additional cost to which it may be put?

I do not think the local authority can possibly be put to any new expense. There may not even always be need for correspondence, because very often this information can be given to visiting officials of the Ministry, although sometimes, no doubt, there will be correspondence. The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Guy) raised the question whether this new requirement might lead to delay. My own view, based on some experience of administration, makes me think exactly the opposite. There will be less delay if the expert advisers of my Department have information of what is in the mind of the local authority at the earliest possible time. Sometimes they will be able to give helpful advice to them before they have taken some step which would waste their time because it would prove to be unacceptable.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This is a common form provision which appears in many Statutes, and it is designed to save the particular rights of the Minister of War Transport over these particular lands.

Is the Minister quite satisfied about the use of the words, "Minister of War Transport"? I suppose he has not forgotten that that is a war-time Ministry. Suppose it comes to an end?

If we decide to alter the title of that Ministry and to set up some other authority to look after this particular problem, then the legislation by which it is done would make the necessary references and changes.

But is the Minister not aware that sometimes Ministries disappear overnight or are set up overnight without any Bills? Who would be the appropriate authority at that time?

I think the hon. Member will find that any new authority created to look after these plans would assume and inherit all the rights and liabilities of its predecessor.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the position of the Admiralty is safeguarded, and also the position of Trinity House?

I do not think there is any danger that the position of the Admiralty and of Trinity House has not been adequately safeguarded. I cannot answer the point offhand, but I will look into it and see whether it is covered, though I rather think it is.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause deals with justices' licences and enables the expenses arising on the redisposition of these licences to be equitably shared by arrangement. The provision is a common form one to this extent, that it is in the Housing Act of 1936, in which Section 47 reproduces these provisions; so the Clause introduces nothing new. The position is that if the compensation authority decide to refuse renewal of a licence compensation must be paid to the interested party, and there are rules for assessing that compensation. If the compensation authority and the interested parties cannot agree, the matter goes to the Board of Inland Revenue to be determined, and afterwards there can be an appeal to the High Court if necessary. This Clause provides for the purchasing authority and the compensation authority sharing between them in suitable cases the cost of acquiring these licensed premises. Paragraph (a) of the new Clause provides that a purchasing authority may undertake before purchasing licensed premises that if the renewal of the licence is refused they will make to the compensation fund such contribution as has been specified in the undertaking. That enables them to fix up in advance a just apportionment of the expenses. Paragraph (b) provides for the case in which the purchasing authority has already purchased or contracted to purchase the premises. In that event they may intimate to the licensing justices that they are willing to surrender the licence. The justices may refer the licence to the compensation authority, and if they are satisfied that the licence is surrendered there might be a contribution towards the expense from both parties. In other words, if the purchasing authority are prepared, in effect, to do the work of the compensation authority by acquiring the premises and offering to give up the licence, it is reasonable that some part of the cost of acquisition should be met by a contribution from the compensation fund.

I regret very much that this Clause should be introduced in this planning Bill, although I admit that a similar Clause was in the Housing Acts of 1930 and 1936. The Clause appears to be not only very technical but very involved. Local authorities are entitled to get part of the purchase price out of the compensation fund, but though the Clause gives them the right to repay what they have taken out there is no obligation to repay. I should have thought that that procedure was very unusual in any legislation. It will probably give rise to a good deal of litigation. The Minister said there was nothing new in this Clause, but it seems to me there is something new. The compensation fund was built up for the purpose of doing away with redundant licences. Owing to the war a great many licensed premises have been destroyed by enemy action and the position has changed, and I think it is unfortunate that this Clause should be brought forward at this time. The Home Secretary recently set up the Morris Committee to report upon war damage to licensed premises and their reconstruction, and in paragraph 101 of their Report they deal particularly with this question of bombed houses and compensation. I would like to read that paragraph, because it explains the whole position and gives the view expressed by what I regard as a very important Committee. It says:

"The question arises whether arrangements of this kind should be supplemented by the use of the machinery provided in the Licensing Act for the extinguishment of licences with compensation. After full consideration of the matter we have come to the conclusion that this would not be appropriate and that this machinery should be suspended in designated and associated areas. Although the word 'redundancy' does not occur in the Licensing Acts it is generally accepted that the main purpose of the Licensing Act compensation machinery is to deal with licences which are considered to be 'redundant,' namely, surplus to the needs of the locality. The principles on which licensing justices and compensation authorities assess redundancy which are inevitably based on the practice of normal times of gradual developments and change, have little relevance in areas of serious war damage. In this connection it may be noted that the activities of the licensing justices and the compensation authorities have been greatly diminished during the war; thus the number of refusals of renewals by the compensation authorities throughout the country, have fallen from 321 to 273 respectively in 1938 to 59 and 48 respectively in 1942, and in only one of the war damaged areas for which witnesses were seen had any renewals been refused with compensation during the years 1941 and 1942. Moreover we understand that some 75 out of the 152 compensation authorities have made no levy at all in 1943 and many others have made levies far below the maximum scale. It seems reasonable to infer from this that most authorities feel that they cannot exercise their functions during abnormal periods. These considerations apply with even greater force to the situation consequent on the replanning of areas of serious war damage which will involve so many changes and readjustments that it will be impossible to assess the situation on the basis of pre-war redundancy."

Now this Clause is a direct contradiction of the findings of that Committee, and I thought the Minister would very likely leave this matter over until the new clauses on compensation came forward, when he might reconsider the whole point. It is unfortunate as, owing to war conditions, so many houses may be abolished.

The Minister in moving the Second Reading of this Clause referred to the fact that compensation would be paid to interested parties. He did not specify the interested parties. Is he bearing in mind only the licence-holders or the people on the other side of the counter, who are very interested indeed? I know perfectly well that the hon. Member for Bedford (Sir R. Wells) was concerned with the compensation to be paid to licence-holders, but I would point out that as a result either of a shortage of alcohol, or of the blitz, the licence-holders do not mind whether they are open or not, whereas the ordinary members of the public have been up in arms about it, summer after summer. I hope the Minister will see some way by which the interested parties—that was the phrase he used but it is not in the Clause—will in some way, either in the form of a subsidy or by a reduction in the price of alcohol itself, be satisfied.

Surely this compensation fund consists of moneys provided by the owners of licensed houses, principally the brewers, for another purpose quite distinct from that which is in contemplation in this Bill. It was in order that when redundancy occurred, and the licensing magistrate decided that certain houses should be abolished, there should be an equitable compensation from the fund provided for that purpose by the owners of all the licensed houses. I cannot see that there is any element of justice in taking sums from this fund in order to pay for the ruins of houses which have been damaged by enemy action, and to which I understand this new Clause refers. I hope the Minister will give some further justification for this looting from the fund other that that which he has given up to now.

I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) meant when he proposed that the Minister should provide compensation for the persons who need the supplies on the other side of the counter. I should have thought that, if it were thought desirable that compensation should be provided either for my hon. Friend or anyone else on the other side of the counter, the Minister of Town and Country Planning was not the right person to do it. This Clause seems to me to be much simpler and more reasonable than my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Sir R. Wells) regarded it. As I understand it, this Clause is not restricted to licensed premises which have been destroyed by enemy action. It may extend to licensed premises which have not been destroyed by enemy action but which the planning authority, in the course of the acquisition of an area of extensive war damage, may deem it desirable to acquire. Of course, when they acquire licensed premises which are a going concern, they will have to pay compensation for them, and one of the questions would be, how much should they pay for the loss of the licence? Now it may be more convenient, if the licence is not renewed, for the owner of the licence to apply for compensation to the compensation authority, and the planning authority, as I understand it, may regard that as a preferable course. If they do that, under this Clause they may undertake to refund to the compensation fund a sum which represents the value of the loss of the licence if the renewal of the licence is refused. I take it that they would take account of the point raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), when he drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that the compensation fund is provided by the licence owners themselves for redundant houses, and if a house becomes redundant by reason of the planning authority intervening and acquiring it, then it seems to me that this provides a reasonable procedure for enabling the planning authority to contribute to the compensation fund a sum which will have to be paid by the compensation authority for the refusal to renew the licence. In those circumstances, I should have thought that this Clause was a reasonable addition to make to this Bill, and would meet the case which is likely to arise in a very fair and reasonable manner.

The last speaker seemed to refer only to paragraph (a) of this Clause. Paragraph (b) provides however, that if the local authorities acquire the licensed premises, they shall be able to draw from the compensation fund provided they are willing to surrender the licence. Is there any legal obligation there upon the local authorities that, during the time they hold the licence, they shall themselves contribute towards the fund as the owners of the house, and that that shall be a charge which can reasonably be put on to the rates? It would be totally unfair for them to participate in the provisions of the compensation provided by the trade itself, unless they themselves, as owners acquiring these premises, became contributors to the fund.

Surely the Clause fully protects the compensation fund in that matter because it says:

"the licensing justices may refer the matter to the compensation authority"

and the licensing justices would be the competent body to decide whether in fact the local authority has been reasonable in surrendering the licence or not.

I think the hon. Member will agree that the words "may" and "shall" become somewhat involved in legislation.

But as the licensing authorities would normally be the body to decide the question of redundancy, they are the persons who ought to decide such a matter.

I am very sorry to interrupt again, but it seems to me that the point is this: We are in agreement on both sides of the Committee on this, that if the licensing authority has the power to award compensation to the local authority then surely, in reverse, the local authority should be liable to a contribution to the compensation fund. Is there legal provision to recover that from the rates?

The first paragraph says that the local authority shall make a contribution to the compensation fund in certain circumstances where they have acquired licensed premises. In paragraph (b), on the other hand, the local authority can become a recipient of compensation from the compensation fund but only provided that the licensing justices have determined that in the light of new circumstances the premises should become redundant. If, on the other hand, a local authority merely surrenders its licence because it no longer wants to exercise it, I doubt very much whether the fund will be liable to pay any compensation at all. The licensing justices would, I imagine, take such a point into consideration in determining whether, in fact, the question of compensation should be referred to the authority. I think in both cases the licensed premises are covered.

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend but it distinctly says:

"if, after purchasing or contracting to purchase the premises, the purchasing authority"—

not the licensing authority—

"intimate to the licensing justices that they are willing to surrender the licence …"

then they are to draw compensation.

I do not understand this Clause but I hope the Minister does because, under the first paragraph,

"the purchasing authority … may undertake …"

and, if they "may undertake" they land themselves in expenditure. If they do not "undertake," they free themselves of all expenditure. If they had it in their minds that the licence of the licensed premises is to be discontinued, obviously they would not give any undertaking but would wait for paragraph (b) to operate, in which case the compensation, instead of coming out of the rates, is going to come out of the levies, which I understand are made under the Licensing Act of 1904.

No. May I call the hon. Member's attention to the words:

"… the licensing justices may refer the matter to the compensation authority and that authority, on being satisfied that the licence, if not surrendered, might properly have been dealt with as a redundant licence …"

which I should think is perfect protection, because compensation will come only if the category is one of redundancy which would have occurred in normal circumstances.

I think my hon. Friend has missed the point. If they give the undertaking under paragraph (a), the licensing authority are then involved in expenditure. If they hold back on the assumption that the licence is likely to be declared redundant by the magistrate, they draw from the fund. Obviously, no local authority will act under paragraph (a) and run the risk of paying something when, under paragraph (b) they had a chance of picking up something. If I were a local authority, I would act under paragraph (b).

But they cannot help themselves.

The hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has overlooked the fact that under paragraph (b) the compensation authority contributes out of the compensation fund towards the compensation paid by the purchasing authority in respect of the purchase of the premises.

Precisely.

In other words, out of the publicans' levy or the brewers' levy, whichever you call it. Nevertheless, under paragraph (b) the local authority can get some money, and under paragraph (a) they are bound to pay out money. Nobody will work under paragraph (a) if they think they can get something under paragraph (b), and I cannot understand why paragraph (a) exists as long as we have paragraph (b).

As far as I can judge, the hon. Gentleman is misreading both paragraphs. Under paragraph (a) the purchasing authority must make the decision before purchasing the premises. Once that act is complete, and only after that, does paragraph (b) come into force. There is no alternative. After that, paragraph (b) comes into force.

My hon. Friend is still rather confused. He talks as though the local authorities will make the exercise of options to buy licensed premises a habit. The local authority can do no such thing. The local authority is going to buy licensed premises only where such purchase is a part of their development plan.

We are dealing with such cases.

That is precisely where that will come into operation, where the local authority becomes the purchaser of licensed premises. As the owner of them, the local authority is under an obligation to pay to the compensation fund which, in fact, it will do.

rose—

If my hon. Friend will permit me. This is what paragraph (a) says:

"they will pay to the compensation authority towards the compensation payable …"

Even if they get a renewal, they still have to pay to the compensation authority and they can charge the amount which they would have to pay in compensation to the development scheme itself.

The hon. Member has got it wrong. Paragraph (a) applies when they think that the licence is going to be cancelled. Therefore, they give an undertaking that they will make certain payments. Under (b) it is not a question of the licence being cancelled, but of the local authorities, of their own volition, surrendering the licence. If, on their own volition, they surrender and then the justices do something, they draw out of the brewers' levy: under (a) they have to make a payment into the fund; and I do not see how the two things make sense.

There may be nothing in the compensation fund. Then (a) will be the only way.

I hope that the Committee will let me proceed with this Clause, on the understanding that I will have a look at the various speeches that have been made and see if I can do anything to meet the position. This matter is highly technical, and refers to the licensing code of 1904. As I understand it, if you want to get rid of the licence, because it is redundant, and not because of any objection to the character of the licensee or anything of that sort, the authority that comes in at that stage is not the justices, but the compensating authority, which has a fund, which is fed by levies.

The justices come in first.

Yes, they say that the licence is redundant; and, when they decide that it is redundant—and provided that that is the only ground on which they refuse it—they refer the matter to the compensating authority. The compensation fund is made up of a levy on licences. Therefore, the compensating authority is liable to contribute to the fund, like everybody else. This provides for an arrangement between the compensating authority and the purchasing authority when, in fact, the purchasing authority is doing, or has done, part of the compensating authority's work. Either when it proposes to buy the premises, or when it has bought the premises and proposes to give them up, it says, "You ought, from the compensating fund to make some contribution." I think that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) and other hon. Members take the general view about (b) that this is really, as far as the compensating fund is concerned, to be raised by levies from the trade, and that, under paragraph (b) of this Clause, it is proposed to draw from that fund for what is really a planning purpose. If they look at paragraph (b) they will see, in line 14, that the governing words are that the compensating authority

"on being satisfied that the licence, if not surrendered, might properly have been dealt with as a redundant licence, shall contribute. …"

That is to say, if I have grasped this right, as I think I have, that where the compensating authority themselves have come to the conclusion that this is a proper case where a redundant licence ought to be compensated for, they can make a contribution to the purchasing authority, which has bought it and is willing to give it up. I do not think, subject to what my hon. Friends may think on reflection, that there is much wrong with that. It seems to me that the compensating authority have first to be satisfied that the licence is redundant, and then, and only then, can they make this contribution. It is their duty, as guardians of the compensation fund, to refuse any contribution until they have made up their minds that it is the sort of licence for which there would have to be compensation in any case.

Is my right hon. Friend going to deal with the Morris Report?

I will certainly look at the point.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This is a long Clause, and I am afraid it is extremely technical, owing to the technicalities of planning legislation. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain, rather as a layman to laymen, what the purpose of the Clause is, and what it does; of course, being prepared to answer such technical points as may be raised. I have some hope that they will not be raised, for this reason: that they could only be raised by lawyers, and the lawyers will see the answers. The purpose of this Clause is to fill a very important gap in the existing law. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning exercises, by the nature of his office and the wish of the House, certain control over development of land throughout England and Wales. That is exercised through the machinery, mainly, of the Act of 1932 and the Act of 1943. The way my right hon. Friend exercises that control is mainly through supervision of the control that is exercised by the planning authority itself. The would-be developer of land applies to the planning authority for leave to develop that land, and, if that permission is refused, the would-be developer has a right of appeal to the Minister. The matter çan come before my right hon. Friend in that way, or, if it is of great importance, my right hon. Friend can ask for the decision on the application to be referred to him. It is in this way that my right hon. Friend controls development throughout England and Wales.

But there is one exception to this possibility of control and it is with that exception that this new Clause is designed to deal. That exception arises when the planning authority is itself the developer. There is no obligation on the local authority to apply to itself for an interim development consent; and, therefore, there is no application over which my right hon. Friend has any control. This apparently complicated new Clause is designed to give my right hon. Friend the same sort of control where the development is carried out by the planning authority itself as he would have if someone else had to apply in the first instance to the local authority. As I think the Committee will appreciate, where the planning authority has had to devote its mind to the merits of an application made to it, even there the Minister has and needs a right of some control or supervision. It is more than ever necessary in a case where the planning authority itself might, in eager pursuance of some desirable object perhaps, not have given adequate attention to planning considerations at all. In any event, there is the same case for my right hon. Friend having some control, and therefore some responsibility to the House, as if it were one of those applications for which he has control under the existing law. It would very much astonish the Committee, I think, to learn that there are cases in which every Member of this Committee would assume that the Minister had control under planning legislation, whereas in fact, until this Clause is embodied in legislation, my right hon. Friend has no statutory control at all.

On the apparent complication of the matter, perhaps I should say a little about the form of the Clause. Sub-section (1, a) gives effective control over interim development—and practically all the land in the country is at present in the interim development stage. Sub-section (1, b) contains corresponding provisions to deal with an operative scheme. Sub-section (2) gives the Minister a remedy if things are done without, or contrary to, his consent. Sub-section (3) is put in to give an additional safeguard for statutory undertakers, to make it certain that where their operational developments are affected, the matter is attended to, not only by my right hon. Friend, but also by the Government Department mainly concerned with that statutory undertaking. The rest of the Clause deals with various technicalities, to make the new control effective. I hope that I have given enough preliminary explanation of the Clause.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 2, at end, insert:

"any power to permit development conferred by a planning scheme on the responsible authority thereunder, or by an interim development order on the interim development authority thereunder shall, in relation to development carried out after the commencement of this Act by the authority themselves, be exercisable by the Minister."

The Amendments to the new Clause which are on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and myself are designed to meet what appears to be an objection to a Clause with the purpose of which we have sympathy. It would appear, as the Clause is drafted, that the public authority which is developing is going to be in a worse position than the private developer; and, as I should gather that that is not the Minister's intention, I would ask him to accept this series of Amendments, or to give us an undertaking that he will look at the point and cover it on the next stage. As I understand the position, the private developer, under the 1932 Act, is not under an obligation in every case to come to him for permission. It is true that if he proceeds without permission he may suffer certain penalties or disadvantages. The public developer, under this new Clause, would be bound to come to him for permission; and, in certain circumstances, the public developer would, therefore, be in a less favourable position than he would have been with the same proposals had he been a private developer. The same objection applies where compensation becomes payable. If it were a private developer, in certain circumstances, if he has been injuriously affected by the operation of a town and country planning scheme, he may claim certain compensation. As I understand the new Clause, a public authority developer would not be able to claim that compensation. Neither my hon. Friends nor I have any wish to hamper the purpose of the Clause, which is to give the Minister general powers of control, but we do not wish a public authority which is carrying out development to be in a less advantageous position than a private developer would be.

The hon. Member talked about a public developer. Has he in mind simply a local planning authority, or is he talking about a public authority, such as the British Broadcasting Corporation, or the Post Office?

What I had in mind was a municipal electricity undertaking. I believe Durham is such a case. The Minister is reviewing certain development proposals there having regard to their effect upon the view and so on. I am anxious to secure that such a municipal undertaking would not be put in a worse position than if it had been a private undertaking.

Perhaps I might have a discussion with the hon. Member afterwards. I think I can satisfy him without much difficulty that the words of the Clause are better, both in form and in substance, than those of his Amendment. He said a private developer would not be actually prohibited from carrying on development, but he could be stopped. It a private developer were rash enough to go on without permission, he could be compelled under the Act which we passed last year to remove what he had done at his own expense, which is a very real sanction.

It often goes on like that and development is carried out without permission.

I think the hon. Member is thinking of the law as it was before we altered it last year with this very drastic sanction. Possibly that is what happened between 1932 and 1943, but I should be surprised if he could point to a case where it had happened since. The Amendment would merely transfer to the Minister the consent powers where the authority themselves are the developers. Under the law as it stands there is room for doubt whether a responsible authority is bound by the provisions of the scheme, and whether the interim development authority can obtain their own permission for development in the interim period. Therefore our form of words is superior. The Amendment would not affect or improve matters as far as compensation is concerned. There again it is highly technical, because in 99 cases out of 100 the question of compensation is irrelevant, since it would be the same body who were paying and receiving compensation, but since the only development for which permission would in practice be likely to be refused would be development contrary to the national interest or to the interests of other local authorities, there appears to be no ground for payment of compensation. But I will go into matters with the hon. Member. They are too technical to be discussed with convenience across the Floor. We cannot accept the Amendments nor, I think, will the hon. Member on consideration think them as suitable as what is on the Paper.

I should like the hon. Gentleman to go a little further and give an undertaking that he will see to it that a public developer, both in respect of compensation and otherwise, is put in no worse position than a private developer would be. If he will give that undertaking, we will discuss the manner of achieving it.

I understood from the hon. Member's earlier speech that he had particularly in mind the case of a local authority which is a statutory undertaking. I have checked over the safeguards that there are for a local authority conducting such an undertaking and, in my view, under our wording they are just as well protected. If there is any further point that strikes him, I, too, shall be pleased to consider it, but that is my considered view having looked at it again.

It may be that activities of a local authority which are not strictly speaking activities of a statutory authority might not be covered in the same way. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would say that whatever it is necessary to do to put the local authority developer in no worse position will be done, I shall be happy to withdraw.

I think I can give the undertaking.

Amendment negatived.

Question again proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

I think the Committee will agree that my right hon. Friend should have the powers he is going to take in this new Clause but, if he is going to look at the matter again before Report, I invite him to consider whether the power he is going to take will not actually go very much further than the case requires. There is an Amendment to the Clause, on the Paper in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), which has not been selected. I should have thought that, if the Clause were limited in the way suggested in that Amendment, it would be sufficiently wide to enable my right hon. Friend to exercise the measure of control of development of this nature which he is going to exercise. I would in the circumstances invite him, when he looks at the Clause again, to see whether it would not be possible to give local authorities a little wider scope than he proposes to give them at present and to restrict the power to control the development that they may promote on their own site to those major subjects which I think my right hon. Friend had in mind when he put the Clause down.

It is certainly contemplated that it may be possible to do quite a lot in that matter to relieve local authorities, and that is the purpose of Sub-section (5), which enables the Minister to authorise certain classes of application without the necessity of this control. I will consider the point, but I think that Sub-section gives my hon. and learned Friend what he wants.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Its purpose is to enable certain cities and towns, only seven in number, which are both widely devastated and are short of land within their boundaries, to extend their boundaries, so that they may be able to replan their civic future on sound and imaginative lines. Such planning demands that they should reduce their congestion, both industrial and human, by rehousing some of their citizens and re-siting some of their industries, as well as their civic services and amenities, in surrounding areas with due regard to agricultural and rural interests and to maintenance of the amenities of the whole area. Such planning will result, if the boundaries are not extended, in a loss of population and rateable value which will be crippling to the parent city and will leave it with a burden of debt disproportionate to the remaining population and rateable value. It will leave it also with public services and an administrative organisation on a scale quite unsuited to its reduced status. Furthermore, there will follow a loss of civic interest which anyone who has knowledge of the Special Areas, where anyone who can, lives outside the area and takes no part in civic affairs, results in a most deplorable state of affairs.

4.45 p.m.

It we refuse an extension of boundaries to these towns, they will be faced with an overload of debt and left with a top-heavy administrative unit and with public services designed for a population which will not again be achievable. They will be deprived, too, of the opportunity of extending their public services to their shifted population and of unified control over the execution of their development plan and over its future administration. Also, after the new Clause that we have added to the Bill just now, they may not have the right of rehousing their own people outside their own borough boundaries. If we are faced with these results of a refusal to extend boundaries, it is only human nature if civic authorities plan to lower standards and greater density than is desirable.

If these cities and towns had not been both blitzed and blighted, and at the same time were not short of land within their boundaries, I should be the first to say that the usual procedure should take its course, but in these cities both factors exist and devastation requires that we should act quickly. One could best illustrate what one means by the example of Plymouth, for not only do both factors operate there, but Plymouth has produced a plan which is bold in conception and far-seeing in vision. I do not, however, propose to illustrate my point from Plymouth, for I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Plymouth will follow me in supporting this new Clause. I only mention it so that I may pay a tribute to what Plymouth has done and to its plan.

I would rather illustrate my point from my own constituency of Sunderland. Sunderland, before the war, had a density of population of 26 to the acre, against an average for all county boroughs of 15. It had 1.45 families per dwelling, and only 50 per cent. of the families in Sunderland were in undivided possession of their own homes. While Sunderland has not suffered as other cities have, the position has been aggravated by the fact that 9 per cent. of the houses have been either destroyed or very seriously damaged and 81 per cent. have been damaged to some extent. Sunderland will require 12,500 homes to deal with over-crowding and slum clearance alone, and one-third of these must go outside the county borough. Sunderland must also provide schools, play-grounds and playing fields to meet the requirements of the Minister of Education. It will need a minimum of 600 acres when the school age is raised to 15, and of 700 acres when it is raised to 16. That is one-tenth of the present area of the county borough. That does not take account of county colleges, nursery schools and other special schools. Already Sunderland has had to put outside its borough boundaries schools which cater for children living within the borough.

There is a third reason. Sunderland depends very largely upon the heavy industries of coal and shipbuilding. It is essential to its future development that it should have new light industries, and these can best be located in the clearance areas in the borough where facilities are available. This, too, is in accordance with Government policy, but it will involve the town in a loss of rateable value. For these reasons, if we are to carry out the intentions of the Bill, if we are to deal with war damaged areas, which, to quote the words of the Bill,

"should be laid out afresh and redeveloped as a whole,"

if we are to deal with conditions of "bad lay-out and obsolete development," if we are to provide open spaces, playing fields and sites for industrial purposes, if, indeed, we are to carry out the intentions of the Government, we must go outside the borough boundaries. If we go outside without an extension of those boundaries, we will create a rateable value where none now exists, and we will lay the foundations for a heavy claim for compensation if ever the boundaries are extended. If we do not later get an extension, we shall have the existing debt, which is over £5,000,000, borne on a lower rateable value by fewer ratepayers. With Government assistance the rate is now 17s. 6d. in the £. If one-tenth of the population go outside the county borough without taking a share of that liability, the rate will be measured not by shillings in the pound, but by pounds.

If, therefore, we are to plan boldly and with vision, the question of boundaries must be settled first. Otherwise, everything we build outside may involve us in heavy compensation if the boundaries be extended, or a heavy burden of debt if they are not. Blitz and blight make it imperative that we shall act quickly. Therefore, we ask for some quicker method of extending our boundaries than now exists. The need for such a quicker method was recognised in the statement which the Minister of Health made to the House on 3rd August, when he said that the Government were satisfied that there was need and scope for amending the machinery of the Local Government Act, 1933, relating to adjustment of status, boundaries and areas. This new Clause proposes the way in which we may temporarily meet that need in strictly limited instances by means of a boundary commission. I am not closely wedded to this particular method. There is merit in a similar new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), which would give the power to the Minister of Health. What does matter is that some such power should be taken.

I shall probably be told that a Town and Country Planning Bill is not the place to take such power and that we must await a Bill dealing with local authorities. I may also be reminded that the Minister of Health is to open negotiations as soon as may be, that after that he will lay the outline of proposals before the House, and that after that again he will propose legislation. When is it likely that such legislation will appear upon the Statute Book? Those of us who have seen spring extend into autumn, who have learned that "by the harvest" is a kind of political recurring decimal to which there is no finality, may be pardoned if, when our need is great, we ask for action now. The new Clause asks for present action, but action which is strictly limited to a particular purpose. It asks it so that these seven cities and towns which have suffered severely by enemy action may direct their minds to putting into effect the declared policy of Parliament, free from the consideration that they are either laying themselves open to heavy bills for compensation or taking upon their shoulders a heavy burden of debt.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) has stated with great competence a most forceful case. I hope he has persuaded the Minister to accept the proposed new Clause. He spoke with a sense of responsibility on behalf of a number of cities. The object of the Bill is to enable cities which have suffered war damage to reconstruct their fortunes upon a proper basis. The first effect of any good planning scheme must be to reduce the number of persons who inhabit any particular area. Wider streets, more parks and playgrounds and greater amenities, must result in a reduction of the number of inhabitants. The key-note of the Minister's speech on Second Reading was:

"You must take a central, a unified view." He has repeated that argument, again and again, in the course of the Committee stage. He spoke of the case of the London squares as an illustration of what can happen when a central view is not taken. He pointed to the destruction of those squares, and the aesthetic injury that had been done to those squares, when the same land fell into a number of different ownerships. When a city is to be reconstructed under the Bill, its population has to be reduced. The authority must make provision for the surplus population. Accordingly, it must make use of land in contiguous areas, outside its own boundaries. What is the sustenance upon which cities live? It is rateable value. Population makes rateable value; consequently, if you get rid of population, you get rid of rateable value; your rateable value is less than it would be if your people had remained within your area.

Is the right hon. Member aware that the housing estates which were built outside London by the London County Council have been the cause of great friction with neighbouring authorities, who complained of the immense cost that those populations had been, as a consequence of being translated?

That has not been the experience of the country as a whole. At Plymouth, for instance, that has not been the experience. The experience has been that the best type of resident, from a rateable value point of view, has gone out, and paid a lower rate. He has come in and used the amenities of the city, and got the full advantage of the activities of the city, but he has paid a lower rate by living outside the boundary of the city. When the city, through Private Bill legislation, applied for and succeeded in obtaining an extension of its boundaries, it had to pay £500,000 to the neighbouring authorities in order to get back the rateable value which it had itself caused to be created. That was the experience of Plymouth. A city can judge of its own interests, which cannot be disposed of by an interruption in the Committee stage of a Bill.

What about the Private Bill legislation?

The proposal of the Bill is that a boundary commission should inquire into these matters, that the city should be enabled to state its case—not to impose its will—and that neighbouring authorities should be able to state their case. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has asked about Private Bill legislation; when Plymouth last extended its boundaries, it did so by that procedure. It took many years, and cost £80,000 in lawyers' fees.

The Bill has been brought before the House in order that our cities may replan in our lifetime, and quickly. An expedited procedure has been suggested for acquiring land from private interests. The constitutional and historic method of acquiring land has been altered, but he who wills the end, must supply the means. He who says to the cities: "You must replan," must give them the opportunity to do so. The blitzed cities come here and say: "Very well. We would like to state a case for the extension of our boundaries. We do not wish to build up rateable value in the neighbouring areas which we shall have to acquire afterwards at a great cost. We do not wish contiguous areas to take the unearned increment. We wish to plan now and we wish that our boundaries should be defined now." No dictatorial method is suggested. If my right hon. Friend wishes to suggest any other method which would safeguard the neighbouring interests, let him do so.

It is quite clear that the neighbouring interests have something to say. The urban district of Plympton has something to say. It has circulated every Member of the House, quite rightly. Why should it not state its case before an inquiry? The House of Commons cannot adjudicate as between Plymouth and Plympton. The House of Commons is telling Plymouth to plan, not Plympton. Plymouth is an urban area, but there are great open spaces in Plympton which could be utilised to great advantage. It is suggested that a boundary commission should be appointed. This week, I think, the House of Commons is setting up a Boundary Commission, to adjudicate on the size of Parliamentary constituencies. Some hon. Members will have smaller constituencies. A boundary commission, in this case, is considered to be a satisfactory agency for determining the size of constituencies. My hon. Friend suggests that a boundary commission might ex- peditiously dispose of this matter. Judges could be put on the commission, and that the rival interests could bring forward their cases. Before recourse could be had to such a commission, it would have to be shown that the plan would be frustrated unless an adjustment of boundaries could be conceded.

Plymouth—and Plymouth must be mentioned—had a population of 220,000. As a result of this plan we shall have a population of only 170,000; 50,000 people will go outside our area as a result of our foresight and our vision, taking with them £10 per head of rateable value. Fifty thousand people and £500,000 will go, but we in Plymouth will have to keep up the same services. We shall have to provide education on the same scale, roads on a better scale. Our electric light and gas undertakings will lose revenue which these people would otherwise provide. They will take their gas and electricity from another area. When we produce our plan, we would like to state our case before an impartial authority for a revision of our boundaries.

Time is of the essence of the contract. If this he a planning Bill—it has many defects but it has great vision attached to it—let the cities plan, let them state their case. There is no seizing anybody's rights from them. My right hon. Friend may say that this is a local government matter. But planning is a local government matter. Everything depends on the area to be planned. If we are to take this unified view, I hope we shall not hear that old tale with which I am very familiar from both sides of the House, that "That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister for something else." My right hon. Friend has introduced this Bill, and he must see that it contains the Clauses which give the powers to carry out his great project. I would, therefore, appeal to my right hon. Friend to show his seriousness in this matter, and to recognise that this Clause is supported by a large number of blitzed cities. These are the cities for whose benefit the Bill is mainly introduced, and we have confidence that my right hon. Friend will grant this Clause which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend.

I have a brief statement to make which ought to be made to the House now. As soon as this is completed the House will be asked again to resolve itself into Committee on the Town and Country Planning Bill.

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do leave the Chair."

Question put, and agreed to.

The House will wish me to inform them that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have arrived safely in Moscow for discussions with Marshal Stalin and M. Molotov. They are accompanied by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and the chief staff officers of the Minister of Defence, together with other military advisers. This meeting is the sequel to the meeting between the Prime Minister and President Roosevelt at Quebec. Marshal Stalin, who was unable to accept the invitation to go to Quebec, welcomed the opportunity to meet the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary so soon afterwards. The meeting in Moscow has the fullest approval of the United States Government, and the United States Ambassador, Mr. Averell Harriman, will be the representative of the United States at the conversations.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Resolved: "That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Town and Country Planning Bill."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

I hope I may have the sympathy of the Committee if I do not agree with the speeches delivered by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). I have the greatest sympathy for their motives in moving and supporting this Clause. Perhaps the Noble Lady will forgive me for saying that I admire the Plymouth plan, and I hope she will not think that I am in any way opposing the underlying objects of this proposed Clause. I had the opportunity of seeing the Bristol people in the blitz, and I had first-hand knowledge of the courage of the Queen City of the West. Whoever happens to be the Member for Thornbury, is regarded as a semi-representative of Bristol and is asked to their functions and dinners. I hope they will not think that I am biting the hand that fed me when I say that I am sorry that I cannot support this Clause. I doubt if it is wise to introduce into a Bill of this kind a Clause which must forestall a major Measure dealing with a different objective. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport will agree with me that this Clause, if passed, must affect the whole future of local government, and as the hon. Member for Sunderland has said the Minister of Health made a statement, I think on 3rd August, announcing that the matter required reconsideration as regards the adjustment of boundaries and areas, and I understand that conversations have been going on with the local authorities.

I would like to hear from the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he really thinks that a Bill to reorganise local authorities has any chance of coming before us within five years, and whether he thinks when it does so there is any chance of its being passed.