House of Commons
Thursday, July 4, 1946
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
Prayers
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair ]
Private Business
Glasgow Corporation Bill
Read the Third time, and passed.
Skegness Pier Provisional Order Bill
Read the Third time, and passed.
Derby Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
Ipswich Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
Maidstone Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
Reading Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ministry of Pensions
Motor Invalid Tricycles
asked the Minister of Pensions if pensioners, suffering from paraplegia, are supplied with motor-propelled tricycles at State expense.
Except where considerations of health or safety make such a course undesirable all paraplegic pensioners will, in future, be eligible for the supply and repair of a motor invalid tricycle at State expense.
May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will make this as widely and fully known as possible?
Yes, Sir.
Marriage Allowance
asked the Minister of Pensions under what circumstances ex-Servicemen of the 1914–18 war and the last war, respectively, in receipt of disability pensions, can obtain allowances on marriage.
A disablement pensioner of either the 1914–18 war or of the recent war may be granted an addition to his pension in respect of his wife if the marriage took or takes place not later than ten years after the end of the relevant period of war service. If the pensioner is classed as unemployable by reason of his pensionable disablement he may be granted an allowance for his wife whatever the date of marriage. Similarly, while undergoing a course of approved treatment which prevents him from working, a pensioner may be granted an allowance for a wife to whom he was married before the commencement of treatment. Where an allowance is payable for a wife, allowances may be paid for the children of the marriage.
Is it not most unfair that this 10 year rule should be perpetuated, and is it not ridiculous that, when a pensioner marries within the 10 year period and his wife dies and he remarries, he cannot get an allowance in respect of the second wife? Why should the second wife be penalised?
I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply which has been given in the past. It is only fair to remember that this position is a considerable advance on that which existed before this Government came into office.
Hospital Visits (Travel Facilities)
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will consult with the Minister of Transport with a view to arranging free travel, or at reduced fares, for parents who have to travel long distances to visit wounded Servicemen still in hospital.
Reduced fare facilities are already available, in the United Kingdom, to wives and relatives, including parents, for the purpose of visiting ex-members of His Majesty's Forces who are undergoing approved in-patient treatent for pensioned disablement. The arrangement is available for not more than two persons on the occasion of each visit. Moreover, if a pensioner becomes dangerously ill while in hospital there are special arrangements for the issue of free railway warrants for two persons, one of whom must be a relative.
Will the hon. Gentleman consider granting these facilities, not only to the persons named, but to all persons who are dependants visiting wounded Servicemen?
I will certainly take that into consideration.
Pensions Appeal Tribunals
asked the Minister of Pensions when the assessment appeals tribunals will begin to sit; how many such tribunals there will be; and where located.
It is hoped that pensions appeal tribunals on assessment will commence to sit about October, but these tribunals will be entirely independent of my Department and their numbers and sittings are matters for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, or in Scotland and Northern Ireland for the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland respectively.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend told the House a few weeks ago that he hoped that these tribunals would begin their sittings in July, and, in view of his present answer, can he explain the disparity?
"Hope springs eternal".
This matter has been given very careful consideration. I think that it would not be the wish of anyone to delay unnecessarily the start of the hearings of these appeals, but it is important that the preliminary work which has to be done should be done fairly in the interests of the men concerned.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are thousands of these cases awaiting hearing? Why cannot the hearings begin during the present month?
I cannot tell how many cases are coming up for hearing until the appeals are all put in.
Disabled Persons (Clothing Coupons)
asked the Minister of Pensions how many disabled persons are entitled to draw additional clothing coupons and how many have, in fact, drawn them.
Applications for additional clothing coupons on the ground of disablement causing excessive wear and tear on clothing are dealt with by the Board of Trade. So far as war disabled pensioners are concerned it is estimated that about 37,500 may be eligible for the grant of such coupons but I understand that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no information as to how many have made application.
As the hon. Gentleman has obviously no information to give in this case, why does he not advise that the Question be transferred to the Board of Trade?
I would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have given him some information.
Personal Case
asked the Minister of Pensions when it is proposed to pay to the widow of Ordnance-Artificer Simpson, killed on war service in H.M.S. "Coventry," her pension and allowances; and if he is aware that this pension, granted in September, 1944, and now retransferred from South Africa to this country, has not been paid for the past 17 weeks.
A pension order book providing for weekly payments with effect from 17th June, was issued on 19th June, together with a postal draft for £41 4s. 11d. in respect of arrears. I regret the delay which occurred before resumption of payment following Mrs. Simpson's return to this country.
While thanking my hon. Friend for his replym—
Why?
Because it is a decent reply.
I am sorry the hon. Members opposite have not better manners. While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask if he will give us an assurance that these delays in the payment of pensions to war widows of men killed in the Navy in circumstances such as this will be reduced considerably in the future, because it is causing great trouble in my area?
While thanking the hon. Member for the courtesy shown, I should like to say that we are taking special measures in view of these particular cases to see that this does not occur again.
Will the Minister let it be known that the Socialist Party are now grateful for the two years' delay?
Public Health
Tuberculosis Nurses
asked the Minister of Health whether he is yet able to announce the establishment of a supplementary register for those engaged in tuberculosis nursing.
This matter is still under consideration and I am not yet ready to make an announcement.
Will the Minister say when he is likely to make his announcement, because it is widely felt that this will help in the profession generally?
These rules are linked up with other rules now under discussion, and I hope to make an announcement on all rules shortly.
Cement Dust, Thames-side
asked the Minister of Health is he is aware of the nuisance caused by cement dust deposits from cement works operating in Thames-side districts, especially Swanscombe and Greenhithe; and if he will institute a public inquiry into this matter.
I am aware of the conditions to which my hon. Friend refers. My alkali inspectors have recently paid visits to the works in the area in question and have the matter constantly under review. I am satisfied that the firms concerned are taking all practicable steps to minimise the emission of dust, and I do not consider that there would be any advantage in directing a public local inquiry into the matter.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that a predecessor of his did say that this matter was capable of solution but that it was purely a question of expense? Is he further aware that blades of grass, trees, houses, and people and generally the surroundings of the district are covered with a great film of dust, which is disgraceful considering that these people have to live there? Is it not a fact that Kent is supposed to be the garden of England, and yet we have this terrible blot imposed by industrialists without consideration to the people in those areas?
I need no pressure put upon me to make me realise what the emission of dust of this sort does in an area like Kent, because we have had to put up with it in South Wales for half a century There are various ways of preventing this nuisance, and when it is possible to instal it the plant necessary for the purpose is being installed, but at the moment the demand for cement is so great that we have to put up with secondary systems
Water Supply, Berkeley Sharpness
asked the Minister of Health if he will give his sanction to the Berkeley Sharpness and district water supply scheme at the earliest possible date; and, in view of the housing needs of the area which cannot be met until the scheme is carried out, if he will instruct his officials to take all necessary steps to expedite it.
Final details of a scheme of water supply, estimated to cost roughly £168,000, to serve the parishes of Alkington, Berkeley, Ham and Stone, Hamfallow, and Hinton have just been received, and I propose to direct a public local inquiry into the scheme at the earliest possible moment.
Licensed Premises (Cleanliness)
asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the memorandum drawn up by the justices of the Gore Division of Middlesex, a copy of which has been sent to him, in which concern is expressed with regard to the unhygienic and insanitary conditions in which drinks are served in many licensed premises; and whether he is prepared to take steps to require that licencees shall serve all drinks in vessels which have been cleaned and dried after use by a previous customer.
Yes, Sir. Section 13 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, which applies to all premises where food or drink are sold lays down requirements for hygiene and the avoidance of contamination of the food or drink: in particular, it requires persons employed in the premises to observe cleanliness, both with regard to themselves and their clothing, and to all articles and apparatus used. The enforcement of the Section rests with the local authority of the area concerned.
Is my right hon. Friend prepared to circularise local authorities in order that the Act may be complied with in this respect?
It is hardly necessary, because they are already aware of the provisions of the Act. But if my hon. Friend is aware of any negligence I should like to hear about it.
Do the drinks at present being served deserve any better conditions?
The worse the drinks the better the conditions ought to be.
Sewerage Scheme, Winchester
asked the Minister of Health whether the Winchester Rural District Council has submitted any sewerage schemes for approval; and what progress has been made with them.
The Winchester Rural District Council resubmitted proposals for the sewerage of the parish of West End in May last, and have been authorised to call for tenders for the execution of the work.
German Sanatoria, Switzerland
asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to acquire German sanatoria in Switzerland for the treatment of tubercular subjects from this country when the Swiss Diet ratifies the recent agreement, signed in Washington, whereby German property in Switzerland may be sold to approved persons of non-German nationality.
I am taking no such steps at the moment, as I think our resources could more advantageously be applied in fully developing the treatment services in this country.
Questions
Funeral Furnishing Services (Local Authorities)
asked the Minister of Health whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce legislation empowering local authorities to institute municipal funeral furnishing services, including crematoria and ancillary requirements.
Local authorities already have power to provide crematoria, and there is no proposal at present before the Government to empower them to institute funeral furnishing services.
Is it not a fact that under the National Health Service scheme £15 million to £20 million is provided by the Government for such purposes, and would it not be better that local authorities should be associated with such functions from the beginning?
That is another issue entirely.
Housing
Reigate
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a number of persons who were allocated prefabricated bungalows in the borough of Reigate last December are unable to obtain possession owing to the absence of internal fittings; and when such fittings will be available.
Yes, Sir. I assume the hon. Member is referring to the Stockton Road site for 15 temporary houses. Four of these have already been handed over to the local authority ready for occupation and I hope that seven more, which have been awaiting ceiling panels and other wooden fittings, will be handed over within the next few days. The remaining four houses are waiting for plumbing units which are in short supply generally. Everything is being done to expedite supplies of these units.
Could not the right hon. Gentleman bring about coordination in these matters, because it does create a good deal of hardship for the individuals concerned?
In these systems of prefabrication, if initial mistakes are made it is almost impossible to catch up with them afterwards.
Sites (Food Production)
asked the Minister of Health how many acres of land acquired by local authorities for housing sites are now under cultivation for food production.
I regret that this information is not available.
Why is this information not available? Is it not a fact that a great deal of this land which is acquired for housing purposes has not been used for that purpose but for food production, and why is not the Minister aware of the changes in these cases?
Because I think the information is not so useful as to divert the local authorities from the job of building houses in order to collect it.
Requirements
asked the Minister of Health how many persons it is estimated are still seeking accommodation or changes of accommodation.
I am unable to say how many persons are still seeking accommodation or changes of accommodation, but the number is very large. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) on 13th December last, it has been estimated that 750,000 houses are needed in order to provide a separate house for each family, and the latest Housing Return issued for 31st May, 1946, shows that just over 170,000 families in Great Britain have been re-housed between the end of March, 1945, and the end of May, 1946.
When the Minister is making a statement of this kind, would he not consider prefacing it by saying that it is a consequence of Tory neglect for many years?
It is hardly necessary to labour the obvious.
Demolition, Heathrow
asked the Minister of Health, if he will take steps to prevent the demolition of 1,200 houses in the development of London airport, Heathrow, until the present housing shortage is overcome; and if, in providing housing accommodation for the 10,000 workers expected to be transferred to the airport, he will ensure that the urgent claims of the constituent authorities of the West Middlesex Joint Planning Committee will not be superseded.
Not more than 32 houses are to be demolished this year and 46 next. The answer to the second part of the Question is "Yes, Sir."
Is the Minister aware that the number of housing sites in this locality is very restricted, and if the proposal to accommodate these 10,000 new workers in the vicinity of the new airport is proceeded with, it will be a detriment and prejudice to other authorities who have insufficient land available for the housing accommodation of their own people?
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning has asked the West Middlesex Joint Planning Authority to report on the land which may be available for purposes of this sort.
Anstey Hall, Trumpington
asked the Minister of Health if, with regard to the future use of Anstey Hall, Trumpington, Cambridge, he will apply the provisions of Defence Regulation 68CA, SO as to ensure that the property is made available to the local housing authority for emergency housing.
I am advised that none of the purposes for which these premises have been used since 31st December, 1938, constitutes "residential purposes" within the meaning of Defence Regulation 68CA. They do not, therefore, come within the scope of the Regulation. I am drawing the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works to my hon. and gallant Friend's representations on this subject.
Sites (Acreage)
asked the Minister of Health the total acreage of land acquired by local authorities for housing since 30th July, 1945; the total cost thereof; how many houses are in course of erection thereon; and how many have been completed and are in occupation.
The information available as to land acquired and houses erected on it is contained in the published monthly return, to which I would refer the hon. Member. I regret that information as to the cost of the land is not readily available.
How many years will it take to develop all this land at the present rate of progress, it any? In view of repayment costs, would it not be advisable, in special cases, to defer any further purchases until the present land is developed?
It is necessary to acquire land in order that it may be planned and provided with roads, sewers, and basic services. Local authorities are provident in acquiring land and are developing it in a most remarkable fashion.
Birmingham
asked the Minister of Health whether, in the deplorable circumstances of housing accommodation in Birmingham, special priority will be given to ex-Servicemen with wives and young children existing at present in congested and unhealthy single rooms, wholly deprived of the elemental amenities of family life.
The allocation of housing accommodation within the control of a local authority is a matter for the local authority concerned, but I understand that in considering applications the Birmingham Corporation give full weight to service in His Majesty's Forces. Nature and size of family and present living conditions are also taken into account.
Cannot the right hon. Gentleman instruct local authorities to take into special consideration the pitiful cases of people who have returned from the Services?
They do it; but consideration must be based on overall need.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Birmingham Estates Committee have a points scheme which gives 50 per cent. to ex-Servicemen, 20 per cent. to priority cases, and 30 per cent. to other cases? Sir Patrick knows that very well.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, on the register of applications for houses, the estates department at Birmingham has received 41,000 applications; that, at the present rate of progress of house building in Birmingham, thousands of the applicants will be without homes for years to come; and if special plans will be devised, in consultation with the local building societies and other organisations, to expedite house building with particular reference to ex-Servicemen with wives and young children.
I am aware that 41,000 applications for housing accommodation have been received by the Birmingham City Council. As much use as possible will be made by the local authority of all building agencies who are willing to build on their behalf in their efforts to meet the needs of ex-Servicemen and others without a home of their own, but the amount that can be achieved is at present limited by the supplies of labour and materials that can be made available.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a modification of his policy regarding private enterprise building of houses? Why cannot private builders build for those who want to occupy their own property instead of renting it?
Private builders now build almost all the houses that are being built, because they build under contract for local authorities. If more private builders built houses for sale there would be fewer houses for needy persons who wish to rent.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Birmingham City Council, at their meeting last Tuesday, stated that they would be able to find habitation, by the end of this year, for 6,000 persons, against 29 for the first year after the 1914–18 war?
Is the Minister aware that there is a large volume of opinion which feels that if the regulations were relaxed the building trade could provide more houses without in any way upsetting the programme in which he is interested? In view of the pathetic state of affairs which exists at present, will the Minister encourage private building?
There is a large volume of opinion which is being artificially created—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and which is wholly uninformed. The hon. Member, with his business associations, knows that the limitation upon the construction of houses at the present time is not building workers on the site, but the supply of materials, which would not be added to by adding more building workers on the site.
Rent Restriction
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the announcement that legislation could not be introduced this Session to extend the Rent Restriction Acts to safeguard tenants not at present protected from unreasonable demands for increased rent under threat of eviction has led to a further widespread abuse of this position; and if he will now announce that he will propose to make his legislative proposals retrospective or take some similar steps to stop this abuse.
I should be glad to look into any particular case which my hon. Friend has in mind, but I would remind him that the choice of legislation for introduction into the House does not rest with me. I will consider the suggestion that restrictions should be made retrospective, but the decision will, of course, rest with Parliament.
While appreciating the magnitude of the tasks which my right hon. Friend has before him—and the short time available for legislation—may I ask him whether he does not think that it is intolerable that people in lodgings should always have the sword of Damocles over their heads? Is he aware that this matter is causing great concern in my constituency, and will he reconsider it with a view to introducing early legislation to put it right?
I am aware of the vicissitudes to which poor people are subjected, but there, are difficulties, as my hon. Friend knows. The question has been raised over and over again, but the raising of it does not add to the Parliamentary facilities available.
Northamptonshire
asked the Minister of Health how many Airey houses have been asked for, respectively, by the rural district councils in Northamptonshire; whether he is satisfied that in no case has the rural district councils' request for Airey houses been postponed or restricted by reason of lack of water supply; and what are the results of the consideration of existing conditions as to water supply in Northamptonshire rural areas arranged by him.
As the reply is rather long, and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the reply:
The applications for Airey rural houses from Rural District Councils in Northamptonshire are as follow:
I am informed that the Northampton Town Council are taking preliminary steps for the construction of a new reservoir, from which supplies can be afforded to other authorities. The provision of interim supplies, pending the construction of the reservoir is being considered. Plans are also being prepared for the development of local supplies in other parts of the county.
Statistics, 1919–21
asked the Minister of Health how many houses in categories of permanent and temporary were completed by November of the years 1919, 1920 and 1921, respectively, in Great Britain.
All the available information is contained in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Handsworth (Mr. H. Roberts) on 11th March, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.
Local Authority Cooperation
asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that local authorities are fully cooperating with him in his permanent housing programme; and, in the case of local authorities not so cooperating, what action does he propose taking to remedy matters
I am satisfied that local authorities generally are cooperating very well indeed in the housing programme. I am investigating the position in those areas where progress seems to be unsatisfactory, and I shall consider in relation to the circumstances of each case the action to be taken.
Will the Minister pay particular attention to the rural district councils in Wales, particularly in the counties which I represent?
I have been watching some of the rural district councils in Wales for some time. I am glad to say they are now beginning to move.
Questions
Illegitimate Children (Birth Certificates)
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the shortened form of Birth Certificate B issued in the case of illegitimate children, omitting reference to parentage, is only obtainable at the time of registration and that no subsequent copy may be issued; and, since this operates as a discrimination against such children by forcing them to produce full details of their birth when they are not in possession of an original certificate, if he will issue instructions that these certificates should be issuable at any time.
The document referred to is merely an acknowledgment that a birth has been registered. It could not be used as a birth certificate, since it does not give the name of the child. The question whether arrangements could be made to issue at any time a shortened form of birth certificate is being examined.
Identity Cards (Loss)
asked the Minister of Health why persons having lost their identity cards and applying for new cards have to make a second visit to their local registration office, thereby causing unnecessary congestion at the registration office and inconvenience to the persons concerned; and why the new identity cards are not sent by post.
The issue of the new card is delayed for a brief period during which a check is made to ensure that the claim is not fraudulent. Personal attendance is required in order to secure that the card gets into the hands of the person for whom it is intended.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable rush at the local registration offices at the moment owing to the issue of new ration books, and if it is possible to send a postcard to the applicant why is it not possible for the registration card to be sent?
Because it might not arrive for the person for whom it is intended.
Public Assistance (Family Allowances)
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that instructions have been given to public assistance committees of county councils to adjust outdoor relief payments by the family allowances due to be paid from 6th August next; and if he will instruct local authorities that the family allowance is not to be used for the saving of local rates.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange that the minimum income permissible to qualify for public assistance shall be graduated and increased so that the Family Allowance Scheme shall fully benefit the children of those families living on the lowest standard of income, that is, on Public Assistance grants.
On the specific Question put by my hon. Friend, I can only refer him to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) on 30th May. I would, however, point out that the duty of public assistance authorities is not merely to take into account available resources. They have also to satisfy themselves—in the light both of the provision now being made for children in the National Insurance and Family Allowance Schemes, and of the scales of assistance laid down by the Assistance Board with the approval of Parliament—that the needs of a household and, in particular, the needs of dependent children are fully met.
Education
Training College, Derbyshire
asked the Minister of Education whether she has now considered the representations of the Derbyshire Education Committee for the provision of an emergency training college at the Hayes Swanwich, Derbyshire; and what action she proposes to take to obtain these premises for this purpose.
As I have already informed my hon. Friend, in reply to a letter which he addressed to me, this suggestion of the Derbyshire local education authority is now under examination. I will let him know the result as soon as possible.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is definitely a suitable building, that it has been used for a similar purpose before, and that it has been under consideration for a considerable time? Will the right hon. Lady speed up the matter?
It really does not speed things up if one is always interfering with a planned programme. The addition of further buildings to the list does not really help. What really helps is to get into order those that we have on the list, and until we can do that, it does not help to add others to the list.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the building is already there, and that it merely needs to be transferred from the War Office to the Ministry of Education, and that then it could be used?
I much appreciate my hon. Friend's kindness in trying to help. We know everything about this building. I am sorry to say that it is not quite as simple a proposition as my hon. Friend thinks. I would be quite prepared to go into the matter with him if he would come to see me about it.
College-trained Teachers (Increment)
asked the Minister of Education how many education authorities have been waiting two months or longer for a decision by her Department on the appropriate increments to be paid to emergency college-trained teachers with previous experience.
To produce this information would impose a disproportionate amount of work on my Department which is already heavily over-pressed. My hon. Friend, will, however, be glad to know that the guidance which I have promised to give to local authorities in order to save delays in these cases will be issued tomorrow. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the document.
May I now take it that these young people will not have any further delay in receiving their salary increments?
Yes, Sir. I am hoping that, as a result of that document, they will not.
Deaf and Dumb School, Wales
asked the Minister of Education what steps she proposes to take for the establishment of a residential school for the deaf and dumb in South Wales.
The Royal Cambrian Institution for the Deaf and Dumb, which has been evacuated to the country, has recently acquired, with my approval, a property near Cardiff into which it is hoped that the school may move shortly. The school in its new premises, with suitable extensions, should suffice to meet the needs of deaf children in Wales.
Women Teachers (Marriage)
asked the Minister of Education what steps she is proposing to take to prevent local education authorities refusing employment to women teachers solely on the ground of marriage.
I am not aware that any local education authority has refused employment to a woman teacher solely on the ground of marriage.
If I send my right hon. Friend particulars of a local authority that is refusing to employ women teachers solely on the ground of marriage, will she be prepared to take action in that instance?
If my hon. Friend will send me particulars, certainly I will look into them, but I have made my position in this matter very clear.
Primary Schools (Staffing)
asked the Minister of Education what prospect there is of additional staffing in the near future for the primary schools.
The number of teachers in primary schools increased from 117,870 in October, 1945, to 121,161 in April, 1946. My plans for further recruitment of teachers allow for this improvement to continue, and Circular 115, which I have just issued to local education authorities, and of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, has a bearing on this matter.
Will the right hon. Lady pay particular attention to providing as quickly as possible an adequate number of teachers specially qualified in the teaching of young children?
The hon. Gentleman may take it that I will.
School Certificate
asked the Minister of Education whether the School Certificate will be continued or soon dropped or changed, and, if the latter, how.
As indicated in paragraph 6 of Circular 103, a copy of which I am sending the hon. Member, I propose to await the advice of the Secondary School Examinations Council before reaching a final decision.
Is not the right hon. Lady aware that, whatever may be the arguments for the abolition of the School Certificate, nothing is more discouraging to pupils than to be required to work year after year on an examination which they have the impression has been condemned as useless by professional experts, and that, therefore, it is highly important that a decision should be taken one way or the other?
That is precisely why we have set up the Secondary School Examinations Council to deal with the matter.
Far East Nursing Services (Defence Medal)
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that members of the Hong Kong Auxiliary Nursing Service and the Malayan Nursing Service, captured in Malaya, are unable to count the period of internment towards the qualifying period for their Defence Medals; that they are classified as civilians; that members of the V.A.D., doing identical work, qualify for campaign stars and war medals and are allowed to count the period of their internment; and whether he will take steps to remedy this.
A proposal to reduce the qualifying period in such cases is under consideration.
Legislation (Parliamentary Control)
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the present volume of legislation is overburdening the Civil Service and endangering the proper control by Parliament over the Executive in respect of delegated legislation; and what action is being taken with a view to ameliorating the position.
The Government's programme of legislation is urgently required in the national interest. I cannot agree that the control of Parliament over the Executive is being endangered. The coincidence of reconstruction work with the clearing up of matters arising out of the war has certainly put a heavy burden on the Civil Service, and we are doing all we can to alleviate it.
Does not the Prime Minister think that the time has now come to set up a working party to deal with the Civil Service?
I think the whole House is a working party at present.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House what definite steps have been taken to overhaul the machinery of the Civil Service, in view of the fact that we have been at peace now for a year, and nothing appears to have been done in this matter?
That is another matter; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on it.
Questions
British Control Commission, Germany
asked the Prime Minister whether the headquarters of the British Element of the Control Commission for Germany is in Berlin or the British Zone of occupation; and whether the present arrangements are to continue.
The headquarters of the British Element of the Control Commission for Germany is in Berlin where the quadripartite control of Germany as a whole is located. There is a zonal office at Lubbecke in Westphalia which functions as the administrative centre of the British Zone. The zonal office is to move to Hamburg as soon as facilities can be made available, but the headquarters of the British Element will remain in Berlin.
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware of plans to open an information centre in Hamburg under the auspices of a committee of British other ranks; and if he will instruct the Control Commission to encourage and facilitate all such efforts to enlighten the British Forces in Germany and the German public about the Commission's work and purpose.
Yes, Sir. I welcome the initiative which has been shown by a group of other ranks of the Hamburg garrison in this matter, and will certainly see that this and other similar projects are given every facility and encouragement. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that information rooms at Regional Headquarters and at other centres giving a bird's eye view of the Commission's activities are already available for the staff of the Control Commission. For the German public, too, information rooms presenting life and thought in democratic Britain have been, or will shortly be, opened in all the principal towns of our zone.
Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Bermuda
asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered reports sent to him of the conference which, on the invitation of the Bermuda branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association, recently took place in Bermuda between delegations from the branches of the association in Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Bermuda and delegations from the two Houses of the American Congress; and the subsequent proceedings in the Senate of the U.S.A.; and if he has any statement to make.
Yes, Sir. I am very glad to have the opportunity of telling the House something about the conference which, at the invitation of the Bermuda branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association, took place in Bermuda between 10th June and 19th June, between delegations from the branches of the Association in the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand and Bermuda. For the second time in the history of these conferences, a notable feature of the meeting was the presence of delegations of four members from the American Senate and four members from the American House of Representatives, who, by appropriate resolutions in both Houses of the American Congress, were selected to attend the conference. The discussions in Bermuda afforded an invaluable opportunity of close personal contacts and exchanges of well considered, if necessarily unofficial, opinions on matters of common interest to the great family of English-speaking peoples.
This is the second occasion on which there has been this close association between delegations from both Houses of the American Congress and from the United Kingdom Parliament and Parliaments of the overseas Empire, and I think it would be difficult to exaggerate the good effect on mutual understanding between the American people and the peoples of the British Commonwealth of Nations which may be expected to flow from what, I hope, will be a progressive expansion of these inter-Parliamentary contacts.
After the discussions in Bermuda, the delegates went on to Washington, and from there to Ottawa. In Washington, the delegates from the British House of Commons, the Canadian Parliament and the Parliament of New Zealand were invited on to the floor of the Senate and the Members of that House stood in recess for a few minutes in order that the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) and the Leader of the Canadian delegation might present them personally to each Member of the Senate. In Ottawa three busy days were spent in the forming of contacts, the acquisition of invaluable information, and the mutual strengthening of friendships which proceeds, as so many Members of this House are aware, from the generous hospitality which in Canada is invariably accorded to visiting Members from the United Kingdom and other Parliaments of the Commonwealth.
I should like to express our thanks to all those, alike in the United States, in Bermuda and in Canada, who accorded such ready hospitality to their Parliamentary visitors. I hope that, with the progressive resumption of peaceful conditions, opportunities for such meetings will increase and that we in this House may have our opportunities of returning the cordial hospitality afforded to Members of the House both in the United States and the British Empire.
Whilst associating myself with every word of the Prime Minister's answer, might I ask him, in relation to the very courteous gesture extended to Members of this House and of the Canadian and New Zealand Parliaments by the United States Senate—a gesture which, as far as I know, is quite unprecedented—whether he, perhaps in conjunction with you, Mr. Speaker, would consider sending some message of appreciation to the Senate from this House for their attitude?
I should like to do so very much if that is the general view of the House and of yourself, Mr. Speaker.
Hear, hear.
In view of the exceptional compliment paid by the Senate to this House by inviting our delegation on to the floor of the House and suspending the proceedings of the Senate in order to welcome us, would the Prime Minister consider using his influence so to amend the Orders of this House that, in the event of American visitors coming here, we might pay them a similar compliment?
I think that would require a great deal of consideration.
Cost-Of-Living Index
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will issue a revised cost-of-living index based on the current expenditure of the public on commodities.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make on a proposed revision of the cost-of-living index.
The question of revising the basis of the cost-of-living index figure is being referred to the advisory committee which has considered the subject in the past and which is now being reconstituted.
Employment
Vocational Training
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that an ex-Serviceman in Hackney is having to wait at least three months for a course of training in watch and clock repairing; and whether anything is being done to avoid such a delay.
The number of persons admitted to training is governed by the capacity of industry to absorb them after training. In this industry the call on the available facilities for ex-Servicemen who are disabled is such that, I am sorry to say, there must be some delay in the admission of able-bodied applicants.
Will my right hon. Friend undertake that in such conditions some indication of the length of time a man will have to wait will be given to him when he is accepted for a course?
Wherever we are in a position to give such information we do so and advise the applicant to take other employment temporarily, but we are not always able to do this until the industry concerned has been able to satisfy itself as to its future requirements.
Is there only one centre in London, and could the right hon. Gentleman say how many men can be accepted for instruction at one time?
I cannot answer that offhand, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a Question, I will look into the matter.
Is the Minister aware that there are many Servicemen who have waited for periods exceeding six months to take a course of vocational training, and that there is great dissatisfaction in this connection?
We are aware of the waiting list and I can assure the House that every step is being taken to overcome the problem. It is difficult to find accommodation and to have places rebuilt, but the work is making very rapid progress and, indeed, by the end of this year we hope we shall have 38,000 places available which should very considerably diminish the waiting list.
Is the Minister aware that in the industry mentioned in the Question facilities can be granted locally without going to the Ministry of Labour centre, that many men in the Services, particularly instrument makers in the R.A.F. and the Army, received some basic knowledge of this trade, and that local firms are willing to accept them if the Minister of Labour will give them permission? May I ask the Minister to look into this?
Certainly, Sir; if the hon. and gallant Member will give me particulars I will examine them.
Personal Case
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Mr. R. G. Davis, of 35, Wisborough Road, South-sea, a plumber released from the Forces under Class B, has been discharged from his employment owing to the W.B.A. order; that he cannot take other work which is available to him until his period of six months has expired; that this is one of several similar cases in Portsmouth; and whether he will authorise them to take temporary employment until their firms can re-engage them.
Mr. Davis has now been placed in other employment in his own trade of plumber for which he was released. Only one other case of this kind in Portsmouth is known and the man concerned has also been placed in employment.
Labour Control (Appeals)
asked the Minister of Labour what steps are taken to bring to the notice of a person coming before a local appeal board, under the Essential Works Orders, his rights with regard to the calling of evidence in the presentation of his case; and what opportunities are afforded to a person having appeared before such a board, to apply for a fresh hearing on the grounds of submitting new evidence, such as apply in most other courts.
The proceedings of a local appeal board are within the discretion of the chairman. I think the procedure normally adopted properly safeguards the interests of both workers and employers, but I should be glad to have inquiries made into any individual case in which the hon. Member thinks that an appellant has not had the opportunity to present his case.
Would it not be desirable to give as much information as possible to those who are likely to be affected, and would it not be helpful if full information were posted up in the employment exchanges as to what are the rights of appeal to these courts and the possibility of allowing those concerned to submit evidence from those who can speak on their behalf?
Any worker desiring this information can obtain it quite easily by inquiring at the employment exchange. As for posting up all these notices, while I know that most of the employment exchanges are badly in need of repainting and decorating, I do not want to wallpaper them with notices.
Would the right hon. Gentleman make special inquiries in regard to this matter as there are so many cases where workers do not seem to know the facts?
I will certainly look into it, but this is the first information we have had that any problem exists.
Foreign Musicians (Permits)
asked the Minister of Labour how many permits have been issued during the last 12 months to foreign musicians and conductors; and if he will state their nationality and the amount of the fees they received for their services in this country.
The information asked for is available only as from 1st April last when my Department became responsible for the issue of these permits. From that date to 26th June, 187 permits were issued in respect of foreign musicians and conductors who have come or will be coming here either as individual artists or as members of established foreign orchestras. Their nationalities are American 7, Belgian 7, French 38, Hungarian 5, Danish 2, Polish 1, Italian 124, Swiss 1, Dutch 1 and Stateless Persons I. Information is not available as to the total amount that has been or will be received by these artists for their services in this country.
Is the Minister aware that comparatively speaking very few British artists and conductors have the opportunity of going abroad and that there is very great dissatisfaction because there are so many of their foreign counterparts in this country taking places that should be taken by British musicians, and will he take steps to remedy this?
The question of exit permits is not the concern of my Ministry. It is our responsibility to see that the fact that these people come here does not prove detrimental to our own artists. So far there has been no complaint.
Will the Minister take into account the interest of the consumers as well as those of the artists?
I should like to know what is meant by "consumers" of entertainment.
Foreign Domestic Workers (Farms)
asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking, in view of the urgency of maximum food production and the heavy strain on farmers' wives who are without domestic help, to arrange for foreign domestic workers to be brought in to relieve those farmers' wives who are most hard pressed; and whether he has consulted with the National Farmers' Union to decide the numbers of foreign domestic workers required immediately to meet this need.
Special and favourable consideration is given to applications from farmers' wives who know of a foreign domestic worker and apply for a permit for her admission. I am also looking into the possibility of assisting them to get in touch with foreign workers. Every application can be considered on its merits and there is no question of a limit on the numbers. The last part of the Question does not therefore arise.
Is the Minister aware that nothing at all is in fact happening under this scheme and will he give the farmers' organisations authority to go to the Continent to see if they can succeed where he has failed?
I should hesitate to give a definite answer to the latter part of the question because the primary aim we have in mind is to secure enough foreign domestic workers for our hospitals and institutions. Until that demand is satisfied we do not propose extensively to operate a scheme for private persons. If, however, persons have made these contacts themselves and know, foreigners they may wish to bring in they can do so, but I do not know whether the farmers' organisations would take it on.
When the time comes, will the Minister bear in mind that it is not only the wives of farmers who are hard pressed and over burdened, and that there are other categories of housewives who need domestic help?
May I ask the Minister what he has in mind when he says he will assist farmers' wives to employ domestic workers, and what piece of machinery he proposes to use?
Quite frankly we have not got that clear in cur own minds yet. [ Laughter. ] I heard one hon. Gentleman opposite say the other day that laughter does not take the place of argument. I was trying to give a reasoned answer. We are trying to work out a scheme by which we can achieve this object and the fact that we have not yet got it clear in our minds is no reason why we should not try to do so.
Questions
Civil Servant (Political Agency)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that Mr. W. R. Banner, a full-time temporary civil servant employed at the Ministry of Information, Nottingham, is acting as the political agent for the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick); and what action he proposes to take in this matter.
I am informed that Mr. Banner is not acting as political agent for my hon. Friend the Member of Loughborough (Mr. Follick), and that the only occasion on which he has acted in that capacity since his first appointment to the staff of the Ministry of Information was for one month during the General Election, during which time he was not in the employ of the Ministry.
Is the Minister aware that—
On a point of Order. Is it not against the traditions of this House to put down a Question on the Order Paper about a matter intimately affecting a Member of this House without first giving notice to that Member, especially when the Question contains a suggestion of dishonesty on the part of a loyal and trusted friend of the Member concerned?
Is not this a breach of tradition which is aggravated by the fact that the person in question is the Mayor-elect of the borough, a person of considerable civic importance?
I could not possibly have been aware of those circumstances. In answer to the first point of Order, I would say that I always regard it as desirable that if a Question is about to be put down affecting an hon. Member of this House, that hon. Member should be informed. The Question appears upon the Order Paper, and perhaps the hon. Member who raised the point of Order might have seen it for himself. Obviously it is not a matter in which I, as Speaker, could have done anything.
I apologise to the hon. Member, Sir, for not having given him notice.
Further to that point of Order. May I point out that I was first made aware of this Question having been put down by a reference to it in the Press?
Arising out of the original answer, may I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware that Loughborough Labour Divisional Headquarters are let in the name of this gentleman as tenant, and further that this gentleman has a business premises vote for those premises? How does the Chancellor reconcile those two facts with his answer?
I have taken considerable trouble, of course, the Question having been put down, to make careful inquiry into the allegations against this gentleman. What I find is that Mr. Banner is, according to all accounts, an exceedingly competent officer of the Ministry of Information who was originally appointed in 1941 when either Mr. Duff Cooper or the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) held that office. I forget now which. He continued, apparently giving complete satisfaction to his chief, until April, 1945, when he tendered his resignation, perfectly honestly and properly, in order to take up duties as agent for the hon. Member whom we are all glad to see in the House. I have all the facts here. I have armed myself with all the particulars. On 9th July, 1945, after the electors had voted, but before the result of the election was known, this gentleman was reappointed as meetings officer, under the so-called Caretaker Government. Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd, who was at that time a Member of this House, was responsible. Mr. Banner was reappointed on that date, no other suitable candidate belonging to the Tory Party, or to any other party, having been found who, in the opinion of Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd and of those who advised him, was competent to carry out those very responsible duties. Since that time, I am informed, this gentleman has continued to give as great satisfaction to the Central Office of Information as he did to the Conservative Ministers who successively occupied the position as the head of the Ministry of Information.
National Finance
War Damage Payments (Chattels)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now fix the appointed day for the payment of claims under the War Damage Act, 1943, Part II, Private Chattels Scheme; and whether he will consider the revision of settlements of claims to allow for increases in cost of replacement between the date of settlement and the date of payment.
I have this question under consideration at the present time.
Savings and Withdrawals
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the subscriptions to National Savings Certificates and Defence Bonds for the three months ended 31st May, 1946; what have been the encashments of each during the same period and the net increase or decrease in the deposits in the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks.
With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
SMALL SAVINGS, MARCH TO MAY, 1946. — March. April. May. £000. £000. £000. SAVINGS CERTIFICATES Purchases … … … … … … 13,099 11,852 13,800 Estimate of interest accrued … … … 4,520 4,520 4,500 Repayments—principal … … … … 11,389 10,914 15,800 Repayments—interest … … … … 1,719 1,735 2,500 DEFENCE BONDS Purchases … … … … … … 20,895 63,389 32,900 Repayments … … … … … 2,498 2,596 2,400 POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK Deposits … … … … … … 37,570 37,944 42,100 Estimate of interest accrued … … … 3,456 3,486 3,500 Withdrawals … … … … … 31,043 36,986 42,400 TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS Deposits … … … … … … 19,754 22,492 20,700 Estimate of interest accrued … … … 1,249 1,258 1,300 Withdrawals … … … … … 15,257 19,883 17,500 NOTES. 1. Services Release Benefits Accounts. The figures for the Post Office Savings Bank exclude Services Release Benefits Accounts. In the period March to May, 1946, sums amounting to approximately £77 million were credited to, and £52 million withdrawn from, these accounts. 2. Estimate of Accrued Interest. As regards Savings Certificates, the figures represent the increases during each month in the estimated amount of the interest due on Savings Certificates remaining invested. As regards the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks, the figures represent the estimated interest due on the outstanding balance at the end of each month—interest on the balance in Services Release Benefits Accounts being deducted. 3. All the figures for the month of May are provisional.
Is it not a fact that there has been a somewhat alarming increase in the withdrawals of money from the Post Office Savings Bank and other Government securities during the last few months? Will the Chancellor say whether that is true or not?
Well, the figures are set out in detail in the answer which I am proposing to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The hon. Gentleman will notice that over this period of March, April and May, to which his Question relates, there were very large subscriptions to the Defence Bonds. There were, no doubt, considerable transfers of money, very naturally, because the last opportunity of obtaining 3 per cent. interest on a Government security was associated with the last Defence Bonds issue. Large transfers from Savings Certificates and from the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks no doubt took place. There was a substantial net addition to savings, but part of this was switched to Defence Bonds. The details are all in the answer.
Following are the figures:
National Savings Advertisement
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the advertisements of the National Savings Committee recommending persons to buy savings certificates with a view to collecting sufficient money to build a house of their own; and whether this advertisement was issued in consultation with the Ministry of Health and indicates a change in Government policy as regards the building of houses by individuals for their own occupation.
I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes," and to the second part, "No."
Does the right hon. Gentleman think it was right to issue an advertisement of this kind which called on people to invest their money for a purpose which is discouraged by the Ministry of Health?
I have examined the advertisement. I do not quite see that that meaning can be put to it. This was an advertisement asking people to save their money in order that at some future time they could spend it, probably in assisting to buy themselves houses, which will not be in competition with the policy of the Government.
Post Office
Special Telegraphic Services
asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether it is his intention to reintroduce the special greetings and other telegraphic and telegram services temporarily suspended during the war.
:: I would refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. G. Jeger) on 30th May. Present conditions in the postal and telegraph services preclude, for the time being, the re-introduction of the greetings and other special telegraph services, such as the night telegraph letter.
Can the Minister say when it is likely that new forms and envelopes will be available?
We are keeping the matter under constant review. As soon as the staff are available we may be able to do something about it.
Pictorial Stamps
asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether in view of the fact that the Victory stamps have pictures on them of certain machines and buildings, besides the King's head, he will now consider placing pictures of historic British buildings and famous views on our stamps to attract foreign visitors, and include among such views the Regency façades of Brighton and Hove and the Royal Pavilion at Brighton.
No, Sir. My noble Friend proposes to confine the issue of large stamps to special occasions; the smaller stamp in ordinary use is not suitable for pictorial representation.
Is the Minister aware that the Dominions and the Colonies are quite well able to produce such stamps? Does he realise the immense value there is from the point of view of publicity and of bringing money into this country by the sale of stamps abroad?
Yes, Sir, but our policy has always been to produce these special stamps only for special occasions. Because of that, they have a special value to serious collectors.
In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Questions
B.B.C. Regions (Amalgamation)
asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if his attention has been drawn to an announcement by a B.B.C. official that the West and Midland Regions are to be amalgamated, with headquarters in Birmingham; and, in view of the fact that such a proposal would cause hardship to West Country listeners through the depreciation of the quality of reception, the curtailment of time devoted to items of local interest and a reduction in news and discussions on farming topics with consequent loss of food production, what action he proposes to take.
asked the Assistant-Postmaster-General why he has agreed to the amalgamation of the Midland and West Regional Stations of the B.B.C., in view of the adverse effect this will have upon reception by listeners; and if, in view of the prevailing uneasiness on this matter, he will make a statement to the House.
The considerations which make the amalgamation of the West and Midland Regions necessary are set out in the White Paper on Broadcasting Policy. I do not think that West Country listeners will find that the result will be to cause them hardship, since reception of the Light Programme will be unaffected and reception of the Home Service will not suffer except possibly in some small areas. Nothing of importance to West Country listeners now contained in the programmes will be lost, and I scarcely think that the amalgamation will cause any loss of food production.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the experience of West Country listeners does not bear out what he has said? Is it not a fact that they have had a very poor time during the war and that they were given to understand from the Director-General of the B.B.C. that there would be great improvement? Is my hon. Friend further aware that the present arrangement is extremely disappointing? Will he take the matter up again and look into it?
Is the Minister aware that this proposal is giving a little concern to people in Cornwall and the West Country who feel that they will lose the special features of the present West Country programme?
I think that if the people in the West Country will consider all the changes that are about to take place they will find that they are not going to lose at all. There are only three wavelengths possible for the whole of England. One goes to the large population of the North of England; another is for the large population in London; and the other is for the rest of England. That is a fair distribution.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if this iniquitous project is proceeded with:
"There's thirty thousand Cornishmen, will know the reason why,"
supported by at least as many Devonians, including Bill Brewer, Jan Stewer, Peter Gurney, Peter Davy and all the rest of that noble company?
Can the Minister inform the House how much time under the new arrangements will be specifically given to West Country programmes?
I cannot say exactly how much time. That is a matter for the B.B.C. themselves, but they have their advisers and I am sure that the West Country will not lose.
Can the Minister state what steps were taken to consult West Country opinion before this action was taken? Is this not another example of the ignoring of consumer interests by monopolies?
Will the Minister enlarge on the statement that only three wavelengths are available? Is that in accordance with the Berne Convention?
I cannot enlarge upon that. There are only three, and we cannot make them any more.
Will the Minister attempt to square this decision with the declared policy of the Government in Cmd. Paper No. 1652 to support and encourage regional broadcasting?
There is nothing in this decision which will not encourage regional broadcasting. As a matter of fact, if the hon. Member reads the Paper he will see that it is the intention of the Government to give great support to regional broadcasting.
The Minister said that there are only three wavelengths for England. Does this include a certain territory North of England?
That is a region with a wavelength to itself.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.
Business of the House
May I ask the Leader of the House to tell the House the Business for next week?
The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 8th July—Report stage of the Civil Aviation Bill.
Tuesday, 9th July—Supply (16th allotted day):—Committee, Debate on Colonial Affairs.
Wednesday, 10th July—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill and to the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Bill.
Thursday, 11th July—It is hoped to conclude the Report stage and Third Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill by about 7 p.m. Afterwards it is proposed to take the Report and Third Reading of the Cable and Wireless Bill.
Friday, 12th July—Committee and remaining stages of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill [ Lords ].
Can the right hon. Gentleman make any statement about the Debates on India and Palestine which are looming before us. As regards the Debate on India, two days are certainly required on this vast matter. The same is true of the Debate on Palestine, in which a great number of Members of all parties take a great deal of interest. What are the views of the Government in regard to this? It is most important.
As for the number of days, I cannot say straight away. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned giving two days. We would be willing to discuss it, but I should doubt it. With regard to India, I appreciate that the House will expect information from the Cabinet Delegation which has been there. It is a matter for consideration when the Debate should take place, and having regard to the actual situation—the rather transitional situation—at the moment, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would not mind letting the conversations proceed and we might answer that next week. With regard to Palestine, it is the intention of the Government that facilities should be provided, and I would again say that if the right hon. Gentleman agrees to conversations proceeding through the usual channels for—let us hope—the amicable arrangement of the Business between now and the time when we rise, it would be useful to everybody.
We will exhaust every possibility through those channels.
May I ask whether the Government propose to do anything about giving the House an opportunity to finish the Debate on education which was curtailed last Monday by the Motion for the Adjournment? Do the Government propose to restore an opportunity to the Opposition to continue the discussion on a Supply Day?
I understand that these matters of interruption of Business under Standing Order No. 8 are settled either by Standing Order or the customary procedure. I think it would be too bad to impose on the Government the consequences of compensating for an interruption of Business by a Standing Order No. 8 Motion. We could not accept that responsibility.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the circumstances are different when the interruption takes place on a Motion moved from his own benches?
This is a free Parliament. I do not control—[ Interruption. ] The Labour Party is not run by a dictatorship. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) took action, on his own responsibility, as a free Member of this House. It must not be thought that hon. Members on this side are mere automatic machines.
Does not the Master of the House realise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise how much his own party were enjoying the Debate on education, in criticising the right hon. Lady, the Minister?
rose —
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. and gallant Member in Order in referring to the Leader of the House as the "Master" of the House? Is it not a grave insult to the House that the right hon. Gentleman should be so described?
I would not definitely say that it is out of Order. I should say it is certainly undesirable. One does not like personal imputations, and I feel that it is a mistake to have them. I always believe in maintaining as far as possible the old-fashioned courtesies of the House.
May I ask whether, in view of the report of the working committee for the cotton industry and the report of the Evershed Committee on the spinning section of the industry, the Government would give a day to a Debate on that subject?
I do not like mentioning Supply Days any more. There are not a great many left. I should have thought that might be a subject for Debate on the Board of Trade on a Supply Day. There are precious few Supply Days to come just now. After the Recess, one hopes it will be easier. I do not know.
Could not the Government give time for a Debate?
I understood perfectly that that was the hon. Gentleman's idea, and I thought it might be on a Supply Day.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of when the summer Recess will commence?
No, Sir. I would advise hon. Members in all parts of the House to be cautious about making arrangements for an early summer holiday. It must depend on how the amicable conversations between the right hon. Gentleman opposite and myself proceed.
We all want to enable hon. Gentlemen opposite to get away in time for the grouse shooting.
I want to ask the Minister if, in view of the Questions put and the answers given on unemployment in Scotland during the week, he can tell us whether the question has yet come before the Cabinet, and whether we are likely to have a statement soon on the situation?
I do not know about a statement, but I can assure the hon. Member that that situation in areas such as Scotland and Wales and the North-East coast is given the closest attention, with every intention of doing everything we can for them.
We do the grousing, and you do the shooting.
Members' Speeches (Hansard Transcript)
May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to some words that were uttered last night by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food? The right hon. Gentleman said:
"What he did say—I have taken the precaution to get his remarks from the OFFICIAL REPORT upstairs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, it seemed to me wise and fair to do that."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1946; Vol. 424, c. 2290.]
I do not wish to object personally, because it has resulted in clearing up a misunderstanding, but it has always been my understanding that hon. Members were not entitled to obtain, before the publication of HANSARD, copies of any other hon. Member's remarks.
The facts of this case are, I think, entirely common ground between us all. The right hon. Gentleman made a somewhat controversial remark and I was very anxious, in fairness to him, to the House, and to myself, to know exactly what he said. I asked my Parliamentary Private Secretary if he would go upstairs and see what the official reporters had down. The first thing I want to say is that no blame can possibly attach to the official reporters themselves in this matter, because the sheet of the draft OFFICIAL REPORT which they issued to my Parliamentary Private Secretary contained several interjections of my own and it was, therefore, perfectly natural for them to show it to my Parliamentary Secretary, not knowing what it was that he wished to check. Having said that, and having explained why I wished to be perfectly sure of the exact words that were used—which I think again is common ground between myself and the right hon. Gentleman—I would like to say to you, Sir, and to the House, that if, as I now understand from the right hon. Gentleman, it was contrary to a Ruling which you had made that these words should not be consulted before they had been printed finally in the OFFICIAL REPORT, then I attempted to consult them and did, in fact, consult the draft purely out of ignorance of that Ruling, and would apologise at once to the House and to you for doing so.
Hear, hear.
Actually, I think the right hon. Gentleman is in error. I do not know that it is a particular Ruling by me or by any other Speaker, but it has been the custom undoubtedly. Indeed, the reporters are not supposed to show hon. Members other Members' speeches. Members may go and look at their own, but the official reporters are not supposed to allow Members to see speeches of other Members. Perhaps, if I may say so, the only mistake was, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, that for purposes of greater accuracy he had examined the sheet. I confess quite frankly that when some remarks I have made are sent to me, I cannot help seeing what an hon. Member speaking immediately before me has said.
Business of the House
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the New Towns Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from
the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[ Mr. H. Morrison. ]
The House divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 116.
Division No. 233.] AYES. [3.45 p.m. Adams, Richard (Balham) Freeman, Peter (Newport) Marshall, F. (Brightside) Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Gaitskell, H. T. N. Mathers, G. Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Gallacher, W. Mayhew, C. P. Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Medland, H. M. Alpass, J. H. George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Messer, F. Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Gibbins, J. Middleton, Mrs. L. Austin, H. L. Gilzean, A. Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R. Awbery, S. S. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Ayles, W. H. Gooch, E. G. Monslow, W. Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Goodrich, H. E. Montague, F. Bacon, Miss A. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield) Moody, A. S. Balfour, A. Grenfell, D. R. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Grey, C. F. Morley, R. Barstow, P. G. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Barton, C. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.) Battley, J. R. Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) Murray, J. D. Bechervaise, A. E. Gruffydd, Prof. W. J. Nally, W. Bellenger, F. J. Gunter, Capt. R. J. Naylor, T. E. Benson, G. Guy, W. H. Neal, H. (Claycross) Berry, H. Hale, Leslie Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Binns, J. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Blenkinsop, Capt A. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Noel-Buxton, Lady Boardman, H. Hardy, E. A. Oldfield, W. H. Bottomley, A. G. Harris, H. Wilson Orbach, M. Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Haworth, J. Palmer, A. M. F. Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Pargiter, G. A. Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Hicks, G. Parker, J. Brown, George (Belper) Hobson, C. R. Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. Brown, T. J. (Ince) Holman, P. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Pearson, A. Burden, T. W. House, G. Peart, Capt. T. F. Burke, W. A. Hoy, J. Perrins, W. Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Hubbard, T. Piratin, P. Byers Lt.-Col. F. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Popplewell, E. Castle, Mrs. B. A. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Porter, E. (Warrington) Chamberlain, R. A. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Porter, G. (Leeds) Champion, A. J. Jeger, G. (Winchester) Price, M. Philips Chater, D. John, W. Proctor, W. T. Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Pryde, D. J. Clitherow, Dr. R. Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Pursey, Cmdr. H. Cluse, W. S. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Randall, H. E. Cobb, F. A. Keenan, W. Ranger, J. Cocks, F. S. Kendall, W. D. Rankin, J. Collindridge, F. Kenyon, C. Rees-Williams, D. R. Collins, V. J. King, E. M. Reid, T. (Swindon) Colman, Miss G. M. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. Rhodes, H. Comyns, Dr. L. Kirby, B. V. Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Kirkwood, D. Robens, A. Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) Lang, G. Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth) Daggar, G. Lavers, S. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Daines, P. Lee, F. (Hulme) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Lever, Fl. Off. N. H. Rogers, G. H. R. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Levy, B. W. Royle, C. Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Lewis, T. (Southampton) Sargood, R. Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.) Lindgren, G. S. Scollan, T. Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Lipson, D. L. Scott-Elliot, W. Deer, G. Logan, D. G. Segal, Dr. S. Diamond, J. Lyne, A. W. Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A. Dobbie, W. McAdam, W. Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. Dodds, N. N. McAllister, G. Shurmer, P. Driberg, T. E. N. McEntee, V. La T. Silkin, Rt. Hon. L. Dumpleton, C. W. McGhee, H. G. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) Durbin, E. F. M. Mack, J. D. Skeffington, A. M. Dye, S. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Skeffington-Lodge, T. C. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) Smith, T. (Normanton) Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty) McKinlay, A. S. Snow, Capt. J. W. Evans, J. (Ogmore) Maclean, N. (Govan) Solley, L. J. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) McLeavy, F. Sparks, J. A. Ewart, R. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Stamford, W. Fairhurst, F. McNeil, H. Steele, T. Farthing, W. J. Macpherson, T. (Romford) Stephen, C. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Mallalieu, J. P. W. Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) Follick, M. Mann, Mrs. J. Strachey, J. Forman, J. C. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) Foster, W. (Wigan) Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Symonds, Maj. A. L. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Vernon, Maj. W. F. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Viant, S. P. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) Thomas, George (Cardiff) Wadsworth, G. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) Walker, G. H. Williams, W. R. (Heston) Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Wilson, J. H. Thurtle, E. Warbey, W. N. Wise, Major F. J. Tiffany, S. Watkins, T. E. Yates, V. F. Timmons, J. White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Young, Sir R. (Newton) Titterington, M. F. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Younger, Hon. Kenneth Tolley, L. Wilkes, Maj. L. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. Wilkins, W. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Mr. Simmonds and Mr. Bing.
NOES. Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich) Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh) Hope, Lord J. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. Baldwin, A. E. Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) Raikes, H. V. Barlow, Sir J. Hurd, A. Ramsay, Maj. S. Beechman, N. A. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury) Bennett, Sir P. Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Jeffreys, General Sir G. Renton, D. Boothby, R. Jennings, R. Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Ropner, Col. L. Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Lambert, Hon. G. Ross, Sir R. Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Savory, Prof. D. L. Butler, Rt. Hon. R.A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Langford-Holt, J. Shephard, S. (Newark) Carson, E. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. Challen, C. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Snadden, W. M. Channon, H. Linstead, H. N. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Strauss, H. G. (English Universities) Conant, Maj. R. J. E. McCallum, Maj. D. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray) Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. Sutcliffe, H. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) Crowder, Capt. J. F. E. Maclay, Hon. J. S. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'ddt'n, S.) Cuthbert, W. N. Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Teeling, William De la Bère, R. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Digby, Maj. S. W. Marples, A. E. Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.) Dodds-Parker, A. D. Marsden, Capt. A. Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth) Drayson, Capt. G. B. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F. Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Turton, R. H. Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Mellor, Sir J. Vane, W. M. T. Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Molson, A. H. E. Wakefield, Sir W. W. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. Walker-Smith, D. Gammans, L. D. Morris-Jones, Sir H. Ward, Hon. G. R. Glossop, C. W. H. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Wheatley, Colonel M. J. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) White, Sir D. (Fareham) Gridley, Sir A. Neven-Spence, Sir B. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) Grimston, R. V. Osborne, C. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'db'ge) Peto, Brig. C. H. M. York, C. Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Pickthorn, K. Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick) Head, Brig. A. H. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Prescott, Stanley
Orders of the Day
New Towns [Money] (No. 2)
Resolution reported:
"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the creation of new towns by means of development corporations, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise such reduction of the liability of a development corporation in respect of advances made to the corporation under the said Act as may be prescribed by any order made under the said Act in connection with the winding up of the corporation."
Resolution agreed to.
New Towns Bill
Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clauses 8, 10 and 14, page 14, line 10, and in respect of the new Clause ( Winding up of development corporations ) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Silkin, and in respect of the Amendment in Clause 22, page 20, line 33, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Westwood.—[ Mr. Silkin. ]
Bill immediately considered in Committee.
[Major MILNER in the Chair]
CLAUSE 8.—(Housing. 26 Geo. 5. & 1 Edw. 8. c. 51.)
3.55 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 8, line 6, to leave out from "approved," to the end of line 10, and to insert:
"the Minister of Health may, if he thinks fit, pay to the corporation, out of moneys provided by Parliament, sums not exceeding the annual Exchequer contributions which would be payable under that Act if the house had been provided by such an authority."
The purpose of this Amendment is to facilitate the erection of houses in the area of a new town. In the normal case the corporation will be entitled to the ordinary subsidy under the Housing Act, but there may be cases in which the corporation will desire to build agricultural houses; possibly there may also be cases in which they might want to build flats and cases in which they desire to build on the site of land which is subject to mining subsidence. In all those cases, a local authority would normally be entitled to additional subsidy. The purpose of the Amendment is to enable the corporations to get the same additional subsidy under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act as a local authority would get, if they were building houses under the same conditions.
If the Amendment related only to what the Minister says, I should not have risen. But I fear it does a great deal more than he has indicated. The Minister has not alluded to the wards "not exceeding." As I read this Amendment it appears to prevent the Treasury from paying to the development corporation any more than the Exchequer contribution. If that is so, it is a most serious Amendment, and in flat contradiction of what the Minister himself said on Second Reading. On the Second Reading, the Minister, having said he hoped that municipal corporations would contribute towards the rate of subsidy, said: in Committee, raised the question of Scotland, and the Minister said:
Quite obviously no new town can be built, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has told us it is to be built, unless it is inhabited for the most part by persons now residing in Glasgow. It is impossible to contemplate anything else. Yet, following on that statement, the Joint Under-Secretary of State assured us that this new town in Scotland was going forward as a matter of high priority. I have always understood that the Glasgow corporation would refuse to pay a contribution. I think it would be unwise and wrong for them to agree to pay one. The Minister may not know the rating position in Glasgow, but I would tell him that with the possible exception of Merthyr, Glasgow is the highest rated large centre of population in Great Britain. He will see that it would be most unfair to other ratepayers in Glasgow to ask them to contribute to the setting up of a new town, from which they will never get any profit in their rates.
I want to know what the position is. I would refer to Clause 12 (7), which says that a development corporation is not to be allowed to borrow—I am assuming that Amendments which will be later proposed are to be accepted—unless there is likely to be a return which is reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances, compared with the cost of carrying out those proposals. The Minister knows, or at least his Scottish colleagues know, that unless there is a rate contribution from the Exchequer the return will not be reasonable in any ordinary sense of that word. Therefore, if this Amendment is agreed to, and the Minister's statement in Committee, which contradicts his statement on Second Reading, is accepted by this Committee, it will be preventing Scotland from having new towns. I am sorry that I see no representative from the Scottish Office here. I hope we shall have a statement from the Lord Advocate. He is a Law Officer; he is a colleague of, but is not subordinate to, the Secretary of State. I hope that he will tell us, on behalf of his right hon. Friend, what the position is. This is another of those things which constantly arise when it is sought to bring Scotland into an omnibus Bill, in circumstances in which we ought to have our own Bill. I shall have more to say on that at subsequent stages, but this is an example. I hope that the Lord Advocate will tell the precise position, because this is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland, not that of the Minister in charge of the Bill. I invite the Lord Advocate to tell us how far this contradiction is to be cleared up, so far as Scotland is concerned.
While the Lord Advocate ruminates on the reply which he will give to the point so lucidly and persuasively put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), I would direct the attention of the Committee to a rather different point which arises on this Amendment. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, this Amendment empowers the Minister to pay to the corporation, sums equivalent to those payable under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Under that Act there are both standard rates of contribution and special rates of contribution. Certain of these special rates arise under Section 4 of that Act and the tables which are set out in the First Schedule, to which the Section refers. I am glad to see from the right hon. Gentleman's nod that he bears those provisions in mind. It may be within the recollection of the Committee that considerable controversy took place, both on Second Reading and on the Committee stage of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, in regard to the special rates for subsidies for flats erected on especially expensive sites. A considerable case was put forward, notably by the hon. Members for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) and Mitcham (Mr. Braddock)—I am sorry that I see neither of them in their places this afternoon—pointing out that the special rates of subsidies given under that Schedule were such as to encourage the erection of flats on especially expensive sites. I have no desire to rehearse to this Committee the varied arguments and propositions put before the Committee when we were considering Section 4 of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, but it was substantially admitted—and though I am not able to quote from what took place in another place, I can say that, when the matter was brought under the cool and impartial scrutiny of that place, it was admitted—that, broadly speaking, the contributions paid under those Schedules had that effect.
I make bold to say, that even in the relatively lower price ranges of £3,500 to £6,000 per acre, the contributions as set out constitute an inducement to the erection of flats on expensive land in preference to the erection of houses. There may be arguments to show that in the normal case of house erection, as provided for under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, that will have to be so. It may be that the problem of housing in London and other great areas cannot be dealt with otherwise than by the substantial erection of flats on highly expensive sites. That is, in my view, a pity, but it may be so. Here we are faced with a different proposition—the matter of the creation of new towns. One of the objects of the creation of new towns is to decentralise, and take away the congestion from heavily built-up areas. Therefore, it must at least be open to question whether we are wise simply to transfer the provisions of these Schedules from the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to the New Towns Bill, because whatever the situation may be in London and other old, highly developed areas, we surely do not want to encourage building of flats on expensive sites in our new towns. By doing so we would depart from one of the basic principles which should animate us in our erection of new towns.
Therefore, I hope that we have not had the last word from the Minister on this Clause, which simply incorporates these Schedules in the New Towns Bill. Surely there is a case for saying that the application of these Schedules to this Bill should be modified, in view of the considerations I have indicated, and in view of the feeling expressed on all sides, in regard to this matter, even on the more general point of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. I hope we shall not lightly transfer, in their entirety, the provisions of the First Schedule of that Act to the New Towns Bill in which, in my view, they have no proper place.
I think many of the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) were due to a misconception of the situation. All this Amendment seeks to do is to increase the subsidy to the corporations in certain cases. Surely, there can be no objection to that. It increases it not only in the case of flats, but in the case of the erection of agricultural dwellings on land which is subject to subsidence, and so on. The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised the question of the rate contribution. That is a separate matter. It is not intended to deal with the rate contribution in this Clause, or in this Amendment but, since he has raised the matter, I will explain the position.
To a very large extent the new towns will be carrying out housing operations which otherwise would have to be carried out by the town which was exporting the population. They are, thereby, relieving the exporting town of a burden. In the case of many of the towns we have in mind—Glasgow was merely an example, and it did not raise any special considerations which would not apply equally to Birmingham, Manchester or London— ex hypothesi they are overcrowded already. Housing cannot be provided within the towns themselves, and the population must go outside. If we did not build houses by this means, the local authority would have to build houses outside the town by means which were less satisfactory. It is equitable that they should make a contribution approximating to the contributions which they would have had to make, if they had provided the houses themselves. This is not dealt with in the Clause itself, but I hope that what I have said explains the remarks quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and attributed to me. When I said that if Glasgow were not willing, the new town would not be built, all I meant was that if the new town was designed to meet the problems of Glasgow and they were not anxious to cooperate, it would be exceedingly difficult to build a new town without that cooperation. That is all I meant to say.
On the question of flats, I do not propose to go into the discussions which took place during the consideration of the other Measure referred to. I should be out of Order if I did so. The provision of this subsidy does not compel the development corporation to build flats. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith) spoke on the assumption that all flats were undesirable—
I do not think I said that. What I intended to say was that it was undesirable in new towns that there should be bulk erection of flats on expensive sites. It seemed to me that that was out of keeping with the whole spirit and intention of the Bill.
4.15 p.m.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is implying that they should be built on cheap sites. The cost of the site is not a relevant factor. What this Amendment says is that, where we find it necessary or desirable to build flats, and the corporation qualifies for an additional subsidy, it should get it. It does not say that the corporation must build flats in order to get the subsidy. The question of whether or not flats are built, will be a matter for the careful consideration of the development corporation, to be dealt with in the plans which they submit for the Minister's approval. No Minister would approve of a large number of flats in the new town if it were not in accordance with the desires of the majority of the people who were to live there and if it would not meet the needs. There will be a need for some flats. It will be desirable to erect some flats. There are even some people, misguided as they may be, who prefer to live in a flat. If there are such people, provision should be made for them. Even the high priests of single family dwellings, concede that something like 15 per cent. of flats will be necessary. I would not go as far as that, but whether it is five, ten or 15 per cent., some flats will be desirable in the new towns. This provision ensures that the additional subsidy should be made available where flats are built. I can see no difficulty about it. It appears to be a case of the Greeks offering gifts. This is an advantage to the corporations at which I should have thought the Committee would have jumped—
Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would he address himself to this aspect? While nobody wishes to prevent the erection of flats, if we give especially advantageous contributions for the erection of flats on expensive sites, though we are not asking the corporation expressly to do so, we are to that extent offering them an inducement. That is the point which the right hon. Gentleman ought to meet.
I will meet it first by denying that this is offering an especially favourable inducement to development corporations. As I understand it, this subsidy was carefully calculated to put local authorities who were building flats on expensive sites, in exactly the same position as those who were building houses on less expensive sites. It took account of the high cost of land and the admittedly higher cost of the erection of flats. I think at the end of the day the local authority or the development corporation will be no better off—possibly they may be less well off financially—by building flats than by building houses. Their own contribution is high. It is not the case that there is a great financial inducement to build flats. Even if it were so, the last word will remain with the Minister who will have to approve the plans as a whole. If he finds a development corporation putting up an inordinately large number of flats, merely because they are desirous of some financial advantage, it would be within his powers to prevent it.
It is unfortunate that there is no representative of the Scottish Office here today. I take it that the presence of the Lord Advocate on the Front Bench opposite means that he will reply to Scottish questions which are raised in this Committee. A very serious case has been put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid). It is a matter which is peculiar to Scotland. The circumstances in Scotland seem to be quite different from those in England, in view of the very high rating contribution. We must have a reply indicating what will happen in the circumstances which have been set forth by my right hon. and learned Friend. I hope the Lord Advocate will give us a reply, because at present we are uncertain as to what will happen. The Minister told us that all that the Amendment did was to increase the Exchequer grant. Will it not also limit the contribution? What it says is "a sum not exceeding the annual Exchequer contribution," and surely, that is a limiting factor? It seems to me that, in the case of Scotland, the Minister has said that the town exporting the population was being relieved of a liability, and, therefore, might well be called upon to contribute towards the new town an amount having some relation to the contribution of which it was being relieved. Surely, that means that it will not have to pay the full amount, but will only have to pay a proportion? If a town like Glasgow—I take Glasgow as an illustration because it is the town I know best—is going to build within its present perimeter, it is not going to spend as much on that as on a new town outside. There may be no need whatever for it to go outside its boundaries. What is happening is that the whole centre of the city is becoming derelict and vacant, and it will be cheaper to build there, than outside.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is merely putting forward a set of circumstances in which a new town would not be justified at all, and, of course, if it were not justified, a new town would not be built.
The Minister must remember that he has told us that a new town is going to be built. We want to know how it is going to be built. We say that the right hon. Gentleman must reply to the question and tell us what this means in relation to Scotland. I will ask the Minister to reply to the question put by my right hon. and learned Friend.
There is no difference in principle, as I understand it, between the law as applicable to England and that applicable to Scotland. In the two countries, the same general principles are to apply, and I am perfectly content with what the Minister has said on the matter, particularly in regard to this Clause. The only question here is whether or not certain of the provisions of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, applicable to both countries, are to be applied a little further than was the case in the original draft. In the original Bill, provision was made for what we might call the standard subsidy. The object of this Amendment, which applies equally to both countries, is to extend the subsidy beyond the normal or average subsidy, and nothing more. In the Scottish Amendment dealing with the matter the Scottish Clause is brought into line with the English Clause, and nothing more.
I cannot rest content with that explanation. I realise that this Government are perfectly content that Scotland should be governed by Measures devised by English Ministers to meet English conditions. That, apparently, satisfies the Lord Advocate, and his friends who are not here. It does not satisfy us, and I propose to expand this argument a little, because we must have some-further knowledge on the point. The Lord Advocate has not dealt with my statement that, in my view, Glasgow would not pay a contribution. He has not, apparently, made himself acquainted with what the Joint Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), said during the sixth day's proceedings in the Standing Committee:
"Take one of the things we are proposing to do, the establishment of a new town at East Kilbride, a most vital matter in that over-populated area of Great Britain. If that is to be done, we must not wait until next year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th June, 1946; c. 256.]
Apparently, the Scottish Office have determined that they are going on to build East Kilbride without any contribution, because they have no reason to believe—indeed they have every reason to believe otherwise—that Glasgow will make a contribution. As I read the Amendment, it prohibits the Exchequer from paying a rate contribution. I do not expect the Minister of Town and Country Planning to understand fully the point I am making, because, although he is a lawyer, he has, perhaps, been out of practice for some time. I do not want to detract from his legal qualifications, which are very high—
I was in practice until last August.
Then the Minister will understand the point. I am sorry if I seemed to detract from his qualifications, which are very high. Under Clause 8, as it stands, the position is that there shall be payable to the corporation an annual Exchequer contribution. That does not exclude a further Exchequer contribution under some other Clause. The Clause says that there shall be paid a sum A, but it does not exclude a further sum B. When we come to the Amendment, it is quite different:
"The Minister may, if he thinks fit, pay to the corporation, out of moneys provided by Parliament, sums not exceeding the annual Exchequer contributions."
This, by implication, prohibits the Minister, or anybody else, from paying out of moneys provided by Parliament anything exceeding the Exchequer contribution. The Minister says it does not, but, if words mean anything, I think it does. If we enact that a Minister may pay sums "not exceeding," surely, we prohibit him "from paying sums exceeding a certain limit? If the Minister and his legal advisers look into the matter again and make quite clear that nothing in this Amendment will prevent the Exchequer from paying the rate contribution, that will, in some way, meet our objection. As I read the proposal at present, the Minister excludes a rate contribution by virtue of these words. I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter, and that the Lord Advocate will clear up the mystery of the new town at East Kilbride.
As one who has been out of practice much longer than the Minister or my right hon. and learned Friend, I hesitate to intervene in this discussion, but I understand the Minister's intention is to extend, by this Amendment, the scope and range of dwellings in respect of which two subsidies can be given. This is a gift, and I accept it from the right hon. Gentleman as a gift, but it has a most forbidding aspect, in that the Minister comes before us with a limiting prohibition which prevents his generosity having the full scope which his kind heart intends. Is it the case that the answer is to be found in Clause 12 (2). Clause 12, in general, gives power to the Minister to make advances and payments to these development corporations for the purposes for which they are created. Subsection (1) gives power to defray expenses properly chargeable to capital account and working capital, and Subsection (2) is in very general terms:
"(2) For the purpose of enabling a development corporation to defray any other expenditure, the Minister may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, make grants to the corporation of such amount as may be approved by the Treasury."
It is rather unfortunate that this Amendment comes before us in a limiting guise. I wonder whether it is the case, applying to both England and Scotland, that, if we have a situation in a neighbourhood which clearly demands a new town, and if most of the population of that new town must, ex hypothesi, come out of some neighbouring conurbation or city, and if there is no prospect of a rate-aid contribution towards the new town, it would be built under Clause 12 (2), the deficit being made up so that the project may go ahead, irrespective of the rateable poverty of the parent city?
I think my right hon. Friend has correctly understood the situation. Clause 8 (2), an Amendment to which we are now discussing, really relates to State contributions—by the Minister of Health, in this case—in respect of the housing subsidy. There will, no doubt, be a deficiency after the old subsidy has been paid, but that will be made good under Clause 12. It is quite correct to say that if a local authority, whose population is to be rehoused, is not able or willing to make a contribution, and the project goes forward, the rate contribution which they could have made, will be made good by the Exchequer. I think the matter is perfectly clear, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman need have any fear about it.
4.30 p.m.
It is odd, because, under Clause 12 (7), money may not be advanced to a corporation unless there is going to be a reasonable return. Now, if I understand him aright, the Minister says that the return will become reasonable because, under Clause 12 (2), the Minister will pay Some grant or other. Let us get it right.
I did not say anything about the return being reasonable.
I understand that before any money is advanced at all, it will have to be shown that there will be a reasonable return. Plainly, there will not be a reasonable return out of the Exchequer contribution plus the rent. Therefore, in order to make a reasonable return, the money must be found from somewhere else. Clause 12 (2) seems to be in conflict with the Amendment we are now discussing. Is the position that, in determining whether there will be a reasonable return, it must be borne in mind that the Treasury will pay annually to the corporation a subsidy under Clause 12 (2)? That seems to be a very roundabout way of dealing with financial affairs. If that is right, I can understand it; but if that is not right, I am bound to confess that I do not understand the position.
Of course, that would not be right. The point is that, although it works out that way, the Exchequer will make good any deficiency. The wording of Clause 12 (7) means a return which is reasonable:
"having regard to all the circumstances …"
and those words provide the criterion upon which it is to be judged whether the return is reasonable or not. In the case of working-class houses, a reasonable return would not necessarily be a return providing a profit, but a return which would show a reasonably small loss, and the Exchequer, in such cases, will look at the project as a whole and recognising that it is a project for the provision of working-class houses, and being satisfied that the return is reasonable, will make good the deficiency under Clause 12 (2).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 10.—(Statutory Undertakers.)
I beg to move, in page 11, line 3, at the end, to insert:
"(4) Provision shall De made by any order under subsection (2) of this section for securing that persons who, immediately before that order comes into operaton, are employed by any undertakers whose limits of supply are varied by the order, and suffer damage in respect of their employment in consequence of the order, shall be entitled in such cases, to such extent and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the order, to recover compensation in respect of that damage from such of those undertakings as may be specified therein; and for the purpose of prescribing the matters aforesaid any such order shall provide—
This Amendment is a slight modification of one which was put on the Order Paper during the Committee stage by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). He withdrew that Amendment on my undertaking to accept the principle of it, and to submit an Amendment at this stage which would cover the points he had in mind, in the proper form. I am advised that this Amendment is in the correct form, and I hope that the Committee will accept it.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
I think it would be to the convenience of the Committee, Major Milner, if I referred to the first two Amendments standing in my name to the proposed Amendment, as they are, more or less, on the same matter.
I suggest that the hon. Member must deal with all his Amendments to the proposed Amendment at the same time.
I am afraid I could not cover them all in that way, because there are various points involved.
In that case, I suggest that the hon. Member should deal with the first two Amendments together, and see how we get on.
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the first "that," to insert "( a )"
I will also refer to my next Amendment, which is line 3, after "order," to insert:
I am in agreement with the desirability of protecting the position of people employed by an undertaking, who, at the moment of the undertaking being transferred, are on war service. I am advised that the words of the Amendment which I have submitted, will cover that point, and that, therefore, this proposed Amendment to my Amendment is unnecessary. However, it is a question of interpretation, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it is our intention to cover such cases, and that we believe they are covered. If he will allow me to look at the matter again and will withdraw his Amendment in the meantime, I shall be very happy to assure him that the words in my Amendment do cover the points he has in mind.
With that assurance from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out "damage in respect of their employment," and to insert:
"loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments."
I am not a lawyer, and I do not know what the legal interpretation of the word "damage" may be. To a simple layman, it may have other meanings than that applied by a legal definition. Therefore, I do not propose to follow those lines. I wish to ask the Minister why, in his Amendment, he is departing from the well-trodden path. Why is he departing from phraseology which has been accepted time after time in various Acts of Parliament? I suggest that the words
"damage in respect of their employment,"
might lead to difficulties, and I beg the Minister to accept this Amendment to his proposed Amendment which is, in effect, only bringing the Clause into line with others which have gone before.
I am advised that the words
"damage in respect of their employment,"
would cover loss of employment, loss of emoluments and the relinquishment of office on specified grounds, and, therefore, my hon. Friend's Amendment to the Amendment is unnecessary. The words which are used in my Amendment also appear in the Civil Aviation Bill; they have that precedent, at any rate. I am prepared to give my hon. Friend the same assurance as I gave him before. I think the words in my Amendment are better, but I will certainly look at them again.
With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in fine 7, to leave out from "therein," to the end, and to add:
The position is that the person employed by an electricity undertaking, in the terms of my right hon. Friend's Amendment, is in a worse position so far as compensation is concerned than if he were employed by a gas undertaking. In 1937, and as late as 1940, where there have been amalgamations of gas undertakings, the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1933, have been applied for the purposes of compensation. Therefore, so far as the Minister's Amendment is concerned, we have this anomalous position, that the electricity employee must substantiate his case before a court of referees, the onus of proof being placed upon him, and the period in which he can claim compensation being limited to five years, whereas the employee of a gas undertaking, if the precedents were followed, would have the advantages of the Local Government Act, 1933. Therefore, on grounds of fairness and equity, and also in view of the precedents established over many years, I submit that the terms of my Amendment are better.
4.45 p.m.
I hope the Minister will be very careful before he accepts this Amendment. This practice of claiming for loss of emoluments has become more or less a "racket." There should be a condition that compensation should cease to be paid to a person when he re-enters employment similar to that which he had before the displacement took place. I know of a man who has been drawing £6 a week for 22 years. He has never been a day idle. Scotland was littered with the debris of local government servants who were displaced by the amalgamations which took place from time to time, but I have never met one of those persons who retired from active participation in business. As a matter of fact, some of them not only accepted their annual payments of compensation, but put brass plates on their doors and practised as solicitors. I think this is a lot of "bunk," and the sooner the Government place this matter in its proper perspective, the better it will be for everybody. I myself have lost emoluments of office—at two hours' notice from the foreman. I agree that, possibly, men in such circumstances might be told by the Ministry of Labour that there was a job in Belfast, although they were living in Glasgow, and that if they did not go to Belfast they would be regarded as not genuinely seeking employment.
I do not desire to impose hardship on local authority officers or technicians who have been displaced because of amalgamations or the creation of a new town, but I want the Minister to be careful. I could name at least two county clerks who retired under the Act of 1929. They are still as lively as ever, and they are still engaged in business for profit. I think it is too bad to saddle the ratepayers with the responsibility of an annual charge. A firm undertaking should be given that when a man receives compensation, if it is by way of a lump sum it should be determined by whether he re-enters the profession or the industry, and if it is a weekly or monthly payment it should only be paid when he is out of active employment. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, in his quieter moments, would agree that there is a great deal of logic in what I have said.
I will give a final illustration. We had an official in Glasgow who hung on by his back teeth until 12 hours before the closing day before he exercised the option to retire. He retired and was paid, I think, speaking from memory, £1,300 a year. He immediately jumped into a job carrying a salary of from £900 to £1,000 a year. It is all poppycock to say these people are suffering a hardship through withdrawal from or change of office. Some of us are entitled to a little notice. I, for one, and I know many of my Scottish colleagues, will not sit idly by and see developments which are projected, simply strangled at birth by heavy annual charges.
I would not have intervened at this point had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). No one will disagree with a great deal of what he said; nobody wishes to overburden these new schemes with unnecessary compensation. Nevertheless, the fact is, as surely everybody in the Committee will agree, as these claims are brought in inevitably a number of people suffer. The point is, not that they surfer because of their immediate loss of earnings but they lose their prospects in their job. It can be argued, and argued very forcibly, that people can change their profession and make a success in another walk of life. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbartonshire said that he has been given two hours' notice. It is just possible that once again in his life he may find he has to change his occupation, and I have no doubt he will prove as successful in some new occupation as he is in the one he is following now.
I have been here before, but I did not ask for compensation.
The fact is—and I ask the Minister to admit this—that because of the schemes which the Government are bringing in, certain people are very adversely affected by their prospects being taken away. The point of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment is, not that unnecessary compensation should be paid but that this Ball, as drafted, causes particular hardship to one particular type of worker in electricity undertakings who are better off than those in gas undertakings. It does seem to me that he has made a very serious point. Therefore, I hope the Minister will consider it, and not be led away by the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbartonshire, with which most of us agree but which, it semed to me, had little or nothing to do with the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, which was so ably moved.
There is no serious disagreement in any part of the Committee that people who are displaced as a result of the transfer of services should receive compensation. The question is whether the basis put forward in my proposed Amendment is correct, or whether the basis put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) is correct. My hon. Friend does not like people in the employ of electricity undertakings or gas undertakings being treated as if they were employees of such undertakings but wants them to be treated as if they were employed in the local government service. That would be wrong. It would be wrong to treat them in that way as regards compensation; that is to say, to pay them remuneration as if they were in local government service. They are not in local government service. A person employed by an electricity undertaking is covered by the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, which is appropriate to his employment, and he will get compensation based on that Act. A person employed in a gas undertaking, who, presumably, receives a different rate of remuneration, is covered by the terms of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920.
I see nothing illogical in people who are employed by two different types of undertakings, in two different types of work, receiving two different types of compensation based upon the Acts of Parliament in respect of which those undertakings are regulated. It may well be that one is better than the other, but that is bound to be so where there are two different types of compensation. My hon. Friend complained that the onus of proof is on the applicant for compensation. Where does he think it ought to be? Surely it must be on the person claiming. That is an ordinary principle of English law: the person who makes a claim must prove his case. My hon. Friend also complained that the applications come before courts of referees. They are bodies of responsible people, who are perfectly competent to decide cases of this sort; in some circumstances one might say they are just as competent as the Minister. I feel my hon. Friend really has no grievance. Men coming into the service are presumed to come in with a knowledge of the conditions applicable to that service. I think they are being treated fairly, and I hope this Amendment to my proposed Amendment will be rejected.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
Proposed words there inserted.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 14.—(Transfer of undertakings and winding up of development corporations.)
I beg to move, in page 14, line 10, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of Clause, and to insert:
"(3) The payment of any sums payable by a local authority for the purposes of an agreement under this section shall be a purpose for which that authority may borrow money."
This Amendment must be read with a new Clause which I intend to move in due course ( Winding up of development corporations ), to take the place of Clause 14. This Amendment has the effect of deleting Subsections (3) to (6) of Clause 14, leaving Subsections (1) and (2) as they are. Subsections (1) and (2) relate to transfer of the undertaking by the development corporation, either to a statutory undertaking or to a local authority by agreement. I am now moving this amendment because it is necessary to provide that any sums which a local authority pays for an undertaking it acquires by agreement should be a purpose for which the local authority may borrow money. That is a necessary provision.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 22.—(Provisions as to Scotland.)
I beg to move, in page 20, line 33, to leave out from "1935," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert:
"( b ) for any reference to the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, there shall be substituted a reference to the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1946, and for any reference to a house there shall be substituted a reference to housing accommodation;
"( c ) in Subsection (2) for the words from "under that Act," to the end of the Subsection there shall be substituted the words "under Section one or Section three or Section five of that Act (as amended by any Order for the time being in force under Section fourteen of that Act) if the housing accommodation had been provided by a local authority; and where, under proviso ( a ) or proviso ( b ) to Subsection (2) of the said Section one, additional contributions would be payable if the housing accommodation had been provided by a local authority being the town council of a large burgh, sums not exceeding those additional contributions shall also be payable under this Subsection."
This Amendment is purely consequential upon an Amendment which has already been accepted. Broadly, it provides for the Scottish corporations the same financial assistance in the way of building houses, as has been provided already under the Amendment previously accepted.
5.0 p.m.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State regards Scotland as "purely consequential" on England and takes the view that, because the Minister has thought fit to make a certain modification of the type of new town that is to be brought in in England, the Secretary of State has, as a matter of course, to change his own plans also. There is too much of that outlook at the present moment in the Scottish Office, and this Bill is a very good example of it. Let me ask the Secretary of State to justify this Amendment on Scotland's merits, and not as a consequential Amendment. What he says at the moment is in the Bill is that the ordinary housing subsidies are to be paid. That is all right. Now we have something in which exceeds the ordinary subsidies, under an Amendment discussed a short while ago—I will not go back on that—and this Amendment very properly adds the subsidy under Section 5 in respect of any extra claims. That is a good addition. But it also adds the agricultural housing subsidy under Section 3. I should have thought it unlikely that there would be any agricultural houses within a new town, but it may be so, and one does not like to rule it out.
It is, however, when one comes to the latter part of the Amendment that I think some justification is required. The latter part of the Amendment enables additional subsidies to be paid under four heads, of which the first is the costliness of providing housing accommodation in a redevelopment area. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has it in mind that he intends to put a new town in a redevelopment area. Four new towns have been mentioned in Scotland, one of which is to be proceeded with as a matter of priority, and the other three names have been given. I take it that our share of the £50 million will not go any further than that. I wonder whether the Secretary of State can tell us whether any of the four new towns impinge on redevelopment areas? The second head comes under Part I of the Act of 1930, and provides payment of compensation in respect of the demolition of dwelling houses or other premises neither unfit for human habitation nor injurious to health, and which are included in, adjoin on, or surrounded by a clearance area. I wonder whether the Secretary of State can tell us whether there is any clearance area involved in any of the four towns which have been mentioned as the first four on the list? The third head is the costliness of the provision by a local authority, being a town council of a large burgh, of housing accommodation in tenements on a central site. Is it proposed in these new towns in Scotland—we have heard the story for England—to have costly tenements of this kind? The fourth head is the subsidy for the installation of lifts where a tenement is more than four storeys high.
I am bound to say that it surprises me that the Secretary of State should contemplate putting up tenements more than four storeys high in one of these new towns. I have always been a supporter of tenements of this character in the redevelopment areas in the large cities, because I believe that people ought to have their choice in this matter and many would prefer—I would myself—to live in a good modern tenement near their work rather than live in a house on the outskirts with all the time and expense of travelling. I, therefore, supported the inclusion of those subsidies in the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, but it is a different story when we are dealing with a new town which, we are told by the experts, should never exceed 60,000 inhabitants. I should have thought it would be a very long time before any of the Scottish new towns came anywhere near that figure. Half that figure is as far as we are likely to go for a long time. Why then do we want five storey tenements with lifts in any of the four new towns the names of which were mentioned in Committee and which, I assume, are the first four priorities? I hope the Secretary of State will be able to tell us why he wants those powers. If there is a good reason I do not object, but for the information of the public I should like some indication of what the Secretary of State has in mind in this matter.
It might be possible in the new towns that we contemplate that there might be a rather expensive site which would have to be acquired. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman appeals to me personally, I can assure him that I am not keen on the provision of tenements—or flats, a term I should prefer to use if I were not limited to tenements because the word is used in the Scottish Housing (Financial Provisions) Act. The new corporation will have to satisfy the Secretary of State that it is an expensive site before they can get any of these additional advantages. I understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was complaining against these additional provisions in the way of finance unless there is a good case for them. I am not keen on the development of flats or tenements. I made that perfectly clear during the discussions of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and also in connection with the New Towns Bill itself. But my attention has been drawn to the fact that in one of the areas in which we may have a new town there may be a cinema perhaps understandably making very good profits and consequently it would possibly be a rather expensive site to acquire. Reasonable compensation would have to be paid—and I have no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend would ask, quite rightly, for reasonable compensation—for acquiring the rights of that particular land. Consequently the new corporation might come to me, or whoever succeeds me, and might be able to make a case for the building of flats. If they can make out that case, surely it is right that they should receive the additional financial assistance which is already provided under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act for the corporations in our large burghs?
I was also asked if there were clearance areas. I can visualise the need for a clearance area in one of the towns contemplated, Cumbernauld in Dumbartonshire. The proper redevelopment of that area and the building of a new town there might necessitate a clearance area, and I am sure the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) knows more about Cumbernauld than I do. He knows, as I know, that there are housing conditions there of which it would be necessary to make a proper clearance. Why should not provision be made for the corporation to get the additional financial provisions which this House has already agreed should be paid to a local authority? Those are the reasons why I want these provisions here. I am not anxious, just because a thing has been approved of for England, that we must consequentially accept it for Scotland, but I should be wrong, where finance is involved, if I did not accept for Scotland at least as good provision as has been provided for England, and that is all I am asking in this Amendment which is before the Committee.
I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) raised this question and I think the answer which has been given is eminently satisfactory. The Secretary of State, in his first statement, told us that this Amendment was consequential, I think he could have given us this information then. I hope he will pardon my saying so, but I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there does seem to be a tendency on the part of the Scottish representatives in the Government to be at the tail of English legislation.
I think the arguments of the Secretary of State are somewhat naive. In the instance of Cumbernauld, there are services which ought to be utilised. I can visualise what the Secretary of State has in mind. In a built-up area it is possible that charges for land may go up to £6 or £8 or £10 a square yard, not because of the value of the land itself, but because of the clearance of obstructions on it. I do not like the assumption which, if I understood the Secretary of State correctly, he made in talking about the erection of flats—that the building of flats is a more economical way of utilising a site, or a more economical way of building. It is not. I think figures prove that once a building rises beyond the second storey, the cost increases. I should like an assurance from my right hon. Friend that, in the building of new towns, there will be provision for houses. I am glad that local authorities are not to be asked to pay the cost of the new towns. I am glad to know the Government have faced up to the financial responsibility of creating the new towns. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) will be glad to know that, because they represent a city which is always concerned about increases in the local rates.
I should like to hear a declaration from my right hon. Friend, that in the creation of these new towns the Government do not propose to build either multi-storied flats or even four-storey flats. I have never yet been convinced that one can restrict the number of residents even in a new town. We have a town in the West End of Glasgow which, by itself, covers an area bigger than Stirling, and it is not very difficult to have a population increase beyond the 60,000 mark. I do not think we shall create a new town every time a town has a population exceeding 60,000. I think it is easy to expand accommodation by means of the terraced and semi-detached type of house, to meet the ever growing demand of an increasing population. To borrow a phrase coined, I think, by my right hon. Friend himself, I hope he is still strenuously opposed to "warehousing the people" and believes in housing them. Even the responsibility of being a member of the Government does not necessarily make a virtue of what was a vice when one was a humble person.
I wish the right hon. Gentleman would show more opposition to the tendency to believe that people want to live up in the clouds, and that the higher one builds the cheaper the building becomes. The higher a building, the more space there is lost, because by way of compensation more ground has to be kept open at the back and the front of it. It is not a case of gaining on the swings what is lost on the roundabouts. I think the Scottish Members, while welcoming the proposal for new towns, would feel happier if the Secretary of State would make a declaration that he will set his face against building in an upward direction.
5.15 p.m.
I think we can accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation as reasonable; but I should like to call his attention to something which is quite unreasonable, and that is the wording of this Amendment. I should say that it would take anyone from ten minutes to a quarter of an hour to find out what it means. There is no need for that and it is particularly onerous, when we have so much to do as we have today. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Amendment he will see that in line 5 there is a reference to "Subsection (2)" Subsection (2) of what? It is a reference, so far as we can discover after great research, to Subsection (2) of Clause 8 of this Bill as amended by the first Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman today. It takes a considerable time to find that out; and in other places this Amendment is just as obscure. I hope that there is yet time to alter the wording. The original Amendment—this is a revised one—was totally unintelligible; this is almost as bad. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will get his draftsmen to put this into shape.
Where we have legislation by reference, it is always difficult. I do not complain about any hon. Members opposite objecting to the wording because I used to do so, repeatedly, when I was in the same position as that in which they are today. But it is extraordinarily difficult, when one is trying to get legislation to benefit one's country to find the right wording. In this case, I do not want to be left behind England. I wanted to march step by step with England.
Only step by step? The right hon. Gentleman ought to be in front.
I should like that, but my steps are short, and sometimes I have to take many steps in order to keep up. I shall certainly look into the point that has been raised. If what hon. Members desire can be done, it shall be done, and if it cannot, I am sure my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite, who are reasonable, will accept a reasonable explanation. On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay), I am still in favour of housing our people, and I am not in favour of warehousing our people. I have not changed, because I am now on the Treasury Bench. I can give the assurance that the new corporations will have to put up an extraordinarily strong case before they convince me that it is right, even with the financial provision we are making, to build flats instead of the cottage type, or even the flatted type, of house. I know my hon. Friend has no objection to that type. When we talk of the flatted type of house in Scotland, we mean a two-storey building containing two separate habitations. I can give the assurance that, so long as I am in Office, they will have to put up an extraordinarily strong case before I shall agree to warehousing our people instead of housing them.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
NEW CLAUSE.—(Winding up of development corporations.)
(1) Where the Minister is satisfied that the purposes for which a development corporation was established under this Act have been substantially achieved, and is further satisfied, with the concurrence of the Treasury, that the circumstances are not such as to render it expedient on financial grounds to defer the disposal of the undertaking of the corporation under this section, he shall by order provide for the winding up and dissolution of the corporation.
(2) At any time after an order has been made under the last foregoing subsection, the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, by order provide for the transfer of the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of the corporation to such local authority (being an authority within whose area the new town is situated) as may be specified in the order or, in so far as that undertaking consists of a statutory undertaking, to such statutory undertakers as may be so specified:
Provided that—
(3) Where provision is made under the last foregoing subsection for the transfer of the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of the development corporation to a local authority or statutory undertakers, the terms upon which the transfer is to be made shall be such as may be determined by an order made by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury, and any such order may provide for the payment by that authority or those undertakers, in consideration of the transfer, of such sum as may be specified in the order, to be satisfied in such manner as may be so specified:
Provided that not less than twenty-eight days before making an order under this subsection, the Minister shall serve a copy of the proposed order on the local authority or statutory undertakers to whom the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of the corporation is to be transferred, and if any objection is made by them within twenty-eight days after the service of the notice the order shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure.
(4) If the Minister is satisfied that it is expedient, having regard to the provisions of any order or orders made or proposed to be made under subsection (3) of this section, that the liability of the development corporation in respect of advances made to them under this Act should be reduced, he may, by an order made with the consent of the Treasury, reduce that liability to such extent as may be specified in the order.
Provided that an order under this subsection shall be of no effect until it is approved by Resolution of the House of Commons.
(5) An order under subsection (2) of this section may make such provision as the Minister considers expedient for extending the powers and duties of any local authority or statutory undertakers to whom the undertaking or part of the undertaking of the corporation is transferred by virtue of the order; and the payment of any sums required by the order to be paid by any such local authority shall be a purpose for which that authority may borrow money:
Provided that no such order shall confer or impose upon any such local authority any powers or duties which are exercisable within the area of that authority by any other local authority.
(6) Any surplus arising from the winding up of a development corporation under this section shall be paid into the Exchequer; and any deficit shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.—[ Mr. Silkin. ]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a revision of the remainder of old Clause 14; the first two Subsections having already been dealt with. Perhaps it would help the Committee if I explained where these revised provisions differ. They differ in four respects. Firstly, they differ as to the circumstances in which the Treasury can influence the time in which the corporation is wound up. Under the original Clause, the Minister had to act to the concurrence of the Treasury, and the Treasury could have raised any grounds for deferring the winding up of the corporation. The Committee will agree, I think, that it is right that when the purposes of the corporation have been substantially achieved, they should be wound up. This new Clause limits the circumstances under which the Treasury can object; they can defer the disposal of the undertaking on financial grounds.
Secondly, in the Clause as orginally drafted, the winding up had to be the subject of affirmative Resolutions by both Houses of Parliament. It seemed to me that there was no real justification for asking Parliament to express an opinion, as it could only have done, on the question of whether the Minister was reasonably satisfied that the purposes of the corporation had been substantially achieved. These are governing factors, and there could have been no other reason for both Houses of Parliament expressing a view. If a Minister were so ill-advised as to suggest this on inadequate grounds, then Parliament has ample means to deal with such a Minister. It is a matter in which any Minister can be trusted to exercise his reasonable discretion—the date when he is satisfied that the purposes of the corporation have been substantially achieved. It is right that members should know, when the corporation is appointed, that it will definitely come to an end when the work has been done, and that it will not be subject to the vagaries of both Houses of Parliament.
Vagaries?
I withdraw the word and substitute; the possibility of either House of Parliament coming to a different decision ten or 15 years later on grounds which probably have nothing to do with the purposes of the Clause. The third variation is in regard to the original provisions that both the statutory undertakers and the local authorities can object to the transfer on any grounds whatever. Under the provisions of the new Clause, they can object only to the financial arrangements. As to the fact of transfer, there can be no objection, and there ought not to be any objection, but they can of course, object to the financial arrangements. If either the statutory undertaker or the local authority is not satisfied with the financial arrangements under which the transfer is to take place, the whole matter is subject to the special Parliamentary procedure. Finally, the new Clause contemplates the possibility that there may be a reduction of capital. It may be that the undertaking will not be worth as much money as was expended when it is transferred to the statutory undertaker or local authority. In that case the new Clause provides for an affirmative Resolution of the House, sanctioning a reduction in capital. It is a somewhat technical Clause to explain, but I think that I have given the four respects in which it differs from the original Clause.
I would not have ventured to have intervened on anything connected with this Bill, except for the fact that I was a Member of the Standing Committee. My right hon. Friend was perfectly right in explaining this Clause, which is of gigantic size, taking a whole sheet of the Order Paper. I notice that the whole emphasis in this Clause is upon the Treasury. I should have imagined that the development corporations would make substantial profits, and I am wondering whether my right hon. Friend has satisfied himself that any prospective liabilities, which may lie on the local authorities in taking over, will be made up out of any profits made by the development corporation. In the last few lines of the new Clause provision is made for the Treasury to come in, and provision is also made for gas works, electricity undertakings and the rest to be taken over by the local authority. I am concerned that the local authorities may have prospective liabilities in relation to sewers, roads, and all the rest of it, and I want my right hon. Friend to say that he is absolutely satisfied that the local authorities will not be involved in any undue liabilities when these corporations are wound up.
5.30 p.m.
I very much hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reassure the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who has expressed such reasonable fears as to what the result may be if we add this Clause to the Bill. Representing a Scottish constituency, I would add my apprehensions to those expressed by the hon. Member. I listened with the greatest attention to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say in presenting the Clause, but I am sorry to say that he did not make out a very reasonable case. I very much hope, having regard to the fact that there are obvious differences of opinion on Government benches in regard to the advisability of adding this new Clause to the Bill, that we shall have some further elucidation of this point.
I am very glad to see that my next door neighbour is the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). He could speak, if he so desired, with all the weight of a member of a local authority in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, speaking on this Bill today, has not given us any considerable assurances on the points which he was charged to make. I hope that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire will add his voice in support of what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton has said. I share the apprehensions of the supporters of the Government to the fullest extent. Unless more cogent reasons are given by the Parliamentary Secretary than have been given by the right hon. Gentleman himself, I could wish that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench would consider the advisability of dividing the Committee on this Clause.
I am encouraged by looking back at the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, because I am sure he has very many points in mind which he could very well put to this Committee with regard to this new Clause, if he saw fit to intervene in this Debate. We are always pleased to hear him. I am glad that this Bill is being considered by a Committee of the Whole House. I congratulate the Government on having the good sense on this occasion, at all events, to allow every hon. Member of this august Assembly to contribute his or her word in favour or otherwise of this Bill. If I may be permitted to come back from that digression, which was stimulated by the unnecessary sotto voce of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, who is more or less in an independent position—
May I remind the hon. Member that we are not discussing the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)?
I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont. I was only expressing the hope that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire who represents the only constituency apart from Dumfries which borders on my own—
The hon. Member has made references to a speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire which he has not made. This is strange anticipation. I think the hon. Member for South Ayrshire should speak for himself.
I once more bow to your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont. I was expressing the hope that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire would see fit to intervene in this Debate. If this Clause is added to the Bill it will affect the local authorities in Scotland very closely indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire is a member of the county council adjacent to my own and I very much hope that we may have the benefit of hearing his views.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire, if he so desires, will no doubt have an opportunity of speaking after the hon. Member who is now speaking has concluded his speech.
I should like to hear a more convincing argument put forward by the colleague of the right hon. Gentleman who has not made out a very clear case for the addition of this new Clause.
The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) having tried to amend the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), may I call the attention of the Committee to some points in the new Clause?
On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont, I think that the hon. Gentleman said "amend the Member for South Ayrshire."
That is not a point of Order.
I said "trying to amend" the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.
I was urging the hon. Member towards greater effort.
I rather gathered that the hon. Gentleman had, by the end of his speech, come to the conclusion that he had amended the Member for South Ayrshire. But I do not think this is very relevant. I was about to say that I think that I remember on the Standing Committee a certain amount of discussion as to Treasury control of the proceedings throughout the setting up and handing over of new towns. Possibly the Minister, in this new Clause, is trying to curtail the power of the Treasury but, in fact, he has not done anything of the sort. The words in the new Clause and those in Clause 14 are so alike that they come to almost the same thing. There really is no point in making the change. The only grounds on which the Treasury can now object are on financial grounds according to the new Clause. The Minister shakes his head at this point. I am most alarmed to think that the Treasury is going to have the final word in any dealings connected with the setting up or handing over of new towns. In that case, the failure of the Treasury to give concurrence might wreck the whole scheme. On those grounds the Minister has not met the objections which we raised to the Treasury in this connection. On the question of Parliamentary control, I did not follow the Minister when he said that it was necessary to do away with special Parliamentary procedure, when he was discussing Subsection (2) of the Clause in the Bill. I would be glad if he would say a little more later as to the reason why he thinks it unnecessary to have the consent of both Houses of Parliament.
May I ask the Minister if he would give a clearer definition to the words "substantially achieved"? The Clause provides:
"Where the Minister is satisfied that the purposes for which a development corporation was established under this Act have been substantially achieved."
I am concerned to preserve as far as possible, in the setting up of these new towns, that, as soon as possible, the will of the people living in those towns, expressed democratically through their local representative on the local authority, shall be given due weight, and that where a local community which has been built up in these areas feel that through their elected representative they can take over the powers of the corporation, they shall have an opportunity of initiating representation to that effect, and of being able to say so. Can the Minister say at what stage he thinks that should happen? In the second interim report of the Reith Committee we find, in paragraph 82, the phrase:
"When the town has reached maturity, it will have to be decided whether the agency should be dissolved."
In order to discover what was in the mind of the Committee when they used the word "maturity" one has to go back to Paragraph 6 of that Report, which says:
"Each new town should, we think, be built as rapidly as possible up to a population of about 15,000 to 20,000—that is, up to a point at which it becomes a self sufficient unit in public services and amenities and attains a reasonable balance of local employment. Thereafter the rate of its growth up to its intended population of 30,000 to 60,000 or whatever may have been decided upon is not so important."
I have some knowledge of a new town which has been in progress for about 25 years. It is, of course, a very different set up from what will happen under one of these public corporations. I feel the situation may arise when we shall not get a new town of 60,000 population all at once. It will take a period of development and growth. I should like to see some provision in this Bill by which a local community could, through their democratically elected representatives, at some stage, take over from the corporation. We all recognise that these corporations are undemocratic in their constitutions. Therefore, I am sure everyone wants them to be as temporary as possible and that as soon as possible their powers and functions shall be taken over by democratically elected bodies of the community. I would suggest, therefore, that the Bill should give some indication as to when the Minister will be satisfied that the local community can be given the opportunity of taking the initiative to bring about this transfer and the dissolution of an undemocratic body.
There are one or two points perhaps with which I might deal. The two points raised by the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) are both the subject of Amendments, and perhaps it would be more convenient to deal with them at that stage. There is the question of substantial achievement. That is deliberately elastic. The corporations are being set up to do a certain job; when they have substantially done it, they will come to an end. The Minister has power to wind up the corporation, and it will be for the Minister to satisfy himself that the job has been substantially done. I take it that that need not be after the whole town is completed, but rather when the work for which the corporation has been set up has been achieved.
Could the Minister give us an indication what test he will apply?
It is very difficult to give an exact test, but I would say when the town is on its feet and is functioning. If there were an actual population of 50,000 and the town was growing year by year, I should say the object was substantially achieved, but I deliberately do not want to tie down my successor—it will not be me—as to when the corporation should be wound up. This is a broad definition which should be interpreted in a common-sense manner, and it will be for the local authority to make representation and to say, "We can do this job now. The town is now on its feet."
Will not the test be that the Minister will decide that the stage at which the development corporation can hand over to the local authority would be when the local authority could administer the new town with the same measure of success as it was developed under the corporation?
Yes. It is a matter which the Minister of the time will have to decide for himself. I would say it would be when the new town has got all its services going, its shopping centre, its community facilities, its churches, its cinemas, its public houses.
Leave out the public houses.
Why?
5.45 p.m.
I should say that that would be the time when the corporation has done its work even though the town has not reached its ultimate population. This new Clause gives full facilities for agreement on the subject. The local authority will be receiving an asset which can be valued, but there will be certain liabilities and there will have to be a balance attained. I presume, on balance, the new town will have some value, and that a balance will be agreed to, if possible. If there is no agreement, but an attempt to impose too heavy a liability on the local authority, then the decision as to the amount of excess will be a matter for Parliamentary procedure and will be determined by this House. I think in that way the local authority can be assured that it will not be unduly exploited.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time.
I beg to move in line 2, to leave out from "achieved," to "he," in line 5.
When I have briefly explained the purpose of this Amendment I hope to receive the support of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton), because the arguments I would have adduced to the Committee are very much shortened by the observations which he made and with which many of us are in agreement. This Clause—and I agree that it is a better one than that which appeared in the Bill—provides for the winding up of the development corporation not in the sense that one winds up a clock or watch in order to impart sufficient momentum to their activities, but for removing these bodies from the earthly sphere to a sleep from which they will never awake. On this side of the Committee we are anxious—and I believe many hon. Members on the other side sympathise with us—that, when the purposes of these development corporations have been achieved, as little time as possible shall elapse in the handing over of the new community to a properly constituted democratic government. These development corporations differ from any existing form of local government. Their members are not elected but they are nominated by the Minister, and the people whom they have in charge have none of that continuing control over their operations which is characteristic of the ordinary town council in relation to the inhabitants of the borough. The consequence is that they must remain for the duration of their lives something of a novelty in the body politic. It may be, like the grain of sand in the oyster, they may become encrusted with some precious material which will make them of great value. It may be, on the other hand, that they may develop into an irritant. We agree on this side of the Committee that it is necessary to have these development corporations for this particular job, but we do say, as I have already remarked, that there seems to be no excuse for interposing any period of delay between the achievement of the purpose, which renders their existence at all necessary in the first place, and their passing away into the limbo where are people who were useful but whose usefulness is now over.
The effect of the Amendment would be to make Subsection (1) of the new Clause read as follows:
I want briefly to support the Amendment. It seems clear that these corporations should be wound up purely on planning grounds. I cannot see why, when the planning grounds, which include considerations of housing, have been satisfied there is any particular reason for dragging the Treasury in to stop that process from taking effect. It is well known to the Committee that the Treasury is not backward in coming forward; it has plenty of ways of exercising its influence. It is not a weak Department which needs any special safeguard and, therefore, I cannot see any ground for inserting this safeguard on this occasion. In this Bill we are setting up corporations which are of an entirely undemocratic character. They are appointed by the Minister, without any pretence at all of local representation of any kind. We, on this side, have made it clear that we do not like this aspect of the corporations, but that we are willing to accept it in so far as it is absolutely necessary to make a success of these new towns. I can see no reason for going on with this very undemocratic process merely to satisfy a whim of the Treasury.
I hope the Minister will be strong enough to stand up to the Treasury in this matter. One of our troubles is that Ministers do not sufficiently stand up to that Department. I appeal to the Minister to take a strong line. If he does he will get the headlines in tomorrow's newspapers, which will congratulate him on the stand he is taking. If he stands up to the Treasury he will have the sympathy of the country behind him, because there is far too much Treasury influence in local, as well as national, administration.
There is no question of standing up to the Treasury. The point involved seems to be a simple and sensible one. It is that before the Minister acts he shall ascertain whether there are any financial difficulties because of which he ought not to proceed in the way in which he would have proceeded had there not been those difficulties. It is all very well saying that as soon as the purposes of the development corporation have been achieved it could be passed on. It would not be right to pass it on if any financial embarrassments were involved. All that the Minister is saying is, "Granted that the objects for which the development corporation was instituted have been achieved then, unless there are financial reasons why it ought not to be passed on, it should be postponed until that matter is cleared out of the way."
If the hon. and learned Member will look at the text of the new Clause he will find that it says that there must be the concurrence of the Treasury.
Yes, I know, but apart from that it is clear that without these words the Minister has full power to say, "I shall not act until I have consulted the Treasury." Without the words the Minister could go to the Treasury or act in such a way as he thinks proper. The words do not add anything at all to what the Minister could do without them.
6 p.m.
The Government have just had the assistance of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) who, for all his erudition, has not made out a convincing case why the Amendment should not be accepted. He said the words were redundant. The Minister, if he accepted the Amendment, would be in as secure a position as he would be if the Clause, as drafted, went forward. I await with interest the Minister's reply, not only to hon. Members on this side of the Committee, but to the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester I prefer to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division (Sir P. Hannon), and to ask for a little more elucidation of why the concurrence of the Treasury is demanded in this new Clause. We had quite a long Debate on the new Clause itself, and we are now dealing with the first Amendment to it, moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison). The mere fact that there are on the Order Paper many other Amendments to this Clause shows the very grave apprehensions and fears which it excites. [ Interruption. ] I am glad to have support from a very welcome and unexpected quarter—from the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall), who seats himself so inappropriately on this side of the Committee, when he ought to be on the other side. I welcome what is perhaps a sign of his weakening support of the Government.
I very much hope that the Minister, when he replies, will do his best to show my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester why it is necessary to retain in the Clause these lines which the Amendment seeks to omit. For the benefit of the newer Members opposite, I would point out that the mere fact that the Clause has been added to the Bill does not necessarily mean that it will stand part of the Bill. The Question that it shall stand part of the Bill will have to be put afterwards, and no doubt when the Question is proposed "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we shall have a long and fruitful Debate on that Motion. I very much hope that the Minister will see fit to inform my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and all hon. Members on this side of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Grantham, who sits so inappropriately—
I would point out that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) has nothing to do with the Amendment. I must also remind the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) that the Clause has not yet been added to the Bill.
I thought that you, Mr. Beaumont, had put the Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," which does not mean that it shall stand part of the Bill.
The Committee are now dealing with an Amendment to the proposed new Clause. The Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," will be put afterwards.
With great respect, Mr. Beaumont, I think you have already put the Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
The hon. Member must take my word for it that the Question put was, "That the Clause be read a Second time." We are now dealing with Amendments to the Clause, and eventually the Question will be put, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
I entirely agree, Mr. Beaumont, and that was the point I was trying to make.
I am surprised that hon. Members opposite have moved this Amendment. I am satisfied that if my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning had not included this provision in the Clause, there would have been an Amendment from the Benches opposite to include it. It will be in the general interest of the local authorities to whom the development corporations will transfer their undertakings that, before such undertakings are transferred, the Treasury should be satisfied, on financial grounds, that the local authorities are receiving undertakings that are financially sound. On the Motion, "That the Clause be read a Second time," there was a discussion in which fears were expressed that the development corporations would wind up and hand over their undertakings to the local authorities, which would be saddled with heavy financial commitments. If that is the fear, surely, it is reasonable to expect that there should be some safeguard against such a contingency arising.
I think it is obvious to every hon. Member that if the Treasury are to spend many millions of pounds from public funds upon the creation of new towns, they have a right to be satisfied that, when the development corporations have fulfilled their purpose and are about to be wound up, in the change of ownership from the development corporations to the local authorities, the conditions should be sound and the interests of the Treasury should be duly safeguarded. To suggest that the Treasury should put many millions of pounds from public funds into the development of the new towns and that the corporations and the Minister, without consultation with the Treasury, should be able to dispose of the undertakings in any way they think fit, without Treasury consent, seems to me to be very unwise and unsound. I regard the retention of this provision in the Bill as being a safeguard for the local authorities, a safeguard against a situation which might arise of their being saddled with undertakings that would create for them a certain amount of financial difficulty. I interpret this Clause as being a safeguarding measure, in so far as the undertakings are to be transferred eventually to the local authorities.
It is bureaucratic.
I do not know whether it is bureaucratic or not, but I think that, wisely, it has been a general principle accepted by the House that where public funds are involved, there should be at last some measure of guidance and supervision from the Treasury.
Surely, the hon. Member is condemning himself in his own words, because the whole purpose of the Amendment is that there should be democratic control. Under the Clause there is no democratic control, but merely control by the Treasury.
One must admit that the development corporations are not democratic organisations. I am afraid we should be entirely out of Order if we were to discuss at this stage whether this particular form of development corporation is better than any other form. We have agreed in principle that, for this particular job, this form of development corporation is absolutely essential. Therefore, I interpret this provision in the Clause as being a very great safeguard against the local authorities being saddled with a financial responsibility that might be too heavy for them. I am satisfied that before the Treasury agree to the transfer of the assets of the development corporations to the local authorities, they will, first of all, be satisfied that the local authorities are in a position to bear the financial burden about to be placed upon them.
I think that the hon Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has been quite innocently misled by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). Both the hon. Member for Acton and the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester talked frequently about consultation with the Treasury I would invite their attention to the fact that the word in dispute is not "consultation," but "concurrence," and that quite plainly does not provide merely for consultation, to which there might be very little objection, but arms the Treasury with an absolute veto. This being so, if the Clause stands as it is at present, he situation could arise in which, in the words of the Clause,
"the purposes for which a development corporation was established under this Act have been substantially achieved"
with the Minister, consequently, desiring to wind up the corporation but having the whole thing blocked by the absolute veto of the Treasury. It does seem that the words of the Clause go very much further than the argument with which hon. Members opposite have defended it, and I am perfectly certain that the hon. Member for Acton, whose knowledge of local government I fully appreciate, and in whose very proper feeling of a desire to safeguard the local authorities I am sure the whole Committee will acquiesce, does not realise that that position goes so much further under this Clause. It is for the Committee to decide whether they really think that Treasury veto, not Treasury consultation, is a happy inclusion in this Clause, and I think that before we come to a decision that fact should be clearly in the minds of all Members of the Committee.
I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) should advise me to accept this Amendment and to stand up to the Treasury. I am always prepared to stand up to anyone, even the hon. Member, if necessary, but I have to be quite sure that I am right before I begin. These corporations will have been advanced money by the Exchequer and the hon. Member is advising me to have them transferring their assets without obtaining the concurrence of those who advanced the money. If this were an ordinary business transaction such a procedure would be most reprehensible. A borrower cannot transfer his assets on which money is owing without the concurrence of the lender, and that is all that is being proposed here. Obviously, before the corporation parts with its assets it must obtain the concurrence of the Treasury.
I have limited the words of the Clause. As it stood originally the Treasury merely had to give their concurrence, but as it now reads they can only refuse this concurrence on financial grounds. A considerable amount of money is involved, running into many millions, and there may be a number of corporations being wound up at about the same time involving a large sum The local authorities to whom the assets of the corporations will be transferred will have to borrow the money—they will have to go into the market. I know that under an Act which will remain in force for another three or four years the money which local authorities will borrow will come from the Exchequer, from the Public Works Loan Fund. That will not obtain, however, after the next three or four years, when they will have either to borrow money in the market or raise it from the Local Loans Fund, and it may well turn out that the particular moment when the local authorities are going into the market to borrow money may be a bad one from the Exchequer point of view. I think that if this is so it is a factor which has to be taken into account.
6.15 p.m.
Nobody would wish these large transactions to take place at a time when financial considerations might render it undesirable for large sums to be borrowed by or on behalf of the local authorities. There might be nothing in it—I notice that hon. Members opposite shake their heads—and if there is nothing in it there will be no justification for the Exchequer objecting. They can object only on really solid financial grounds. If those grounds do not exist there is no reason to doubt that the concurrence of the Treasury will be given automatic ally. Nevertheless, in view of the nature of the transaction there must be this safeguard in case the time when money has to be raised for the purpose of paying out the corporation, is an inopportune time for entering the market. That is the only reason why it was thought necessary to fortify the Treasury with powers to ask for a deferment of the actual transfer of the assets of the corporations. I should doubt very much whether difficulties would arise in practice. If it so happened that we were in the middle of a financial crisis—
Which will be the case.
It would obviously be undesirable at that moment for the local authorities to go into the market for large sums of money. That is the circumstance we want to safeguard against, and that is the only risk—
Constantly impending financial crisis.
The hon. Member has a great deal to say, but do let us speak one at a time. I am in complete agreement with the other remarks that have been made as to the desirability of bringing the corporations to an end at the earliest possible moment. I do not wish that they should remain in existence for one day longer than is absolutely necessary, but I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although he wants them to die, would also wish to give them a respectable funeral. A respectable funeral must mean the concurrence of the people from whom they borrowed their money.
I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman's explanation has gone a long way towards dispelling my fears, but I find the words to which I object still in their place in the Clause and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he will redraft them. I shall try to explain to him what, to my mind at least, are the significant differences between what he has just said and what appears in the Clause, and if he would limit the Clause to the object he has outlined I do not think my hon. Friends would take serious exception to it; certainly I should not.
There are two points here. The first is that instead of saying that before he holds his hand the Treasury must come in and exercise a veto on specific grounds, the Minister puts it the other way round and says that before he can act at all he must be satisfied, with the concurrence of the Treasury, that the circumstances are not such as to render it inexpedient to defer. Put that way round it suggests that far from this being an exceptional thing, as the Minister has indicated in his speech this afternoon, it is to be almost the normal thing. I hope, therefore, that the first thing the right hon. Gentleman will do will be to reverse the onus here and to say that the development corporation shall be wound up when its purpose has been achieved unless—and I stress the word unless—the representatives of the Treasury think the financial situation at the moment makes it desirable to defer this, or words to that effect. The present wording goes a good deal beyond that. The Minister has to be satisfied
I hope that the Minister can assure us that he will re-examine this matter before the Bill gets to another place and will bring the wording of the Subsection more into line with his purposes. Frankly, Ministers come and Ministers go, but the Treasury goes on for ever, and I have the gravest apprehension in leaving a matter of this kind merely on this particular Minister's understanding of how it will work out 10 years hence, it may be. It is one thing to accept understandings and explanations where the point at issue may arrive in the next year or two, but the point here cannot arrive for five years at the very minimum, and more likely for 10 years or 15 years. Therefore, we should be much more precise in what we put into the Clause in a matter of this sort than where the crucial point will arrive within the lifetime of this Government. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to look at the matter again. If he will do so, I do not think we shall press the matter further at this stage.
I am perfectly prepared to look at the words again. I believe that they are adequate, and not more than adequate for the purpose. I will carefully consider what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said and if, in the light of that, it appears that some Amendment is necessary, I shall not hesitate to put down an Amendment in the proper place.
In view of what the Minister has been good enough to say upon this rather heavy, technical matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move, in line 7, to leave out from the beginning to the first "the" in line 8, and to insert "In the said Order."
This Amendment is one of a group of about nine consequential Amendments, which, although they look rather complicated, really are not so. In these days of a deluge of streamlined legislation it is a pleasure to see a Clause which is not streamlined. The proposed new Clause is more cumbrous than it need be, and it is in order to improve it by taking away some of the unnecessary complications that I propose the first in this group of Amendments. The main point is that there will have to be at least three separate Orders before a Development Corporation can be brought to an end, if the Clause passes in its present form. That seems quite unnecessary. One Order can do the job, and it is highly undesirable to split it into three, because we then never see the whole picture at any one of the three stages. Let me explain what the three stages are.
First, under Subsection (1), there must be an Order providing for the winding up of the corporation, not for the actual winding up. We cannot wind the corporation up for a long time yet, because we have to have two more Orders before we can do so. The first Order is a sort of general order saying, "The time has now come when we should start the process of winding up." How can we judge whether the time has come until we really go into the question of how we are to dispose of the assets, who is to pay for them, and how much is to be paid? On the last Amendment we were all agreed, to some extent, that financial considerations came into the matter, yet that question of principle under the Clause has to be decided before we approach finance. That does not seem to be right.
The second Order determines to which body the various assets of the development corporation are to be transferred. They may all be transferred to the local authority, or some may be transferred to the local authority, some to one statutory undertaking and some to another. How can we determine that matter until we know what the financial terms are to be? What local authority, and certainly what statutory undertaking, will be willing to buy—if I may Use popular parlance—a pig in a poke? That is what they would be doing at this stage. It is not fair to the local authority or to the statutory undertaking to require them to make their objections and to state their case at this stage before they know what they are going to have to pay. In these matters, and particularly in highly rated areas, what the local authority will pay has a very great influence upon its determination whether or not it will accept a certain burden.
It is only at the end of the day, in Subsection (3), that we come to an Order which settles the terms. If there is a good objection to the terms, the Minister might say that it was a good objection, but he would add: "I am sorry I can't go back to Order No. 2. It has already been determined. It's going to work out very hard financially, I agree, but that is past praying for, and you have to take it." We cannot see the whole picture and we cannot retrace our steps. I submit that it would be very much better that the Minister should have one Order determining the whole matter. There would be consultations, and there might be a draft Order—I do not mind a draft Order—as to who is to take that service. We should hope to get agreement, and we might have elaborate consultations about the price and some sort of draft Order. Then, if there was any serious objection there could be some sort of arbitration about the price. There would then be the safeguard of the Special Parliamentary Procedure, so that anybody who objected to the Minister's determination could come to this House, as to a last resort, and have his case heard. That would be comparatively simple. Time will be taken either way. Whether there were one Order or three, considerable time would be taken, but the Special Parliamentary Procedure would be able to reverse the whole thing, if necessary.
As it stands at present, the Special Parliamentary Procedure is attached to the third Order, but not to the first two. That produces the very odd result that Parliament might say: "We do not think the terms are good terms," but I do not see how Parliament could say, "We do not think that this Corporation should have this service at all." That decision does not seem to come into the scope of Parliament's review at all. Therefore, Parliament will be seriously handicapped in its consideration of the problem—assuming that Parliament feels that this is a problem in which it should interfere. I have presented the argument. I cannot see any objection to the proposals which we put before the Committee. I do not think they will take any longer or that they will involve any more expense. I think it would be much easier to negotiate, and much easier for Parliament, if ever these matters come up here, to consider them and to come to some determination.
6.30 p.m.
There is no difference at all in this as to the object we want to achieve. We want to start off with a decision by the Minister that the corporation should be wound up, and we want to finish up with the assets being transferred to the local authority or the statutory undertakers. The difference between us—if there is any difference, and I do not think there is very much—is how we should proceed between those two stages. We have taken the analogy of a company winding up. The first step is to make the winding up Order. What flows from that is that somebody is appointed to carry out the winding up. There will be a liquidator, or someone who will carry out the functions of a liquidator, representing the Minister. He will first carry out an inquiry into the assets and liabilities of the corporation. He will make up his mind to whom the assets should be transferred after discussions with the local authorities concerned and the statutory undertakers. When he has made up his mind as a result of the decisions as to which is the appropriate body or party to whom the assets should be transferred, and on what terms, he will report to the Minister, and the Minister will then make an Order—that is the second Order—transferring the assets to those undertakers or authorities.
If the terms are agreed, that is the end of the matter, unless capital has to be written off. In that case one would come to Parliament and get an affirmative Resolution. If there is agreement and no capital is written off, the Order made by the Minister transferring the assets is the end of the matter. If there is no agreement on the terms, then either the statutory undertakers or the local authorities are entitled to come to Parliament to go through the special Parliamentary procedure, and Parliament decides. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has asked what would happen if Parliament threw out the terms. I take it that if they do so the winding up order is of no effect, and the corporation has to go back for another appeal. I take it that it would be within the province of Parliament to say that the terms proposed were not right and that other terms should be substituted. They could do that under the Parliamentary procedure. If the payment to be made by the statutory undertakers or the local authorities were less than the Minister thought right, it might result in a loss and have to be written off.
Parliament cannot say, "We do not think this asset should be transferred to the statutory undertaker. We think, looking at the whole thing, it should go to the local authorities." That would not be open to Parliament?
That is the intention. It should not be open to them. Of course, the discretion of Parliament is, in fact, quite unfettered. What comes to Parliament by this special procedure is the terms on which the assets should be transferred. The issue can only be as to the terms. Nobody will be able to object to having the assets transferred to them, but only to the terms under which the transfer will take place. In practice, Parliament can say the terms are unduly onerous or otherwise. If they are unduly onerous, it will be for the corporation to make other terms in the light of the decision of Parliament to satisfy the local authority or the statutory undertaker. It may result in a loss to the corporation. It will then have to come before Parliament in consequence of capital having to be written off. Two of the stages that I suggest are necessary are exactly the stages which my right hon. and learned Friend thinks are necessary. I do not think his procedure would in any way curtail the steps that have to be taken. He admits that this is a long process. However, he has put his case. I do not think that his procedure has any advantage. It is only a matter of machinery between us. It is frightfully complicated. It is not an appropriate matter one can discuss adequately across the Floor—
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to speak up? I cannot hear him even sitting behind him.
I am so sorry. I was finishing up by saying that there is nothing between us except machinery. I think the machinery put forward in the new Clause is satisfactory and is better than the Amendment, but rather than discuss this complicated and difficult matter in Committee here, I am quite prepared, if my right hon. Friend agrees, to give an undertaking to study this most carefully, and if it turns out that the machinery can be improved, an Amendment can be made in another place.
rose —
On a point of Order, Major Milner. What exactly are we discussing? I understood there were a number of other Amendments tied up with this one and that a wide discussion was being allowed.
The arrangements are that we should take the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) which is the second Amendment on page 2706, and that covers all the Amendments down to and including the first two on page 2707, with the exception perhaps of one at the bottom of page 2706.
Just to make it clear to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), one more Amendment which is not germane to the subject is the Amendment to line 19 in my name, which I do not propose to move. It was put down to an earlier draft of this Clause.
I think the Minister has been in a slight difficulty because these Amendments have not been on the Order Paper for very long. It was when my right hon. Friend and I were looking at his new Clause, which itself has not been on the Order Paper for a long time, that we thought it was possible to simplify and expedite the machinery. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has said that he is willing to consider this matter further. As far as we can see, the Amendments which we are proposing do not really make any difference of substance to the Clause which the Minister has himself put forward. But it is obviously extremely desirable from everybody's point of view that the procedure should be as simple and as expeditious as possible. To have one Order instead of three is in itself a good thing. In the second place, I would emphasise what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend that it is extremely difficult to consider a matter in principle, such as the policy of providing for the winding up of the corporation, unless those who have to consider it know to whom the assets are going to be transfered, and, again, it is difficult for those to whom the assets are to be transferred to make up their minds whether they desire to receive those assets or not unless they know how much they are to be required to pay for them. It is of very great importance that those who are concerned with this shall be able to see the whole picture in the form of a draft Order.
The Minister said that in the form in which he has put the Clause forward he was taking the analogy of the winding up of an ordinary company. I would suggest that it is not a very close parallel with the present case. The winding up of a company usually results from its getting into financial difficulties which, of course, were not anticipated either by the chairman or directors when the company was originally formed. In the case of these corporations it is entirely different. We are intending that when the purpose of these corporations has been performed, they shall be wound up and the assets and administration handed over.
It is exactly the same as winding up a company.
It should be, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow me to develop my argument, I think he will find that it is germane. As far as I can see, there is no reason for the appointment of anybody corresponding to the receiver in the case of a company which gets into difficulties. Actually, as the corporation develops and the more satisfactorily it develops and is administered, the more certainly and the sooner will come the time when it will be wound up. Therefore, I suggest that there is no need for these three different Orders, and that it would make for simplicity and would enable everybody concerned to see the picture better as a whole—the provisions for the winding up, the provision for the transfer of the assets and the prices to be paid for those assets if they were all contained in a draft Order on which a general discussion could take place. The right hon. Gentleman has been very conciliatory upstairs, and I hope he will be prepared to consider this matter, which has been put forward by my hon. Friends and myself only with a desire to improve the drafting and the practical nature of the Clause which he himself has drafted.
It is quite clear that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken desire to achieve a simplicity, and in that of course we all concur. It is very desirable in a matter of this kind, because it would be complicated enough, even in its fullest simplicity. In my submission, however, there is a misunderstanding here altogether. The whole position with regard to the matters that have been discussed is misconceived. They are not three Orders in the substantive sense at all. There is one Order which is the substantive Order, namely, to wind up. That, of course, is a prerequisite and an essential Order to make, because you cannot put the machine into operation unless first of all you declare that you will have a winding up. Then, that having been done, it is absolutely necessary to explore the ground and to decide what terms are to be imposed in regard to this particular matter. This requires a consequential Order, but it is not a substantive Order at all. Without the primary Order for winding up having been made, this second consequential procedure—it is called an Order no doubt for the want of a better word—could not take place. That is all that that question of terms constitutes, nothing more nor less.
Having resolved upon the terms, a consequential second step becomes necessary and that again, of course, is promoted to the nomenclature of "Order," but it is merely a consequential proceeding, namely, to decide what is to be the payment to be made by the local authority or the statutory undertaker. What could be more simple or appropriate, I cannot conceive.
Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think that it would be greatly to the advantage of the local authorities and the statutory undertakers, when considering what action they will take under the second Order, to know what financial payments will be made under the third Order?
6.45 p.m.
But, with respect, you cannot determine the second and third matters unless you have first of all your winding up Order. I cannot see, as a practical operation, how you could make one Order and bring under it everything required to deal with this transaction. It is no use wasting time on that, because you just could not do it. These consequential matters have to be done subsequently. I say this with great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whose legal knowledge is well known: You could not possibly, in my submission, cover this by a first and final provision under one Order, and whether you call it by the name of "Order" or not, you must have a consequential proceeding in relation to the question of terms and payments. That is absolutely incontrovertible.
Then, to complete the machinery and logic and practicality of this Clause you get a provision for introducing Parliamentary procedure if there is an objection. That is my submission. I put it to the Minister that if he is going to consider this—I know he is prepared to consider anything and everything—I ask him to bear that point of view in mind and, on looking at this Clause again, to come to his original conclusion that this is a businesslike, clear, simple and practical piece of machinery.
In view of the Minister's undertaking to look at this matter again—I quite agree it is only machinery that is between us and I think, even if he does not go the whole way, he will be able to go part of the way to tidy this up—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Does the right hon. Gentleman desire to move his next Amendment, namely, in line 8, to leave out "by order"?
Although it would be possible to move this Amendment on its own, when the Minister considers the matter of redrafting this Clause, I think he is bound to take this Amendment into consideration, and as I am anxious not to waste time, if the Minister will indicate that he will look at it when he looks at the rest of the Clauses, I shall not move it.
indicated assent.
I beg to move, in line 51, to leave out "extending the powers and duties of," and to insert "transferring to."
The short point here is that Subsection (5) of the Minister's new Clause says: the Minister would be left intact with all his powers of transfer, the duties and powers of a statutory undertaking or of a local authority, he would not be given the power, which seems to us to be unnecessarily wide without an explanation, of extending the powers of the statutory authorities by Order.
The powers of the statutory authorities are, in the main, derived from Acts of Parliament, and statutory authorities are themselves extremely jealous of their right to come back to Parliament, from whom they derive their powers, if any of their privileges are threatened. That is a point we have always conceded by the special procedure, and so on. What I desire the Minister to explain to the Committee is the necessity for extending the powers of the statutory undertakers by his own Order when they themselves insist that they derive all their authority from Parliament and, rightly as I think, are anxious to secure that they can always have the right to return to Parliament before their powers are altered. Similarly I think that in general, unless there is a very strong case for it, it should not be possible for the powers of the statutory undertakers or of a local authority to be increased by Ministerial Order without again coming to Parliament.
The Amendment is really an alternative method of achieving the same purpose. I think it must be agreed that if we are going to transfer, either to a statutory undertaker, or to a local authority, any of the functions which have hitherto been carried out by the development corporation, there will be cases where it will be necessary to confer additional powers on the statutory undertaker, or the local authority. I do not mind very much how these additional powers are conferred upon them, so long as they are conferred, and the local authority or statutory undertaker are able to act as successors to the development corporation. I think the point raised by the right hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) is largely, if not entirely, academic. I do not think he would claim that it is more than that. In fact, he himself, in his Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, took powers to enable local authorities to carry out functions, which by statute they were not able to carry out, in connection with the redevelopment of blitzed towns. That is the precedent for the wording of Subsection (5). We took that precedent which he created in Section 20 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
I think it will shorten the discussion if I take up that point. The relevant words in the Act are in Subsection (1) of Section 26, and the wording is:
"The Minister and the appropriate Minister,"—
being the protector of all that group of statutory undertakers—
"may by order provide for such extension or modification of the said powers and duties as appears to them to be requisite in order to secure the provision of services as mentioned."
In other words, the power of the Minister which I took in the 1944 Act was strictly related by the words of the Statute to the purposes for which the power of extension should be exercised. Here, in Subsection (5), there is no such specific appropriation of the extended power to the purposes of the Subsection. It simply says:
"An order under Subsection (2) of this Section may make such provision as the Minister considers expedient for extending the powers and duties of any local authority or statutory undertakers to whom the undertaking or part of the undertaking of the corporation is transferred by virtue of the order."
There is nothing to limit the powers to the purposes of the Clause.
I was referring to Section 20, not Section 26. Section 26 is relevant as well, I agree. Section 20 is for the Minister to give powers to the local authorities to carry out development which they could not otherwise carry out. That is my precedent for this Subsection. I agree that the words are wide, but, of course, the Clause is related to the winding up of a development corporation in conferring the powers hitherto exercised by the development corporation. I think my words are correct. I would not be prepared to spend the rest of the evening arguing about them, and there is nothing really between us. I think my words are better, but I am quite prepared to look at the words suggested in the Amendment, and if I am advised, as a result of further consideration, that those words are the right words, I am prepared to see that they are put in at a later stage.
This again is merely an attempt to assist in getting a better drafting of the Clause. In view of the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause added to the Bill.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal) considered.
NEW CLAUSE.—(Limitation of actions, etc.)
(1) The Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, and Section twenty-one of the Limitation Act, 1939, shall not apply to any action, prosecution or proceeding against a development corporation, or for or in respect of any act, negligence or default done or committed by a servant or agent of any such corporation in his capacity as such.
(2) In their application to any such action as aforesaid, Sections two and three of the Limitation Act, 1939 (which relate to the limitation of actions of contract and tort, and certain other actions), shall have effect with the substitution for references therein to six years of references to three years.—[ Mr. Silkin. ]
Brought up, and read the First time.
6.56 p.m.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is in pursuance of an undertaking by the Solicitor-General on the Committee stage. On that occasion he indicated the lines of the Clause which would be submitted at this stage and they conform to the undertaking then given.
This Clause fulfils the undertaking given by the Solicitor-General in Standing Committee in response to requests made by my hon. Friends and myself, and I support the Minister.
The second part of the proposed new Clause introduces a new compromise limitation period of three years, which, I believe, appears nowhere else except in the Coal Industry (Nationalisation) Bill. I hope the Minister may be able to tell the House that there is some intention on the part of the Government to tidy up a very untidy state of affairs. The net result is that there is a period of one year of limitation in respect of actions relating to public authorities, of three years in respect of the coal Measure, and now of public corporations, and of six years in respect of everyone else. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman how unsatisfactory is that state of affairs. I can appreciate that it is not entirely a matter for his Department, but I hope that he can tell the House that it is intended to tidy up the position.
I wish to endorse what the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has said. He has pointed out the unsustainable difference between various actions in regard to the period of limitation. Those of us who practise in the courts know the great hardships that are constantly appearing because actions are prevented from being brought for a period of 12 months. Incidentally, the period of 12 months has recently been increased from six months and I congratulate the Minister on at least responding to this extent to the outcry which has been going on for so long to bring all these actions against any public authority into line with the normal period.
The matter is under consideration, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) will see that we are proceeding along lines which, I think, can now be defended.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving for enactments relating to water, electricity and gas.)
Without prejudice to the provisions of Subsection (4) of Section two of this Act, nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorising a development corporation to carry on any undertaking for the supply of water, electricity or gas, except, under the authority of an enactment other than the said Section two specifically authorising them in that behalf.—[ Mr. Silkin. ]
Brought up, and read the First time.
7.0 p.m.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Clause 2 of the Bill confers upon corporations wide powers in carrying on business, trade and so on. There is a limitation imposed by Clause 2 (4) which would prevent them from carrying on the business of statutory undertakers, but it is argued, I think with justice, that if the corporations own the whole of the land of an area they could then, as the Clause was originally drawn, in spite of the saving proviso in Clause 2 (4), still carry on the business of a statutory undertaker. It is the intention, before the corporation carries out these functions, that it should comply with what would be required from any other person desirous of carrying on statutory undertakings. The new Clause has been drafted in consultation with the statutory undertakers—I think in agreement with them—and it meets the point. The result is that a development corporation desirous of carrying out the functions of a statutory undertaker will have to secure appropriate sanctions.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
NEW CLAUSE.—(Transfer of Trading Activities.)
Any development corporation which carries on any trade or business other than a statutory undertaking may, and if so directed by the Minister in connection with the winding up or dissolution of the corporation shall, by an agreement with any person or body of persons, whether trading for profit or not, approved by the Minister with the concurrence of the Treasury, transfer to such person or body of persons such trade or business or any part thereof upon such terms as may be prescribed by the agreement.—[ Mr. W. S. Morrison. ]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The short point here is that, as the Bill stands, on the winding up of a development corporation, all those activities in which a development corporation is engaged can, in effect, only be transferred to a local authority or a statutory undertaking. I would draw the attention of the House to the extreme width of the powers granted to these corporations to engage in various activities. The relevant words for my purpose are to be found in Clause 2, Subsection (2). There is enumerated a great number of operations such as building, and providing water, electricity, gas, sewerage and other services—a very large number of undertakings which they can carry on—somewhat reminding one of the articles of association of a limited company, which perhaps sets out to manufacture boots, but takes power to buy and sell land, to sail steamships over the oceans and to engage in all sorts of improbable activities in which they will probably never engage. Notwithstanding this impressive list of activities, the Subsection goes on to say that a development corporation can:
I take the case most likely to arise. The corporation will be faced in its early days, no doubt, with the provision of transport for its citizens. It may become necessary to have an outlying bus service and no local authority may be anxious to take it on and there may be no statutory undertaker appropriate for the job. But a bus company might take it on, on agreed terms, to run it for the people's convenience. The purpose of my Clause is to extend the category of persons to whom1 businesses can be transferred on the winding-up of the corporation. I justify it by the extreme width and variety of the businesses that can be undertaken by the corporation under Clause 2. It might have-been more convenient to introduce this argument as an Amendment to another Clause, but for the purpose of the principle I am urging, there is some convenience in having it in this form, where it is isolated from a lot of other considerations.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a case for some kind of power to enable the functions of the development corporation to be transferred to a private person or persons, but in fact those powers already exist. The right hon. Gentleman has read the wide powers contained in Clause 2. They give to the development corporation the power to manage and dispose of land and other property. "Other property" would include an undertaking which it was carrying out. Therefore, these powers already exist and the proposed new Clause is unnecessary. Nevertheless, it may be wise to be a little explicit in providing for the contingency in terms. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility that a particular service or trade or undertaking carried out by the development corporation may be of such a character that neither a local authority nor a statutory undertaker may be willing to carry on.
Or empowered to.
Or empowered to. The Minister, under the previous Clause, can extend those powers both to the statutory undertaker and the local authority. Indeed, the previous Clause was designed to enable that very thing to be done. There may be many cases where it will be desirable or right that either the local authority or the statutory undertaker to whom the assets of the development corporation are being transferred, should continue to carry on this particular service or trade.
I would submit to my right hon. Friend that where such local authority or statutory undertaker is able and willing to carry on the service then, subject to the consent of the Minister, they should be permitted to do so and, of course, their powers would be extended appropriately. There will be cases where the local authority or the statutory undertaker are either unable or unwilling to carry on the service. They may not be sufficiently staffed or experienced to justify them in carrying on such a service. In that case, it may be right to give to the Minister, in terms, the power to transfer this trade or service to a person or body of persons. That being the case, I would be prepared to consider putting down an Amendment in another place which, while recognising that if the local authority or statutory undertaker were able and willing to carry on the service they will do so, would give the Minister the power to transfer the service to some other person or persons in the case where they were not so able or willing. If that will satisfy my right hon. Friend, I am prepared to give him an assurance that it will be done.
I intervene only to say that I hope it will not be considered that provision will be made for action of this kind to be taken without having regard to the wishes of the local authority. A service or activity that has been carried out on behalf of a community by a public corporation should not be handed over to private enterprise—obviously, that is the intention of the proposed new Clause—without regard being taken of the views and wishes of the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) earlier in the day was good enough to support my plea that due weight should be given to the democratic opinion of the local community as expressed through their representatives.
I said "if the local authority were able and willing." That implies consultation with them.
As the new Clause is worded at the moment their wishes could be overridden. I wanted to stress that that should not be done.
I am sorry to say that I cannot find myself entirely in agreement with the views expressed by the Minister. If a development corporation enter into certain business undertakings with a satisfactory staff which carry out the job in an efficient manner and they cannot find a local authority or statutory undertaker willing to take over, they should not necessarily have to part with the undertaking and hand it over to private enterprise Unfortunately, as the Bill stands, the corporation would have to wind up the service, but I think a case can be made out for taking steps to see that the enterprise which the public corporation has developed successfully and efficiently shall be handed over to some other body other than a private enterprise organisation on the winding up of the corporation. If a local authority or statutory undertakers in the particular area are not willing to undertake the matter on their sole responsibility, it may be possible to get some other form of organisation which will take over the responsibility for the ownership and management of these concerns. I object very much to a public corporation, financed from public funds, creating an enterprise, which probably makes a profit for the community, and then handing it over to a private enterprise concern. There is something to be said for private enterprise which starts and develops an industry but here we have enterprise created by public funds which we are now talking about handing over to some form of private enterprise. If enterprise is developed on the basis of public funds by a public corporation and that development corporation is wound up, then I believe that the enterprise which is created should be handed over to a public body of some kind or another rather than that it should be handed over to be exploited for the purpose of making profit.
7.15 p.m.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be deterred from his undertaking to put down an Amendment in another place by the remarks of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). We have been told on many occasions that this Bill is wholly a matter of experiment. It is a great experiment. What we want to do is to try to give the Bill the maximum amount of breadth so that the Minister will be able to take action when the winding up of the development corporations take place in circumstances which we cannot envisage today. Clause 2 (2) gives very wide terms of reference. The object of this new Clause is to give the Minister the complete power to say that these services can be handed over, either to a local authority or to some form of private enterprise. It might well be that hon. Gentlemen opposite have very different views from those which I hold. The point which my right hon. Friend was trying to make when he put down this new Clause was that the Minister should be given the opportunity, if it seems best to him at that time, in circumstances which cannot be envisaged today, to hand over the concern to private enterprise or to some other organisation rather than the local authority.
Without causing undue contention at this point, I wish to draw attention to the wording in Clause 2 (2) which gives the development corporation the power to manage land. Many of us feel that it may be necessary for a development corporation to undertake the management of land for a short period in the initial stages. We feel that it would be undesirable for the development corporation to continue the management and control of land for an indefinite period. It may well be that it would be handled in a far better manner through some other organisation. That is a point which was brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) during the Committee stage, and it is one of the reasons why I support the new Clause.
I think the House will he glad that the Minister has said that he will consider the possibility of putting down some Amendment in another place. We on this side of the House have been rather handicapped because the proceedings on this Bill have been conducted with such enormous good will on both sides that there has been a tendency to conduct the Debate sotto voce. Though sitting at a short distance from the Minister, I have not found it altogether easy to follow the intricate argument concerning the technicalities involved in the winding up of the corporations and the question of trading activity. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion said that he might well have put down the provisions of the Clause as an Amendment to the "winding up" Clause. I agree with him. I also agree that there are obviously many activities in which the corporations of the new towns will have to engage during the preliminary stages, which could not be carried on easily by the local authority or by any statutory undertaking when the time came for the winding up of the corporation. I think the Minister will forgive me when I say that a good deal of thought should be given between now and a later stage of this Bill to the consideration of the winding up machinery. We have not had any explanation from the Minister of the meaning of Subsection (6) of the Clause which we have just added to the Bill and which refers to the winding up of development corporations.
That is relevant to the new Clause we are now considering, and I should like to know who is going to get the benefit of any profit that may accrue. It is quite clear that the Exchequer will bear any loss if, over a period of time, the new town does not pay its way, but if the new town does pay its way, are we to accept the curious argument that, because the Treasury is expending money on the development of this new town, only a State-sponsored corporation should engage in those activities, and, on the other hand, accept the principle that, on the winding-up, all the profit on the new town should go to the Treasury? If that is so, a good deal of the argument put forward by the Minister and by other hon. Members in regard to the State-sponsored corporations just disappears, and we have been led to accept this Clause on a completely wrong premise. I would ask the Minister to explain the meaning of Subsection (6).
We cannot go back to a Clause already passed, and Subsection (6) is part of another Clause.
I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I hope I may conclude by asking the Minister to explain all these things that surround the transfer of trading activities which are involved, under the new Clause, in the winding-up or dissolution of the corporation.
I beg leave of the House to speak a second time to respond to what has been said by the Minister and several hon. Members. I would ask the Minister not to put too much reliance on the words he quoted to me in Clause 2 (2) providing that the corporation shall have power to engage in the management and disposal of land and other property. I feel pretty confident that, if the words "and other property" were to be construed in any court, they would be construed as property held, in generis, with land, that is to say, shops and buildings, and it would not give them power to dispose of a milk business or a transport undertaking. There is a necessity for a Clause of this sort, unless the corporation, on winding-up, is to be unduly restricted in these two forms of undertaking. As to what the Minister said, we are bound to let him have another look at it, as he will certainly need to do. I do not feel disposed to do a deal with him about a subsequent Amendment, and it would be out of Order if I were to attempt to do so. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion about handing these things over to other people if no local authority were able and willing to carry them on is rather like the suggestion in an Amendment which follows, but for another purpose, and which says that private enterprise should be given that chance. I think we should look at this matter entirely on its merits and not be guided by ideological considerations. I heard one hon. Member talking about handing them over to private enterprise as if that were equivalent to consigning them to the powers of darkness for ever.
In view of the fact that the Minister has undertaken to have regard to this matter, and he will certainly need to do it, we shall await with hope the form of words which he will bring before us. I hope they will not be unduly restrictive, but will give, in proper cases, a chance for everyone to participate. There need be no undue fear of any private enterprise making an undue profit out of this. The matter will be supervised and prices agreed by the Minister, and it is only to ensure that the winding up of these corporations may be carried through in the public interest that this Amendment was moved. In vew of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
CLAUSE 1.—(Designation of areas of new towns.)
I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out from "area", to the second "as", in line 11.
This Amendment is put forward in response to certain points which were made in Standing Committee that the drafting of the Clause was vague and confusing and that the term "adjacent land" in the Clause was altogether too wide. Secondly, there was the point that no reference was made to the purpose for which it was desired to designate the land, and the Minister, on hearing the various objections, promised that he would look at the Clause again and if he could find a form of words that would meet the desires of the critics, he would be only too glad to improve the Clause. The effect of this will be to confine the land to be designated to the area which will be the actual site of the new town. All reference to adjacent land will be excluded from the Clause. It seems to me that that tidies up the Clause very considerably and meets the wishes of the critics expressed during the Committee stage. The question of the acquisition of adjacent land is dealt with in Clause 4.
Amendment agreed to.
CLAUSE 2.—(Establishment and general powers of development corporations.)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, after "power", to insert "subject as hereinafter provided."
These words are intended to be introductory to certain limitations which we propose to suggest to the House later on, and I am not sure what would best suit the convenience of the House, and whether to deal with those suggestions at the same time as these introductory words or not. The trouble we are in here is that these words in line 15 really affect an Amendment to Clause 3, page 3, line 6, at end, insert:
It seems to be more convenient, if the Amendment to the other Clause is consequential, to consider it now and to take the two together.
Does that mean that a discussion will take place on both?
No, we shall discuss them both now and get rid of discussion on the next one.
But it will have an effect on Clause 3, and we must deal with that.
I thought I had made it clear. We can discuss this Amendment to Clause 3 now because it is consequential to this one, and therefore, when we come to the Amendment on Clause 3, if this Amendment is not accepted, I will not call it.
7.30 p.m.
I beg to move, in Clause 3, page 3, line 6, at the end, to insert—
The right hon. Gentleman cannot move that Amendment now, but he may talk to it. We are really talking to an Amendment in page 2, line 15, of Clause 2. The Amendment in Clause 3 can be discussed with it.
I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Now I understand the position and apologise for being so slow witted. These words are intended to be introductory to the general proposition that, while I and my hon. Friends do not object to entrusting the corporation with powers of a wide character in order to set on foot these infant towns, those powers should not be used, under the cloak of really doing something for the new towns, to debar legitimate private traders and interests from providing the services which it is their daily vocation to provide.
In the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. the Government of the day, of whom I was a spokesman, made unprecedented advances in the activities which local authorities could undertake for the purpose of establishing new communities on the outskirts of our bombed cities. We realised, and the whole House realised, that the power of local authorities to engage in manufacture and in trade of a sort had to be enormously increased at that time in order to get over the emergency of large, artificially created concourses of people outside our cities. But we took the stand then, and the House as a whole agreed with us, that they should only do so if it were really necessary. That is to say, if the situation was such that the ordinary trader and artisan who was willing to apply his craft or sell his merchandise was prepared to do so on reasonable terms, he was to be given a chance in his own trade or branch of commerce, and that chance was not to be taken from him by the local authorities under the powers which we deemed it necessary to give them at that time. I think that the same thing should apply here. Of course, it raises the great question of how far municipal and State trading should go.
One could easily develop the argument on this small point to a discussion on very wide lines as to the advantages or disadvantages of collective as opposed to individual trading. I do not propose by any words of mine to widen the discussion to that enormous area of conflict, nor do I intend to use words which would provoke a hitherto placid discussion into an outbreak of ideological violence on a topic which has been well banged about on the hustings for the last 20 or 30 years. I would, however, advance the following considerations to the House. At the present time, we have a large number of our fellow citizens returning from the Forces who are seeking to set up in trade, industry or business. Many of them desire to set up on their own, either as craftsmen or as merchants. It is the duty of the State, at this time, to secure for such men as wide a sphere of operation of a legitimate character as can be secured to them. Therefore, if there is no form of motor transport and there is a number of men who can get together and who are prepared to do the necessary traction or passenger transport for a growing new town under conditions approved by the Minister, they should be given the chance of doing so before the corporation, with its heavy hand, comes down to do that sort of thing.
Although, in general, we think that a proposition for the construction of new towns is one of which, in general terms, we can approve as giving some hope of arresting the shapeless sprawl of our cities, we do not think that the proposition should be made the vehicle for carrying out a large extension of municipal and collective trading at the expense of ordinary private trading and manufacture. For that reason, we seek to incorporate into the Bill these guiding words which have the effect of giving the corporation all the power necessary to engage in activities for the life of the community, but only when there are not the ordinary manufacturing and trading resources among the people of this country to do the job.
These corporations will have thrown on their shoulders a very heavy task in bringing into being a new community, complete with all the apparatus of communal life. It would be contrary to the interests of the whole project if they were to be encouraged in any way to diverge from the great purpose which they have in mind to the whole mass of multifarious trading and commercial activities. If the private enterprise of those who will resort to these new towns is given a chance, I feel sure that we shall get all the services we require, and shall have a greater, healthier and happier community around the new towns than if no one is allowed to live in it who is not merely a servant of the corporation or a servant of the State.
Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how it would be possible for any man leaving the Forces and desiring to set up in the building line to apply for a contract of any size in a new town which was going to have a population of, say, 60,000 people? What chance would such a man have against contractors like Wimpeys and other such big firms?
I think that such a man would have every chance. There are many jobs in the contracting line which I know, from my own experience, can better be done by the small man on the spot than by the big contractor. There are many occupations in rural districts for which the large-scale operations of such contractors as Wimpeys and others are not suitable, and which they would not undertake, and where the local knowledge of the small man would be invaluable. Take the Cotswolds, for instance, where there is a beautiful style of architecture. Operations in that district are dependent on a knowledge of the local stone and on a form of construction of roof that will carry the heavy slatted tiles of natural stone. Local secrets are not in the possession of large contractors; they are in the possession of the local builders, and I know many men coming out of the Forces now who are glad to get back to these little firms. As to the relevance that has to the new towns proposition, there is hardly a part of England where building craft has not a local colour of its own. It is one of our characteristics that there is a variety of craftsmanship and talent among those who build.
I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that full scope should be given to that natural local talent in the construction of our towns. Unless that is done, they will lose their local character; they will not be British. As I said on the Second reading, they will be as like each other as first class hotels are in every capital in the world. I hope for that reason that every chance will be given to the local craftsmen and the small independent man who wants to set up his own business. We ought not to be deterred by strict preconceptions about private enterprise and corporate activity. If I were to have approached this Bill on merely that broad line, I would have objected to all these powers in Clause 22. I do not do that, because I appreciate that if these new towns are to come into existence some of these powers are necessary as a reserve, but I ask, as my part of the bargain, that they shall be used as a reserve, that they shall be there for use if called upon if the life of the community cannot progress without them being called upon. These powers ought not to be used to stifle the local independence of those who are on the spot, and they should not be used because of an ideological urge to have corporate activity as opposed to private activity. This is an Amendment by which we have set a great deal of store, and I hope that it will be seriously considered.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) began by stating that this Amendment was not put forward in any ideological sense, and he asked hon. Members on this side of the House to treat the Amendment in that spirit. I agree that if the Amendment were accepted there would be no question of it being treated in an ideological spirit, because the Amendment comes down heavily in favour of private enterprise. It says that private enterprise is to hold the field and should be given every chance, and that only where private enterprise is not able or willing to come in at the requisite time will the corporation be entitled to exercise its powers. In other words, only when private enterprise cannot see a profit in an undertaking will the corporation be allowed to come in and carry out the functions. The effect would be that the corporation would be left with all the unprofitable work, and the profitable work would be done by private enterprise. That does not seem to me to be keeping the field clear. It seems to me to be coming down very heavily in favour of private enterprise.
The real test is this: If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to keep the field clear, the criterion should be who can most efficiently and in the interests of the community in the new town carry out any particular service. Of course, we on this side of the House believe that, by and large, the public corporation will always, or nearly always—I will give exceptions in a moment—be able to do the job best. But I do not therefore, suggest that they should be given every opportunity of carrying out these functions, and that private enterprise should only come in when the corporation is unable or unwilling to do so. I might with cold logic have put down provision whereby private enterprise should only come in when the corporation is not able to carry out the service at the time and in the manner requisite.
What about the winding up?
7.45 p.m.
I am not discussing the winding up. I would be out of Order if I did so. I am discussing this particular Amendment. I might just as well say that, as the right hon. Gentleman said that private enterprise should carry out these functions and that the corporation should only come in if private enterprise was not able or willing to do so. I indicated on Second Reading the spirit in which I believe these powers should be used, so long as I have control of the affairs of new towns, namely, that each service will be considered on its merits. Certainly, if there is a way in which private enterprise can more efficiently, expeditiously, cheaply and satisfactorily carry out the job, they will certainly do it. I go so far as to say that private enterprise will play a great part in building up the new towns, but that is very different from saying that they are to come in to the exclusion of the corporations, unless they can see no profit in the undertaking, in which case the corporations can come in. That would not be holding the scales evenly balanced between the two.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to providing full scope for local craftsmen. I cannot conceive that it would be a proper function for a corporation to do small repairs, or hire out cars, or do work of that sort. Certainly, the small man would benefit essentially by the spirit in which the new town would be created. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is not in the interests of the small man. The small man will be there already and he will carry on. This Amendment will not benefit the small man but the large contractor and the large undertaking. They will be the people who, generally speaking, will be able to carry out the development at the time and in the manner requisite. If this test is applied, the small man generally will not be able to do so.
I invite the House, therefore, not to accept this Amendment, on the assurance that as regards the new towns the scales will be held evenly, that the persons who shall carry out any particular piece of development will be determined by what is in the interests of the community, on whose behalf the corporation exists. Each case will be considered fairly and on its merits. Where private enterprise can more satisfactorily and appropriately do a job they will do it. They will be given a large part to play in the building up of the town. But where the corporation can more efficiently carry it out, even though there may be a person or persons ready and willing to carry it out at the time and in the manner requisite, the corporation should be permitted to do it. In that spirit, I believe we shall be giving satisfaction not only to the community on whose behalf the town is being built, but to all those who are seeking to play their part in the building up of the towns, including people who have come out of the Forces and others. I am sure no public spirited person would expect to be given an opportunity of carrying out development if, in the public interest, it was more satisfactory that the corporation should do it. In those circumstances, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
I think that part of the trouble here arises out of the word "property" in Clause 2. If property were better defined, we would have a clearer conception of how far the development corporations are going along the lines of State trading. Reading the Amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison), and particularly the latter one, I thought there were ample safeguards against almost any objection which was raised. The Amendment to line 6, which was also referred to by my right hon. Friend, says:
The main argument of the Minister was based on the fact that the Amendment put all the weight in favour of the private entrepreneur. I wonder if that is so. Leaving that argument aside, he expounded the proposition that the corporation will do things better than a private firm. That is something which I cannot accept. I agree there may be certain functions which, in a brand new town, a corporation will be able to do better. The mere fact that a corporation is entirely Government controlled, that representations cannot be made through elected councillors and so forth, will mean that certain operations within a new town will not attract traders; for the very simple reason that if they cannot get their case properly heard, or cannot put it to their local councillors, or to other similarly elected bodies, they will feel they dare not undertake what will be a risk. Therefore, there are obviously functions for the corporations to take on in regard to certain work. On the other hand, there are certain minor jobs, some of which my right hon. Friend mentioned, which will have to be done by private traders. I believe these Amendments would give the corporations and the Minister ample safeguards; and, more important still, they would give incentive to private traders to get on with the job, instead of encouraging, as the Clause would at the moment, the corporation and the Minister to take over more and more of the life and trade of these new communities.
I cannot see how the Minister can possibly accept the Amendment. It seems to me to come down exclusively on the side of private enterprise. While I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) had to say about the desirability of encouraging the craftsmen—and I do not think anyone in this House would disagree with his observations respecting the craftsmen; craftsmen of every kind should be encouraged in these new towns—I believe that that is a natural and inevitable sequel to the setting up of the new towns themselves. Once there are 60,000 people in a new community, all kinds of aptitudes and skills will find scope and remunerative employment in exercising that scope, as their own employers, or as employees of the corporation.
The new towns' corporations must certainly be permitted to engage in any activity whatever, without putting on the Minister the impossible burden of having to make the assessment required of him by the Amendment. That would delay and restrict the whole procedure of developing the new towns; it would allow for wrangling on almost every little bit of the new town on which the corporation had to decide its method and its plan of development. The Minister has been extremely conciliatory in regard to most of the Amendments that have been put forward, but he should not in this instance be conciliatory at all. He should reject it, not because we on this side of the House disagree with the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks or the ideas which lay behind them, but because on the surface, looking at the legal value of the words suggested, it would simply be a frustrating and delaying procedure.
I rise to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison). I fail to understand how the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) can say that this would come down exclusively on the side of private enterprise. In the proposed Amendment to Clause 3, line 6, it will be seen that
"The Minister shall not approve the carrying out by the corporation of any operation if it appears to him that a person …"
Therefore, the decision as to private enterprise or public enterprise still remains with the Minister.
What I meant was that, in almost any case, it would be possible for any Minister to take either view; either that it was easier for private enterprise or that it was easier for the corporation It is an impossible kind of Solomon dilemma in which to put the Minister. For that reason I regard it as thoroughly undesirable.
I can hardly agree to putting it as high as a dilemma, particularly when it is a Socialist Minister who will administer this. Surely he has sufficient capacity to be able to decide on a small point like this. I think, from views expressed outside this House, that the temptation would be for him to come down decidedly on the side of public enterprise, so there would be no danger at all from that point of view if the Minister accepts this Amendment. From the other point of view—and I have had many letters from my comrades in the Forces in this regard—people would be more encouraged if an Amendment like this was accepted, where the words "a person" appear in juxtaposition with the word "corporation," referring to a public corporation. It would give these individuals some feeling of security in this changing world. Like other hon. Members of the House, I have had plenty of letters dealing with this very matter of setting up their own little businesses, starting on their own; they have been refused permits in many cases by the Board of Trade. I am not quarrelling with that.
When it is said by the Minister that sometimes the business referred to is a rather large business, we must also remember that in Manchester, where I come from, most of our large businesses started in a very small way, run by the brains of one man. Why should not we, on this side of the House at any rate, strive our utmost, even at this time, when we are setting up new types of towns, to give these men, who gave of their best during the years of the war, an opportunity to do something in the peace? It is for that reason I support this Amendment, although I personally would have liked to see the Amendment made stronger. In my opinion, in the last two lines it does not take away one jot of power from the Minister; it will not take away one jot of his power, because it is undoubtedly permissive, and he has the last word.
8.0 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison), in moving this Amendment, realised that he was throwing a ball into the arena, and opening a discussion on the rival merits of municipal enterprise as against private enterprise in the development of our new towns. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend decided that he would have to resist this Amendment, because it is not as innocent as it would appear or as it has been described by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the exact wording of the Amendment which we are discussing. It says: corporation can do it. There are certain fundamental jobs which must be got on with quickly, and the Minister, therefore, cannot be compromised by having to investigate whether a private individual can do this, that or the other before he acts. He must proceed immediately with the job because of its urgency.
The right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment, amongst other instances which he put forward where private enterprise might be considered, mentioned the possibility that someone might want to erect a garage and run, I presume, some passenger carrying vehicles. I am one of those people who think that, in developing a new town with a population of 60,000, it is a good thing for the municipality to own and manage its own transport services. I, therefore, believe that it is wrong in principle in the development of a new town to say that a fundamental necessity for the community such as transport shall be placed in the hands of private enterprise, and that the development corporation shall not be allowed to develop a feature so important in the life of the community.
Then again, I believe that hon. Members opposite are exaggerating a great deal if they believe, as they have led me to think they do, that there will be no opportunity whatsoever for any form of private enterprise in these new towns. That is absolutely incorrect. I am quite satisfied that my right hon. Friend will not adopt the view that in the new towns nobody must conduct a private enterprise, that there will be no private shopkeepers or private business people, but that all will be municipally organised The Minister has already given an assurance that he is ready and anxious to see that the development corporations make land available to private enterprise for developing various types of services that are essential to the community. It would be folly to think that a development corporation could undertake the responsibility for, and management of, all the small shops. We have heard a lot about nationalisation, and have been told that State enterprise means that even the fish and chip shop on the corner will be a nationalised concern. We know quite well that there are many activities in which private enterprise is legitimately engaged and which will have to be accommodated in the new towns. Therefore, I do not think it is correct to assume that there will be no scope whatever for private enterprise.
This Amendment, as I and my right hon. Friend have already said, lays down a direction to the Minister that he cannot move, he cannot do anything, until he has investigated the claim of some individual that he can, for instance, run a gas works or electricity undertaking, or can provide water or undertake all kinds of functions If the Minister is bound by that procedure I cannot see these towns being developed for many years. Hon. Members opposite have somewhat exaggerated, and I hope my right hon. Friend will adhere to his decision to resist this Amendment, because I believe it is unfair to the development corporations to tie their hands in this way. I believe there is ample scope for private enterprise to develop many useful services in the new towns.
There is a certain amount of sense in what the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has said in relation to the very wide scope covered by the Amendment. I do not think it was the intention of those who drafted this Amendment that it should be so widely drawn as to include the services mentioned in the earlier part of the powers granted under this Subsection. I refer in particular to the provision of sewerage and water and that kind of thing, and perhaps the purpose of those who support the Amendment would have been better described if for "of any operation" there were substituted the words "of any business" or perhaps "of any commercial enterprise." I think that is the sense in which the Minister has taken the Amendment rather than the full sense that can be gathered from it as it is at present drafted.
Would not that produce confusion, in view of the language and scope of Clause 2, Subsection (2)?
I do not think that that would necessarily follow. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Clause 2, Subsection (2), what he would really get is:
"other services, to carry on any business or undertaking in or for the purposes of the new town."
That is something different from fundamental services—business undertakings or other services.
They all come under the proposals.
We want to limit this, really. It was never the purpose that everything included under the word "operations" should be brought in under the Amendment. The Minister, when he replied to my right hon. Friend, pointed out that what he wanted to achieve was the most efficient service. He said quite definitely that he would endeavour to see that those who could perform the work most efficiently should have the chance. That will go a very long way to meet us. There are cases, we recognise, where communal service is to the best advantage, probably, for the community, in certain circumstances; there are other cases where private enterprise gives the best service. We should like these private persons to have the opportunity to give it. The Bill as drafted and the powers given to the corporations are such as to discourage any individual person coming in at all.
The hon. Member for Acton said we must not assume that there would be no scope for private enterprise. We do not assume that, altogether; but, on the other hand, there is a threat here to anybody who sets up in business, that at any time a corporation may come in and compete with him, and, possibly, compete unfairly. We do want to give those who are returning, particularly from the Forces, an opportunity of starting up in fair conditions and with some feeling of security. I honestly do not think—and I do not care whether he be a small man or a big man—one would go to one of these new towns with this threat constantly hanging over him. That is my feeling, at any rate. I do hope that, in view of what I have said, the Minister will reconsider this Amendment afresh. After all, unless there is to be work in these towns which is not threatened by the corporations, I do not think we shall find a great many people of enterprise going to live in them. I think it is essential that persons of sturdy independence should go to these new towns. I may be wrong, but I feel that we have far too many servants in this country and not enough independent persons in business; and it is to encourage those independent persons that we should like this Amendment, modified as I have suggested, to be accepted by the Minister. I am certain it would be in the interests of the new towns, and I hope he will think about it again.
May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, before he concludes, if he could make clear what is meant by the second paragraph of the Amendment we are talking about, which says:
"Provided that the limitation imposed by this Subsection shall not have effect in the case of subsequent operations forming part of a project.…"
Does that mean that, in any subsequent operations undertaken by the corporation, the Minister will not need to consult with private persons as to whether or not they can undertake certain duties?
I am rather sorry that this apple of discord has been thrown into the consideration of this Bill. Every party in the Committee upstairs made a considerable contribution to the Bill, and made very good suggestions. Many of those suggestions have been adopted by my right hon. Friend. I think everyone will say that my right hon. Friend has been eminently fair in the consideration that he has given to all the suggestions that have been made. Therefore, I rather regret that, at this vital stage, this ideological Amendment—it is nothing else—should have been thrown into the discussion.
I was interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), and I think he showed the utter impossibility of carrying out the Amendment. He pointed out that it would interfere with a development authority in its effort and desire to make arrangements for all kinds of utility services; and, so far as I can see, there is no answer to that. The Minister has to consult with private individuals before he can authorise development operations.
8.15 p.m.
It seems to me that the Amendment would be a very grave brake upon the progress of the building of any town. Indeed, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) seemed to apologise for the width and scope of the Amendment. He said it did not mean what it says. But the words are here on the Order Paper, and I want to read them, and apply that test to an ordinary local authority today. What does it mean? It states:
What position will private enterprise hold under these development corporations? The Minister, as I have said, has been eminently fair in the discussion on these matters throughout the consideration of this Bill. There will be a vast amount of building to be done. A development corporation will just have been set up, and the ordinary process in these matters is, or will be, for the development corporation to invite tenders for building. There, private enterprise is going to have its chance. The great proportion of these new towns will be built by private enterprise and not by public enterprise. Why should we try to give the last tenth which this Amendment seeks to do, and weight the scales so heavily on the side of private enterprise as practically to strangle public enterprise altogether? I do not wonder that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did apologise, practically, for the Amendment, and said it wanted rewording. Instead of the word "operations" he suggested that the words to be inserted should be "commercial enterprise."
The hon. and learned Member for Withington (Squadron-Leader Fleming) said that the insertion of this Amendment would give soldiers up and down the country great pleasure. He said that on the assumption that private enterprise was going to be excluded from practically all employment within these new towns. Nothing of the kind. I venture to say that private enterprise is going to get a better chance, and private individuals are going to get a better chance, within these new towns than they get in many of the old ones. So from all these points of view, I think it is a very unwise Amendment. I think it is throwing the apple of discord into the consideration of this Bill which has been, hitherto, very good and amiable in many ways. I would ask the House unreservedly to defeat the Amendment if it goes to a Division.
I have heard with some disappointment and with some surprise the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. It seems to me that he is making rather heavy weather of this Amendment. It may be, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) has said, that the word "operation" is rather wide, but when the Parliamentary Secretary goes on to try and argue against this Amendment on the grounds that the Minister would then have to consult with private persons before the development corporations could proceed in the normal way to set up tramways or a sewage system, he is surely tilting at windmills. What does the Amendment say?
"if it appears to him that a person other than the corporation is able and willing to carry it out."
Does he seriously expect, in any project for a new town, that large numbers of people will try to come forward to satisfy the Minister that they are able and willing to set up a tramway system or a sewage system by means of private enterprise? The Parliamentary Secretary must know that that argument is entirely without foundation, and it has nothing to do with the proceedings.
The hon. Member might know that there are many private individuals who think they can run the town hall.
One is becoming accustomed to very curious observations from the Despatch Box, but I think that I shall have to award a putty medal to the hon. Member for that one. When he says "run the Town Hall," I presume that he is referring to the democratic procedure of local government, whereby the elected representatives of the people discuss measures which they consider it is right for them to take. That remark has no relevance. We are here concerned with the illustration of tramways and sewage systems, and I say again that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot seriously argue against this Amendment on the grounds that it would cause any postponement of tramways, sewage systems, or any other public service of that sort. He referred at some length to building operations in the case of a new town. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman assured the House during the Second Reading that private builders would have a large share in the development of these new towns. I hope that that will be so, but, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) pointed out on that occasion, there does not seem to be any coordination between the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Minister of Health, because it is common knowledge that private builders are being excluded from building by the Minister of Health. Private enterprise builders have apprehensions that they will be excluded from their proper functions in these new towns.
Our preoccupation is really with the retail trade. What we are afraid of is that under the powers given to the development corporations State trading will be able to gain an unfair and improper advantage over ordinary retail trading. That would be a most unfortunate thing, both in regard to the new towns and in regard to retail trade generally. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), to whom I listened with great attention—and his remarks were reinforced by the Parliamentary Secretary—said that the Government could not put up with the delays he claimed would follow from this Amendment—delays in consultations and the like. I do not believe that there would be any delays imposed by this Amendment, because private persons who felt that they could discharge the functions of retail trade or other necessary functions, would very soon come forward and say so, and there is no obligation upon the Minister to go and search for these persons.
If it was known that a new town was to be created in a certain locality with a population of 60,000, the Minister would probably have hundreds of people from all over the country putting forward claims for enterprises in which they were interested.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his reinforcement of my argument. His interjection is most welcome. He agrees that far from the Minister having to go and search for these persons, they would come forward saying that they agreed and were willing to do these things. In that case there is no duty imposed upon the Minister to adjudicate between these persons, or to indulge in any lengthy processes of that sort. The only duty imposed on the Minister is to satisfy himself that there are people able and willing to do these things.
People who think they can do these things.
All that the Minister has to do is to satisfy himself that among these claims there are people who can discharge these functions. As soon as he has satisfied himself of that, he does not give consent to the other form of undertaking. If it is seriously argued that, with the enlargement of spheres of government, a very simple administrative process like that is beyond the powers and compass of the Minister, then I think that we must despair of his Department. I am confident that that is not so, and that he will easily take in his stride so simple an operation. This matter has been unduly complicated by hon. Members opposite. It has been described as a matter of complexity, when in fact it is a matter of simplicity. I believe it to be desirable in principle and administratively possible, and I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.
I have listened with great interest to the mover of the Amendment and to the long discussion which has followed. The longer the discussion has gone on, the more bemused I have become as to what is wanted. We are considering also the Amendment in page 3, line 5, but no one has said a word about it. I do not see any great difference if it is accepted. Hon. Members have told us about the Amendment in line 6, but I do not know where we are getting to. I was interested in the speech of the mover who told us of towns which had peculiar characteristics, and that the object was to preserve these characteristics of craftsmanship in building these new towns. He asked that they should have a distinctive English characteristic. One can pass through the little towns in the South of England, which have been evolved through years of craftsmanship, and appreciate that there is something about them, but no one can for a moment visualise that a town for 60,000 people can be built in the same fashion. It would take hundreds of years to get that.
8.30 p.m.
When I listened further to the Debate, I discovered that hon. Members opposite were not very much concerned about the peculiar characteristics of the towns, but the rights of private persons. It has been asked that this House shall instruct the Minister that he shall not grant to a corporation the powers to build or to carry out any project if some person comes along and claims to be able to do the work. The old apple of discord has been thrown into the arena with regard to private enterprise or corporation enterprise. When I listened to the hon. Member who spoke last—I have had to skip a few of them—I wondered just what we were discussing. The hon. Member said that it was the retail trade about which he was concerned. I read the Amendment again to see if it was "cooperation" instead of "corporation" that he wanted to exclude. I think that every hon. Member should be perfectly well aware, by this time, that we have now reached a stage when a great part of the community expects collective enterprise for the benefit of all. I think that hon. Members opposite are fighting a losing battle when they contend that private enterprise on a large scale should be carried on for the benefit of a company.
When we are told, as we have been told today, that a man coming back from the Forces must be given some kind of guarantee that, if he wants to set up in business, the State will help—[An HON. MEMBER: "Nobody said that."] That was the implication, that the little man ought to be safeguarded. That is the whole burden of the Opposition's argument. When a man comes back from the Forces what are his chances? Suppose he is a joiner and his father has a village joinery business in an area which the town planning committee have selected for a new town Obviously the village joiner would make an application for some form of contract. But when it came to the actual work of building a town for 60,000 people, the only people who would be able to undertake that work would be those with the necessary modern plant. The little village man would not have the necessary up-to-date plant. Therefore, he would of necessity have to depend upon the crumbs that fall from the big contractors or the corporation. Let us take a typical example. Supposing a body like the Special Housing Association, which is carrying on work in Scotland with regard to the housing needs there, were to undertake the building of houses for a population of 60,000, they would have to enter into competition with great firms who have the plant and better equipment, and who employ the best brains in civil engineering for a project of that character. They can estimate to the last penny and they have the happy knack of always putting in a safeguarding clause
in any contract so as to reimburse themselves against loss. Obviously, the little man cannot do that. I urge hon. Members opposite to withdraw this Amendment to show that they are more in earnest about getting towns built than they are about safeguarding or getting preferential treatment for private enterprise.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 258.
Division No. 234. AYES. [8.34 p.m. Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Hollis, M. C. Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh) Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Baldwin, A. E. Jennings, R. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Bennett, Sir P. Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W. Prescott, Stanley Bower, N. Lambert, Hon. G. Raikes, H. V. Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Langford-Holt, J. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Renton, D. Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) Butcher, H. W. Linstead, H. N. Ropner, Col. L. Carson, E. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow) Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. McCallum, Maj. D. Snadden, W. M. Crowder, Capt. J. F. E. Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. Spearman, A. C. M. Cuthbert, W. N. Maclay, Hon. J. S. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray) Davidson, Viscountess Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Studholme, H. G. Digby, Maj. S. W. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Sutcliffe, H. Drayson, Capt. G. B. Manningham-Buller, R. E. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Marples, A. E. Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth) Duthie, W. S. Marsden, Capt. A. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F. Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Mellor, Sir J. Turton, R. H. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Wakefield, Sir W. W. Glossop, C. W. H. Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) Walker-Smith, D. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. Neven-Spence, Sir B. White, Sir D. (Fareham) Grimston, R. V. Nield, B. (Chester) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. York, C. Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'db'ge) Orr-Ewing, I. L. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Osborne, C. TELLERS FOR THE AYES Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.
NOES. Adams, Richard (Balham) Burke, W. A. Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Dumpleton, C. W. Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Byers Lt.-Col. F. Edwards, John (Blackburn) Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Castle, Mrs. B. A. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Alpass, J. H. Chamberlain, R. A. Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Champion, A. J. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Attewell, H. C. Chater, D. Ewart, R. Austin, H. L. Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. Fairhurst, F. Ayles, W. H. Clitherow, Dr. R. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington E.) Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Cluse, W. S. Follick, M. Bacon, Miss A. Cobb, F. A. Foster, W. (Wigan) Balfour, A. Cocks, F. S. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Barstow, P. G. Coldrick, W. Gaitskell, H. T. N. Battley, J. R. Collick, P. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Bechervaise, A. E. Collindridge, F. George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Benson, G. Collins, V. J. Gibbins, J. Berry, H. Colman, Miss G. M. Gibson, C. W. Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Cook, T. F. Gilzean, A. Binns, J. Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Blenkinsop, Capt. A. Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) Gordon-Walker, P. C. Boardman, H. Corlett, Dr. J. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield) Bottomley, A. G. Corvedale, Viscount Grey, C. F. Bowden, Flg._Offr. H. W. Cove, W. G. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Daines, P. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Davies, Edward (Burslem) Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Davies, Harold (Leek) Gunter, Capt. R. J. Brook, D. (Haifax) Deer, G. Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Delargy, Captain H. J. Hale, Leslie Brown, George (Belper) Diamond, J. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Brown, T. J. (Ince) Dobbie, W. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Dodds, N. N. Hardy, E. A. Buchanan, G. Donovan, T. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Burden, T. W. Driberg, T. E. N. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Monslow, W. Skinnard, F. W. Hicks, G. Moody, A. S. Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Morgan, Dr. H. B. Snow, Capt. J. W. Hoy, J. Morley, R. Sorensen, R. W. Hubbard, T. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Sparks, J. A. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Moyle, A. Stamford, W. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Murray, J. D. Steele, T. Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Nally, W. Stephen, C. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Naylor, T. E. Swingler, S. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Neal, H. (Claycross) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Irving, W. J. Noel-Buxton, Lady Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Oldfield, W. H. Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) Jeger, G. (Winchester) Oliver, G. H. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Thomas, John R. (Dover) Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Palmer, A. M. F. Thomas, George (Cardiff) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Pargiter, G. A. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) Keenan, W. Parker, J. Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton) Kendall, W. D. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Timmons, J. Kenyon, C. Pearson, A. Titterington, M. F. Key, C. W. Peart, Capt. T. F. Turner-Samuels, M. Kirkwood, D. Perrins, W. Ungoed-Thomas, L. Lavers, S. Platts-Mills, J. F. F. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Lee, F. (Hulme) Popplewell, E. Viant, S. P. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Porter, E. (Warrington) Walkden, E. Leonard, W. Price, M. Philips Walker, G. H. Leslie, J. R. Pritt, D. N. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Lever, Fl. Off. N. H. Proctor, W. T. Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) Lewis, J. (Bolton) Pryde, D. J. Warbey, W. N. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Pursey, Cmdr. H. Watkins, T. E. Lindgren, G. S. Randall, H. E. Weitzman, D. Lyne, A. W. Ranger, J. Westwood, Rt. Hon. J. McAdam, W. Rankin, J. White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) McAllister, G. Rees-Williams, D. R. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. McEntee, V. La T. Reeves, J. Wigg, Col. G. E. McGhee, H. G. Reid, T. (Swindon) Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B. Mack, J. D. Rhodes, H. Wilkes, Maj. L. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Wilkins, W. A. McKinlay, A. S. Robens, A. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Maclean, N. (Govan) Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth) Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) McLeavy, F. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley) Mallalieu, J. P. W. Sargood, R. Williams, W. R. (Heston) Mann, Mrs. J. Savory, Prof. D. L. Williamson, T. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Scollan, T. Wilson, J. H. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Scott-Elliot, W. Woodburn, A. Marquand, H. A. Segal, Dr. S. Woods, G. S. Marshall, F. (Brightside) Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A. Yates, V. F. Mathers, G. Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. Young, Sir R. (Newton) Mayhew, C. P. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) Younger, Hon. Kenneth Messer, F. Shurmer, P. Zilliacus, K. Middleton, Mrs. L. Silkin, Rt. Hon. L. Mikardo, Ian Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R. Simmons, C. J. Captain Michael Stewart and Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Skeffington-Lodge, T. C. Mr. Bing.
8.45 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, after "that," to insert: the Minister would become aware of a decision which a corporation was about to take and which would seriously prejudice the public interest. In such a case, my right hon. Friend said, it might be essential that the corporation should be stopped at once, and there would be no time to go through the machinery of consultation. My right hon. Friend gave an undertaking that he would try to secure a form of words which, while not conceding 100 per cent. of the request made by the critics of the Clause, would go some way to meet them. This Amendment is a serious attempt to do that. Hon. Members will see that the words which it is proposed to insert stipulate that the Minister shall consult with the chairman of the corporation, or, if the chairman is not available, with the deputy chairman, unless he is satisfied that, on account of urgency, such consultation is impracticable. The Amendment goes a good way to meet the points that were raised in Committee, and I feel it will commend itself to the general sense of the House.
As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, this Amendment does not go quite as far as some hon. Members on this side of the House would have wished. Nevertheless, it goes a long way towards meeting us, and I am very glad the Government have moved it. In Committee we were at pains to emphasise the importance of these corporations, once they had been set up, being allowed to get on with the job without too much interference from the Minister. Under Clause 2 (3), the Minister is given very wide powers to restrict what the corporations may do, or even to direct the way in which they may use their powers. I am very glad that, by this Amendment, he is undertaking that he will do so only after consulting them. Although he has made one exception to this, I am glad that that exception is on account of urgency; I am glad he anticipates that his Department is to work with such tremendous speed.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 2, fine 32, to leave out "done," and to insert "carried out."
This is a drafting Amendment made necessary by an Amendment which was carried in Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, to leave out from "directions," to the end of the Subsection.
This Amendment deals with a very short point. It is a matter that is not likely to occur very often, but I think it is worthy of the Minister's notice. The proviso to Subsection (3) states that any transaction between any person and any such corporation acting in purported exercise of their powers is not to be void if it turns out that directions had been given that such a transaction was improper. It then goes on to make an exception. If the other party to the transaction had actual notice of the Minister's direction, then he is to be held to the bargain. At first sight that seems right enough, but it is liable to give rise to at least two very difficult questions. The first is what is "actual notice," and I am sure the Minister will realise that if one has to go into the realm of proving whether a person knew or did not know, this is not at all an easy matter. I quite understand what notice is, but actual notice as distinct from ordinary notice that is not actual I have some difficulty in understanding, and I think a court would have difficulty also. I think the Minister is merely laying up a good deal of trouble in the interpretation of those two words.
The second point is that it is very unlikely that a development corporation would fly right in the face of a direction. They might easily do something which, at first sight, did not contravene a direction, but, on closer investigation, was held by a court to do so. The other party would also have notice of the direction and he too would think that the matter was in order. Then the Minister's auditor or some other person will come and say, "If you had read this direction properly you would have seen that it was all wrong." I am sure the Minister does not want to open up litigations of that kind. It is only likely to happen once in a blue moon and it is very improbable that anything could ever happen of a questionable character which would be affected by dropping these words. I think that in the interests of clarity and easy administration, and in order not to harass the people who deal with these corporations, the Minister would be very well advised to drop these words, which, on examination, raise more difficulties than they are worth.
An Amendment along these lines was discussed by the Standing Committee and on that occasion I asked to be allowed to look at it again. I have done so and I have come to the conclusion that some form of words such as this is essential. We cannot possibly accept the position where people dealing with a corporation and knowing that they are doing something contrary to a direction, should nevertheless be able to retain the benefit of the transaction. At the time of the previous discussion I think we all agreed that while we wanted to protect the innocent person no one wished to give the guilty person the benefit of a transaction. I readily admit and sincerely hope that these occasions will be very few, if there be any at all, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in law one is safeguarding oneself against the improbable and this is, I hope, one of those occasions. If we agree that a person ought not to be entitled to reap the benefit of a contract into which he has entered improperly, with full knowledge of the fact that he should not have entered into it, then the question arises whether these words are right, and some doubt was expressed, as it is now being expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, whether the words "actual notice" constituted a correct or well understood term.
I am advised that it is an expression of art, a term well understood in company law and one which has been fully discussed and explained in the case of the Patent Ivory Company, 38 Chancery Division, page 107. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at that case I think he would see that the expression "actual notice" was considered and has been given a definite connotation. That being the case, we must accept that form of words, as expressing the intention.
Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman took the other—it is true, hypothetical—case where a corporation acted in the mistaken belief that it was entering into a transaction which was not in conflict with the direction and where the person with whom they entered into the contract, also being aware of the direction, mistakenly believed that the transaction did not conflict with it; and where the district auditor or somebody came along and declared that it was in conflict. Of course, it is highly improbable, an even more improbable state of affairs than the case in which one would enter into a contract with the knowledge that it was in conflict with the direction. In such a case, no sensible person, realising that both parties entered into the contract in good faith, would, long after the transaction, try to set it aside. It would be crazy. Speaking for myself, if I were really satisfied that both parties had entered into the contract in good faith, I would not for a moment dream of trying to set it aside. Nobody would. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself would no doubt accept the fact that there it was, and that both parties had acted honestly. He would say that the transaction had better stay. I do not think that in that case any harm would be done. I think that some form of words is essential and. after full consideration, I think that the proposed form of words is the best that we can discover. I hope that the right hon. And learned Gentleman will not press the Amendment.
This is a very small matter and I am not going to press it. It is one, however, of a number of instances which I have encountered lately where the Government are more keen upon catching one offender than they are worried about harassing a lot of innocent people. I think the Minister might see fit, upon second thoughts, to drop these words later on. I do not want to take up more time with them, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
CLAUSE 3.—(Planning and control of development in new towns.)
I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, to leave out from "suspend," to the end of line 27, and to insert:
"any of the enactments specified in the Schedule ( Enactments which may be suspended under Section three ) to this Act (being, with the exception of Sections one and two of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, enactments which may be suspended, under Subsection (8) of the said Section ten as amended by Section thirty-nine of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, by any authority authorised in that behalf by an interim development order).
The purpose of the Amendment is to give satisfaction to the hon. Member for Kingston - upon - Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who suggested in the Standing Committee that instead of having a rather involved Clause in the Bill by which certain enactments were annulled, we might have a Schedule and put the enactments into it. This is being done, and this Amendment is designed to do that. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Schedule he will find the full list of all the enactments.
Amendment agreed to.
CLAUSE 4.—(Acquisition of land by development corporations.)
I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 14, and to insert:
"( b ) any land adjacent to that area which they require for purposes connected with the development of the new town;
( c ) any land, whether adjacent to that area or not, which they require for the provision of services for the purposes of the new town."
This Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment we made in which we excluded from the Clause any reference to adjacent land. The full effect of the Amendments will be as follows. Land can be acquired in the designated area. There will be, in respect of that land, a local public inquiry; secondly, land adjacent to such an area can be acquired if it is for purposes connected with the development of a new town; and thirdly, if land is wanted for the provision of services, it can be acquired whether adjacent to the designated area or not. This is a sincere attempt to give some clarification in the purpose for which land is required. It is made in response to a point made in Committee, and I commend it to the House.
9.0 p.m.
I think that the words now proposed to be inserted are a distinct improvement on the draft originally in the Bill, and I am grateful to the Government for the attention they have given to representations made in Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 4, line 45, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that without prejudice to the provisions of the said Section two restricting the period within which an authorisation may be given thereunder for the compulsory acquisition of land, no such authorisation shall be given for the compulsory acquisition of land by the development corporation established for the purposes of a new town at any time after two years from the date on which the order under Section one of this Act designating the site of the new town became operative."
This again, is in response to a request made in Committee by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison). We all know his feelings about the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, and he certainly put his points very strongly on Committee. My right hon. Friend has tried to meet him to some extent. He has limited the operation of this particular Act to two years in this Bill. The House will know that the period for its operations generally is five years from the date of its passing. The Minister has gone a considerable distance to meet the wishes expressed in Committee in limiting the operation of the Act to two years from the date of designation of any land. I sincerely hope it will now be acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.
I do not like to appear ungrateful for the consideration given to representations which I made with such force as I could, but I am bound to say that, though this is a mitigation of the wrong in the Bill at the moment in that the period of evil is truncated to some extent, it does not by any means cure the defect to which I have attempted to draw attention. When we passed the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Bill containing this novel procedure of a written authorisation to enter at once upon land, I drew the attention of the House then to the fact that it was an entirely new departure of a bureaucratic and anti-democratic character in that it did not give to the man affected by the process an opportunity of stating his case. However, the legions opposite us overwhelmed us, and we were unable to secure the deletion of this obnoxious provision.
The case put up then was that considerations of urgency might arise in the case of providing houses in the first instance, and when we pointed out that there was, except in very few localities, an ample provision of land for houses and what was lacking was not the land but other substances, the ground was suddenly changed from houses to factories, and we were told that there might be some necessity to grab land in a distressed area. That is an argument hard to resist, but our protests on that occasion elicited from the right hon. Gentleman a firm assurance that it was only in cases of dire necessity in the public interest, where urgency was clearly evident, that this unfortunate procedure would be invoked.
I hope these undertakings have the value that we always place on Ministerial assurances, because it is very hard for me to see how these conditions of national urgency can possibly arise in securing the land for a new town. The second report of the Committee on this subject has drawn attention to the necessarily slow growth of these communities. This is not a case where you must proceed at once to erect a factory if the people are to be employed, or where there is some urgency that cannot be overcome by proper democratic procedure. There is ample time to go through the simplified and expeditious procedure of Section 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, and I cannot conceive of circumstances arising in the acquiring of land for a new town which give a shadow of excuse for the employment of what I still describe as an arbitrary and bureaucratic invasion of the rights and liberties of the subject.
The only thing I can think of as a possible excuse for the recalcitrance of Ministers and hon. Gentlemen opposite on this matter is that having pledged themselves to this new procedure, and no doubt having achieved a certain amount of so-called merit for its introduction from those who like that way of doing business, they feel it very difficult to withdraw entirely, and I must, therefore, accept the situation as it is presented to us, my own Amendment to leave out the odious provision not having been called. I accept the situation as it is, acknowledging with as much gratitude as I can truthfully express the consideration that has been given to the matter, and resign myself to the assurances that have been given that this procedure will never be invoked except in extreme national emergency and, therefore, coming to the comforting conclusion to myself and my hon. Friends that in the case of acquiring land for a new town, it can never honestly be invoked at all.
I am glad we have had some concession on this matter from the right hon. Gentleman but, nevertheless, I still find it difficult to understand why he could not go the whole way. We know quite well that the procedure which could be invoked here is an extremely arbitrary and harsh one, as my right hon. Friend said. It is harder to understand these very special circumstances in which it will be used in the case of new towns. It is not as though the new towns were to be built in a day; nobody would be so optimistic as to hope that. They will be built slowly. We learn from the second Reith Report that even at the peak period not more than 1,000 or 1,250 houses will be built in one year in any one town. That is not a very large amount and I certainly hope that the peak period of building will not be like the present. There is no doubt that it is very difficult to see why the Government will require these powers to get land so suddenly for buildings which there seems very little prospect of putting up at any great speed. Therefore, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter and see whether he cannot go further in order to meet us.
We must accept the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table, but I do not intend to do so without registering my protest against this harsh and arbitrary procedure. I fought this on the Acquisition of Land Bill, and I have voiced my protest on the relevant stages of this Bill. I am not prepared at any stage to say that this procedure is either fair or just. The main reason why this law is invoked is to obtain speedy possession, not speedy ownership. The ownership is not important. What is important is speedy possession. Although we are putting into effect through this Bill a large-scale experiment in long-term planning, it is a confession of weakness in planning that the Government have to come before the House and ask for powers to dispossess a man of his business, his home, or his land, in 14 days.
If there is any justification for that on a short-term immediate postwar project, there can certainly be no justification on a long-term project like a new town. It is a confession that the corporations and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning are going to fail in their planning projects, and that they have to have this power incorporated in this Bill. The incorporation in this Measure has the unfortunate effect that for a period of two years the occupiers of land or buildings within the designated area will have that Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. The corporations can step in at any time, perhaps because they have made a mistake in their plans, and turn the man or family out of their business or home in 14 days. That will not lead to production on the scale that the Government require in the immediate future; it will not lead to security of tenure in a business or small holding or farm. It is not only entirely unnecessary, but it is the very abrogation of good planning and will work against the best interests of the idea, which I support, of setting up these new towns in various parts of the country. For that reason, although I must say to the Minister that we cannot but thank him for this small concession, we are still opposed to the inclusion of this power in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
CLAUSE 5.—(Disposal of land by development corporations.)
9.15 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 5, line 35, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 39.
This Amendment, together with the next, could, I think, be taken together. They do not have any specific legal effect; their purpose is to leave out the exception of the Crown and the local authorities and to put them in exactly the same position as any other persons. Both the Crown and the local authorities will, as the Clause will stand if this Amendment is accepted, be in exactly the same position as any other developer, they will have to make out exceptional circumstances if they are to be granted anything exceeding a lease for a period of 99 years.
I would like to be assured in regard to the claim of local authorities for land for development or for housing purposes. The right hon. Gentleman has just said that he intends to put local authorities and Ministers of the Crown on the same basis as others. Could he tell us what he means by others? I think he will agree that if the new towns are to be successfully developed and are to make a contribution towards the housing of many people from the built up areas, the local authorities of those areas must be willing to cooperate with the development corporations to acquire land in the area of the new town. He has rather given the impression that he would not give any degree of priority to that. I think some priority ought to be given to local authorities in built-up areas to acquire land within the site of a new town for housing purposes. If the right hon. Gentleman can clear up that point and indicate that he is not intending to relegate the local authorities to the tail end of the queue I should be very glad. I should also be very glad if he would tell us what he means by treating local authorities on the same basis as others.
I made no secret of the fact that I did not think it desirable for an outside local authority to be the owner of large areas of land within a new town. That is a most undesirable state of affairs, because it creates a dual control in a town which we desire should be independent and free—completely independent of any other town. Therefore, the outside local authority desiring to acquire land within the area of a new town will have to establish that their case was exceptional in the same way as any other person desiring to build. That is the reason for this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 44, leave out from "unless," to "satisfied," in line 46, and insert "he is."—[ Mr. Silkin. ]
I think we could take the next two Amendments together.
I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, to leave out "so far as practicable."
The other Amendment referred to is in line 3, after "persons," to insert:
The duty of reinstatement should be unqualified. Unless it is unqualified it is bound to lead to considerable hardship. I would like the House to consider the position of people residing or carrying on business in an area which is designated as the area of a new town who have not got this unqualified right of reinstatement. All they are entitled to if they are not reinstated is a compensation fixed at a standard set in 1944 to suit quite different circumstances. It is compensation at 1939 valuation plus a certain percentage in the case of owner-occupancy. In our view that is an entirely inadequate right to offer to these people who are dispossessed of their homes or places of business for the benefit of a new town. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the inadequacy of the compensation offered and the difficulty in which such people are placed. The House would be aware of the difficulty in which these people would be placed in housing themselves in any other place without any absolute right of reinstatement. The slow progress of housing in this country illustrates clearly, without the necessity of further argument, the difficulty of their position.
As to the adequacy of the compensation so offered, I would draw the attention of the House to one or two comparative figures which, I think, show clearly how inadequate is the 1939 valuation even with what is known as the escalator Clause in regard to an increased percentage for owner-occupancy. One can see the increase which the Government made in the amount which it is possible to advance under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act of 1923, for instance; those amounts were advanced recently from £800 to £1,500, which seems to suggest a rough figure of double. But that instance is not alone. The Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938, assumed that a council house would cost £400, but the corresponding Act of this year is based on a figure of £1,200, which would seem to imply a treble cost in housing accommodation today. These figures show quite clearly that a 1939 price, plus a certain percentage for owner-occupancy, is quite inadequate compensation for anybody compulsorily dispossessed of their homes today. As there is no cost-of-works payment given to people to establish themselves elsewhere, it is economically right that they should be given an absolute right of reinstatement in all possible cases; and, quite apart from the economic aspects of this, it seems to us that people living within the area designated should have an absolute right of reinstatement within the area if they so desire.
As the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, there is, and should be, no difficulty about giving an unqualified right of reinstatement, because we are not here concerned with the sort of conditions prevailing under the 1944 Town and Country Planning Act, which envisaged a thinning-out of population from the blitzed and blighted areas. We are here faced with the construction of new towns and the consequent expansion of population; and, with an expanding population, there is clearly no reason why people already resident or carrying on business there should not be given an unqualified right of reinstatement. It is within the recollection of some of us that, on the Committee stage of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman called in aid the fact that Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944 is attracted to this Bill, but, as I then pointed out, the relevant words of Section 30 of that Act are:
indicated assent.
The hon. Lady nods her head—
indicated dissent.
There are two hon. Ladies, and I am faced, in these circumstances, with the judgment of Paris. It was the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) to whom I was referring and of whose agreement I am always glad, as she is my political neighbour in Epping. The point with which I am concerned is that the words in that Act refer to alternative accommodation being available "on reasonable terms." It does not say that the accommodation must be available within the relevant area, and what we want to do is to safeguard those people so as to give them an absolute and unqualified right of reinstatement within their area. If this is not done, if these people are left with only a qualified right at the discretion of the development corporation, if it is possible for people to be dispossessed for the creation of these new towns and sent elsewhere with merely a 1939 value in their hands, plus some percentage under the owner-occupancy Clause—if that is what is going to happen, then these new towns are going to start with a very unfavourable atmosphere in their locality. I know something of this, because the town of Stevenage abuts on my own constituency, and I want to say this to the right hon. Gentleman. Everybody wishes well the project of the new towns. But new towns can grow up no more than anything else, in the soil of injustice, nor can they grow up in an atmosphere of bitterness. To avoid that injustice and bitterness, the right hon. Gentleman has to give proper consideration to the people already resident there, and, in my submission, the only way he can properly do that is by accepting and adopting the terms of this Amendment. It is in the confident hope that he will do so that I am moving it.
9.30 p.m.
I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend has deployed the argument fully, and I feel that I cannot reinforce what he has said better than by giving an example of what may happen when the proud owner of a house within a designated area has that house taken away from him and, being a man of great individuality, decides that he will not stay in an area in which he cannot call his house his own property. There are many such men and women in England today. So he says, "I will pack up my bag and go into a far country where I can occupy a similar habitation to that from which I am being dispossessed under these harsh provisions." In due course the valuation would be made and for a house for which he paid, say, £600—a fairly good quality house, in, say, 1936 or 1937, or perhaps before that, he would be offered a sum which, I understand, will be the 1939 value. Let us suppose that it is £600, plus a figure which will not be more than 60 per cent. and which, I understand, will only be given in certain circumstances, that means that he would get a total figure of between £900 and £950. He then goes off into this far country and finds that a house of a size similar to the one of which he has been deprived will cost him certainly £1,200 and, more likely, £1,500 to £1,800.
He must have gone to Scotland.
If that is not an injustice, then I do not know what is.
The hon. Gentleman is developing his argument on entirely different lines from those which his hon. Friend pursued and with which I have great sympathy. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) did not talk about going into "a far country."
I am sorry that I have caused the hon. Lady to disagree in any way with our cause. When I mentioned "a far country," I was referring to the more salubrious neighbourhoods of the North from where I come, and not to other foreign climes. I will make that differentiation and try to win back the support of the hon. Lady, which, I think, I have in some way endangered. To return to my argument, I was only illustrating, by way of figures, the effect of the Bill as it now stands and reinforcing the plea of my hon. Friend that there is only one way in which to remedy the injustice which is going to be caused. We are all prepared to acknowledge that there will be injustice, and the only way to remedy that injustice, as between citizens, is to say to the man who is thus deprived of his home and who is not given sufficient compensation with which to buy himself another home—
On a point of Order. Can the hon. Member tell the House what Amendment he is seconding? I have been doing my best to follow him with care and I think he is seconding an Amendment which has not yet been moved. Perhaps he could tell us which one he is seconding?
I am sorry that I have caused the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider my remarks out of Order, but, not being a lawyer, I cannot see that his remarks are very relevant.
Further to that point of Order. I asked the hon. Member a very simple question, namely, what Amendment is he seconding? Even a layman could tell us that. Perhaps I might enlighten him a little further by telling him that, unless I am entirely mistaken, the House is now engaged in discussing on Report two Amendments to Clause 5, in page 6, line 3, and, following it as best I can, in which the hon. Gentleman is seconding an Amendment to Clause 5, page 6, line 10.
My difficulty is to interpret the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, because on both occasions he rose to a point of Order, and, as he rose to a point or Order, I was looking with great care to see where a point of Order lay.
I will tell the hon. Member at once.
I was going on to say that I would have thought that you, Mr. Speaker, were the proper person to decide a point of Order. I now understand that the hon. and learned Member was not raising a point of Order at all, but was asking me a question. I will now try to answer that question. The difficulty was to try to understand whether it was a point of Order or not. I am now trying to continue on the assumption that it is not a point of Order.
The point of Order, of which the hon. Gentleman could have disposed in two seconds, is that he is addressing himself to the wrong Amendment. That really is a point of Order. I do not really believe that he knows to which Amendment he is addressing himself.
I was listening to the hon. Member's seconding speech. It followed very much on the lines of the proposer's speech and, therefore, I think it must be in Order.
On a point of Order. May we then know which Amendment we are discussing? Obviously, most of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite have jumped ahead of the actual Amendments which we should be discussing.
Further to that point of Order. There is no confusion in this matter. It is clear that the Amendments under discussion are in Clause 5, page 6, line 3, leave out "so far as practicable," and the Amendment which goes with it in regard to agriculture and horticulture, to which I have specifically referred, and in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) is following me. In my submission, there is no confusion except in the mind of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt).
My knowledge of the Rules of Order now having been vindicated, perhaps I may now continue my argument. It is some time since this argument started, but, as far as I remember, I had just finished indicating the injustice which will be caused unless the Amendment is accepted. I will leave that point and go on to my second point which will, I think, be crystal clear even to the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith, namely, to give the reason why we have excepted the agricultural and horticultural persons in our Amendment. It is important that this point should be made so that there shall be no misunderstanding. It is obviously impracticable to apply the same conditions to the man who runs a business upon agricultural land, for this reason, that in order to give him alternative accommodation, some other occupier of agricultural land would have to be dispossessed, and, therefore, instead of creating only one injustice and one dispossession, we would have to create two dispossessions and, therefore, two injustices. It is for that reason that we have had to exclude persons engaged in agriculture and horticulture.
I am sorry, but I cannot accept this Amendment. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) will not be surprised. I explained my reasons in Standing Committee, but perhaps I had better repeat them. So far as housing is concerned—and part of the speech of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) related to people living in houses—there is an absolute obligation on the part of the development corporation to provide another house. We will discuss the kind of house on a later Amendment. In Committee the hon. Member for Hertford raised the point that the house ought to be within the area of the new town. I thought I had put down an Amendment to meet that. If it is not down it ought to have been, and it is an oversight on my part. At any rate, I accept that the house which is provided ought to be within the area of the new town. I think that, subject to the later Amendment as to the kind of house we provide, that meets the case of the person living in a house.
Could the right hon. Gentleman say to which Amendment he is referring?
I cannot offhand.
It is not here.
If it is not here it ought to have been. It was an Amendment to the Schedule. I give an undertaking to put it down in due course.
Surely it is the Amendment, in page 6, line 8, to leave out "accommodation."
The right hon. Gentleman says that meets the case of a man with a house. It does not. It only meets the case of the man who is prepared to accept a leasehold in the place of a freehold. It does not meet the case of a man who wishes to retain the freehold.
I think that man is unreasonable. We are giving him security of tenure; we give him a long leasehold, on terms which take into account the compensation that he is paid. If he will not accept that he is an unreasonable person. I think that we are meeting the case of a person with a house.
As regards a person engaged in agriculture, it is recognised that it is not possible to meet him. We are left with a person engaged in business. In the Standing Committee I recognised quite freely—in fact, I made the point myself—that it would be much easier in the case of the new towns to provide accommodation for persons engaged in business than in the case of persons who were displaced as a result of the redevelopment of blitzed towns. Therefore, the task will not be a difficult one in general. I visualise that there will be very few cases where it will not be possible to provide for accommodation, but there will be some cases in which it will not be possible. It is for that reason that these words, "so far as practicable," must be retained. The kind of case I have in mind, which I quoted to the Standing Committee, is the person engaged in working a gravel pit. That person cannot expect to have another gravel pit provided for him in another part of the new town. Similarly with other kinds of excavation. It may be a noisome or offensive business, which it would not be appropriate to carry on in the new town; it may be a business which is quite unsuitable and would not fit in with the balance of the new town. In any of those cases it would be unreasonable to put an absolute obligation on the corporation to provide alternative accommodation. There must be some elbow room.
Surely the cases the Minister is now quoting, the gravel pit and various noxious industries, are covered by words which nobody has suggested should be removed from the Clause, namely:
"and are willing to comply with any requirements of the corporation as to its development and use."
Would the Minister deal with the other section, for instance, the retail type of business? That would be much more relevant.
9.45 p.m.
Might I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not covered by the proposed Amendment down in his name—in page 6, line 8, at the end, to insert:
"accommodation suitable to their reasonable requirements."
No, it is not because the words "so far as practicable" still govern them. I ask that those words should remain. The words which the hon. Gentleman quoted would not really cover the case of a person carrying on gravel working. The corporation could not make it a condition of giving a person permission to carry on gravel working that he should not carry on gravel working, or in the case of a person carrying on an offensive business that he should not carry on an offensive business. If the nature of the business is offensive, what the corporation can say is, "You can carry on your business in such a way as to be as little offensive as possible." If it is an inherently offensive business, it is no use the corporation laying down the condition that you should not carry on that kind of business.
All I am suggesting is that the case which the Minister is putting is already ruled out by the words already in the Clause. It is quite clear that the corporation would not consider that a gravel pit or an obnoxious industry in operation before the corporation took over would be complying with any requirements of the corporation as to its development. Of course it would not. One could not develop as a corporation would wish if an obnoxious industry were developed or a gravel pit were to be worked in an area which was to be developed in another way. That is admitted.
Is it admitted? After all, the corporation, in imposing conditions, has to be reasonable. It is little use their providing accommodation for a person and then imposing such conditions as to make it impossible for that person to use that accommodation. Therefore, these words do not cover the point at all. I admit that it would be an easy "get out" if we could have an authorised interpretation on the lines which the hon. Member has put forward, that would enable the corporation to get out of any awkward application of alternative accommodation. I should be very happy, but I do not think that would be so. The corporation has to be reasonable. We have to face up to the fact as to whether we want to put this absolute obligation on the corporation to provide alternative accommodation for any business, whether it is desirable or not that that business should be carried on in the area, whether it is in the interest of the new town that it should be carried on, whether it conforms with principles of good planning or not. In the vast majority of cases there will be no difficulty. Certainly, as regards shops there should be no difficulty, but there will be some businesses in regard to which we must have these words. For that reason I ask the Committee not to delete these words "so far as practicable."
I would like the Minister to reconsider this matter. I feel that he has really invited my hon. Friends to put down a far more sweeping Amendment than they have actually put down. If they had, according to him, attempted to draft into the Clause words which gave additional powers to those which already exist, in addition to those which I have read out, I imagine that the Minister might have been even more satisfied. Of course, it is realised that it would be impossible to establish any right to continue to carry on certain types of activity such as the Minister has suggested. Equally, the Minister himself has said that it is very unlikely there will be difficulty in re-establishing, within the new town, those, for instance, who were carrying on retail businesses before the corporation took over, but that there will be some cases in which that is not practicable. It is that narrow area in which I am particularly interested. If it is at all possible that there may be some person who will be turned out and not able to get back and carry on business within the area where they are known, and which they know, which their families have known and which the families of their customers have known for many years, we should do our utmost to protect those people.
It would be extremely difficult to find the case in an expanding community where retailers existing in the area before the corporation took over would not be able to be re-established. But the Minister suggested there might be some. I think we ought to try to protect them. The effect of what he is doing here might be very grave, unless these people are protected. It is not quite the same as rebuilding a blitzed area. It is the fact that people do and will want to stay in a community which will be expanding, which will have absorbed, with the help of the Ministry, the old customers of those people. For instance, those customers will be found homes in the new towns. If one carries on a business, one will run the risk of not being able to carry on that business in the future. That is the hardest of all cases. Though the number of such cases may be small—
Will the hon. Member tell us what cases he has in mind?
I think a case exists for the Minister to examine the words, if not of the Amendment, perhaps of the Clause, as they at present stand, in order that hardship should be removed.
I see the Minister has a point with regard to the gravel pits, and it is difficult to think in what way to do this. But there was one word which the Minister used which, I am bound to say, caused me some apprehension, and that was when he referred to the replacement of those carrying on trades which might be regarded as undesirable. Now, different people have very different ideas as to what is a desirable trade. If one said "offensive trades" the case would be different. Perhaps, we could substitute "legally" or "physically possible" for "practicable." It would be different if they caused a nuisance in the towns, for one could prohibit that type of business. What does alarm me—
Surely it is physically impossible in the case of a gravel pit.
The Minister has complete powers of direction. I was trying to think of a good word, and it is not easy to find a good word. If the Minister would indicate that he will direct these corporations, so that they shall not stop people from being replaced merely because the businesses they carry on may be thought by some people to be undesirable, or shall stop them only if there is some really physical obstacle, as in the case of the gravel pits, or some legal obstacle, as in the case of nuisance, then, I think, we might, perhaps, find some way of achieving our object. I wonder if the Minister would consider whether he could do this by directing the corporations. If he cannot do it by the words in the Clause, I think we must press him to do so one way or the other. I would ask him to put the right words in the Clause.
There is one very important point which has not been mentioned. In my submission the right hon. Gentleman has entirely missed it. It is clear that the powers under this Clause
"shall be so exercised as to secure … persons living or carrying on business or other activities shall, if they desire … obtain accommodation."
That means that these powers have to be exercised by the Minister to that end. It goes on to say that if these people
"are willing to comply with certain requirements."
If the Minister were to lay down in this context any requirements that made it impossible for a business to be carried out, that would be ultra vires. Therefore, those modifying words "so far as practicable" are in the Clause. If the Minister lays down any order which prevented a trade being carried on, it would be ultra vires. That is the construction of the Clause, and there is no other construction for it.
As I understand it, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) is asking, assuming these words stand, that I give an undertaking to issue a direction to the corporation to ensure, except where it is not possible for physical or legal reasons, that they should provide other accommodation. I am perfectly prepared to consider that. My only hesitation is whether I have included all the categories which ought to be included, but I am quite prepared to consider favourably the possibility of issuing a direction to the corporation which will ensure, except for certain prohibited categories of cases, that they will be under an absolute obligation to provide other accommodation. The Amendment to which I referred was introduced in Committee upstairs; and it is already in the Bill on page 32.
In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said in regard to the suggestion of my right hon. and learned Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move, in page 6, line 8, to leave out "accommodation."
This Amendment, together with the next Amendment standing in my name, provides for the kind of accommodation which is to be regarded as appropriate as an alternative to the accommodation required. Hon. Members will remember that this subject gave the Committee upstairs a good deal of thought and anxiety. I undertook to see if I could find a form of words which would ensure that those displaced would get the same kind of accommodation which would reasonably satisfy them. The words I propose to insert are:
10.0 p.m.
The next three Amendments fall together with this one, namely:
In page 6, line 8, after "accommodation," to insert: In line 10, at the end, to insert:
I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the efforts which he has made to meet our arguments in Committee on this point. I think that he has gone a long way to meet one part of our case, that is, the idea that the accommodation provided should be "suitable to their reasonable requirements." I have only one doubt on the wording of the Amendment, and that is: Who is to determine, and what standards are to operate in determining, what is
"suitable to their reasonable requirements."?
I assume that that will be generously interpreted, and that there will be some chance of referring the matter to the Minister for him to give a direction if these words are too narrowly construed. I should like him to consider this point again, because he has not been able, so far, to insert some words which will give them the same security of tenure as that which they had previously enjoyed in the case of a leasehold. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we suggested on the Committee stage that, where someone was a yearly tenant, or something of that sort, there should be an obligation, so far as possible, to give him a yearly tenancy and not a weekly tenancy in the new premises. There is really something in that point. I appreciate that it is not possible where a man has had a freehold to give him another freehold. I am not asking for that. But we do suggest, and we have put down this Amendment to line 10 to suggest, that some regard should be had to the nature of the tenancy when a fresh letting is made to the tenant. The Minister did not deal with that point, and I would ask him to consider whether he cannot go some way to meet us on that matter. The words on the Order Paper are pretty wide, giving a general discretion, and recognising, I think, some of the difficulties.
If I may have the leave of the House to answer that question, which relates to another Amendment, I intended that the words
"suitable to their reasonable requirements"
should take into account the nature of the tenancy which they had previously held. If one was offered a yearly tenancy where the person had previously a lease of 50 years unexpired, that would not be
"suitable to their reasonable requirements."
I put the widest possible interpretation on these words. I do see the point of the hon. and learned Member's suggestion and I suggest that these words are intended to cover it.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman this further question. In view of the fact that the word "accommodation" merely has reference to physical accommodation and not to tenure, would he look at it again, because I think that there is the danger of assuming that merely physical accommodation is implied?
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made:
In page 6, line 8, at the end, insert:
"accommodation suitable to their reasonable requirements."—[ Mr. Silkin. ]
I beg to move, in page 6, line 10, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that where it is not practicable to secure that such person shall have an opportunity to obtain on land belonging to that corporation accommodation comparable with that acquired from him or for any reason such person does not desire to obtain accommodation on land belonging to the corporation, and notice to treat for the acquisition of such person's land has been served during the period ending on the seventeenth day of November nineteen hundred and forty-nine, there shall be paid by way of compensation to such person such sums as will enable him to obtain other accommodation similar in character and extent."
Although we have not discussed this Amendment directly, we got very near to doing so on the previous two Amendments, and, therefore, I shall be very short. This Amendment will only apply, according to the Minister, to a very small number of cases, which are very special cases, because he has undertaken that all others will be covered by reinstatement. There is also this speciality with regard to the new towns, that even one case of injustice or severe hardship will get known in these places and may do a great deal of harm. Therefore, I would suggest to the Minister that this is a case for a little more generosity than perhaps he or his colleagues could bring themselves to grant, where there would be a large number of cases and more general principles involved. When there are only a few cases, we can afford to get away from rule of thumb from the administrative point of view. What we say here is that if there are these few cases of people whom it is impossible to reinstate, then they ought to be given a sufficient amount of money to reinstate themselves somewhere else. There is the case also of the persons who are perhaps living in a secluded part of the new town for particular reasons of health or for some such reason and who do not want to be caught up in the town. There again, there is a good case for saying to these people, "You have been dispossessed from a rural habitation and you should be given another rural habitation." I hope the Minister will do justice here—because I think he will agree that it is not possible to do justice to this limited class of people under the 1944 provisions—and thereby greatly facilitate the idea which we all have in mind—a happy start to community life of the new towns.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he will consider not necessarily accepting this Amendment, but something on the very same lines. I find myself in somewhat unfamiliar surroundings in supporting the principle behind the Amendment as it has been moved from the other side of the House. I know the Minister will, undoubtedly, say there are very few people who would be adversely affected. He will provide, under statutory obligation, a similar house for those who are dispossessed. But there are persons who, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) has just said, are at present living in places which are to be covered by these new towns, and who will not want to live in towns with 60,000 inhabitants. They will want to go somewhere else. It is only just that they should be enabled to buy something of the same sort. It may well be that values by the time these properties are acquired will have settled; they may have gone down. It may be that the 60 per cent. supplement which will be made to the 1939 standard will by that time be adequate. If that is so, there is no possible objection to the Minister accepting the principle of the Amendment. It may well be that values will not go down to that extent, and that a certain number of people will find themselves with houses on their hands, which, say, in 1939, were valued at £650, which they bought recently for £1,500, and for which they will be paid, by compensation from the Minister, £1,000. I can quote the case of a house which was valued at £1,100 for which, recently, £2,300 was paid, and for which the compensation will be £1,600. That sort of thing will mean that the savings of these people, over a considerable period of years, will vanish in a flash. There is no doubt about it. I do not think we have any right to say to persons who, in the interests of the community, are being asked to move, "Not only must you move, but either you must go on living in the large town where you have no wish to remain, or you must clear out and cut your losses."
The Minister may say that the person will be provided with an alternative house which he may sell. But there is a limitation on the selling price of a new house built at the present time. The person will not be able to sell at a price which will enable him to buy another house in another town. This question is not only confined to dwelling houses but also to certain businesses, such as market gardening. I have a case in mind of a man who owns land on which he has greenhouses. He may be able to erect new greenhouses within the area of the new town but, on the other hand, it might not be possible for him to do so, in which case he will have to go outside the area. As compensation for the loss of his greenhouses, he will receive the 1939 value, plus 60 per cent. That percentage at present, and possibly for some years hence, will not be sufficient to buy him an equivalent undertaking. He may have bought his greenhouses on borrowed money, in which case he will be left without security, and with a weight of debts upon his shoulders. The vast majority of people will be well satisfied by the provisions which have been made, but the fact that there will be a few who will not be satisfied is no argument for saying that they should be ignored.
10.15 p.m.
I, too, wish to appeal to the Minister to consider this point. As has been said, not many people will be affected, but there will be some. Green fields will become the centres of these new towns at no very distant date. It is obvious that in places where there are now farms and smallholdings cultivated by the people who own them, there will be factories and housing estates in future. From the nature of things, it will be impossible for the corporations to find alternative farms and smallholdings for those people. Normally, the question of compensation to them would not arise. It would not arise if they were to be paid for their farms at the market value, but they are not to be so paid. They are to be paid on the basis of the 1939 value, plus a maximum additional amount of 60 per cent. if they are in occupation themselves. Anybody who knows anything about the prices of land or of houses at the present time will realise that that will be quite insufficient to buy an equivalent amount of land or an equivalent house in another district. Therefore, it follows that these people, some of whom may be people who have been hard put to it to earn a livelihood from that land, will suffer very seriously through absolutely no fault of their own, and merely in order to enable these new towns to be developed. This is a case of serious hardship, although it involves only a few people, and I appeal to the Minister to consider the matter very carefully.
I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) will probably not be surprised that I am unable to accept it. It would be quite impossible to adopt, in these relatively few cases, a different basis of compensation from that paid in the general case. That was laid down in 1944 by the Coalition Government after a great deal of debate and controversy. I thought the general sense of the House was right. We had long and laborious debates, and we arrived at the basis of compensation which was to last for five years. All the arguments that have been made this evening were made on that occasion, and duly taken into account, and met. I do not want to go into the reasons which prompted the Government in 1944 to adopt this basis of compensation, but it was a basis which was very strongly supported by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead, and by others, and at that time it was regarded as fair that the 1939 basis should have a supplement of 30 per cent. in the case of owner-occupiers. All the facts as stated this evening were then known.
Since then, I recognise that there has been a good deal of inflation and unreasonable increases in value which no Government could be expected to follow. After all, the effect of following them would only be to create an even greater increase in prices. Once it was known that the Government were prepared to foot the bill for the acquisition of any property anywhere else equivalent to the property that was being acquired, the obvious result would be that this inflationary tendency would be still further accentuated. No Government has been prepared to accept reinstatement as a basis of compensation. I have had an opportunity of hearing from the National Federation of Property Owners. After all, they speak for the people who are going to be affected, much more effectively, I hope, than my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterly Jones); and they have represented to me that the Treasury should be urged to make an order, under Section 63 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, increasing the supplement of 30 per cent. additional to 1939 prices payable to owner-occupiers. They have made that representation, among others which are not material to this discussion, and the Government have acceded.
I asked a number of property owners informally what they thought the right figure, and they said it should be increased to 50 per cent. I am ashamed to say that the Government have gone better than those property owners requested and have agreed to 60 per cent. which I think is doing broad justice. I do not suggest for a moment that every single owner of property whose land has been taken can go into the market and buy similar land at 1939 values, plus 60 per cent. He might not; some will, some will not. I believe that this tendency of prices to soar will very soon come to an end because people will not be prepared to pay the prices demanded today.
It is rather interesting that the case which was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) was that of a house. If any property owner is being properly cared for it is the owner of a house. He is given another house suitable to his reasonable requirements and he will be charged a rent which will take account of the compensation that he has been paid. My hon. Friend said that the man might not want to live in the new town. I am very sorry for him, but if he can afford to go in for these luxuries and be prepared to run the risk of losing all his savings, as my hon. Friend suggests, rather than live in the new town, then he deserves all he gets.
I distinctly remember hearing that the case put was that of a man who might not wish to live in the town for health reasons, and I feel that it is a travesty of the truth to suggest that it is likely that he could afford to risk his savings.
I was referring to the case cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and I was not aware that he mentioned health reasons. If he did I would respectfully submit that the new town will be as healthy as any town in the country; indeed, it will be a health resort and people will come there to live for their health rather than leave. However, that is the hard case that is quoted and I feel that no case has been made out. I am quite certain that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite were in my place he would not accept this Amendment and he cannot expect me to do so.
I am astonished at the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in his reply. I could follow his argument if he said he agreed in principle to what was said by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) and that though there were practical difficulties in carrying it out he would give favourable consideration to any suggestion of the sort that was made. But to take the attitude that he has taken and to say that anybody who
buys a house in the country, or retires to the country and then finds a town of 60,000 people deposited on him but does not want to throw his money away, deserves what he gets, is one of the most fantastic suggestions ever made in this House. I am rather surprised that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) and other hon. Members have said that this will affect a very small number of people. I should have thought that it would have affected a large number, and I would ask the House to consider the kind of places where these new towns will be put. They will be placed in some rural district 35 or 40 miles from a large town and that is exactly the sort of place to which people retire. They can live there in semi-rural surroundings when they have saved their money and invested it in a home, yet they can keep in touch with the urban life to which they are accustomed and with their social life and their friends. Suddenly, at some unspecified moment the Government will come along and their house will be compulsorily purchased. No one can deny what was said by the hon. Member for Hitchin; the figures have been quoted and they are quite accurate. I do not think the House should let this Amendment go by without protesting strongly at the absolute travesty of justice that the Government should take this attitude. They will be absolutely confiscating the houses.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 222.
Division No. 235.] AYES. [10.26 p.m. Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Baldwin, A. E. George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) Baxter, A. B. Grimston, R. V. Neven-Spence, Sir B. Bennett, Sir P. Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'db'ge) Nield, B. (Chester) Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Bower, N. Hope, Lord J. Osborne, C. Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Jennings, R. Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Butcher, H. W. Langford-Holt, J. Prescott, Stanley Byers Lt.-Col. F. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. Carson, E. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Raikes, H. V. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lucas, Major Sir J. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) Crowder, Capt. J. F. E. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth) Cuthbert, W. N. Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) Digby, Maj. S. W. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Ropner, Col. L. Drayson, Capt. G. B. Manningham-Buller, R. E. Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow) Drewe, C. Marples, A. E. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray) Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Marsden, Capt. A. Sutcliffe, H. Duthie, W. S. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L. Mellor, Sir J. Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F. Gage, Lt.-Col. C. Molson, A. H. E. Turton, R. H. Wakefield, Sir W. W. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord TELLERS FOR THE AYES Walker-Smith, D. York, C. Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.
NOES. Adams, Richard (Balham) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield) Porter, E. (Warrington) Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Porter, G. (Leeds) Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Gunter, Capt. R. J. Pritt, D. N. Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Guy, W. H. Proctor, W. T. Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) Pryde, D. J. Attewell, H. C. Hale, Leslie Pursey, Cmdr. H. Austin, H. L. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Randall, H. E. Ayles, W. H. Hardy, E. A. Ranger, J. Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Rankin, J. Bacon, Miss A. Haworth, J. Rees-Williams, D. R. Balfour, A. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Reeves, J. Barstow, P. G. Hicks, G. Reid, T. (Swindon) Battley, J. R. Holman, P. Rhodes, H. Bechervaise, A. E. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Belcher, J. W. Hoy, J. Robens, A. Bellenger, F. J. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Benson, G. Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Royle, C. Berry, H. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Sargood, R. Bing, G. H. C. Irving, W. J. Scollan, T. Binns, J. Jeger, G. (Winchester) Scott-Elliot, W. Blackburn, A. R. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Segal, Dr. S. Blenkinsop, Capt. A. Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A. Boardman, H. Keenan, W. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) Bottomley, A. G. Kenyon, C. Shurmer, P. Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Lavers, S. Silkin, Rt. Hon. L. Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Lee, F. (Hulme) Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Leslie, J. R. Simmons, C. J. Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Lewis, J. (Bolton) Skinnard, F. W. Brook, D. (Haifax) Lewis, T. (Southampton) Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Lyne, A. W. Snow, Capt. J. W. Brown, T. J. (Ince) McAdam, W. Sorensen, R. W. Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. McAllister, G. Sparks, J. A. Burden, T. W. McEntee, V. La T. Stamford, W. Burke, W. A. McGhee, H. G. Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Mack, J. D. Strachey, J. Castle, Mrs. B. A. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Swingler, S. Chamberlain, R. A. Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Champion, A. J. McKinlay, A. S. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Clitherow, Dr. R. Maclean, N. (Govan) Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) Cluse, W. S. McLeavy, F. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Cobb, F. A. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Thomas, John R. (Dover) Cocks, F. S. Mann, Mrs. J. Thomas, George (Cardiff) Coldrick, W. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) Collick, P. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton) Collindridge, F. Marquand, H. A. Timmons, J. Colman, Miss G. M. Marshall, F. (Brightside) Titterington, M. F. Cook, T. F. Mathers, G. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Mayhew, C. P. Turner-Samuels, M. Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) Medland, H. M. Ungoed-Thomas, L. Corlett, Dr. J. Messer, F. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Corvedale, Viscount Middleton, Mrs. L. Viant, S. P. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Mikardo, Ian Walkden, E. Davies, Harold (Leek) Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.) Monslow, W. Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) Deer, G. Moody, A. S. Warbey, W. N. Delargy, Captain H. J. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Watkins, T. E. Diamond, J. Morley, R. Weitzman, D. Dobbie, W. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Dodds, N. N. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Driberg, T. E. N. Nally, W. Wigg, Col. G. E. Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Neal, H. (Claycross) Wilkes, Maj. L. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Wilkins, W. A. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Noel-Buxton, Lady Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) Ewart, R. O'Brien, T. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Fairhurst, F. Oldfield, W. H. Williams, W. R. (Heston) Farthing, W. J. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Williamson, T. Foster, W. (Wigan) Palmer, A. M. F. Wilson, J. H. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Pargiter, G. A. Woods, G. S. Gaitskell, H. T. N. Parker, J. Yates, V. F. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Parkin, Flt-Lieut. B. T. Young, Sir R. (Newton) Gibbins, J. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Younger, Hon. Kenneth Gibson, C. W. Peart, Capt. T. F. Zilliacus, K. Gilzean, A. Perrins, W. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Platts-Mills, J. F. F. TELLERS FOR THE NOES Gordon-Walker, P. C. Popplewell, E. Mr. Pearson and Mr. Hannan.
CLAUSE 6.—(Supplementary provisions as to land.)
10.35 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 7, line 14, at the end, to insert:
On the other hand, if the period were five years, it would mean that the corporation would hold a considerable amount of land in the last five years of the period of development of the new town. For these reasons, I should say that the period of seven years would be the better, as the period within which the powers of land acquisition must be utilised. In Committee, my right hon. Friend gave a promise to, I think, the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) who wanted to place a limit—to use his own picturesque term—to the period during which the sword of Damocles would be held over the heads of the various tenants. I am always rather nervous about these classical gentlemen, and I do not want to say too much about them. My right hon. Friend has endeavoured to meet the hon. and learned Member in this matter. He has certainly not gone to the full extent of circle of the five years, but, for the reasons I have stated, we think seven years a more appropriate period. After all, the main thing is that the Minister has put a limit within which these powers can be used.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
In addressing myself to this Amendment, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I also said a few words on the Amendment to the Amendment which stands in my name and which limits the period to five years.
The right hon. Gentleman may move his Amendment now if he chooses.
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out "seven", and to insert "five."
First I have to record an expression of gratitude for the fact that some limitation has been inserted as a result of our representations in Committee. Though it does not go as far as we wanted, I have to acknowledge, before I adopt the critical vein, that something has been done in the direction which we indicated. The narrow point between us now is whether the period should be five years or seven. On that there is room for a great deal of opinion, and it is very hard to produce a scientific, cast-iron argument that a period of two years in this matter would make all the difference in the world. In order to help the House to come to a decision, perhaps I might give the background of the matter as it appears to me.
This Bill adopts the precedent of designation which was introduced in the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944. For the purpose both of that Act and of this Bill, designation is a convenient device; it enables the area within which the Bill is to operate to be described and delimited, and then once it has been delimited, certain powers of compulsory acquisition and purchase apply. It is of great convenience to the administration engaged in the task either of rebuilding on bombed sites as in the case of that Act, or of creating a new town—the problem confronting the corporations set up by this Bill. It has recognised administrative convenience, but there are certain grave difficulties involved from the point of view of the subject, if, for the period during which the designation is valid, he is under an uncertainty as to how long his land will be affected. It was for that reason that the Town and Country Planning Act, while adopting this designation, moderated its effect upon the subject by introducing a period of five years within which the powers must be exercised. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government have followed the precedent of the 1944 Act, hitherto, and I can conceive no valid reason why they should depart from the five years period.
The Parliamentary Secretary persuasively told us that it was against the public interest, as he thought, for these corporations to own for a long time a lot of land that was undeveloped. That is so, but it is much against the interests of the subjects affected, that this period designated should hang over their heads like a dark cloud for a long period. This argument has a particular force when the occupiers of agricultural land are affected. It is a peculiar characteristic of this Bill, as opposed to the Act of 1944, that the operation of building which it contemplates will be, for the most part, upon agricultural land. The one industry which is most affected is that of agriculture, and I would remind the House that this is precisely the industry in which long-term views are essential. Rotations have to be planned many years ahead, and if the period of rotation is to be abruptly interrupted by some process following from designation, then plans cannot be made with due forethought and a proper sense of continuity. Farm buildings, which in the livestock part of the industry are essential, cannot be kept up with anything like the same efficiency if there is hanging over the head of the occupier, a designation which means that he may be ejected. I see no valid reason in enlarging the period of dubiety from five to seven years. I agree that it is a good thing for the corporation to let the land on normal leases until it is ready to build thereon, but if it is compelled to acquire the land it wants within five years, it is surely not too much to ask that the corporation, for the remaining five years, should lease the land in the proper way. The mere fact that they acquire it two years earlier, does not take away from their policy of leasing it for the remaining period before they build. While acknowledging that some effort has been made to meet us—and that is something which one should not pass without recognition—I still hope the Minister will, even at this late hour, see fit to follow the precedent thoroughly. As he has adopted the device of designation, I hope he will adopt the five-year period which went with it, as a limitation of the period of uncertanty involved.
10.45 p.m.
I wish to support this Amendment, and in so doing, I would raise a point, upon which I am not quite clear, and which is of importance to the agricultural industry. It may be that in the course of the first year—I should like to be contradicted if I am wrong—the corporation will be able to sketch out its plans for the whole of the designated area. It will have its open spaces, and whatever else is planned. Then at the end of a year or eighteen months, certain parts of the designated area will be known to be lost to agriculture. I want now to consider the position of the occupier, or owner-occupier, of land in that part of the designated area. As I understand the Amendment, the fact that he can, after seven years, serve a notice on the corporation, means that the corporation will be the party which dispossesses the owner-occupier and the owner-occupier will be able to claim compensation for disturbance. But if the owner-occupier on his own initiative quits before that time, he will not be able to claim. If my contention is right, compensation for disturbance will be payable after seven years, and not before the seven years. That, surely, is an added argument in favour of my right hon. Friend's contention that the period should be limited to five years instead of seven. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting us on this point, as far as he has done, because the Bill, without the limitation, would be dangerous. I would suggest something which may well get over the whole difficulty. Where the fanner or the owner-occupier moves from his farm, within the parts of the designated area which are known to be planned as the housing area of the designated area, and he gets a chance to take another farm elsewhere, could he not do it in this way. Could not the Minister give directions to the corporation that they may buy that particular farm, on representations being made to him. There is a sound case for exceptional means being used in exceptional cases. I think that the Minister has power to do this under the Bill. I do not think that his Amendment, or the Bill as it stands, would prevent him from taking such action. It would not gravely upset the future financial arrangement of the corporation, and it would be of great benefit to those farmers—of whom there will be only a limited number—who will be inconvenienced, and perhaps put out of business by the Bill.
I am sorry that I cannot accept the five years period suggested. This Amendment was carefully considered together with the proposal of hon. Members opposite. In Committee I said that I could not go all the way, but that I would go as far as possible to meet them. I gave an indication that it would probably not be five years but seven. Looking at the matter entirely from one side or other, one can, of course, state a strong argument either for five years or for seven. In the interests of orderly development, in order that the corporation should not acquire land before it really needs it, it is essential to have a period of seven years. On the assumption that the corporation will carry out the development within ten years, I think it will probably require to have all the land in its possession within seven years, so as to allow three years to complete the development. If the Amendment to the proposed Amendment were accepted, there would be two years during which the corporation would have land on its hands, which it would not be easy to let for an uncertain period. It would possibly result in a not very satisfactory state of affairs. If the arguments as to the hardship that would be involved in not paying people more than the compensation provided are correct, there would be no hardship involved in remaining for a longer period. I certainly think that the longer people remain, the more chance there is of their being able to get other accommodation at a reasonable price. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will not press this Amendment to the Amendment but will accept the position that I have done all I can, and that I have carried out my undertaking. It is not very encouraging, when one has gone so far to meet a case, if one is faced with a long Debate on the subject, and finds that one has gained nothing by one's virtue. As to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York), which it is not necessary to incorporate in the Bill, I shall be glad to consider it. I will read what he has said. Perhaps I shall follow it better in that way than I am following it at this time of night. If it is possible to meet the case, we will do it by direction.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
CLAUSE 9.—(Public health.)
Amendment made: In page 9, line 30, after "of," insert "such."—[ Mr. Silkin. ]
CLAUSE 12.—(Advances and payments by Minister to development corporations.)
I beg to move, in page 12, line 28, to leave out "an annual," and to insert "a."
Perhaps I might deal at the same time with the next Amendment, which is linked with this one. Both are in consequence of an undertaking which I gave in Committee to see whether the word "annual" might be deleted in connection with accounts which have to be prepared by the development corporation. These Amendments have been put down at the request of the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). I am sure that they would satisfy him if he were here.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 29, leave out from the second "the," to "cost," in line 30.—[ Mr. Silkin. ]
CLAUSE 13.—(Accounts, audit, annual report, etc.)
I beg to move, in page 12, line 34, at the end, to insert:
"being a form which will show separately the results of the development activities of the corporation and of each trading and other activity of the corporation and will include a balance sheet and profit and loss account in a form which will conform so far as practicable to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1929."
This Amendment relates to the form of the accounts and is of some importance for this reason. The Minister has made it clear that the whole scheme in this Bill is a great experiment. It is obviously desirable that in an experiment of this nature, the fullest and clearest data possible should be available in order that the success of the experiment may be assessed. The principal points of this Amendment are two. First, it provides that the form of the accounts shall make a clear distinction and differentiation between the financial results of the pure development work of the corporation and those of the trading enterprises which it carries on. The point does not need labouring—still less at this time of night—that it is important that these results should be clearly ascertainable. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman himself will regard it as desirable that these figures should be plainly set out and differentiated. The second point is that it provides that the balance-sheet and profit and loss account shall conform as far as is practicable to the Companies Act, of 1929. The House will note that the provision, "so far as practicable," is a provision which appeared, in an earlier Amendment, to appeal so strongly to the right hon. Gentleman himself. It appears in this Amendment in order to get over the minor difficulties which arise when you try to tie down one of these development corporations to the conditions prescribed by the Act for companies. That very slight matter having been dealt with, no conceivable difficulty can arise. The right hon. Gentleman has been amenable in his attitude towards a considerable number of Amendments tonight and I am sure he will want to continue to run true to form. Equally it is so obviously in the interests of all who have the success of the experiment at heart, that the accounts should be presented in this form, that there would seem to be no difficulty in the Minister's accepting this Amendment. It is, therefore, in the confident hope and, indeed, with lively anticipation of the Minister's benevolence, that I move the Amendment.
11.0 p.m.
If it were at all possible for me to accept the Amendment I would certainly do so after the flattering speech of the hon. Member. But, in spite of his blandishments, I am afraid the Amendment would not even do what he wants it to do. There would be two conflicting requirements if this Amendment were accepted—one, that the accounts should be kept in such form as the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, direct; and then the other requirement, that they should be in a form applicable to companies under the Companies Act, There must be considerable doubt as to what the poor, unfortunate development corporation would have to do. If they are given a form of accounts to prepare, which the Ministry will, in due course, prepare after consultation with the Treasury, they know where they are. But if they have to comply with both the requirements of the Ministry, and also the Companies Act, they are in some difficulty. Is it not much better for the Ministry to devise their own form of accounts, having regard to the particular nature of the work of the corporation, and not to leave it to each corporation to interpret the matter as they wish? Is it not better to provide them with a uniform form of accounts, so that we can compare the results of the efforts of one corporation with another, so we can get the information we need?
There will be a great many activities of the corporations which will in no way be analogous to that of a company—housing accounts, and so on—which it would be impossible to prepare in the form of trading accounts. I know the blessed words, "so far as is practicable," are inserted, but I want them in only where it is necessary. I am not so fond of them as all that. It is applying a machinery and form of business which is not really applicable to the affairs of the corporation. You may just as well ask a local authority to prepare accounts in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act so far as is practicable. It is really not analogous. While appreciating what the hon. Member wants, if I meet him by ensuring that the accounts which the development corporation will be required to prepare will have regard to any particular requirements of the Companies Act which would be applicable, I think he is getting all he wants. In preparing the requirements of the corporation we will look at the Companies Act to see whether any of its requirements are proper for incorporation in our requirements. The form of accounts required for the corporation will be coloured by what we find is desirable in the Companies Act.
We are grateful to the Minister for having said that he will consider the matter, but the point we want to bring out is this: The corporations will be carrying on all sorts of varying activities, such as trading—
Not necessarily.
They may be. We want to see the result of these activities, whether it is housing or transport. I do not see why they are not analogous to the activities of companies which come within the Companies Act. The forms of accounts of some local authorities are nonsensical. What half of them mean is not clear, as I know to my misfortune. We want accounts which people can understand. It is impossible to understand the accounts of many local authorities. [An HON. MEMBER: "That shows your ignorance."] Well, I have had to prepare a good many of them. Any professional accountant will tell you that what I have said is true. The right hon. Gentleman made the point that in the Amendment we were laying down two different things, and were leaving it to different corporations to produce different sets of accounts. I do not think that follows from the Amendment. I ask the Minister to go further, and to consider this again. All we ask is that reasonable accounts should be produced, so that a judgment can be formed as to the various activities carried on by the corporations, and people can ascertain whether they are being carried on economically and practically as they ought to be. Without accounts of this nature, I do not think that can be done.
I agree to that—it accounts according to the Companies Acts that I do not want, I agree that the accounts should be in this form.
Amendment negatived.
I beg to move, in page 12, line 36, to leave out from "Minister," to the end of line 38.
The Subsection which the Amendment seeks to amend says that the accounts of a development corporation shall be audited by an auditor to be appointed annually by the Minister, and the audit shall be conducted in accordance with such directions as may be given by the Minister. The words which it is proposed to omit are not really required. They may be misread as meaning that the Minister might direct the auditor as to the manner in which he should carry out the audit, whereas the words were intended to relate only to the scope of the audit. I understand that similar words are not used in the Civil Aviation Bill or in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill. The Amendment clarifies the Clause, it makes it very simple, and it is in response to a request made in Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
CLAUSE 14.—(Transfer of undertakings and winding up of development corporations.)
I beg to move, in page 13, line 44, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that before approving an agreement under this subsection for the transfer of a statutory undertaking the Minister shall publish in the London Gazette, and in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which the new town is situated, a notice stating that the agreement has been submitted for approval, and describing the general effect of the agreement; and if within twenty-eight days from the publication of the notice in the London Gazette any objection to the agreement is made by any statutory undertakers who, within the said area or any area adjacent thereto, are carrying on or authorised to carry on a statutory undertaking of a character similar to the statutory undertaking proposed to be transferred by the agreement, the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall apply in relation to the agreement as if for the reference to the Minister there were submitted, a reference to the Minister and the appropriate Minister."
This Amendment is moved at the request of, and by the agreement with, the statutory undertakings, to provide for advertising of any agreement that might be arrived at for transferring the functions as regards statutory undertakings from a development corporation to a statutory undertaking. The point was made by the statutory undertakings that they ought to have an opportunity of knowing to whom the functions were being transferred even by agreement, because it might well turn out that some other authority, some other statutory undertaking than the one to whom the functions were being transferred, might have a claim to have these functions transferred to it. Therefore, we are proposing to have advertisement in the London Gazette and elsewhere, so as to give these other undertakings an opportunity of making their representations to the Minister and to the appropriate Minister, who in this case would be the Minister of Fuel and Power.
Amendment agreed to.
CLAUSE 15.—(Combination and transfer of functions of development corporations.)
I beg to move, in page 15, line 21, to leave out "to be expedient."
This Amendment should be taken with the next Amendment—in page 15, line 23, after "that," insert:
I agree with the Minister in saying that these words substantially carry out the undertaking he gave in Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 23, after "that," insert:
"there are exceptional circumstances which render it expedient that."—[ Mr. Silkin. ]
I beg to move, in page 15, line 30, to leave out "to be," and to insert:
"that there are exceptional circumstances which render it."
This is a similar Amendment, providing for another set of circumstances in respect of which I gave a similar undertaking.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 16, line 4, at the end, to insert:
"(4) Before making an order under this section providing for the transfer of functions from or to a development corporation or for the exercise of any functions by such a corporation, the Minister shall consult with that corporation."
This provides that before an Order is made transferring the functions from one development corporation to another, there shall be consultation with the corporation whose functions are being transferred. I am sure the House will welcome this particularly, if I suggest that it should be the last Amendment taken tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman has given us a double reason for gratitude.
Amendment agreed to.
Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[ Mr. Pearson. ]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), to be further considered Tomorrow.
Ironstone Quarries (Land Restoration)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." journed.—[ Mr. Pearson. ]
11.13 p.m.
I am sorry that after such a long day for the Minister I should be raising this matter on the Adjournment, but I took such a long time before I was successful in obtaining the opportunity to do so. It was on 16th October, 1945, that I asked him The right hon. Gentleman replied:
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of a few facts in this matter? In 1939 it was estimated that 67,476 acres of land in the county of Northampton had iron ore underneath the surface. This did not include the Soke of Peterborough. Of this area, 2,500 acres had been devastated and not restored. The position on 31st December of last year was estimated to be as follows: 7,700 acres had been used for surface workings, 3,800 acres had been restored for agricultural and afforestation purposes, and the amount which had been devastated and is still devastated had risen, according to these estimates, from 2,500 acres to 3,800 acres during the war years. It is increasing, I understand, at the rate of approximately 350 acres a year. It must be agreed that if such an area could be restored a considerable amount of food could be produced or timber grown.
Yet there is this land, wasted, unused, and there is an increasing quantity of it every year. It will be appreciated from the figures I have quoted that there has been about a 50 per cent. restoration, and I would like to pay my tribute to those companies, and persons who are engaged in ore extraction, for the efforts they have made in restoring the surface and for making experiments with cultivation. Most of the restoration was in the shallow workings, and took place some time ago. The modern workings are much deeper with modern machinery and buckets bringing 12 tons of ore up to the surface from a depth of 65 feet. In these deep workings restoration is indeed difficult.
If I may remind the right hon. Gentleman, the Kennet Committee in 1938 said:
The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we got inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, Section 10 (3) power for a local planning authority to acquire compulsorily derelict areas. I would like him to say, or inform me sometime, whether that power has yet been exercised and whether he would assist in its exercise if any proposals are put up to him. There is also a Section in the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, dealing with that subject. Northamptonshire is not a development area, and the Section does not apply. Apart from that, there has been complete silence except that the right hon. Gentleman has said that other matters have been more pressing. He has been concerned today with regard to new towns in country areas, but it really is necessary to preserve these country areas and stop them being converted into waste land. It is waste of time to have all these fine planning schemes when the land in which they are to be situated will resemble battlefields. It is a waste of time to plan new homes in the midst of devastated, derelict areas.
This problem particularly affects Northamptonshire and, to some extent, Lincolnshire. I should be glad for an assurance that if any of these companies in that area are nationalised, the Government will adopt the principle enunciated by the Scott Committee, that there will be no extraction of minerals from surface workings by the Government without restoration of the surface. I am giving the right hon. Gentleman an early opportunity, on which he said so long ago that he would make a statement. I hope that he will be able to do something this time. I am quite sure that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will desire to say a few words as his constituency is more gravely affected than mine. I will conclude with these words from the Kennet Committee:
11.23 p.m.
I am indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), to whom I may respectfully refer as my legal twin, for his kindness in giving me time to add a word this evening. It is quite true that my constituency is particularly affected. I can assure the Minister that all the Labour Members in Northamptonshire join in deploring the effect that these iron ore workings have already had on the countryside. It is quite true that a large acreage now lies derelict. It is equally true that the present and the anticipated development of iron ore workings on a larger scale and at deeper levels is making this a problem which grows more and more acute day by day. Surely it is the business of legal twins to differ to some small extent, and I would like to make this first comment, that one of the difficulties in this matter has been that the working of iron ore has been arranged on these lines on terms which suited both the iron ore workers and the owners of the land, and caused great damage to the public interest. It has suited the iron ore workers to offer compensation upon terms which amounted to more than the agricultural value of the land; and consequently it has suited the owner to accept those terms and to accept them in lieu of restoration. The effect of unrestricted private enterprise in this instance has been damage to the public to suit the convenience—
Surely one of the chief difficulties has been with regard to the restoration of deeper workings for mechanical reasons which no longer apply?
I quite appreciate that the difficulty is growing, and that development today is exceptionally important, but I am sure it will be agreed on both sides of the House that the difficulty in the past has been largely due to working on terms which did not include restoration because it suited both the iron ore workers and the owners to accept these terms. I do not want to stress the point because, like the hon. and learned Member for Daventry, I am more concerned with the restoration of the damage that has been done in the past, and the avoidance of future damage, than the question of blame.
But, when the cost of that restoration comes to be considered, it is right and proper that those who have derived benefit from it should bear their share of the cost. That is a matter which I feel sure the Minister will bear in mind in dealing with it. There are, it seems to me, one or two points that ought to be stressed. First of all, I hope that the Minister will take the view which, I am bound to say, I should take for myself, that in the event of the iron and steel industry being nationalised, it is as incumbent upon a public authority to do the right thing in the public interest as it ought to have been for private authorities in the past, and that, in a question of that sort, it ought to ensure prevention of this damage in the future by due and proper restoration.
Secondly, as regards the past, it must be recognised that the question is one of considerable difficulty. That, undoubtedly, is one of the matters dealt with in the Waters' Report. I fully appreciate that a report made confidentially to the Minister may well have been made upon such terms and in such circumstances that it cannot be disclosed now without a breach of confidence. While appreciating that, I feel that there must have been general recommendations in that report which could properly be disclosed and which, in view of the information collected by and made available to Mr. Waters at the time, would be extremely useful to the local authorities and others who are concerned in this matter. I have had the advantage of meeting some of the representatives of the Northamptonshire County Council, and I know, as does the hon. and learned Member for Daventry, that they are acutely concerned with knowing what the general tenor of these recommendations was.
As to the future, I have only this comment to make—that I believe it to be the case that as regards coal workings restoration has been insisted upon in a way which has never been insisted upon with regard to iron ore workings. I appreciate that a similar question to the present one arises not only in connection with iron ore, but also with other forms of quarrying and mining, notably gravel, in a great many areas, particularly around London. I appreciate that this is part of a large problem, and that it is a very considerable problem with which this Ministry is particularly concerned. I most fervently hope that the matter will be dealt with as early as possible. These workings are going on now, and they are going on in an increasing scale and to an increasing depth, and if it is allowed to go on for much longer, the Minister may find himself with a problem which, from its size and difficulty, will by then be almost insuperable. The damage will already have been done, and done irretrievably. Therefore, whatever other legislation is on foot, I hope that the Minister will consider this matter of sufficient importance to agriculture in Northamptonshire to merit the earliest attention, both as regards damage already done, and as regards the future. If there is unrestored land, I hope some steps may be taken to facilitate the use of that land for building purposes in and around the urban areas of my constituency. Kettering is anxious to use some of that land, and I hope its use will be facilitated.
11.31 p.m.
My hon. and learned Friend has been patient, and he has put his case quite moderately. If I had had any doubts about the urgency of the matter those doubts would have been removed by what he has said. The Waters Report was submitted to my predecessor in May, 1945. Since that time there has been a good deal of pressure of work and the result of what has happened has been seen and other results will be seen shortly. We have been short of staff and this Report has not received the attention which its importance merits. We have lately been looking at the matter. It is not a problem the solution of which is readily available. It requires investigation. But we are proposing to do certain things, and I will tell the hon. Member about them.
First, I want to make public what Mr. Waters found. Certain evidence put before him was confidential and it must, of course, be treated as such, and we cannot publish it. But the public is entitled to know what he found and his recommendations to me. I propose to issue a White Paper before the end of the summer—before the Recess, I hope—setting out these things. Things are not quite so bad as was made out because there is restoration going on, but admittedly not to the full extent. We have made a new Interim Development Order controlling more tightly mineral workings. One cannot carry out completely satisfactory control without legislation, but one can exercise a certain amount of control under the Interim Development Order we made some months ago. It is as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, part of a wider question. Iron ore workings are not the only thing spoiling the countryside and reducing the amount of land for agricultural purposes. There are gravel workings much greater than the iron ore workings, but the iron ore workings cause disfiguration more seriously.
We cannot deal with one type of mineral working without dealing with the whole lot. That is what we have in mind. I recognise that merely publishing so much as we can of the Waters Report is not really dealing with the problem, but it is going some way. We are also considering what steps we ought to take, the nature of the legislation, etc. It is complicated to a certain extent by the fact that the Government have expressed their intention of nationalising the iron and steel industry. Without making any promises, I would express the opinion that the Government ought to be as tender to the soil and the preservation of our land as any private developer. I hope they will be. It is a complication that this matter, of course, affects a great many other Departments—Agriculture, Supply, etc., but discussions are now taking place, and I very much hope it will be possible to carry out a fairly intensive study of the problem, and to arrive at conclusions within a reasonable time.
In the meantime, I intend myself to visit the area. I have had an invitation for some time to go and see it. I feel that it is difficult to legislate about a thing like this without actually seeing it for oneself. It is difficult to imagine the amount of spoliation which is taking place. I shall spend half a day going round seeing the thing for myself. I do not know that I have satisfied the hon. and learned Member but at least I can assure him that things are now moving, which they were not some time ago. The thing is moving and we will arrive somewhere in due course.
The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with one point.
I intend to do so—the acquisition of derelict land under Section 10 of the 1944 Act and under the Distribution of Industry Act. No land has so far been acquired. That is not for lack of exhortation on my part. I have urged local authorities, as part of the task of dealing with derelict land, to acquire it and restore it. A number of local authorities intend to acquire such land under Section 10, but so far none have actually done so. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is moderately satisfied with what I have said. Certainly I am able to give him a much more satisfactory reply today than I was able to do when he put a Question. Therefore, his raising of the subject on the Motion for the Adjournment tonight has at any rate been justified.
May I, with the leave of the House, thank the right hon. Gentleman for the information he has given and say that it goes some way towards satisfying my hopes? I shall look forward to reading the White Paper in the course of the Recess. I am glad he is going to see the devastation, which is widespread and vast, for himself. I hope I may be able to meet him down there.
May I also, with the leave of the House, associate myself with those thanks and those hopes?
I can assure the Minister that it is not only Members from Northampton who are concerned with this problem. Many of us have been pressing those associated with these undertakings to take the matter seriously. All over the country we feel very strongly that we do not want to see any more Black Countries. I live on the edge of it and I do not want to see any more created in the country.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.