I beg to move, in page 17, line 37, to leave out "such," and to insert "of the."

This is a drafting Amendment consequential on that made to Clause 3, page 3, line 20.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 20, line 29, after "eight" insert ( a )."—[ The Lord Advocate. ]

I beg to move, in page 21, line 6, to leave out from "State," to the first "is", in line II.

Perhaps I may be allowed to discuss this and the next Amendment—in page 21, line 13, after "section," insert: vice versa. It will obviously be necessary that there should be the closest co-operation between the local authority and the development corporation if things are to be done at all smoothly.

It therefore seems to us quite wrong that this very important power should be conferred on the Secretary of State who may exercise it against the will of the local authority and with no appeal. We think that it would be much smoother if the local authority were not only consulted but asked whether they agree. There are, of course, default powers of one kind and another if the local authority do not do their work. I would anticipate that in some circumstances the local authorities might consent and say, "In those circumstances we agree to the development corporation being our agent," but looking to the precarious financial position of many local authorities in Scotland we think it is going too far to impose these expenses on the authority against their will if they are perfectly willing and able, as they are, to carry out the work themselves.

I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment, because it would unduly hamper the powers of the Secretary of State. Its effect would be that the Minister could not make an order authorising a development corporation to provide water, sewerage, or other services in an area designated as the site of a new town, unless he obtained the consent of the local authority. The local authority might be unwilling or unable to provide a particular service for the new town, and they might refuse to consent to the development corporation providing the service. That would produce an intolerable position, because, in such a case, the Secretary of State would have no power to get the necessary service provided. The Secretary of State's powers must be comprehensive and sufficiently flexible to cover all possible eventualities. It should be noted that the Clause as it stands already provides for consultation with the responsible local authority. During the Second Reading Debate, the Secretary of State for Scotland expressly mentioned that in Scotland he proposes to rely very largely on local authorities to provide the essential services. This Amendment goes too far, and might hold up the provision of essential services if the local authority were recalcitrant and refused their consent.

I think the circumstances envisaged by the Lord Advocate are outwith what could happen. I cannot imagine any local authority refusing consent where they do not intend to undertake the work themselves, or refuse to do so. But, in any case, the Secretary of State has ample powers to deal with the matter. The situation described by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is one, I think, which would never arise. In any case, if it did arise, if the corporation, the Secretary of State, and the local authorities were to get at loggerheads the scheme would never work. Is it right that the Secretary of State should be able to impose an additional burden on a local authority which is in financial difficulties, without obtaining their consent? Consultation is not sufficient. If the Amendment were accepted I think the Clause would work well.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 22, line 23, at the end, insert:

"(14) In section fourteen for any reference to the London Gazette there shall be substituted a reference to the Edinburgh Gazette."—[ The Lord Advocate. ]

I beg to move, in page 22, line 23, at the end, to insert:

"(15) In subsection (2) of section (Winding-up of development corporations) after the words 'within whose area the new town,' and after the words 'in which the new town,' there shall be inserted the words 'or any part thereof,' and for the words 'and of the county district,' there shall be substituted the words' or the town council of the burgh'."

This Amendment is needed for the purpose of adapting to Scotland the new Clause dealing with the winding-up of development corporations. In Scotland, a new town may be situated partly within the area of one local authority and partly within the area of another. A most likely instance would be partly in a burgh and partly in a county. The Amendment takes account of that possibility and enables the Minister to transfer the undertaking, or any part of it, to the local authority within whose area any part of the new town is situated. Subsection (2) provides that in connection with any transfer of the undertaking of a development corporation to a local authority the Minister must consult the council in the county district. The present Amendment substitutes a council of a burgh in which the new town is situated for a council of the county district.

Amendment agreed to.

11.15 a.m.

I beg to move, in page 22, line 23, at the end, to insert: This Amendment is proposed in view of the material difference between the law in England and Scotland. So far as I can understand the proceedings on this Bill up to date, it is not contemplated that under the English law there can be a new town council of the new town until the winding-up of the development corporation. Discussions appear to have proceeded on that basis. In Scotland, as the Lord Advocate is aware, it does not lie with the Executive whether or not an area shall become a police burgh. Once an area has taken on the shape of a town, has become a populous place with the characteristics of a town, a number of householders can apply to the sheriff and ask that the area be declared to be a town, with all ordinary municipal privileges. I should expect, indeed, hope, that by the time there were, say, 5,000 people in the area there would be an application to the sheriff. I think that by that time the conditions of the Statute would have been fulfilled and, accordingly, there would be a new town council responsible for the new town long before the development corporation was wound up. There would then be a somewhat awkward situation which could only properly work by the cooperation of all concerned. The county council would be responsible for certain services, the new town council responsible for other services, and the development corporation responsible for still further services, according as to how the matter might be worked out by the Secretary of State. That being so, it seems essential that the new town council should be brought fully into the picture at every stage after it has been set up.

I do not think that the Government's Amendment quite covers the point. We suggest two Amendments, first, that after the word "corporation" where it first occurs—I think it is in line 10 of the new Clause—there should be a reference to the town council. That is in respect of the handing over of the assets. It is obviously right that the new town council should have the assets rather than the county councils, because by that time there will be an additional complication; the burgh will have become a large burgh and, when a burgh passes, at the level of 20,000 population, from being a small burgh to being a large burgh, there is a still further readjustment of the local services and a handing over of certain services from the county council to the town council. It is automatic under the Act, without reference to any Executive decision, as I understand the 1929 Act.

I do not think any burgh in Scotland has yet grown from a small burgh to a large burgh since 1929, and accordingly we have had no experience of the precise working out of the 1929 provisions, but it will happen in the case of these burghs. Accordingly, by the time we have reached the stage when this Amendment comes into operation, we shall be dealing with the town council of a large burgh which will be responsible for all the services, with the exception of education and one or two other matters. Accordingly, it would be appropriate that the services run by the development corporation should be handed over to the large burgh and not to the county council. As I read the Clause as it stands, that is not adequately covered. I am sure the Government's representatives agree that that is the way it should work out, and I raise the matter at this moment in order to make quite clear that they have it in mind and are providing for it in the Bill before its form is finally adjusted. It is a little odd that this question was not noted in the original drafting of this immense Clause 22, but it has been noticed to some extent since, though I am not sure that it has been fully worked out. I would welcome a statement from the. Under-Secretary or from the Lord Advocate on that question.

I do not really think there is anything between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself on this point. It is merely a matter of drafting. My own view is that the Amendment is unnecessary and that the situation is sufficiently covered by the Government Amendment. If there were a town council in the new town, it would clearly be the local authority within whose area the new town or part of the new town was situated, and the undertakings of the corporation could be transferred to the town council together with any property appropriate for transfer. As regards the property of the corporation outside the burgh boundaries, it would be a matter for consideration as to whether it should be transferred to the town council or to the county council. Generally, any property of a corporation, whether within or without the burgh boundary, which is not appropriate for transfer to the town council—for example, a school or police station built by the corporation—would be transferred to the county council as the authority responsible for education and police. In my view the Clause as it is drafted covers every possibility.

The second part of the Amendment, which requires consultation with the town council for a new town if there is one before any transfer is made to it of the property of the development corporation is, I think, met by the Amendment which substitutes in Scotland a reference to the town council "of the burgh in which the new town or any part thereof is situated." I think that probably meets that point. Generally speaking, our idea is to leave the question of the creation of town councils to our local administration as it stands, and not to introduce any new rules. I should have thought that that was a policy which would have commended itself to my right hon. and learned Friend who has, particularly in the last year, been a very keen nationalist. If the new town is created entirely in the area of a county, it will be open to seven or more householders in the town to take the requisite steps under the Burgh Police Acts to have the new town declared a burgh. Then again, if burgh status is given to the new town, it will be open to the town council to take the appropriate steps by provisional order for large burgh status, and so on. The situation is fully covered by our existing law.

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intentions are quite unexceptionable, but I am not quite sure that the drafting meets all the points. I have no doubt that the matter will be looked at afresh, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 23, line 8, at the end, to insert "appropriate Minister."

I think this Amendment might be taken with the following Amendment; both are consequential on the Amendment made to Clause 14, page 13, line 44.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 23, line 11, at the end, insert:

"'appropriate Minister,' in relation to any-statutory undertakers, has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945."—[ The Lord Advocate. ]

CLAUSE 23.—(Interpretation, construction, short title and extent.)

I beg to move, in page 25, line 3, at the end, to insert:

"'appropriate Minister,' in relation to any statutory undertakers, has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944."

This Amendment is consequential. It arises out of an addition we have made to Clause 14, which provides the definition, by reference to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, of the appropriate Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 25, line 6, at the end, to insert:

"'development' includes re-development."

This is a definition imported from the 1944 Act, and is brought in to fulfil an undertaking which the Minister gave in Committee. It is thought that the word "development" in this context is sufficiently comprehensive to cover "redevelopment," but this Amendment makes it doubly sure.

Amendment agreed to.

NEW SCHEDULE.—(Enactments which may be suspended under section three.)

Any enactment contained in a local Act.

Any order, bye-law or regulation, under whatever authority made.

The Public Health (Buildings in Streets) Act, 1888.

Sections thirty-three and thirty-four of the Public Health Act, 1925.

Section five of the Roads Improvement Act, 1925.

Section one or section two of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935.

Section one hundred and seven of the Public Health Act, 1936.—[ Mr. Silkin. ]

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

This is proposed in response to a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and I think it meets his wishes.

I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for following out the suggestion made in Committee. The point is a very small one, but as he appreciates, anything which makes this complicated interlocking legislation easier to follow up and understand does much good. The right hon. Gentleman is very reasonable in accepting the suggestion, and if I may say so very sensible, because as a result he has a slightly better Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to orders under section one.)

I beg to move, in page 27, line 13, to leave out "and in such newspapers," and to insert:

"in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality in which the proposed new town will be situated, and in such other newspapers, if any."

The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that the advertisements relating to notifying the general public of the intention to apply for a designation order should be inserted in newspapers circulating in the locality in which the proposed new town will be situated. I gave an assurance that I would insert words at this stage. I think the proposed words meet the case.

Amendment agreed to.

11.30 a.m.

I beg to move, in page 27, line 20, after "place," to insert "within the said area."

This is an Amendment designed to provide that the notice of the intention to apply for a designation order shall be made available for inspection within the area of the proposed new town.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 27, line 32, at the end, to insert:

"and on each parish council within the area to which the Order relates."

This is a small machinery point. When the Minister decides to make an order, as the Schedule stands he has to serve notice upon the county council, the county district, and such other local authority as he may think is concerned. The purpose of the Amendment is to enact that he shall serve such notices on the parish councils concerned. I do not expect that the right hon. Gentleman will see any difficulty in accepting the Amendment. I cannot conceive of any Minister making an order and not serving a notice on the parish councils. It seems better that this should be laid down in the Bill, so that the parish councils shall have the absolute security of knowing that they are entitled to have notice served upon them. The point is far from academic. In the only case of which we have knowledge, Stevenage, there are two parish councils, those of Aston and Shephall which are concerned and they are just as much concerned as the urban district council of Stevenage itself. There would be the further advantage, in including this provision in the Bill, that it would be recognising the importance of the parish council, which is not an unimportant, but a somewhat under recognised, organ of local government.

Acceptance of the Amendment would impose an additional burden upon the Minister and upon the proposed corporations. I have already made a considerable number of concessions about notices. The obligation is quite formidable, and it is inconceivable that any person affected will not have ample notice of what is about to take place. There is to be notice in the "London Gazette"—I do not put that very high—there will be notices in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality and, under the Amendment to which the House has recently agreed, there is to be notice "in such other newspapers, if any", in addition to those circulating in the locality. There will also be notice of designation to the county council, the county district and to "any other local authority" which may appear to the Minister to be concerned—this locality can, of course, include a parish council—and of the place where the draft Order can be seen.

I should have thought all that was quite enough. A further burden would seem to me to be like the last straw. If there were any remote danger that anybody in one of those parish councils would not know of the Order, there would be something in the Amendment. In that case, the Minister could serve the notice on the parish council. If there were outlying areas so remote from the district council that there were the slightest danger that people would not know of the Order, the Minister could require that they should be served with notice. To put a further obligation upon the Minister is unreasonable.

I am a little disappointed with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman to the Amendment. I do not seek to disguise or deny that he has been reasonable in his approach to these matters, while we on our side have made our approaches in a genuine attempt to improve the drafting of the Bill to make the machinery more conformable with public sentiment and to ensure the proper working of the machinery. It is true also that a variety of notices are provided for; but I venture to say that it is the minimum of notices consistent with these projects being properly examined by the people whom they concern. I do not agree with the tendency which I think is a modern one, to ignore one of the oldest of our units of local government, the parish. The more modern councils, with much larger areas and higher rateable values, have aggrandised themselves and taken a great position in our local affairs, the duties of which they discharge with great ability. But at the very intimate heart of the countryside lies the parish council, the oldest, and in some ways, most truly democratic unit of local government. Though individuals in the parish may get some notice by the various methods which are outlined in the Bill, it would be to the public advantage if the parish council, as a corporate entity, were informed of the proposal. The additional burden imposed upon the administration would be a very small price to pay for exalting and recognising the parish as a corporate unit in our country.

I know there is a great movement afoot for parish councils in our countryside to reassert themselves and get more local interest taken in their affairs. If they, as a body corporate, were informed of these proposals, they would be able to utilise that information to get democratic sentiment expressed on the proposals themselves. However, it is not a matter upon which we propose to divide. The right hon. Gentleman may have further opportunity of weighing up the considerations in favour of the Amendment against what I consider the very trifling additional burden of serving notices in these days of duplicating and roneoing machines, and of all the devices which prove themselves so efficacious in this age in deluging everyone with paper.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 27, line 33, to leave out from "Order," to the end of line 38, and to insert:

It is theoretically possible to have a public inquiry both in respect of designation of the area and also on the occasion of the proposed acquisition. I am bound to say that the fact that there will have been a public inquiry held in respect of designation will, to that extent, lessen the justification for a public inquiry in respect of acquisition. I am not proposing in this Bill, that there should not be a public inquiry, but I think any Minister must in considering whether a public inquiry will be necessary in respect of an acquisition take into account that there will have been a public inquiry in connection with designation. So far as the designated area is concerned, I move this Amendment wholeheartedly, and hope that it will give those people who may be affected by the coming into their area of new towns the fullest possible opportunity of ventilating the question and possibly of providing both sides with a very necessary education.

I congratulate the Minister on having moved this Amendment. I would not do so if I thought that he was, in any degree, delaying the procedure under this Bill. It is my firm belief that acceptance of this Amendment by the House will tend to lubricate the proceedings, that it will ensure greater public acceptance of the whole proposal, and will further ensure that the new towns will rise in an atmosphere considerably more permeated by a sense of justice and fair play than would be the case if the Amendment were not accepted.

In connection with the holding of a public inquiry into the designation of an area, some public inquiries last a very long time—nine months, and often 12 months. A period of time may also elapse before the Minister gives a decision about a public inquiry. Would the Minister be willing to take steps to shorten the undue prolongation of inquiries. It is essential to the success of the scheme that there should not be unnecessary delay in connection with inquiries of this kind.

It is not the inquiry which takes the nine months, but the preliminary and subsequent steps. I have already taken steps to curtail these. I can assure the hon. Member that every effort will be made to reduce the time to the barest minimum.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 27, line 39, leave out from the second "the" to the second "the" in line 40, and insert "last foregoing paragraph."—[ Mr. Silkin. ]

I beg to move, in page 28, line 6, to leave out "and in such newspapers," and to insert:

"in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality in which the proposed new town will be situated, and in such other newspapers, if any."

This Amendment applies to advertisements of the order when it is made, the same conditions as those which relate to the designation of the site.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 28, line 8, after "place," to insert:

"within the area designated by the order as the site of the proposed new town."

This Amendment makes the provisions as regards areas which have been designated similar to those as regards areas which are about to be designated.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

11.45 a.m.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Constitution of development corporations.)

I beg to move, in page 28, line 24, after "and," to insert:

"in appointing members of the corporation the Minister shall have regard to the desirability of securing the services of one or more persons resident in or having special knowledge of the locality in which the new town will be situated."

This Amendment deals with local representation on the corporation. It is moved in response to a request made in Committee in relation to an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Digby) that two persons or more should be appointed to provide the necessary local representation. It is true that the Minister has not fully met the request made in Committee, but he has gone a considerable way towards meeting it. There may be difficulties sometimes in providing the necessary local representation, but, within these limits, I feel sure the Committee will agree that the Minister has seriously tried to meet the objection.

I thank the Minister for his response to the Amendment submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Digby) and myself in Committee. Although he has not fully met our point, he has gone a long way towards it.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 28, line 27, to leave out paragraph 2, and to insert:

"(2) Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule the term of office of the chairman of the corporation shall be five years, or until the winding up of the corporation, whichever shall be the shorter period, and the term of office of the deputy chairman and of the other members of the corporation shall be four years or until the winding up of the corporation, whichever shall be the shorter period.

Provided that of the original members appointed two shall be appointed to hold office until the first anniversary of that day and shall then retire; two shall be appointed to hold office until the second anniversary of that day, and shall then retire; and two shall be appointed to hold office until the third anniversary of that day, and shall then retire."

Paragraph 2 deals with the term of the appointment of the chairman, deputy-chairman and the members of the corporation, and it lays down that they

"shall hold and vacate office as such in accordance with the terms of the instruments by which they are respectively appointed."

During the Second Reading Debate the Minister said that, normally, they will be appointed for a set period, and then later on he said they will be appointed in the first instance for three years. The Reith Committee, in their first interim report, made this recomendation:

"That the term of office shall be for five years with a staggered termination."

We prefer the recommendation of the Reith Committee to the proposal in the Schedule, and for that reason we have put down this Amendment which allows the chairman to be appointed for a period of five years and other members to retire in rotation. It is a practical point, as the House will understand.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It would be unwise to tie the Minister down too tightly as to "the terms on which the appointments to the position of members of development corporations should be made. As I see it, I shall have the problem of finding members for these corporations, and I hope I shall get first-class people.

However, it is a gamble, and five years may be too long a period for which to appoint a chairman. I think it would be much wiser to leave it elastic—in some cases for a shorter period in some cases possibly for five years. To put a definite time in the Bill it seems to me would unnecessarily restrict the discretion of the Minister. One has to take each case on its merits and have regard to the desirability, on the one hand, of giving the people appointed reasonable security of tenure, but, on the other hand, the need for some elasticity, so that if it should turn out that one has made an unsatisfactory bargain, one is not obliged to continue it too long. The practice is common in business of entering into a short period of contract at the outset and perhaps a longer one later on. I am not suggesting that I have doubts about the people whom I have in mind, but it is wise to have elbow room and not to be forced to make appointments under the terms of an Act, otherwise one cannot use discretion in respect of particular circumstances.

This is a difficult practical question, but the Minister plainly realises that he must have first-class men. It is not easy sometimes to get such men unless you give them a firm contract for a particular time, and I hope he will keep that in view. If it is his intention to find somebody, apparently first-class and to give such a person proper security of tenure and a proper salary, that would meet the point, especially if he is only to use this elasticity in rare cases where there is some difficulty in the beginning.

indicated assent.

I think I can take it from that motion of assent that such is the Minister's intention.

Yes, but what about the time? Does not the Minister think that in the case of a new town of, say, 60,000 population, starting on its own, it would be wise to have a chairman appointed for five years? In the ordinary course of events, a provost or lord mayor or mayor inherits machinery which has been in existence for a century or more. But in this case there will be an entirely new situation. The first thing to be done after establishing the machinery and putting it into motion, is to appoint someone to take charge. You cannot chop and change in a short period like three years, in the life of a municipality. I would ask the Minister to look at this again.

I hope the Minister will not accept this Amendment. I am rather surprised that it should come from the other side of the House. I think hon. Gentlemen would agree that you could not apply such a principle to boards of directors of private companies. When you elect a body of directors to a board you cannot say to one-third of them that in 12 months time they will leave it for good and all, to another third that they will have two years, after which they will drop out, and to the remaining third that they will have three years and after that will not be wanted. It seems to me that the proposition embodied in this Amendment would be inapplicable to a development corporation. These bodies are about to undertake vast and considerable responsibilities, and anybody who has had any experience of service on a local authority knows that it takes several years to get the essentials of the work of a local government body. If people are to be elected to these development corporations to undertake great responsibilities they must have a reasonable period in which to carry out the scheme stage by stage. To displace a man at the end of 12 months, just as he is beginning to gather up the threads, would seem to be entirely unwise. I do not know whether it is intended that they should be eligible for re-election or not. There may be some good people on these development corporations whom the Minister may wish to keep for some time. I hope he will not accept this Amendment, which is entirely unworkable and contrary to the principles for which hon. Members opposite stand, in regard to many private companies.

rose —

The hon. Member can only speak again by leave of the House. He has already exhausted his right to speak by seconding the Amendment.

I had difficulty in following the remarks of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) who apparently speaks with some knowledge of local government affairs. He must surely be aware of the method adopted in local government, by which a member of a council has to serve a period of three years, and is then thrown out again to the wolves of the electorate. I have never heard that local government officials are less effective because of the limitation on the period of their office, and I strongly support the Amendment. Here is a very important business being set up by the State—an important business which has been discharged extremely competently in the past without any intervention from the State. One has only to think of the beauties of the city of Edinburgh, laid out without this costly and elaborate apparatus—

Is it correct to say that Edinburgh's beauty depends on humanity at all?

In so far as laid-out squares and parallel streets have embellished the beauty which nature provided, to that extent there has been, I think even the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Gilzean) will admit, some amount of personal and human intervention. Otherwise there would be four or five barren hills, which would now, very likely, fall into the hands of some development corporation of this character. So there is little in that remark, in fact, there is less in that intervention than there usually is in the observations of the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh.

rose —

I repeat then that we have had development corporations in the past without any high falutin' titles or elaborate machinery such as this. It is quite obvious that if we are to have them now, they must conform to some rules of order and control. The Minister used the words "some elasticity" in the management of these corporations, but what does that mean? The harsh employer claims some elasticity when he wants to sack his employees at a minute's notice, so in that sense "some elasticity" means the sack. If some strongly minded successful business man with a good record, deeply interested in the community, who has become chairman of a development corporation, expresses views contrary to those of the Minister, the Minister may exercise these powers which are known as "some elasticity" and he will be put out on his neck in the street and his plan, which may be better than or as good as that of the Minister living in Whitehall, is discarded. I want to prevent that. If the Minister gets good men, he will not get them on "some elasticity" principle. I can assure the Minister that I would not be eligible under "some elasticity" plan. I would want the guarantee of a reasonable period of time in which to carry through policies and plans. I thought the Minister might have been influenced by his own commercial experience not to offer a contract with the "some elasticity" clause. He must offer a contract with some degree of assurance that a man of character, ability and the quality of leadership shall not be removed from office just because his plans and ideas run counter to those of the Minister of the day.

12 noon.

Returning to the observations of the hon. Member for Acton, it must be within his knowledge that no one would accept a position on the directorate of a company if he thought that he would be dismissed the following month. Let the hon. Member ask any of his hon. Friends who are company directors, and they will tell him that when they were appointed as company directors they know that they would remain in their positions for life, subject to good behaviour. They are under no illusions that they are likely to be removed under some such clause as an "elasticity" clause. There is no elasticity about joining the board of any reputable company as a director. The practice which is current in commercial life, and which obtains in municipal life, is one which the Minister would be wise to apply in this instance.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look again at the principle contained in the first part of the Amendment. The argument which the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) used so effectively against the Amendment, is precisely the argument which supports, at any rate, this first part of the Amendment; that is to say, the desirability of continuity in these appointments. The right hon. Gentleman said he wanted elasticity. I hope he does not want too much elasticity, because if he desires to appoint anybody as chairman or deputy chairman of one of these corporations, the only man worth appointing is the man who will put his heart into the job as a long term appointment. Anybody else will not be good enough. No man whose heart is in this job involving an obviously long term development of this sort will take it on the basis of one or two years. If his attitude is that he is prepared to take it on those terms, then I say to the right hon. Gentleman: Do not appoint him. If the right hon. Gentleman is to make a success of this business, he wants a man who will look ahead over several years and who will work extremely hard to make it a success. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say that his principle in offering these appointments will be to offer them to the men who are prepared to stick to their last.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 28, line 45, at the end, to insert:

"or is unsuitable to continue as a member."

In Committee I moved an Amendment to paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule adding the words:

"or if the Minister is otherwise satisfied that the continued membership of the corporation of any member is not in the interest of the corporation, the Minister may remove him from his office as a member of the corporation."

The object of inserting those words was to give the Minister power to remove from the board a person whose presence on the board was not in the best interest of the work of the corporation. It was represented by hon. Members opposite that those words were unduly wide, and that they would enable the Minister, perhaps, to discharge a person with whose views he did not agree. I undertook to look at it again. I now ask the House to delete those words—which is the object of the next Amendment—and to insert the words in this proposed Amendment. I think the Minister must have power to remove a person who is unsuitable, although he may not be capable of being described as unfit to discharge his duties It is, of course, a power which no Minister would use rashly, or without the most careful consideration, but, in the last resort, there must be some such power as this, and I, therefore, ask the House to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 28, line 46, leave out from beginning, to "the," in page 29, line 1.—[ Mr. Silkin. ]

I beg to move, in page 29, line 7, to leave out "remuneration or allowances," and to insert "annual salary."

This paragraph of the Schedule enables the corporation to pay to the members such remuneration or allowances as may be determined by the Minister. There are two points I wish to make. The first is that there is a growing and undesirable tendency in many walks of life to substitute allowances for salary. I say it is undesirable because, in general, allowances are tax free, whereas with salary one must prove one's deductions before they are allowed. It seems to me to be wrong to encourage in any sphere, whether public or private, the growth of this practice of allowances. Therefore, I hope the Minister will say that he does not propose to give round sums by way of allowances to any of these members. They can, of course, prove deductions as part of their salaries necessarily expended in the performance of their duties, and it is right that those should not be subject to Income Tax, but it is wrong that they should have round sums free from Income Tax, whether they spend anything on expenses or not. It is for that reason that I take exception to the word "allowances."

The other point is with regard to remuneration. There are to be only seven members, if so many, and these members will have very heavy work to do. I think therefore, that most of them, at least, ought to have proper salaries. I do not say they need all be whole time members; my own view has been that in many cases we have gone too far in making whole time appointments, but I think the members ought to be paid such salaries as will make certain that at least the bulk of their time is spent on this very heavy work. The more the Minister goes in the direction of loading new functions on to these bodies—and he has taken very wide powers in this respect—the more necessary it is that these gentlemen should pay close attention to the work of the development corporations. Therefore, we think that a salary is more appropriate than some other form of remuneration, which is a very wide expression. I hope the Minister can give us some satisfaction on those two points.

I support this Amendment. I fully realise that it would be out of Order to go into a long dissertation on the danger of this increasing practice of paying allowances, but I do think the fact that this Schedule is worded in this way is an indication of the way in which it is becoming a generally accepted practice today that people expect salary and allowances. I think that hon. Members, no matter on which side of the House they are, who are engaged in any form of commerce or industry, appreciate the new danger, which today is growing in every form of commercial life, of people claiming large allowances because of the high rates of taxation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the lead in stamping out any sign of the practice of giving people large allowances, which is an incentive to join these corporations because the allowances are tax free.

I would like to ask the Minister whether, if allowances are made, they are to be taxed. I understand that the idea of the Government, certainly as far as Army allowances are concerned, is that they are to be taxed. Presumably, the principle could be extended to apply to the allowances in question.

I do not think I have any quarrel or difference with the observations of the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid). Of course, there is no intention to pay people salaries in the guise of allowances. That would be dishonest and contrary to the interests of the Government. There will have to be some allowances which will vary in the case of different individuals. Some people will have to travel, say, from London to the new town, and they will be entitled to their travelling expenses and to the ordinary very meagre and inadequate subsistence allowance at present provided by the Treasury. On the other hand, there will be local people who will get no travelling allowance and probably no subsistence. However, that is a matter for discussion. Unless they could make a case they would not get subsistence allowance. I think we must provide for allowances. It would be unfair if we paid everyone the same salary and left some people with a heavier burden of expenses than others. We must pay the allowances separately. However, I will look at this matter again and see whether it is open to misunderstanding. The definite intention is that allowances should be merely expenses and nothing else. They should be expenses properly chargeable in respect of the undertaking. I will look at the matter again to see whether there is any ambiguity. In those circumstances and with that assurance I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

In view of that satisfactory statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Modifications of Provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, as applied by this Act.)

12.15 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 32, line 36, at the end, to insert: Amendment together with that in favour of the Amendment in my name to page 34, line 35, column 2, at beginning, insert:

The argument in support of both Amendments is that it is not sufficient when we are considering the problem which now confronts us—namely, that of erecting new towns—to be bound by any servile bonds to the classical model of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. The subject matter of the two Measures differs in one essential particular. Much of the land with which the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, was dealing was dead land which had been the subject of enemy bombardment. It was lying in its destroyed condition and as a matter of urgency it was essential to go ahead and to see that it was of service to someone as soon as possible. The land we are considering under this Bill is not dead land. It is land that is alive and in the occupation and use of a great number of our fellow citizens. Therefore, there is a stronger reason, when we are considering periods of time and terms of notice, to consider them as people in beneficial occupation of land, and not as the mere titular owners of a mass of rubble and damaged land.

In support of the first Amendment, I say that if the acquiring authority, setting out on the long job of creating a new town, wish to enter the land before they have acquired it for the purpose of survey and valuation, three days is not too long a notice to give to the occupier. It is no more than common courtesy demands if one is entering another man's place by virtue of statutory powers. Particularly with agricultural land, which is so largely the content of this Bill, it is difficult for a farmer to be on the spot when someone wishes to enter his land. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the unauthorised entry of agricultural land may quite innocently produce a good deal of damage to the agricultural processes taking place.

When I was Minister of Agriculture, and incidentally in charge of the Ordnance Survey, a great deal of damage was done in the case of a lady who had a farm in which there was a paddock containing a number of brood mares ready to foal. A temporary servant of the Ordnance Survey Department, without giving any notice at all and therefore in dereliction of his duty, went into this paddock, set up his imposing theodolite and other instruments, and frightened the life out of the mares with disastrous results. If a little notice had been given to enable that person to make the necessary provision that damage might have been avoided. People are reasonable, and if one says, "I want to come on to your land, please, because I have to make a survey," taking the generality of people, no one would object. They can make the necessary disposition to enable the public duty to be performed without damage to legitimate private property and interests. If there is extreme urgency, or if the land is dead land, it is not so very important, but I think there is ample time to be courteous in this matter and to give decent notice for valuation and survey.

On the second point, the same argument holds. The urgency is less in this case, much less than it was in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. Though I agree to the retaining of the provisions for expedited completion, which took us a great deal of labour to get through the House of Commons two years ago, I think that, in the case of the new towns, this drastic power will become more generally acceptable if, instead of 14 days' notice to enter and take possession of land, there was substituted 42 days. I think that is a reasonable request, and that, by granting it, both these Amendments will make for the smoother working of this Measure and ultimately for its success instead of failure.

The right hon. Gentleman has performed a very difficult acrobatic task with his usual dialectical skill. I think he must have been aware of his own difficulties, because he has had to pretend that the conditions under which land might be acquired compulsorily under the 1944 Act were inevitably different from those under which it would be acquired under the New Towns Bill, and he assumed that all the land acquired under the 1944 Act would consist of rubble. That, of course, is not true.

I never said that all the land acquired under the 1944 Act was rubble. I said that a great part of it was. Those were the words I used.

I must have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but there will be a good deal of land which will be acquired under the 1944 Act, and to which the procedure of that Act will apply, which is exactly similar in character to that in the case of the New Towns Bill. Therefore, we are discussing like with like, in a great many cases, and not like with unlike. A similar Amendment to what is in the Bill—that is, the 24 hours' notice, but providing for 72 hours' notice—was put down by some of the hon. Friends of the right hon. Gentleman on the Committee stage of the 1944 Act, and the right hon. Gentleman resisted that Amendment and said it was not necessary. After all, there was in the Bill a provision that the inspector, or whoever it was, should go at reasonable times, and I think that, if he were a sensible person, he would not go without an appointment, but would, in fact, make an appointment. But the right hon. Gentleman said this Amendment was not necessary and he resisted it. Under very great pressure, he eventually agreed to reconsider it, and on the Report stage, he put down an Amendment to provide for 24 hours' notice. What was good enough for the right hon. Gentleman is good enough for me. I have arrived at exactly the same conclusion—that 24 hours' notice is right. I have arrived at that same conclusion after mature consideration. An Amendment to provide for 24 hours' notice was put down on the Report stage, accepted by the House, no Amendment to it was put down, it went through another place and is in the 1944 Act.

On the second Amendment, I do not wish the House to imagine that it is possible for a development corporation to proceed and enter into possession of land under the speedy procedure merely by giving 14 days' notice. Of course, that is not the case. The owner will have had his opportunity of making objections to the compulsory purchase order. He may or may not have had a public inquiry, but he will certainly have had his opportunity on the designation, but he may or may not have had a public inquiry in connection with a compulsory purchase order. Once the order is made, no action can be taken for two months unless the Minister specifically provides for a shorter or longer period, and the owner will have had these two months after the order is made, and, at any time after the two months, when the development corporation gives notice to the owner that they require the land, the owner will have had 10 weeks' notice, but, in most cases, he will have considerably more.

I know the right hon. Gentleman wants to get this thing clear. Up to the invoking of the expedited completion, the occupier of the land is uncertain when actual entry is going to take place. He is in a state of suspense, and it is, of course, the entry, more than the circumambient local procedure, that affects his position. The other man comes in and he has to go out, and what is important to him is the length of time of notice when he has to clear out. I say that, for the purposes of new towns, when there is more time, we ought to give him these 42 days.

In order to apply the expedited procedure, the development corporation has to make a case for it—a case of extreme urgency. I hope no Minister will lightly adopt the expedited procedure, and, certainly, where it is not necessary. We must assume, in the first instance, that it is really urgent to enable the corporation to get on with their work of rehousing the people, that this expedited procedure should be applied, and the owner will have notice that it is really very urgent that the corporation should get their land long before the order is made. At any rate, the owner will know when the order is made that it is subject to the expedited procedure, and that the land is therefore urgently required, and, from that moment, he will have two months plus, at the very least, 14 days. He will have that notice for 10 weeks at least that possession may be taken at any time. I submit that he has ample time to make his arrangements, together with the time taken for consideration to be given to the matter, and, at any rate, he has 10 weeks from the time the order is made, and not merely a fortnight.

I think that, having regard to the fact that these cases will not be frequent, but exceptional, and to the fact that we start off with the assumption that it is urgent to acquire the land, it is not unreasonable. Moreover, this, again, is exactly the same time as is permitted under the 1944 Act. It is a matter of perhaps historic interest that, on that occasion, I myself moved an Amendment to reduce the two months to one month, which was, perhaps, properly, rejected by the right hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, I now accept the decision that he then arrived at, and I think it is ample.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 33, line 1, column 2, leave out "development;" in line 11, column 2, leave out "for;" in line 13, column 2, leave out from "Act," to "for," in line 16, and insert "shall be omitted."—[ Mr. F. Marshall. ]

I beg to move, in page 34, column 2, to leave out line 34, and to insert:

"In paragraph 10, for the words 'section eleven of this Act,' there shall be substituted the words 'subsection (4) of section six of the New Towns Act, 1946.'"

This Amendment is rendered necessary by reason of the Amendment which has already been passed by the House relating to the time limit in which an owner can enforce acquisition by the development corporation.

Amendment agreed to.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Modifications of Provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, as applied by this Act.)

Amendments made:

In page 38, line 39, column 2, leave out "development."

In page 39, line 2, column 2, leave out "for."

In line 4, column 2, leave out from "Act," to "for," in line 7, and insert "shall be omitted."—[ The Lord Advocate. ]

I beg to move, in page 40, line 31, column 2, to leave out line 31, and to insert:

"In paragraph 9 for the words 'section eleven of this Act,' there shall be substituted the words 'subsection (4) of section six of the New Towns Act, 1946.'"

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

12.33 p.m.

I had expected that we might, perhaps, have had a few words from the Minister, but I do not complain as, no doubt, we shall have a reply from the Scottish Minister in the course of the Debate, and, therefore, it may be the English Minister has handed over his responsibility for the time being. I think I might start with a few words in commendation of the general principles of this Bill. It has always seemed to me that development between the wars really suffered from two main defects: first, that so many people were put so far from their work and, second, the chilling ugliness of so many of the housing schemes. This Bill, by putting persons into smaller communities than the large cities, will remove, to that extent, the first of these defects. But a good deal of care and attention will be necessary to see that it paves the way to the removal of the second defect, because a suburban sprawl can be just as bad a sprawl even if it is not suburban.

There is no certainty that the introduction of housing schemes in new towns is going to make their essential character any better. Therefore, we shall require to be very careful in that matter. Indeed, it may be more difficult, because it is obvious from the report of the New Towns Committee that it is going to be very difficult to keep in step when building the new towns and very difficult also to create what is essential, a civic sense or a community spirit. In connection with that, I very much hope that considerable attention will be paid 10 the layout and the method of building of the centres of the new towns. If we are to create a proper civic spirit, we must have well laid-out centre areas and dignified streets and public buildings. The Minister told us yesterday that the Treasury would regard a loss as a reasonable return on working class houses. I hope that he has also got the Treasury's consent to regard a loss as a reasonable return on the centre areas of these towns because, unless we get them, we shall not get the right sense of community and civic pride, and unless we get that, the experiment is bound to fail. Obviously, we need first class men. The Minister has already fully recognised that and intends to look for them.

Yesterday, we were accused of introducing some measure of politics into this matter when we suggested that the new corporations should not undertake commercial adventures which other persons could be found to undertake. I do not regard that from an idealogical point of view at all; I regard it as an attempt to save the corporations from having to have too many irons in the fire. A corporation will have plenty to do; it will have extremely important issues to solve. It will be breaking new ground without any real experience to go on, and if its attention is distracted by having to indulge in commercial undertakings as well, we shall not get such good results. Therefore, I hope that, although we were beaten so far as putting something into the Bill was concerned, the administration of what is in the Bill will be so conducted as to make quite certain that corporations are encouraged to keep their eye on the essential points and not allow it to stray into matters which will distract their attention, if it can possibly be avoided.

I wish to pay the tribute to the Minister that he has met us, not only yesterday, but on the Committee stage, on a large number of important matters. He has shown that he does not suffer from the ideological obsessions of some of his colleagues. Therefore, we have great hopes that he will make this new scheme work. The Debate has produced the very useful result of showing that, quite irrespective of party, the minds of those who have spoken are all moving very much in the same direction. There is one other point on which I think the Minister is sympathetic, but on which, perhaps, he has not given himself sufficient scope in the Bill. It is the safeguarding of those who are already in the areas which are to be invaded by the new towns. The juggernaut of progress always has its victims, but we want to do our best to safeguard them. There are really three classes of people concerned. First, those who are in the area and can be replanted there without serious detriment to themselves and who, I think, are fairly adequately covered. Then there are those who are in the area, but who, for one reason or another, will not be able to continue in the area. We expressed great apprehension about that yesterday. I think the Minister himself was somewhat apprehensive. One saw the difficulty of providing fully for that matter in this Bill. But I hope that the example of this Bill will be borne in mind when we deal with the position of those who are displaced by movements of this kind, in a broader way later. Finally, there are those whose land has been acquired. Nobody objects to the proper use of compulsory powers for an admirable purpose of this kind, but I am afraid the Minister has kept in the Bill too much enabling him to use these powers brusquely, or even harshly. I trust, although he has not accepted the Amendments we have suggested, that when it comes to administration, he will see that adequate time and adequate consultation are offered in every possible case.

It makes all the difference in these cases if one gives people reasonable time. It is not enough to say, "Well, this is going to be a new town, and, therefore, you should start making your plans straight away." Governments have always insisted in keeping, in this sort of Bill, a "let-out" for the developing authority. It does not need to take over all the land within the circle, and it may, if it chooses, leave part of that land un-acquired. Therefore, until the very last stage, one does not know whether, at the end of the day, one's land is to be acquired or not, and, therefore, one is not able to buy other premises, or even to take a lease of other premises, because one may then be left with two lots on one's hands. Therefore, whatever the Bill may say, I do hope the Minister will see that these corporations will make quite clear to the persons in the areas concerned, at a very early stage, whether or not they are to be disturbed, and, thereby, give them the maximum chance of acquiring alternative accommodation.

I pass now to the subject of Scotland, and I have a number of points which I should like to raise, because I am afraid that the Scottish side of this Bill has not been very adequately considered. If a Bill of this character is sent upstairs to a small Committee, as it has to be nowadays, it may be, as in this instance, that no Scottish Member of the party to which I belong is a member of the Committee at all. Moreover, only one Scottish hon. Member who sits on the Opposition Benches was a member of the Committee. He came up against difficulties in regard to Rules of Order. On certain occasions he was told to wait until the Committee reached the Scottish application Clause, but when it was reached, he was told that the points he wanted to raise should have been raised on certain previous Clauses. They were very proper Rulings; but they show the difficulties that arise when we try to deal with Scottish problems in a United Kingdom Bill. I think we have proved, quite conclusively that this sort of thing does not work, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), is convinced of that now.

We have always had separate Bills for Scotland on matters of housing and town planning, and the only reason why we on this side of the House have not moved to leave Scotland out of this Bill is because of the hon. Gentleman's statement on the Committee stage that East Kilbride must go ahead promptly, and that he could not afford to wait. The Secretary of State has also said that progress is to be as immediate in Scotland as in England. The hon. Gentleman referred to new factories within a matter of months—which we welcome. The Minister said there were certain projects for Stevenage—I do not know whether he said "arranged"—at least, in mind. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can say the same about East Kilbride. I hope that the matter is going ahead, because it is only for that reason one can tolerate this position.

I hope whoever is to reply will now, at last, clear up the mystery about the rating position, which was raised in Committee upstairs and was raised again yesterday. We have not had a clear answer yet, and I hope we get it now. The position is this. I have expressed the view that I do not think Glasgow should contribute to the expense of putting up this new town, and the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the reason why I hold that view. I should not be surprised if he held it himself. Accordingly, we want a perfectly clear statement that this town is going on, irrespective of the view Glasgow takes about it. That means that the whole expense will have to be borne by the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman promised that the town is going on. He has not got an agreement with Glasgow in his pocket, so far as I know. I hope that we shall have the matter made quite clear.

I do not accept the view that, even this year, we could not have had our own Bill. We have had at least two days in this House on the Report stage on other Measures. The Second Reading of this Bill could have been taken then very shortly by agreement, and we could have had examination of the Scottish position in Grand Committee, which has sat only ten days in this year of a spate of legislation—a surprisingly small number of days. I cannot help feeling that, with a little more energy on the part of the Scottish Office, we could have had our separate Scottish Bill this year, which could have been adequately considered in Committee, the only place where it could be considered adequately.

Then the Bill would not have been the clumsy object which is now before the House. I do not think that any Member of this House has seen such a monstrous thing as the Scottish application Clause of this Bill. It is about as long as the rest of the Bill, and it is impossible for a layman, and extremely difficult for a lawyer, to follow it. It is true that at a late stage the Scottish Office has produced for us a reprint of the Bill with the Scottish adaptations written into it. That is quite useful, but a little belated. I hope that when the Bill becomes law the hon. Gentleman will see that a further reprint is made and published, so that the public can have the Act in its Scottish form. I realise he cannot print that in the Statute Book. That was tried once before, before my time, and considerable objection was taken to it, and I do not think we can go back to that course; but I suggest, for his consideration, that a note might be put into the official volume of Statutes, and at the bottom of each copy of this Measure when it becomes an Act, to the effect that the Stationery Office has on sale a Scottish version of the Act. That would enable those who do not know, and have not discovered from our proceedings that there is this document for them to see. If they are sufficiently interested, they can pay a few pence to the Stationery Office, and buy something they can understand, instead of having to read through this Bill when it becomes an Act, which will be extremely difficult for them to understand.

I am very interested in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, and I have a great deal of sympathy with it, too. I understand that his suggestion is that on the Act, which governs the whole of Great Britain, we ought to have a footnote, saying that there is on sale at the Stationery Office a document giving the appropriate Sections of the Statute dealing with Scotland. Obviously, neither I nor the Lord Advocate could properly answer that today, because Statutes are governed by the House as a whole, and we should need to obtain the consent of the authorities and, also, possibly, Mr. Speaker's guidance on this matter. But I can say, speaking off hand, that we will see, as far as we can, how far we can meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I rise only to say we are not free in the matter. Mr. Speaker and the authorities have also some say in it.

I realise that. When the predecessors of the hon. Gentleman and myself tried to find a way out, it became very complicated but we have to try again to see if we can find a way out. The present position is intolerable, as the hon. Gentleman realises. I hope that he will be able to find some escape. I have suggested a possibility, but whether it will be found feasible I do not know. I hope that some method will be found to prevent the Scottish public from being faced with this frightful looking thing, which no one, without hours of labour, can possibly understand. On the footing that I think that Scotland is going to derive some immediate benefit from this Bill, and having said that I think that the Scottish Office could have avoided this difficulty, I do not propose to go further with that matter.

There are one or two other points which I would like to raise. First, with regard to the size of new Scottish towns. The Secretary of State in Committee made reference to a town suitable for 10,000 to 15,000 people. I was not able to discover whether that was some special new town which he had in mind, or whether his view was that the average size of a town in Scotland should be smaller than the average size of one in England. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that it was made quite clear by the New Towns Committee Report that, as soon as possible, we ought to get up to 15,000 or 20,000 inhabitants. I would like some explanation of what is in the mind of the Secretary of State with regard to that, and whether he agrees with those figures as a general rule; and also what he had in mind when he referred to the smaller figures. The other matter on which I should like to say a word or two is the project to set up special districts. If, as I have said earlier today, it is probable that within a very few years there will be a town council in a new area, I take it that he is going to set up a special district in such a way that it will work smoothly into the new municipal organisation. I can see great difficulty in working this out. I have no opinion as to what is the right way to do it. It is a very difficult question of administration. One starts off with a county council and development corporation, and within a short time, the town council will come in—and as I have said the town council may have an increased number of additional functions to perform after another few years. I hope that the Scottish Office have thought this thing out. It is different from the English problem. I do not know whether a special district is intended to be a substitute for the administration of the new town council, or whether it is intended to be set up in such a way as to lead up to the transfer of its functions to the new town council when it comes into being.

My next point is: What will be the effect on the building programme? If it is right that we ought to build houses at the rate of something like 1,000 a year in order to get a new town going quickly, obviously it is going to have a very serious effect on the general building problem in the next few years. The House is aware that in the month of May we had only a miserable total of 105 houses for the whole of Scotland. That was one of the best building months of the year. If East Kilbride is to come into building within 12 months from now, I wonder whether the right hon. Genteman, who is in charge of housing, can assure us that he can keep the new town going, at the rate which it ought to go if it is to attract new industries, without sacrificing essential building in adjacent areas. I do not think that building a new town there is going to be quite so good in relieving acute congestion as the building of new houses nearer to the places where the congestion is at present. Of course, the amount of building which must take place in a new town in its initial stages in order to get 100 houses will be a great deal more than is required to build 100 houses in a place which is already laid out, and, therefore, I am afraid that this highly admirable proposal for the development of a new town may result, at a critical time, in our not getting the houses we so desperately need. If I saw the general building programme going ahead a bit faster than it is, I think that we could probably contemplate the provision of services and public buildings in the new town with equanimity, but we are going to be so desperately in need of houses—for I do not know how many years at the present rate of building—that I am a little doubtful whether we can work in this new town without sacrificing something quite vital to the health and contentment of our people. I wonder whether it is intended that the Scottish Special Housing Association is to take a part in this. This looks the kind of thing that may be very appropriate for that body. It has had great difficulties, but I am hopeful that the hon. Gentleman is getting over them. I have not seen results as yet materialising, but one hopes that very soon they will, and I have always thought it an appropriate body for doing all kinds of jobs if it were properly developed. I do not know whether it is in the mind of the Government that it can assist in the building of Scottish new towns.

There are other points with which I will not detain the House, but I hope that we shall have a comprehensive statement on the plans of the Scottish Office for carrying this matter out. They may not agree with all the plans for Stevenage, but let us have some idea of what they are, and I think that we might be brought up-to-date to a similar extent with regard to the prospects in Scotland. My final word is that I sympathise and entirely approve of this kind of development. I only hope that it will not conflict with or retard essential development elsewhere. If it does not do that, then it is a most interesting, and, I think, a most promising experiment, and I hope if we get the right people in charge of it, and if they are given an adequate amount of freedom, that some interesting and successful methods of laying-out housing estates and creating new communities may be evolved. Therefore, we accept this Bill with a certain amount of hesitation about its immediate consequences, but with great hopes about its ultimate achievements, and, so far as Scotland is concerned, I think that the position would be very similar if only we knew a little more about it.

1.0 p.m.

I have followed with great interest the progress of this Bill through Standing Committee and to its last and final stage in this House. There are one or two comments which I would like to make. First, I think that this Bill is one of the greatest Measures which the Government have attempted to place upon the Statute Book. It is unique of its kind and I do not think we have any parallel in history with that which the Government propose in this Bill. I am quite certain that it will provide a solution upon a long term basis for the very grave housing problems, particularly of London and many of our greater industrial towns and cities. It provides a ray of hope to those local authorities in built-up areas who are themselves unable to undertake the development of housing schemes, and who are hamstrung in dealing with the housing problems of their areas. They, I am sure, will be looking to the operation of this Measure for a solution of their very serious problems in regard to housing. I hope therefore that my right hon. Friend will lose no time when this Measure is placed upon the Statute Book in beginning his job under it, and that he will take immediate steps to create, at least so far as the London and Greater London area is concerned, the eight satellite towns which are proposed in the Greater London Plan. I am quite certain that all the local authorities within the Greater London region, and within the London region itself, must be looking forward to the operation of this Bill and relying upon the very speedy development of new towns in the outer area as a solution to the problems with which they had to deal in their own localities.

There is one other point upon which I should like to touch, and on which very little has so far been said. I think that if these new towns are to be successful there must be a proper development of industry within their regions. Unless we are able to attract a satisfactory variety of industrial enterprises to the new towns there is a grave danger that they will not be as successful as they might otherwise be. There is considerable controversy taking place at the moment as to whether industry comes first and population follows or whether population comes first and industry afterwards. This reminds me very much of the age-old problem of which came first, the hen or the egg, and that problem is still unsolved. From my own experience of an industrial constituency situated on the edge or actually forming part of the great North West London industrial concentration, I take the view that generally population follows industry rather than the opposite. I think, therefore, that it is important that my right hon. Friend, in developing his new towns, should have some regard to attracting to them a proper level of industries, varied in character, to provide employment for the people who are going to live in those areas.

We know that in the London and Greater London area the problem we have to face at the moment is one of people having to work within the area but having to travel long distances to their homes. I was very surprised the other day when the Minister of Transport advised me, in reply to a Question, that the London Passenger Transport Board issue 9,500,000 tickets daily on their road passenger vehicles alone, to say nothing of the number of passengers they carry on their trains. This must indicate the vast volume of traffic and a problem which, in peak hours, it is really sometimes absolutely beyond the present powers of the L.P.T.B. to deal with properly. That problem is growing and developing as London expands farther and farther afield. Wherever there are industrial concentrations people will tend to get nearer and nearer to them, in the same way that a magnet will attract steel. In view of this I think it is most important that my right hon. Friend should endeavour to effect in his relations with other Government Departments a proper distribution and location of industry. If we can help it we do not want to have great industrial concentrations, because wherever they exist there are also the twin problems of housing and overcrowding, and many others besides. If there is a proper dispersal of industry throughout these new towns—and the opportunity is now before us to bring this about—it will provide a proper balance of life in the locality and avoid long and expensive travel from home to work. I think those are the lines upon which we should work.

In conclusion, I should like to say that I believe that this Measure is one of the greatest Measures the Government intend to place upon the Statute Book. It will afford great help and encouragement to the many hundreds of thousands of families who are looking to this Bill and the provisions of new towns for a better and happier life in newer, better and pleasanter surroundings than the slums, built-up areas and the dark regions of our towns and cities.

1.8 p.m.

I rise to say a few words on the Third Reading of this Measure. I have already contributed my views as the Bill has gone through its various stages, and now that we have reached the Third Reading I should like respectfully to congratulate the Minister from these benches. When I spoke on the Second Reading I indicated that in my view the principle of new towns was entirely desirable, and that clearly legislative machinery had to be established for giving effect to it. Nevertheless, in the short speech I then made, I drew attention to various dangers and shortcomings in the Measure as it then stood. It is gratifying to be able to say that a number of those points have been dealt with by improvements that are now incorporated in the Bill as we have it before us today. In particular, I think there will be gratification going far beyond the walls of this Chamber that the Minister has seen fit to include provision for public local inquiry in the Bill. There is no doubt that this provision will help to give in future the right democratic start in an atmosphere of goodwill, which is so important to the establishment of any new towns.

I should like to make this point to the Minister. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has referred to this as one of the greatest legislative Measures which it will be within the ability of this Government to place upon the Statute Book. This may be so; but more than most Measures this is only a shell and a framework. Most of the real difficulties of establishing new towns will be practical difficulties in the application of this legislative machinery, and it is by that test that the project of new towns will stand or fall. I would urge the Minister not to regard new towns purely as a method of depopulating congested areas, but to view them as an entity in themselves for desirable mixed development. I would ask him also to make sure, so far as in him lies, that new towns do not become mere dormitory towns aggravating the difficulties of travel and congestion to which the hon. Member for Acton has just referred. I ask him, too, to have regard to the actual construction and development of the new towns. We have only one sort of development corporation in this Bill, and I cannot, on the Third Reading, comment on the possibility or desirability or having any other forms. But I would say that the fact that there is restriction to one form of Government corporation lays on the Minister a heavy responsibility to see that the dangers of monopoly and bureaucracy are avoided, that reasonable scope is given to private enterprise—and to the unconscripted enthusiasm and good will of people who are interested in the development of these new towns, and anxious to make their contribution.

I notice that one of the Left Wing weekly newspapers last week said that planning legislation should keep pace with development and reconstruction. That might well have been put the other way round. We are getting ahead with planning legislation, but the Minister of Health is lagging sadly behind in his general housing policy. This Bill will remain a simple, if a distinguished, entry on the Statute Book unless and until our whole housing policy can be improved and accelerated so as to give new towns, as well as existing towns, the benefit of housing, factory and school construction and the like, which are necessary to them. So, I hope the Minister and the Government will bear in mind that when the Bill gets onto the Statute Book it is only the first necessary step, and that the right development of these new towns will entail much administrative and practical action which we look to them to perform.

1.13 p.m.

It is curious how, even in non-controversial matters, politics and party politics creep in. We have had examples of that today from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) and the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). Both have said that the development of new towns would be restricted or, conversely, that the housing programme would be restricted unless there was a speed up But both conveniently forget that the record of this Government in housing will stand more than a careful comparison with the record of the Government which followed the first world war. In the first full year of peace, after the 1914–18 war,, when we had no responsibility for housing at all, the Government of that time did not manage, by all their combined efforts, to build as many houses in the United Kingdom as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary have managed to build for Scotland alone.

I have too much respect for the hon. Member to allow him to make what I consider to be a false point. Surely he will agree that comparison of housing progress after this war can only be fairly made with the housing progress after the 1914–18 war, if account is taken of the housing and building situation prior to the wars. Immediately before this war there was a flourishing and active building industry, whereas before the 1914–18 war there was an inactive and depressed building industry. Surely, he will agree that no comparison is valid except on the basis of these unequal inheritances?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, because it seems to strengthen my case enormously. Before 1914, private enterprise had entirely its own way. It was wholly responsible for housing of every kind, and was entirely without restriction or control. If it was in a depressed state before 1914 then that was entirely its own fault.

But the hon. Member would agree that there were over 19,000 empty houses in the City of Glasgow before the war?

That is true, but it is also regrettably true, as the hon. and gallant Member knows very well, that many tens of thousands of people in Glasgow were living in most squalid and insanitary slums, slums which could be compared only with the worst in India. The hon. and gallant Gentleman should not remind us too much of that because his party, his colleagues, his class, were entirely responsible for that state of affairs. However, I do not intend to start a dialectical battle about housing progress. I mentioned the matter only because it was raised by Members opposite. We know that housing in Scotland will go on in a satisfactory way, and that before the next General Election there will be no controversy about housing because we shall have solved, once and for all, the Scottish slum problem as, indeed, most other problems.

I could not refrain from taking part in this Debate, because it seems to me that, very often, a 5 per cent. opposition to a Measure in this House tends to overshadow the 95 per cent. support. If I have been critical of one vital aspect of the Bill, that does not mean that I have been any way lacking in appreciation of the gigantic contribution which the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Secretary of State for Scotland are making by getting this Bill on to the Statute Book. There has been no greater single advance towards a sound and wise town and country planning policy for the country since the right hon. John Burns first succeeded in getting town planning on to the Statute Book in 1908. This Bill marks the end of the restrictive, permissive, negative, town and country planning which we have had in every Act from 1908 until today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) said, it is a great Bill. It marks the end of the unrestricted growth of our great cities, which is something which has been attempted since the days of Queen Elizabeth. It is important that we should put an end to the sprawling metropolis of London, to the ever expanding City of Glasgow, to the conurbations of Manchester and Tyneside. That can only be done by acceptance of two principles which stand out in this Bill, namely, that there is to be a limiting factor in the growth of our towns, and the decentralisation of industrial population, which is the only way in which we can give to people in our great towns, as well as to those who go to the new towns, an opportunity to live in a spacious, sunlit and healthy atmosphere.

Therefore, it is with the greatest pleasure that I congratulate the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. They have fulfilled, within one year of taking office, an ideal which has been cherished by people inside and outside this House for half a century. They have given legislative sanction to something which, until the present, has been merely a vision of a new kind of life for the ordinary people of this country in a new kind of town. I feel I must make an observation or two with regard to the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead on the Scottish application of the Bill. There was much substance in what he said about the unfortunate way in which the Scottish Clauses have been embedded in this Bill. At the same time I cannot accept his deduction that there ought to have been a separate Scottish Measure. In the course of his remarks he conceded that if there had been a separate Scottish Measure we should have delayed the application of the whole principle of new towns for Scotland at least for a few months and possibly until the end of the year.

indicated dissent.

I see the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) indicates disagreement with that, but surely there is a Parliamentary time table. Surely we could not have gone ahead simultaneously with the two Measures. Therefore there must have been some element of delay on one side or the other. I think it is of the greatest importance to Scotland that in this Measure we should start off level and equal with England, and start off at the same time. We support the principle of these new towns, and we hope that they will provide a better environment than most of the people in the West of Scotland are able to secure under present conditions. We hope this Bill will ease the Glasgow position, we hope it will bring new life, new interests and new industries to areas where those things are badly needed.

I have this general observation to make about the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead on the effect of this Measure on the building programme. In my submission, town and country planning does not alter the building programme in any particular. Town and country planning merely says that buildings which might go in one place must, in certain circumstances, go to another place, but the volume of building is not interrupted or interfered with in any degree. To some extent this Measure could be used by the Government to bring employment to areas where the situation at the moment is not altogether satisfactory. The building industry stands out as the one industry which, above all others, is a "foot loose" industry—it is not tied to any particular location, and its workers go where the building work is to be done. Therefore, in a policy of full employment, to which the Government are committed and which they are most anxious to see implemented, the proper distribution of the building industry may be a most important factor in providing employment in areas where there have been very serious depressions in the past. I hope the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland will give that aspect of the matter very careful consideration. In the meantime, I hope this Bill will have a speedy passage through its remaining stages and that we shall see a great beginning to a very great project, a project which will redound to the credit of this Parliament, the Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and all who have helped in its passage through this House.

1.24 p.m.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) have both expressed their views on the Scottish Clause in this Bill. The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead expressed some pretty harsh views, and I must confess that I entirely agree with him that it is a most deplorable Clause. I feel particularly sore about it myself because, although I have always considered myself to be a tolerably orderly Member of this House, the result of that Clause was that I was most consistently disorderly during the whole of the Committee stage. I think I spoke nine times, and on eight of those occasions I was put down as out of Order. I feel rather sad about that, but I believe the Clause is entirely to blame, and not myself or the Chairman of the Committee. There were two points about the Clause which made it impossible to handle. One was its in comprehensibility, which has already been dealt with by other speakers today. On that point I am most grateful indeed to the Minister and to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, because they took up a proposal made during the Committee stage and produced, in a very understandable form, the Bill as it applies to Scotland. That certainly went a long way to clear up the question of incomprehensibility, but as was pointed out earlier, if it could have been done before the Committee stage started it would have been better. If this kind of thing is to happen again, as I can see that it might in regard to Scottish legislation, I suggest that the same procedure should be followed and that the Scottish Bill should be made available in the form of a white paper when the Committee stage starts.

Even if that is done, however, we are still up against a difficulty. It is a question of procedure, but it is proper to mention it now because it might be considered by the Government, or whoever has to consider these things. Even if we do have this clear statement of the Scottish Bill in White Paper form at the beginning of the Committee stage, how could we discuss it? Could we take each Clause in the main Bill and discuss its Scottish application stage by stage as we went through, or should we still be tied by not being allowed to discuss the Scottish application Clause by Clause because there is a Scottish Clause 22, and then when we reach Clause 22 find that the scope of the discussion upon it is limited because much of it has already been covered earlier on in the Bill? I hope I have made my difficulty clear. It is a point of procedure which needs tackling if we are again to be faced with this type of Scottish legislation. I too would have pressed strongly for a special Scottish Bill, but the Under-Secretary's statement about the need for getting the powers for Scotland as quickly as possible impressed me strongly and I would not venture to urge any delay, whilst still deploring the nature of the necessary legislation.

There are two other points on the Bill as a whole which I should like to deal with briefly. One is the question of designation. There is, of course, full protection in the way of public inquiries and notification to all concerned, but once the Minister, or the Secretary of State, has made up his mind as to where he thinks a new town should be, representations have very little chance of success. They will no doubt be considered very carefully, but one assumes that the Minister, or the Secretary of State, has done his job pretty well before he even starts putting out pieces of paper about it. Again, I was very concerned indeed that both on Second Reading and afterwards in Committee reference was made to the Abercrombie Report and the selection of Bishopton or Houston—near Glasgow as possible sites. I am using this by way of illustration of the point I am trying to make and also in reference to what earlier speakers said about green belts. If serious consideration is being given to the Bishopton and Houston area, surely the "green belt" argument must rule it right out. The Abercrombie Report, I believe, advocates that area for a new town. But anybody who lives anywhere near there must know that the result would be a continuous stream of buildings, from somewhere well to the east of Glasgow Central Station right along to wherever Glasgow stops and down through Paisley, Renfrew, Bishopton—where there are already enough buildings in the shape of a munitions factory—Port Glasgow, Greenock and Gourock—a continuous urban district full of scattered houses and the worst type of ribbon development, extending from the Central Station to the Cloch Lighthouse. That cannot be in the right spirit of planning. Before the scheme reaches the stage of being put up for the local authorities and the public to criticise, I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will consider this point, and the necessity of preserving some kind of green belt which is so vital to decent and healthy living.

I have one final point. Earlier speakers have said that they hoped that the Minister and the Secretary of State would see that light industries and small industries were encouraged to help in the development of these new towns. That is vitally necessary. I have nothing against this Bill, because it is necessary that new towns should be developed. I have nothing against the Distribution of Industry Act, which is really a redevelopment or distressed areas Act. Both are needed. On the other hand, if the concentration of the Government upon the Distribution of Industry Act and this New Towns Act, when it is passed, will stop the immediate redevelopment of some of the smaller towns which have been existing in our country for many years, it will indeed be disastrous. They are exactly the kind of town which also could get benefit from new light industry, and need them urgently to prevent their progressive decline. Many of these small towns 50 years ago had thriving industries but, for reasons out with the control of the people of the towns, and because of changing world conditions, those industries have left the towns and gone to the big cities. Big efforts have been made by the Government, in some cases successfully, to get industries started in the distressed areas. I hope that the enterprising Minister of Town and Country Planning will be able, with his Scottish colleague, to get these new towns going. I would like, however, to be sure that there is not a very real danger of concentration on distressed areas and new towns putting further obstacles in the way of the recovery of the small towns to which I have referred.

I fully sympathise with the view which the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) is putting forward, but is it not a little unfortunate that he should suggest there is some opposition between the existing small country towns and the proposed new towns, and between the developing of new towns and the redeveloping of former distressed areas through the medium of the Distribution of Industry Act? It must be common ground among many hon. Members that we need the Distribution of Industry Act as well as the present Bill and that we should bring all these matters into correlation.

I entirely agree. The reason I spoke as I did was because of fear that the two schemes would prevent anything being done for the other class of towns at the moment. All three lines of development should go forward together. I strongly urge that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland should keep this point well in mind when they are pursuing their courses of action in connection with the Bill.

1.33 p.m.

Perhaps I might now deal with one or two of the specifically Scottish points. The first is whether or not there should have been separate Bills, one for Scotland and for England and Wales. So far as I can see, the general feeling on both sides of the House is that, in the special circumstances of the case and because the urgency was so great, it was desirable to deal with the matter in one Bill in order that Scotland might march at one with England in these important matters. If there had been separate Bills it would have led inevitably to Scotland lagging behind. The decision to have one Bill was the more easily reached because there is no difference in principle between the two countries on this matter. The principle is equally applicable to both countries. For that reason alone there does not seem to be any great necessity to have separate Bills for the two countries.

That leads me to the next point, the Scottish application Clause. I appreciate that the Clause turns out in this case to be long and complicated. That is due to the fact that there is a difference between the land laws of the two countries. Secondly, curiously enough, and rather ironically, there are separate Town and Country Planning Acts for the two countries. The very fact that there are two Planning Acts very much increases the complication of the application Clause. The third reason is in the differences which exist in local government administration between the two countries. I emphasise that the Scottish application Clause is purely a translation, and that there is absolutely no difference in principle. The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) could quite well have discussed his difficulties under the English Clauses and, when he reached the Scottish Clause, done nothing but translate English terms into Scottish terms.

I think it will be within the memory of the Lord Advocate that I tried to do so, but the very mention of a Scottish name meant that I had to sit down. I did try to do it.

I only hope that the next time the hon. Member makes the attempt he will be more successful. I am sure that that is the proper way to do it. Let me remind the House that application Clauses are not an invention of the present Government but that they have been in existence for a very long time. They are absolutely necessary in order to adapt United Kingdom legislation to the peculiarities of Scottish procedure. We did our best to simplify the matter by producing a White Paper. We will give careful consideration to the suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) to see what prospects there are of finding some suitable solution. The right hon. and learned Member said that an attempt was made some years ago to reach a solution and that the attempt broke down. After that, nobody did anything about it. We are re-examining the matter in the hope that some solution may be discovered. That is all that I need say about the application Clause.

The point was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead about the plans of the Secretary of State for utilising this Measure in Scotland. Of course, the Secretary of State cannot anticipate the passing of the Bill. When he had taken certain steps, with a view to future policy, with all local authorities who might be involved in the development of new towns in the East Kilbride area, a conference was held in Glasgow on 31st May. It was attended by all the planning authorities affected by the development proposed—the Corporation of Glasgow, the county council of Lanark, the county council of Renfrew and the large burghs of Airdrie, Coatbridge, Hamilton, Motherwell and Rutherglen. Those authorities were fully represented by their elected representatives. The meeting was an entirely satisfactory one. It welcomed the Secretary of State's decision to go ahead with the East Kilbride scheme as a priority project. The Secretary of State gave them the assurance that they would be consulted in due course when the project was being planned out in greater detail. The Scottish Office and the Board of Trade are already in consultation about prospective industrial sites. That is a matter of great importance. There is no desire to make the new town a dormitory town. It is important to bring new industries to the new towns. The next matter is the rating position—

I asked the Lord Advocate whether the same progress had been made in Scotland as the Minister informed us had been made in England. The Minister said:

"… I am satisfied that there are sufficient industrialists willing and ready to go to Stevenage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May. 1946; Vol. 422, c. 1090.]

Is the Lord Advocate satisfied that there are sufficient industrialists ready and willing to go to East Kilbride?

I do not know sufficient about the position at Stevenage. I gather that Stevenage is a very special case and that the situation is more advanced there than anywhere else in the Kingdom. I have never heard any very great discussion by English Members up stairs or here on any specific project in England except the Stevenage one. I have told the House what the position is regarding the East Kilbride project and the extent to which we have so far gone. Passing to the question of rates—

Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, can he say whether I am correct in believing that serious consideration has been given to the Houston-Bishopton site?

All these matters are being kept under review. The report of the various committees to which the Secretary of State referred in the Second Reading Debate have been considered, but the forward step taken so far has been the conference with interested local authorities which took place on 31st May last. So far as the rating position is concerned, the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes the view, I understand, that Glasgow ought not to contribute. I gather that his view is that no exporting authority ought to contribute. We certainly hope that the exporting authorities will contribute. As I understand it, they cannot be compelled to contribute, but we certainly hope that they will do so. The project for the new town is being considered on its merits, and it is expected that it will go forward, and we hope that when it goes forward, Glasgow will see its way to contribute.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "it is expected". The question I asked was, will the project go forward whether or not there is a contribution?

Yes, I can say that, as at present advised, we intend to go on with the scheme whether or not Glasgow contributes, but we confidently hope that it will contribute. However, the mere refusal of Glasgow to contribute will not necessarily prevent the Secretary of State from going on with his scheme.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised another point in relation to what the Secretary of State said about the size of new towns. The whole idea of the Secretary of State is to operate this Act with the utmost fluidity. He does not want to be tied down to any particular figure, but he had in mind that in coal areas like Fife and the Lothians it might be desirable to have a number of smaller towns rather than one big town. Looking to the national development of the small communities in Scotland, that seems a prospect which we might very usefully keep in view. I understand that was what was in his mind when he spoke during the Second Reading Debate.

As to special districts, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the procedure for their creation is very cumbrous and protracted, and we are endeavouring to simplify it. Just what the ultimate state of such special districts will be is a little difficult to forecast. As I said earlier, we anticipate that local town councils will grow up. We cannot say what will happen, but on the whole we anticipate that town councils will either grow up and gradually be expanded, or the burghs may increase their boundaries and so on. We cannot lay down any hard and fast rule. Our expectation is that our local government administration and organisation will be found sufficiently flexible to work out its own salvation in these matters. What we are doing is to produce this simplified procedure for the creation of special districts. With regard to building programmes, a balance must be kept so far as possible between the needs of existing areas and the needs of new towns. The Scottish Housing Association will, where appropriate, be called in on the same basis as it is at present to help local authorities. I hope I have covered most of the peculiarly Scottish points which have been raised by hon. Members.

I need hardly stress that this Bill is a vitally important Measure for Scotland. It will enable new communities to be created in new circumstances and with new social standards, and it will enable us to attract new industries, which is one of Scotland's most pressing needs. No Scotsman can possibly regard with pride or satisfaction the present industrial belt in Scotland. Nevetheless, that industrial belt is of vital importance to the development of Scotland as a whole. Every Scotsman dreads a repetition of the tragic years between the wars. We look to this new Bill to provide a method not only of preventing a repetition of those tragic years between the wars, but of making a great step forward in creating a new and better Scotland.

1.50 p.m.

I did not think we should get through this Debate without some reference, explicit or implicit, to Sir Thomas More, that Elizabethan figure who flitted in and out of the Second Reading Debate. We had an implicit reference in the speech of the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister). The trouble today is that we have in power a Labour Government and they represent a class of society which suffered grave social damage in the last century. Now that they are in power, their thoughts rise up phoenix-like from the ashes of unemployment and want in the past. They build themselves castles in the air, and want to carry these schemes into effect. This Bill will lead us into gigantic schemes of construction which, I think, are impossible of attainment in a free society. Indeed, I go further than that, I say that the prosecution of these schemes will lead us to what John Stuart Mill called "the tyranny of the majority," and it is for that reason that I oppose this Bill.

My hostility to it is not diminished by its passage through the Committee and Report stages. Nothing that I regard as dangerous in this Bill has been omitted; nothing that I regard as adequate or sufficient in the way of safeguards has been added. The purpose of the Bill stands out clear and unashamed; the Minister is now prepared, equipped, and armed to charge into the countryside of England with the cohorts of Socialism at his heels, to gorge his urban-minded followers on our green and pleasant land and to spread himself in large, new conurbations. This Bill is an excellent example of a Russian technique—what is known in the Soviet Union as social engineering. It tramples effectively upon the human spirit, upon traditions, and upon cautious organic social growth. It sweeps aside minority rights and ignores consumer desires. It raises the planning technologists to a new level of political power. I believe that unless we on these benches act in time, we shall find that we are marking the beginning of an era in which the production engineer will become the paramount force in society. This Bill introduces the managerial revolution into the system of English law.

I am very anxious that hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House should realise to the full exactly where we are going. Just as the ordinary shareholder has been dispossessed of effective control over public companies by the superior technical knowledge of the managers, so today the House of Commons is almost set at naught by the planners and architects in the Ministry of the right hon. Gentleman. The political power which rests upon hon. Members as representatives of their electors has been,, by a complex series of processes, so sifted and strained that a virtual divorce has been created between those, on the one hand, who served on the Standing Committee in the conduct of this Bill, and who have the capacity and the time to understand the legal complexities of this Measure and who, therefore, for reasons of proper pride wish to make it work, and those, on the other hand, who did not serve on the Standing Committee, simple souls who with their friends and associates outside Parliament do not fully understand this Measure and do not like the smell of it. I think it does no harm for this House occasionally to remind its Standing Committees and its technical Committees, that this last class of persons, without full knowledge, it may be, of the technical facts, are nevertheless more politically powerful, in the long run.

I have read conscientiously through the proceedings of the Standing Committee on this Bill and I feel at once amazed and horrified; amazed at the capacity of hon. Members to fit themselves for leadership in social engineering in the authoritarian State, and horrified at how far their thoughts have taken them from the interests of the man in the street whose representatives they are. I believe that this House is getting into a dangerous position and, unless we are careful, we shall cease to be a means of maintaining liberty and become merely a part of the mechanism of authority. Reading through the proceedings of the Standing Committee, I felt that I would have liked to stand in the wings, like the ghost in "Hamlet," and call out to the Standing Committee from time to time, "Remember Stevenage", "Remember the farmer who is to be dispossessed", "Remember the small trader whose shop is to be destroyed", "Remember the friendly social circle, the contacts, the relations, and the simple ceremonies of life which will be engulfed", "Remember the men, the women and the children who will be enticed into chromium-plated, soulless homes."

This Bill is either a useless or a wicked Measure. At best it is a dead letter, unworkable and unworked, repudiated by men and women who came to their senses before slavery overtook them. At worst it is a triumph for scientific materialism, raised by Socialism to the apex of our society. Nothing justifies this Bill, neither the population trend nor the immediate housing needs—

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I respectfully ask you what this has to do with the subject under discussion? This is an ideological discourse, arising out of the somewhat disturbed mind of the noble Lord.

I have been listening intently and, so far, I do not find the noble Lord out of Order.

I was saying that, in my opinion, nothing whatever justifies the existence of this Bill, neither the population trend nor the immediate housing needs, nor the scope, which is very great, for rebuilding within existing urban centres. This Bill is a State experiment in the life and happiness of our people and in my opinion, like all State experiments, it will work havoc, bitterness and grave social damage, and I hope that at any rate a few hon. Gentlemen will have the courage to vote against it.

1.58 p.m.

We have now come to the concluding stages of a Bill which I think we shall all look back upon in the future as marking a great turning point, in the housing of the population of this country. I have listened with mounting horror to the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)—horror not only at what he said today, but because I feel that in the mind of the noble Lord there must be a tremendous conflict going on all the time. I remember a speech he made not long ago upon which I congratulated him in the Lobby. It was a progressive, forward-looking speech. This morning he makes a speech which is fraught with the gravest reaction that we have heard, even from those benches, for months. I will tell the noble Lord what this Bill will do when it becomes law. It will place in the hands of simple, honest, decent, kindly folk a key opening to them a design of gracious living, that gracious living which he and his class have enjoyed for many centuries, but we and our class, the class to which he referred, have never enjoyed. It is true, as he says, that we have risen today from the damage which was done to our class in the 19th century. We have done so by continually fighting; and now having risen above it we say, "We must make something better for our children and our grandchildren," and that is one of the things which this Bill sets out to do. Far from the Bill emerging unimproved from the Committee stage we find that owing to the extreme courtesy, patience, and helpfulness of the Ministers concerned, it has emerged a much better Bill. It is now a Bill of which anybody may be proud. It is not, as the noble Lord said with such terrible fatalism, a dead letter before it has reached the Statute Book, or a Bill which cannot possibly be put into operation. As soon as it is an Act, I hope that we shall begin to put into operation the design which those who have framed this Bill have in mind.

I have a special interest in this Bill, because in the constituency which I represent, I hope—indeed, I almost pray—we shall have at one end a new town. At the other end we have a beautiful forest, one of the lungs of the most ugly and depressed parts of London. The alternatives which face the country planners of today are either to build on those green belts and beautiful open spaces, or to build new towns. I do not want to see Epping Forest built over. It belongs to the people. We fought for it and we got it for ourselves. I do not want to see Wan-stead Flats, the playground of the East End, built over. Half of my constituency is right up against those open spaces and the beautiful forest, the like of which, no doubt, the noble Lord has surrounding the mansion in which he lives. But the people living in those parts of London have not got such places up against their backdoors. At their backdoors they have broken bricks, broken bottles, rubble and other distressing sights. These open spaces are their only resorts. If the building programme which is necessary is carried out, it means either building on those open spaces or going out into the country.

I do not want the hon. Lady to assume that I am opposed to open spaces near large towns. I have not said anything of the sort. Indeed, I am very much in favour of re-planning London to enable the people of whom the hon. Lady is speaking to enjoy the fullest access to open spaces.

The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. He is in a cleft stick. Let me take the borough of Chingford, which is the biggest part of my constituency. There are 3,000 young people living there who are waiting for houses. We are right up against Walthamstow, a built-up area, at one end, and we are up against Epping Forest at the other end. We have space to build 600 houses for those 3,000 people. I ask the noble Lord, where else are those people to go unless the Minister will give us a new town in Harlow or some such place? The noble Lord says, "Remember Stevenage, remember the people who are to be turned out of their farms, their beautiful houses and little shops." Stevenage, as the noble Lord knows, was a "trumped up" affair by people who did not belong to Stevenage, but who were imported into Stevenage, as hon. Members opposite will import their spies and myrmidons who work for them into almost every conflict which they think is likely to arise, from bread rationing to new towns, and whatever else happens to be a matter of political controversy. I was a little wise as far as Harlow is concerned. I got in first, before the crowd. What did I find at a crowded meeting held there? I did not find people pleading and crying that they were to be turned out of their shops, their houses and farms, but a great mass of people who looked forward to the day when a new town would arise in this very ill served town—ill served educationally, culturally and industrially and in every possible way such as people who live in many small country towns are served.

That does not mean that there are not some points about which even I am anxious so far as the new towns are concerned. I am very anxious about the farming and agricultural interests of those people who live in and around the areas which are to be designated areas. There is one point which I would like to put to the Minister, and which I would like him to bear in mind. I see the noble Lord is going. I am sorry that I have disturbed him.

I thought the hon. Lady had finished with me.

I do not know yet. I might come back to the noble Lord. I was saying this for the comfort of the noble Lord, because he is very concerned with agricultural interests. I want him to realise that my poor, remote, small cottage will also be engulfed in this new town, but I do not mind that. I am looking forward to it. I am prepared to give up the severity of my rural life if it means for a great mass of other people something better than they have ever known. Like the noble Lord, I am concerned about the agricultural interests of the people who have put into their farms much more than work, because the man who farms the land does put into his farm more than work. He puts in his thoughts and his interests, and very often prayers, and sometimes his farm has been in the possession of himself and his family for many years. I believe the Minister has in mind the idea of planning some of these towns as neighbourhood units. I want to ask him if he will try to find a way to plan those neighbourhood units so that they have their own green belts. On those green belts should be the farms which it will not be possible to replace by other farms and to replace by giving to the people who have lived in them for so long something else which would not be the same thing. In Harlow I can envisage the possibility of a central town—a fairly small town—with those farms around it, and then the smaller towns or neighbourhood units. If my right hon. Friend would plan this new town in that way, it would help us to avoid disturbing something of those agricultural interests for which the noble lord, like myself, cares so greatly and hopes will be preserved. Fortunately, he and I have that view in common.

I welcome more than any other Bill which has been before this House since I have been a Member, this Bill which has now reached its concluding stages. I hope it will pass quickly and successfully through its remaining stages, and that the Minister will have the great pride and pleasure of seeing not castles in the air, because the Socialist Government have their feet far too firmly on the ground—[ Laughter. ] Well, believe me, I should find it very difficult to float in the air. I hope the Minister will have the pleasure of seeing this Bill result in new towns springing up and putting into the hands of many humble people the key to a design for gracious and beautiful living.

2.10 p.m.

I do not want to enter into the grand game that has been going on for the last few minutes, but I congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) and the noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) for giving us a bit of amusement in a Bill consideration of which perhaps has been a little serious for a long time. I hope I shall not be considered discourteous for making that remark. During the Committee stage it was a subject upon which one could not readily raise a laugh, and the last few moments have been most enjoyable. The hon. Lady congratulated the Minister on the success of the work in the Committee stage and I would like to agree with her. I think the improvement of the Bill during the Committee stage was due to work by the Opposition as well as the efforts of hon. Members opposite. We put forward certain Amendments which were graciously accepted or promised consideration by the right hon. Gentleman.

There is a further point which I think is serious and worthy of consideration. I hope that whoever replies to this Debate will tell us whether consideration will be given to the provision of ground or buildings in the new towns for the use of the Territorial Army. We have been told that the Territorial Army of the future will play a great part in the defence of the country. I hope that full consideration will be given to the provision of accommodation for them and also for the Army Cadet Force. If this problem is not considered now and put forward to the various corporations when they are planning, there may come a time when this most important part of a new community will be demanded, perhaps by the War Office, and there will not be suitable accommodation or land available. As a result, drill halls, canteens, or other buildings may be in various back streets.

Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain the point? Is he referring to the facilities provided at present for the Territorial Army in the way of drill halls and canteens, and is he saying that they should be provided in the new towns?

Yes, that is what I mean. If a completely new town is started in the middle of the country, there will be the need for drill halls and canteens just as much as there will be the need for municipal buildings.

2.13 p.m.

I, like the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Lieut.-Colonel Thorp), feel most grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) for bringing a considerable amount of life into this Debate. I think hon. Members were glad to see that there was some common bond between her and the noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). When she started her speech that was not very apparent. I do not want to follow her either in her class war or her political war. On the other hand, I agree very much with the sentiments she mentioned at the close of her speech. With the exception of the noble Lord, I think there is a general measure of approval in this House of the principles which this Bill seeks to serve. On matters of detail there have been certain disagreements. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister has met Members on this side of the House on many points. I respectfully suggest that he would have been wiser if he had met us on many other points with which he found he could not agree. Our Amendments have been designed primarily with the object of preserving the rights of the individual citizen. I contend that it is upon the handling of this delicate subject that the success or failure of the new towns will depend. A hostile receiving population, swollen eventually by new industries and inhabitants who are resentful of being compelled to move into the new town, would prove fatal to any venture of this sort. I suggest to the Minister that he cannot do too much to ameliorate and to soften down the harsher aspects of this Measure.

I wish to follow the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) and the hon. Lady the Member for Epping in certain remarks they have made with regard to the way in which this Bill may affect the future development of London's housing. I believe that the successful use of the powers contained in this Bill will be the main instrument by which the hopes and aspirations of the County of London plan and the Greater London Plan can be implemented. These two plans prepared by Sir Patrick Abercrombie have received the blessing of all political parties with certain individual exceptions. If these plans are to be adhered to it is clear that London will become automatically the largest customer that the right hon. Gentleman will have for his new towns. In this city with its surrounding boroughs we have the greatest concentration of population in this island. These two plans are designed to reduce the density of the population within the city, and, at the same time, to prevent a repetition of the lamentable sprawl from the suburbs into the countryside which we know as our green belt. It is in this latter connection that the Bill can assist materially in coping with the over-spill and in housing the displaced population in self sufficient modern communities with their own industries, civil amenities, and rural surroundings.

The hardship of long hours of travel with the inevitable strap hanging, the extra expense to the family budget, and the unnecessary fatigue imposed by such conditions, can be averted if the principles of this Bill are converted successfully into practice. Great difficulty will be experienced in translating what we wish into practical effect. There are signs, to which I must draw the attention of the House, that the dangers which the period of housing development between the two wars made so plain to us are, in fact, beginning to threaten us again. Recently, the London County Council expressed the opinion that the satellite towns will not help to solve London's immediate housing problem because the towns will not be ready in time. The council have also stated that the rigid adoption of the green belt as laid down by Sir Patrick Abercrombie will prevent the council from fulfilling their obligations as a housing authority unless a considerable degree of flexibility is allowed. The opinion of the London County Council—whatever view one may hold of the council—must be considered very seriously. They are responsible for the rebuilding of our shattered city and for the continuance of the great drive in slum clearance and against overcrowding which took place after the last war until the outbreak of the recent hostilities. In that remark, I know I have the full sympathy of the Minister, because, as the Chairman of the Housing and Town Planning Committee of the London County Council, he himself played a large part in the great combined operation to abolish London slums.

A vast task lies ahead of the London County Council, and it is very urgent. I should like to ask the Minister how this Bill can be utilised so that practical assistance can be given, more or less straightaway, in the solution of this problem. The House will know of the proposals for the Green Belt invasion at Chessington, the purchase of a large site at Foots Cray in Kent, also near there the Green Belt, and statements that additional schemes of this nature will shortly be produced. The L.C.C. therefore lack faith in the efficacy of the results of this Bill. It would appear that, unless something is done, the ugly ungainly sprawl of London into the adjacent countryside threatens to resume its insidious and very undesirable progress. I want to ask the Minister what he can do to prevent us drifting back to the conditions which prevailed before the war, because, if nothing is done, the good which can emerge from the successful working of this Bill would, in fact, be largely nullified.

There are two important considerations which I would like to submit to the right hon. Gentleman. He may have to think again in the terms of the selection of the areas which he has in mind for the new towns. For instance, so far as London is concerned, he may be wise to create a town near or even contiguous to London, even though by doing that he may ruin the amenities of the Green Belt in the actual area that he chooses. I could give, as an example, the idea that, instead of buying 800 acres at Chessington, it might be wiser to buy 4,000 acres; the land is there, though the amenities of the Green Belt in that immediate area would be ruined. If he did this, he would have the right to say to the London County Council and other authorities, "On no account shall you encroach on the Green Belt in other places." I believe there is a strong argument for saying that one bulge of the city into the Green Belt in one direction is better than a series of ever-enlarging nibbles into the perimeter of the whole countryside, which is now about to happen. Secondly, if such action commends itself to the right hon. Gentleman, I suggest he might speed up the tempo of the construction of such a new town. The present plan is to rehouse 236,000 people from within London outside the county boundaries in the next four years. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that here is a magnificent opportunity for good planning, and I would remind him what a tragedy it would be, if the major portion of this vast total of human beings are to be condemned once again to live in dormitory suburbs.

I believe Pitt once said: He might well have said that necessity is also the excuse for all muddled planning. Necessity and expediency threaten us today. They threaten to upset the principles of good planning, to which all hon. Members on both sides of this House, I believe, heartily subscribe. The Minister, in this Bill, has an instrument which, if used wisely, can bring great improvements to the welfare of thousands of our citizens. I can only hope that wisdom will be granted to him and to his colleagues.

2.24 p.m.

I welcome this Bill. My attitude towards it is largely governed by my personal experiences in a city, so overcrowded that people were living 220 to the acre in the best part and 679 to the acre in the worst part. A determination to alter that state of affairs was carried into effect, and people were removed to another part of the city, where they were housed in quite good houses, but, unfortunately, apart from providing for people who were removed there because of the slum conditions, there was nothing else in the area. It seems to me that, unless we create more or less complete communities, we are never going to have any success. Most of these new areas created between the two wars had one definite characteristic. They were all more or less the products of bad living conditions. The people were all huddled together and immediately on their heels came Salvation Army workers, social workers and other people of that type. That is not at all a desirable thing; what we want are real communities, in which there will be a diversity of people. I am convinced that we can only achieve that object on the basis of this Bill. I also hope everything possible will be done to secure that industry is incorporated in these new towns—diversified industry and not the kind of industry which we have had in the past. There again, we shall be making for all that is best in the interests of the community. We have got to put an end to these huge dormitory communities which we created between the wars and in which we have only one type of person, and in which, consequently, we can never hope to have a really progressive community life. I hope this Bill will give a real opportunity to do something on those lines for the good of the country as a whole.

2.28 p.m.

I should like to begin by congratulating the Minister upon the way in which he has conducted this Bill, both through the Standing Committee and during the Report stage, on which he gained, I think, the good will of hon. Members. I think the Bill has been greatly improved by the cooperation of Government and Opposition, and some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the Government might find that the passage of Bills would be more expeditious if they showed some of the right hon. Gentleman's spirit of reasonableness in their attitude towards the Opposition. There are more ways of getting things done than by using the bulldozer.

This Bill is the first instalment of the national plan indicated in the Barlow and Uthwatt Reports, and I think it is a great constructive step forward. It is the first time that power has been taken for building new towns in order to reduce the congestion in the conurbations. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pay special attention to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare). London is of importance to people who are not themselves Londoners; it is the centre of this great Empire. It is the idea of the Green Belt which will make London, perhaps for the first time, worthy to be the capital of the great Empire. If now, on grounds of shortsighted expedience, it is the policy of the London County Council to impinge upon that Green Belt, they are really, whatever the pressure upon them may be, sacrificing the heritage of generations to come, in order to deal with an immediate shortage. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who is in a specially favourable position for dealing with the London County Council, not only because he belongs to the same political party as the majority in that body, but also because he served his own apprenticeship in public life in such distinguished capacities as chairman of the Town Planning Committee and chairman of the Housing Committee of that authority, will do all he can to ensure that the great housing drive, which we all desire to see in London, shall not be at the expense of the Green Belt and, therefore, of generations to come.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he thinks it will be possible to begin the new towns provided for under this Bill. I take it that the task of the London County Council would be immensely simplified if he were able to give them an assurance that within a reasonable number of months, the building of the new towns could be begun. I would specially ask him about Stevenage. In the report of the Reith Committee, it was indicated that, by administrative measures, the right hon. Gentleman and his Department might begin to make arrangements for the development of Stevenage as a new town in anticipation of the Bill being put upon the Statute Book. Can he tell us what administrative steps he has been able to take in regard to Stevenage, and can he indicate to us, and especially to the London County Council, when he anticipates that building there will begin?

Speaking earlier in the Debate, an hon. Member opposite referred to the importance of directing the location of industry. Where industry is, there will the population inevitably follow. In the Barlow Report it was pointed out how the two things affected each other. Industry is a magnet to population, and when the population is there, it is a magnet to industry. Largely owing to recent developments, like electricity and so on, it is now more important for industry to be near its great markets, and less important for it to be near its raw materials than it was 100 years ago. According to the Barlow Report, that is the reason why there has been this tremendous development during the 20 years' truce between the two wars. It was an unfortunate consequence—and not the only one—of the Dissolution of the last Parliament that, in the Distribution of Industry Bill, Clause 9 had to be dropped. When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, at that time had just been President of the Board of Trade, supported the dropping of that Clause, he said that it did not matter from a practical point of view because, for a considerable period to come, the building of factories would depend upon the granting of building licences. Clause 9 of that Bill was intended to help the Minister of Town and Country Planning to influence the location of industry after the postwar period of stringency was over when licences would no longer be required for building. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what has been the policy and the action of his colleague, the President of the Board of Trade, with regard to the issuing of licences for the building of factories. I know that a number of licences have been issued for the building of factories in South Wales and the West Coast of Cumberland, and the other development areas, as they are called, and I hope that something will be done in the case of the new towns contemplated under this Bill. Can the Minister say whether the President of the Board of Trade is declining to issue licences for the building of new factories in London? I sincerely hope that the answer will be in the affirmative. Surely, there is now a considerable measure of agreement in all parts of the House that we do not desire to see London—which Cobbett described 100 years ago as the "Great Wen"—any larger than it is at the present time.

In his conduct of the Bill through the Committee stage, and in his speech on the Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman indicated that he hoped for the cooperation of private enterprise in these new towns. I congratulate him upon his openness of mind. He has not that ideological outlook upon administrative problems which is, perhaps, the chief handicap to the building of houses by the present Minister of Health. I was sorry that the Minister yesterday was not prepared to accept an Amendment moved from this side of the House on the subject of the winding-up of the corporations. I ask him to look at that matter again. He drew a close analogy between the corporations and private limited liability companies. I am not sure that he was entirely justified in doing so for that particular purpose. I would, however, ask him to bear in mind the analogy which he himself chose yesterday in the matter of the preparation of the accounts, and the way in which they are to be audited. I am only expressing what I think was the unanimous view of the Reith Committee. It is a matter of great importance how the accounts are prepared and audited. I hope that, even now, when we have reached the Third Reading of the Bill, he will not close his mind to the importance of making certain that the accounts of the corporations are presented in a form which will not only enable Parliament to understand the position, but will enable fair comparisons to be drawn between the corporations and the local authorities in the districts.

There is one point with regard to the future to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister and the Government. Under this Bill, it is provided that land is to be acquired at the price ruling on 31st March, 1939. This was a matter of controversy when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) introduced the Town and Country Planning Bill in 1944, and the Minister, who was then in opposition, supported my right hon. Friend in the view he took. If the right hon. Gentleman had wanted to score a mere party point, he would have pointed out—as, in fact, he did, although he did not argue it at all—that, under the Uthwatt proposals, the 1939 price was 10 be the ceiling. With his usual fairness, he saw the argument that it was unfair to the landowning community in those parts of the country where the price of land had risen that they should not get the benefit of the increase and that, in the blitzed areas, and so on, such as the East Coast, where the value of land was depressed owing to the events of the war, that the State should acquire it at a low price. I remember that about the Minister because it was, perhaps, the first time that his complete fairness of mind in trying to deal with these matters was impressed upon me. I was one of those Members who supported my right hon. Friend against a good many Members of my own party in standing for the 1939 prices.

I would ask the Minister to consider how long it is justifiable to continue that provision. We justified it at that time because the war had completely distorted the prices of land, and we were treating a broad category of landowners fairly and preventing one from gaining a chance advantage, and saving another from an undeserved loss. But we are getting back now to the time when there is a genuine market in land. I cannot think that the State should have the right to acquire land for public purposes at a price which is artificially below the ordinary market price. It cannot, surely, be right, if two members of the public enter voluntarily into a contract with each other that the price of land is to be the present price, that then, if the State desires to acquire that land, it should obtain it at an artificially low price, which prevailed in 1939. The right hon. Gentleman will note that his Government, so far, in their proposals for nationalisation have, according to their lights—we have not always agreed with them—always tried, I think, to provide fair compensation, when the property was acquired by the State. It is, surely, impossible to argue that, for an indefinite period after the end of hostilities, land should be acquired by the State at a price fixed on a 1939 basis, when the prices of everything else in the country have gone up.

I do not press the point at the moment. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to deal with this matter in his speech today. But while I, and, I think, all my hon. Friends on this side of the House, stand by the legislation which we put upon the Statute Book I do think that conditions are now changing, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government will look at this matter again, and, at some convenient time, introduce legislation to deal with it. In conclusion, I congratulate the Minister again, upon his Bill and upon his conduct of it through this House. I hope that, in the administration of it, he will be vigorous and efficient, and that, before long, we shall have the new towns for which we are looking.

2.44 p.m.

I, like all my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House, welcome this Bill, and I should like to add my congratulations to the Minister, not only for having produced the Bill, but on the way in which he has conducted it. If I have any complaint at all to make, it is only that, because the cooperation between him and our own Front Bench has been so complete, it has been very difficult for us on the back benches sometimes to follow the confidential whisperings which have taken place during our deliberations. Everybody in this House wishes this Bill to become a success. Evidently, like every other scheme of social legislation which is brought in by this Government, its results will depend on the application of the Bill, rather than upon the actual Clauses that are contained in it. The chief factor in that, and, indeed, in all these schemes, is going to be the type of people whom the Minister will be able to obtain for the development corporations, and to run these new towns. I myself have no perturbation whatever on the ground that the Minister will not find the type of people he wants. It is always possible to find people with the ability and the ideals necessary, whatever political party they belong to, for a scheme of this sort.

I am concerned however about the providing of the junior members of the staff, of the type and quality wanted to run these new corporations. It so happens that, in a very small way, during the war, I was involved in the formation of three large headquarters which played some part in the conduct of the war. The Eighth Army Headquarters was the first. The problem was not in getting the heads of departments and commanders to do their job, but in getting clerks and junior officers and the other people necessary for the administration to work properly. We are today, with this spate of social legislation, placing a tremendous call upon that class of people, and I do think it would be wrong to let this opportunity pass without voicing our concern about the Government getting the type of people wanted. All of us who have to deal with local administration in our constituencies, know the difficulty our councils have in getting the type of people they want. It is, obviously, difficult to get the right sort of people in the right numbers, and I hope the Minister will pay particular attention to the importance of terms and conditions of service, and the salaries paid to junior people, and not only to the terms of members of the corporations themselves.

Representing, as I do, a great agricultural constituency, I must voice a fear which those of us interested in agriculture feel when such measures are brought in. I think, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, that in the long run, when these new towns are formed, it will not be to the disadvantage of agriculture at all. In fact it will be the very reverse. I think the fact that new markets are created, not in great centres, will be of inestimable advantage to agriculture, and it will also mean—and this is very important, I think—that many people who live in great sprawling urban districts will be brought into contact with the country people. We shall have between town and country an exchange of ideas that we have not had for a long time. I look upon that as being as important as the taking or not taking of land. I hope that many people, when they come out to the new towns, will go back further, into the rural areas, and go back on to the land, so that we shall get, even although in a slight degree, a return journey from the town to the country—in the opposite direction from that which has been followed between the two wars.

There are two matters about which those of us interested in agriculture are concerned. One is the management of the land within the green belts or other areas which the corporations take over. We do feel that, on the whole, experience has shown that urban district councils or corporations are not the best people to manage land, and that the correct people are the estate agents, or the owners of the land, or the farmers themselves, who are the only people who can really get the best out of the land. The great danger of these green belts—this has been mentioned before but I make no apology for repeating it—is that we have a kind of sword of Damocles hanging over the people actually managing the land, because the councils and the corporations, who are purely urban minded, are running the land for the benefit of the town, rather than for the benefit of agriculture. In the actual layout of the towns the town must have first consideration, but the people doing the planning will have little direct knowledge of agriculture. We urge that they should go out on to the ground, and meet the people who know what the situation is.

The last point to which I wish to refer is that of the treatment of the people who, because of the scheme, will be displaced. I am one of those who believe that, if we are to bring in a scheme of this sort, and if these new towns are necessary, an element of ruthlessness is necessary. It is no use thinking we can provide new towns without adversely affecting somebody. We face that. But we think they must be generously treated. I, myself, regret that we have not pressed from this side of the House for more consideration of those people, and with regard to the whole question so ably referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), the 1939 prices. I know quite well that this is not the time to discuss that type of legislation, but we are in a difficulty on this side, because we have had to accept Clauses in this Bill, because the Government have failed to bring in their new Bill dealing with betterment and compensation. Until that is brought in we cannot feel satisfied with this Bill. Last night I was obliged to comment unfavourably—although I know the Minister has no objection to my doing that; and, indeed, he may take little notice of what I said—on the right hon. Gentleman's attitude, because there is no doubt that very great hardship is caused to people today in having prices at the 1939 level, even with the escalator scale. I am not so concerned with those having businesses, as with the people living in the houses they own. There is no Member on this side who has not cases of great hardship in his constituency. We cannot be satisfied with this Bill, until the Government bring in new legislation, and I urge the Minister to do that as soon as he possibly can.

2.53 p.m.

I think there is no doubt that this Bill has been greatly improved since it first came before the House and I should like to add to that of other hon. Members my appreciation of the way in which the Minister has handled it. I am sure, quite apart from any other consideration, that when the real test of the Bill comes in the future it will be found that there are many improvements as a result of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been willing to listen to what we had to say to him. Everything will depend upon the implementation of the Measure when it becomes an Act, on the actual way it is carried out by the Minister, the corporations, the officials of the corporations and on the way it is received by the public. All those things are important, and we must remember straight away that this is in the nature of an experiment. No experiment can be wholly successful. There is no doubt in my mind that we are right in making this experiment. I think that some of the lessons we shall learn are going to be very valuable. There will be useful lessons from the point of view of town and country planning. I hope that the Ministry will be quick to learn from them; that they will not stick too closely to their preconceived ideas about new towns, and that they will be willing to modify those ideas when necessary, as they go along. This Bill will suffer from a number of handicaps, owing to the fact that it is being brought into effect after a great war and owing to the difficulties of housing and raw materials, but those are difficulties which I think will not be so serious as may at first be imagined. It has been pointed out in the second Reith report that you can only develop these new towns slowly, so there is plenty of time ahead of us. The main thing is to be sure that we make as few false steps as possible.

As has already been pointed out, this Bill is going to create considerable hardship to individuals. Considerable numbers of human beings are going to be upset on account of it. There is no doubt that, on balance, this is justified. But we would not be justified and neither would the Minister be justified in carrying out this Bill if he did not seek to do all that he could to mitigate the hardships. One of these hardships will be the speedy acquisition of land, if that process is used. It will not be only in cases where it is used, that there will be hardship. The mere fact that people know that it can be used, the mere threat of its use, is going to interfere with people's lives just as much as, and even more than, its actual use. Then again, there is going to be the difficulty of compensation. Many people will find that, although they have chosen one particular spot where they wish to spend the rest of their lives, a new town will come along, and they will be obliged to move and to set up another home. There is no doubt that under the terms of this Bill some of those people will not be able to set up their homes again in such favourable circumstances as before, and that is a thing which we have to remember when this Bill is being administered.

Let me say a word about the individuality of these new towns. It has rightly been stressed in Committee how important it is that each of these new towns should develop an individuality of its own. That individuality is not a feature which can be imposed from above, from Whitehall, or even a thing which can be imposed by a corporation. It is a thing which has to grow up from below. There is going to be no form of local representation. That will make the process even harder. I would stress how important it is that the right hon. Gentleman should select the right individuals to serve on these corporations—the kind of individuals who understand what this growth should be, and who will not try to put over their own pet ideas, which may not be in keeping with the place or the character of a new town. I ask the right hon. Gentleman—as I am sure he will—to pay the greatest attention to the selection of the seven members of each of these corporations, and not to try to get just seven very brilliant experts, but to try to get a balanced team, each one of whom can contribute to a different aspect of a new town.

Then there is the question of where these new towns are to be put. To my mind, that is the most important matter of all. If this kind of planning is to be justified, it must be justified on the ground that we put a new town in the best place possible. When we are deciding where that is to be, we have to take into account a lot of very complicated factors, such as the redistribution of the population of this country. There is, I believe, at the Ministry of the right hon. Gentleman, a very interesting map, showing the trend of population during recent years, and, to my mind, it is a somewhat alarming map, because it shows how much the population has tended to converge into one or two districts, and to leave other districts more and more sparsely populated. That is a very big question. What is the policy of the Government on this matter? I do not pretend to know the answer, and I think that we have had no indication of what is the general idea of the Government on this point. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about that when he winds up. Does the Minister not believe that the time has now come to try to encourage the population not to concentrate too much in the London area and in a few other areas and to revive some of the smaller country towns which have been tending to decline in recent years? If the object of the right hon. Gentleman in founding these new towns is merely to find an outlet for the London population, and to allow this concentration to go on and even to increase, we shall only be creating new suburbs on a greater scale.

I believe that people are too apt to think that the Green Belt is a complete safeguard against dangers of this kind. We have seen enough of the Green Belt already to realise that there is always a tendency to jump over to the other side and begin building there. The Green Belt then ceases to have the value it was intended to have. I hope the Minister will consider this very wide question of the distribution of our population before he decides on the sites of any new towns, because, if he does not, we may well be moving in the wrong direction and actually accelerating a process which is not healthy for this nation. With those words, I should like to thank the Minister once again for the conciliatory spirit he has shown with regard to the suggestions from this side of the House during the passage of the Bill, and to express my hope that the Bill will be a success.

3.2 p.m.

We are now coming to the end of the first part of the journey, in this great venture upon which we have embarked, and I begin by thanking all hon. Members, particularly hon. Members opposite, who have joined in congratulating me on the part I have played. Their congratulations are, to a certain extent, embarrassing, because they make one wonder whether one has not gone too far. I noticed that the congratulations came more from the opposite side than from my own side, but I believe that we have all taken part in the various stages of this Bill in a manner which redounds to the credit of Parliament. After all, the Committee stage and the Report stage are not occasions on which one embarks on ideological discussions. They are designed to improve the Bill, and I have taken the view that I am ready to accept suggestions for improvement wherever they originate. I welcome the Amendments that have been put down from all sides of the House and I am very grateful to all hon. Members who have played their part in making this a better Bill than it was when it first appeared.

I think the Measure leaves the House with general agreement. I know that the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) does not like the Bill; he said so when it first appeared and I imagine that he does not like it much better today, in spite of the improvements which his own hon. Friends have introduced. Perhaps it is so bad from his point of view that no improvements could really make any difference. Generally speaking, however, I think it is accepted as a Measure which makes an important contribution to the solution of one of the great problems of the day. It is an implementation, and I think the first active implementation, of the Barlow Report. It is designed primarily to deal with our overcrowded towns—those which we have allowed to grow without any considerations of planning—and now that these towns are in need of redevelopment we have to ensure that they will not be redeveloped in the same overcrowded manner. But this Bill is designed to do more than that. It is designed to try to create a new way of life, to give people opportunities of living which they do not, and cannot, possess in our overcrowded cities and towns. The greater freedom, the greater facilities, that will be provided in the new towns will enable them to grow in stature, and to become good, decent citizens. We want to provide all the physical conditions that are necessary, and to which the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) referred—dignified streets, and fine civic centres. We want to remove ugliness and dreariness. But the real success of these towns will be based not so much on the physical conditions that we create, but upon the social and spiritual conditions. I realise very much that bricks and mortar alone will not be all that is needed. The task will be one which will need the goodwill and cooperation of the best types of men and women.

When the Bill becomes an Act it will not be a dead letter. It is intended to be an Act which will be implemented. We shall certainly have regard to what has been said about the need for getting the right types of persons on the corporations. So far as I am concerned, I shall seek out the best possible types of men and women—and women can play a great part—for this task, regardless of where they come from, or what their associations are. Quality and character will be the sole test. They will have to be people who will be prepared to give new thought to this matter. I do not think we can be dominated entirely by the cliches and ideas of the past. This is an entirely new venture. You can never really experiment unless you are prepared to be wrong, and I hope these people will be big enough to make mistakes and that the Minister who is in charge of the operations will be prepared to be understanding about any possible mistakes there might be. I also hope that, in turn, the House will be understanding of the Minister if he has to come forward and admit that mistakes have been made as a result of the Bill. I believe the attitude of the House is such that any Minister can go forward with confidence, because Members will realise that if one acts in a spirit of adventure one sometimes can be wrong.

We want to create, in these towns, their own character and personality. It will be difficult. Over the centuries our towns have gradually evolved a personality which we shall try to infuse into the spirit of the new towns. These things are not done so well consciously and deliberately. Part of the battle is to realise and understand this point. I believe that that personality and character will come from the efforts of the corporation and from the goodwill which I know will be infused when we get going in our task.

I was asked by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Digby) where we intend to build our towns—on what principles we shall locate them. The locations must be determined by our needs. I think it would be wrong for me to say that we will only go to existing built-up areas and extend them, or that we will only go to areas which are not built on at all. I have been urged to do both. I think that the location of a town is a matter which requires the most careful consideration. We must start off with the assurance that it will be a success. We have not reached the stage yet, and I do not see how we can reach that stage under private enterprise, when industry can be directed to go to a particular place. Industry can be prevented from going to places where it is not desirable, but I do not think, and never have thought, that we can say to industry, "You must go to this place" without giving them a guarantee that the place is suitable and can accommodate them. So the allocation of industry to our new towns must be a matter of steering and persuasion, and the Barlow Report recognised that, as I do.

If I am right in saying that we are not able to direct industry, that fact is bound to have an important effect on the location. We must be certain that we have a place which is suitable and convenient for industry, where they can live and carry out their functions, which will be attractive to them, and so on. Very often, if the intention is to try to induce industry to go from an overcrowded area to another area, the distances are an important factor. Industry may be prepared to go 30 or 40 miles, but not 60 miles, and that determines the distance we can go from the existing towns. The population must also be attracted. Although at the present time, with the tragic shortage of housing and the awful conditions in which people are living, they may be prepared to go much longer distances than they would otherwise go, we are nevertheless not merely providing for the people who are homeless. We need to get into the new towns key workers and other persons from the overcrowded towns who will be essential elements in the growth of the new towns. Those people must be attracted and that again affects the location. It will be a matter of extreme difficulty, calling for the most careful thought, to settle the location.

A good many of the speeches from hon. Members opposite, about which I do not complain for one moment, stressed the hardships which may be imposed upon individuals in the existing towns. There is a desire, which hon. Members opposite make themselves particularly responsible for, but which I share to the full, that their lot should be made as little difficult as possible. Nobody wants to create any more difficulty for existing populations than is absolutely essential. In any new town based upon an existing population the vast majority of the people will benefit; let us make no mistake about that. The vast majority will not be moved or interfered with. They are not living in really rural surroundings; I wonder how many of the people who talk about Stevenage really know the place? I was astonished when I toured Stevenage and found there an enormous hinterland, with thousands of people living in conditions not very different from the conditions in which they might be living in London. Those people will benefit from the improvements which will take place in their town. People talk lightheartedly about living in a small town as though they were living in the country, but in fact, and this is the case in Stevenage, very few people are living in rural surroundings. So, I submit that the vast majority of people who are living in an existing town which will be substantially enlarged will benefit from the operation. I recognise, and I always have recognised, that there will be some people who will suffer, particularly, and this is the class that I would wish to help first of all, those engaged in agriculture whom it is not possible to rehouse or to provide with alternative accommodation.

I recognise that it may not always be possible for them to get other land at the price which they will receive in compensation. That is a body of persons who, I admit, are most hardly hit. If it were possible to do anything for them, I should like to do it. I have not yet given up hopes. Perhaps I might at this point correct what I believe is the false impression gained by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead. He referred to the doubt which some people might have as to whether all the land will be bought. In fact, it is the clear intention, when an area is designated, to acquire all the land in the area. The only doubt is when the land will be bought. We have endeavoured as far as possible to remove even that doubt. I was asked what would be the effect upon the housing programme of the building of the new towns. I submit that it will merely fit in with the housing programme. It will be a part of it, as it were.

Here I would refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) who, I understand now leads his party on the Housing Committee. I very much regret that I missed him. I would like to say to the London County Council that the new towns will definitely assist them in their task. I do not suggest for a moment that the Bill will completely solve their problem. It will not, but it will play a part, and I hope a substantial part. I see no reason why it should not be possible to build new towns as quickly as if the authority acquired a virgin site, say on the Green Belt, and started building on it. They would be in exactly the same position as a development corporation will be. They would both start off with the need to acquire the land, generally compulsorily, with the need to provide services, and the need gradually to build up the facilities that are required in connection with the houses that would have to be erected. I should have thought that it would be possible to build the new towns as quickly as if one were starting afresh on a cleared site. So I will say to the London County Council that there is no reason why the policy of new towns should not be accepted in London, not only as a solution of the long-term problem of London, but also as a contribution towards the solution of the short-term problem.

With regard to Chessington, it would be better if I said nothing, because I may be in a judicial capacity there and I shall have to hear the point of view of all sides. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Lieut.-Colonel Thorp) referred to the need for drill halls and facilities for cadet corps and so on, and I very much appreciate what he said. The idea of the new towns is to provide for the needs of all sections of the community, and I recognise that the cadets and Territorials and such people will play an important part in the life of any community in the future. Their facilities will be catered for. That is most important.

The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) asked how long it will be before we can begin to help London and, presumably, other places in the same position. He asked particularly to what extent administrative steps have been taken in the case of Stevenage. So far as Stevenage is concerned, the plan has been prepared, subject to the approval of the development corporation when it is set up, and we are ready to go forward with the application for a designation order as soon as the Bill becomes law. Discussions have taken place with the statutory undertakers for the purpose of securing the necessary services, but the sooner the Bill becomes law, the sooner we can begin Stevenage, recognising, of course, that there will have to be a public inquiry, in view of the Amendment I put down, at the earliest possible moment. Other new towns are, at present, under consideration, and it is hoped that by the time the Bill becomes law, it may be possible to proceed with more than one in addition to Stevenage. The noble Lord the Member for South Dorset will see that the Bill is not going to be a dead letter.

The hon. Member for The High Peak asked me about the way in which the Board of Trade was dealing with applications for building licences in places like London and elsewhere. I can tell him that the Board of Trade, in consultation with my Ministry, the Ministry of Labour and other appropriate Ministries, where it it thought that it is undesirable that industrial development should take place on planning or other grounds, act together, and the licences are refused. The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole) made a number of progressive observations. At least, they were progressive from my point of view. He referred to the difficulty of getting junior staffs, and I recognise that it will be necessary to give careful consideration to the conditions under which staff will be invited to come to the corporations, with a view to attracting the best type of persons. It may be necessary to provide facilities for training a number of people. I hope very much that we shall be able to get our staff locally—at any rate, as far as possible. There is a need for providing the right kind of employment for people in the locality as well as people from the areas such as London.

I was very interested in the hon. Member's observations on agriculture. I agree that agriculture will not only suffer to a certain extent, but will gain as well. One of the important gains to agriculture will be the fact that a closer community of spirit and of interest will be created between town and country. Moreover, I believe the fact that the new towns will be built with agricultural areas surrounding them, will have the effect of providing a more intensive agricultural user of the land; for instance, markets will be provided more conveniently situated, and in that way there might be an inducement for agriculture to provide more intensive development.

The hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) made a very eloquent and forceful speech. I think she dealt effectively with the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset and perhaps it would be better if I did not attempt to paint the lily. She put forward a very interesting idea of providing for agricultural land to divide the neighbourhood units. In a place like Stevenage there might be some half dozen neighbourhood units, and her idea is that there should be a green belt surrounding each of the neighbourhood units, dividing one from the other, and those green belts would be cultivated. Certainly it is an idea which may commend itself to those who will be planning the towns, and I will put it before them. I agree also that the management of land is a skilled profession and should be undertaken by people who have experience and sympathy towards the purposes which it is necessary to achieve.

I believe this Bill will be the instrument for changing the nature of the lives of many hundreds and thousands of people, I hope for the better. It will also affect changes in the character of many areas. It throws a great responsibility on anyone who has charge of these operations, and I recognise it is a tremendous task. I undertake this task with great humility but with high hopes, with enthusiasm and with determination. There are a great many qualities which I do not possess—I suppose very few people possess all the qualities essential for carrying out a task of this sort—but if goodwill and enthusiasm for the cause are considerable assets, I hope I may claim to possess them. In this tremendous task I shall welcome support from whoever and from wherever it may come. Whoever is ready to help in this task will be welcome and will be regarded as a friend. It is in that spirit that I hope this Bill may go forward to its remaining stages.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

I am glad we have just a little extra time this afternoon, because I am anxious not only to build up what I hope will seem to hon. Members a reasonable case, but also to allow time for one or two hon. Members who I know do not agree with me about this, and feel strongly about it, to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. It is not an easy speech to make, this speech on a subject which I have ventured to describe as the Buchmanite intervention; it is not easy, or pleasant, perhaps in some way to wound the susceptibilities of friends and colleagues who take a diametrically opposite view on this matter from the view I take. However, I have felt in the long weeks I have had to consider it, when trying day after day in the ballot for the Adjournment, more and more obliged to raise this matter.

Before I address myself to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is, I gather, going to reply today, may I deal in passing with a supplementary question which was asked by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) when I raised this matter at Question time on 2nd May? The hon. Member for Oxford said that, in raising this matter, I was giving an example of my

May I interrupt the hon. Member for a moment? We do not want to get on to false premises. There have never been even as many as 50 permits issued for this purpose.

I understood from my right hon. Friend at that time, that be did not then deny that there were about 100 people in the team, of whom a number—I am not quite sure of the exact number—were Americans or other aliens who would require permits. There is no doubt about the fact that there were about 100 persons, many or most of them Americans who required permits to cross the Atlantic and to come to this country for the purpose of disseminating their propaganda. I cannot really see that what I said then should expose one to an accusation of trying to curtail and suppress civil liberties. I might further remind the hon. Member that in this matter I am following in the footsteps of the Junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert). Although I do not always agree politically with the hon. Member for Oxford University, I am sure that the hon. Member for Oxford City will, at least, agree with me when I say that the hon. Member for Oxford University never campaigns in any way, to suppress civil liberties. On the contrary, he is a champion in the other direction. I think that will be generally agreed.

Two months have gone by since I raised this matter at Question time on 2nd May, when my right hon. Friend told me that those members of the party who were not British subjects had been admitted for two months. Therefore, I should like to ask him today if he would be good enough to say whether they have now gone back to America, or whether they are just about to leave. I gather that a play in which some of them have been taking part is still being performed in various provincial towns, but I do not know whether all the members of the team are taking part in that or not. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will elucidate that point when he replies. Could he also say a little more about any priorities that may, or may not, have been granted to these people to come here? At a time when all of us know of many instances in which people have been kept waiting for months to join their relatives and see their families reunited—and of people, for that matter, engaged in an important way in the export trade waiting to get facilities to go overseas—it does, as I say, seem rather disproportionate that these permits should have been issued.

Let me say at once that this is not at all a question of religious intolerance. I am rather sorry that in his original reply my right hon. Friend seemed to suggest that there was something of that about it. On the contrary, I believe that individuals of whatever creed should, of course, be admitted to this land. As a matter of fact, I am in favour of the freest movement possible of all peoples of all lands between their respective countries; but when there is a shortage of anything, as we know, it has to be rationed. Shipping space is one of those things which are still in short supply. Take what I believe to be a fair comparison; consider one or two other creeds. A great religious community in this country is the Roman Catholic Church. There are hon. Members of this House who belong to it. I do not really think that any of them would seriously suggest that a team of 100 or even 50 Roman Catholic missionaries should come to this country at this moment from the Vatican or somewhere else. Of course, if individual delegates were sent by the Pope, naturally they would be granted facilities, but I really do not think that a team of 50 or 100 would be necessary. There are Mohamedans in this country. Would it be reasonable to send a team of 100 or 50 Imams from Arabia to this country, taking up space in ships or aircraft which could be used to bring men home on leave or for release? Of course not. I suggest that that is not an unreasonable comparison.

I have talked this matter over with quite a number of hon. Members, some of whom disagree with me strongly. I am trying to treat this as a serious matter. What several hon. Members have said, and I quite accept it, is that although they themselves are not members of the Buchman Group, nonetheless they know people who are, and they find them very likeable, sincere, enthusiastic people. I accept and grant all that. I know some members of the Group. They are indeed sincere and enthusiastic people and many of them are doing good work in social service or other ways. I will grant even that many of them have actually been improved by their contact with the Group. I certainly grant that. There is, of course, another side to that picture, on which I can quote a greater authority than myself, a distinguished churchman who wrote:

Would the hon. Member kindly give the source of that quotation?

Yes, certainly. It is by Bishop Henson, former Bishop of Durham. Apart from that other side of that particular picture, I want to suggest quite seriously to my hon. Friends who have discussed this with me that, granting the enthusiasm and the sincerity of which I have spoken, those qualities are not in themselves an objective test of the value of a movement. They are part of the familiar phenomena of conversion of any kind, of conversion to any movement, party, or church which makes absolute claims. I want to make this point as strongly as I can, and I hope that my hon. Friends who are attracted by that line of thought will give due weight to this argument, because I believe it to be an important one. Any party or church which makes absolute claims does, to a certain extent, help the convert to it to get outside himself and live for something larger than himself, and, to that extent, it may benefit him personally.

Like the Socialist Party?

A German youth in the 1930s, for instance, who became enthusiastically attracted to the Hitler Youth and joined that organisation, no doubt thereby became somewhat more unselfish, and would serve the movement rather than himself, and probably his neighbours would find him preferable to what he was before; but none the less, every hon. Member of this House would agree that this was a totally mischievous and damnable organisation, and that the mere fact that its members were ardent, enthusiastic and sincere, was not, in itself, a justification for that movement.

Still like the Socialist Party.

I have said already that I was trying to treat this very serious subject in a serious way, and not at the level to which that interjection belongs.

This Oxford or Buchman Group movement is one of the groups that make what I call absolute claims. It claims to live by four absolutes, and one of these is absolute honesty. I have studied this Group for a number of years, very carefully, and I find unfortunately that not only does it fail to live up to its absolute professions—I think that would be true of most of us, whatever movement we may belong to—but, on the contrary, the Group's public expressions and practices are marked by quite remarkable duplicity. So far as their being absolutely honest is concerned, I will not go into the details—which are already on record, having been dug up with great assiduity by the Junior Burgess for Oxford University—of Dr. Buchman's own falsification of his record in "Who's Who." That is on record for anybody to look up if he cares to: it seems to me a pretty damning indictment of the leader of a Group which professes absolute honesty. I have not time to go into the details of the sharp trick by which the Westminster Theatre was recently secured for the group, thus further diminishing the already small number of serious independent theatres in the West End of London and depriving a number of actors and actresses of the prospect of work. Incidentally, it was bought for the group by a Scottish industrialist who was one of Hitler's most fervent admirers before the war.

On a point of Order. You have several times ruled, Mr. Speaker, that an hon. Member is not entitled to make a case on a matter for which the Minister is not responsible. Is it proper for this House to hear evidence about the Oxford Group movement from the hon. Gentleman, which does not appear to be directly concerned with the question of right of entry into the United Kingdom?

The Minister's responsibility in this case is that he issues the permits for them to come to this country, and, therefore, the conduct of the Group is open to challenge.

I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was endeavouring to put the general case that it was unwise that these permits should have been issued, because the claims of the Group are not substantiated in practice. I was referring to their honesty or duplicity, and I should like to give an example from my own experience, which, while it does not show absolute dishonesty, is, I think, rather a good illustration of the general atmosphere of intrigue, backstairs pressure, and wirepulling which characterises the movement.

Some years ago I was working as a journalist on a daily newspaper, and I wrote a series of articles which were critical of the Group. They were a fairly lengthy and thorough examination of its claims, and they came to unfavourable conclusions. The first of this series of articles created a considerable stir in the Group, who reacted very violently and hypersensitively, as they always do. So what did they do? They did not take the usual course that is taken when people object to something in a newspaper. They did not either write to the editor, or go and see the editor, or offer an article or a letter, rebutting my article, which could be printed by the editor. They selected the most prominent Grouper they could find, who happened to be a big advertiser in that particular newspaper, and they sent him to see not the editor but the advertising manager, with the obvious implied threat that, unless we stopped publishing these articles which were critical of the Group, the advertising would be withdrawn. That threat was not merely implied, but stated. As I have, since that time, had several public quarrels with that newspaper, I am glad in fairness to add that on that occasion the newspaper staunchly resisted the pressure.

Hon. Members will have become aware, in the last day or two, that this Group has, indeed, to a high degree, mastered the American technique of pressure lobbying. A number of hon. Members have told me of the remarkably uniform and simultaneous letters and telegrams which they have received. Anybody has a perfect right to write to his or her M.P. about any subject he wants to, but I sometimes feel that the lobbyists do not realise that the effect of their lobbying is not always what is intended. What is intended as a stimulant to counteraction sometimes becomes in itself a mere irritant.

That brings me to what is my main charge against the Group and, therefore, my main criticism of the Home Office for having taken the action which we are discussing today. My case against the Group today is not based on religious or ethical grounds at all, although I believe that a case could be made thereon. It is mainly on political grounds that I object to the Group. It is quite beyond denial that the leading members of the Group, including Dr. Buchman himself, were before the war associated in a close and friendly way with the leaders of Nazi Germany. I am afraid that I must trouble the House with a quotation which many hon. Members will already have heard and read a number of times, but I really think they must be reminded of it once more. It was on 26th August, 1936, that Dr. Buchman, arriving in New York from Europe, said: he did, to some extent, excuse it or explain it by adding:

It was, again, in 1936—and we have the testimony of an hon. Member of this House to confirm it—that Dr. Buchman was extremely friendly with Himmler, and was continually praising him to the skies. English visitors to Germany at that time, who met Dr. Buchman, were pressed by him to meet his friend Heinrich Himmler. He would say "You ought to know Heinrich. He is a great lad." Those were his actual words. [An HON. MEMBER: "One of the boys."] That was three years after the Nazis had come to power, and after the beginning of all the horrors of the concentration camps and the Gestapo. It is perfectly true that some politicians in this country also took similar views of Hitler and Himmler at that time—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister of Food"]—and made the same mistake as Dr. Buchman, but most of those politicians—not all but most—have had the tact or misfortune to fade out of public life and out of active politics. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister of Food."] In any case, of course, they never claimed divine, infallible guidance such as Dr. Buchman claims.

If there is still any disposition on the part of the defenders of the Group to deny their Nazi affiliations, let me quote just a sentence or two from a book, which may be familiar to some hon. Members, called "Germany Unmasked," by a journalist of considerable repute, the late Mr. Robert Dell, who was a great authority on Central Europe generally. He said in this book:

One great point that the propagandists for the Group make is that the Groupers in occupied Europe were a spearhead of the Resistance Movement. Personally, I have always thought it a rather sinister coincidence—probably not more than a coincidence—that the three countries in Europe, where, perhaps, the Group was stronger than in any of the other countries before the war, were Norway, Denmark and Holland—three countries which were overrun most swiftly, I agree for other reasons as well, by the Nazis. It is argued by the Group propagandists that in Norway particularly the Groupers were extremely active in inspiring and leading the Resistance Movement. My colleagues on this side of the House will remember that, a few weeks ago, there was an international conference of Socialists in this country, attended by Socialists and Social Democrats from all over Europe. Among the delegates were some from Norway. I made a particular point of contacting these delegates and talking to them, and, because I was interested in this subject, I asked them, "Is it true, as claimed by the Buchman or Oxford Group, that the Group were to the fore in the Resistance—that they were the great leaders and inspirers of it?" They looked absolutely blank, and said, "Completely untrue: not a shred of truth in it." They said, "These cranks had some small influence before the war, mainly among Conservative politicians, but we never heard of them during the Resistance at all." That may possibly be an exaggeration in the opposite direction, but, at least, these colleagues of ours from Norway took the view very strongly that the groupers were not as prominent in the Resistance as their propagandists had made them out to be.

Some play has been made with a captured Gestapo document' which will no doubt be referred to today—it was referred to in a supplementary question by an hon. Member—and I have looked at the translation of this alleged document which has appeared in the Press with considerable interest and care; and, quite frankly, I should like to know a good deal more about where it was found and how it was found. So far, we are merely told that it has been "discovered." Ben trovato, indeed. It appears to have been captured in the American zone. Such inquiries as I have been able to make of official quarters do not confirm that any such document was, in fact, captured, but I agree that that is purely negative evidence, and I should like to hear more about this, because, on internal evidence, I should say that this document smells of forgery. Listen to these two sentences: much more like the style of the regular Group propagandists.

In view of all this evidence of Nazi affiliation and sympathies, I feel that there is a certain effrontery, at the moment, in Dr. Buchman and his team coming here with the express intention of teaching the British people—the British people—"an ideology for democracy". That is what he says is the object of his visit.

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Joseph Henderson. ]

My secondary case against the Group is addressed particularly to Members of the Labour Party. It is not only on political but on industrial grounds that I doubt very much the group's good faith. Dr. Buchman is preaching "a new team spirit in industry." That sounds very fine and Christian, but what does it really boil down to except the old "opiate"—to quote from the phrase which Marx borrowed from the Anglican Canon Charles Kingsley? It is provable—although I have not time to give all the proofs—that the Group has been heavily encouraged and backed financially in America by Henry Ford and others whose record in industrial relations is known to hon. Members on this side of the House. Three leaders of the C.I.O., the great trade union organisation, did lend their names to the Group. They signed what appeared to be a harmless document. Two of the three afterwards withdrew their signatures and repudiated it when they found what was tied up with the Group. Some people, of course, will sign anything once. This is, in my view, nothing less than spiritual strike-breaking. At a time when the owners of large sections of industry in this country are being quietly expropriated, it seems quite wrong that these American revivalists should come here and tell us that we should leave them in control and merely teach them that it pays to be kind to the workers. The Group claims to be the answer to revolutionary Socialism. Since the Labour Government are putting through a Socialist revolution, by constitutional means, I think they should beware of this diversionary propaganda. In any case, one might commend to Dr. Buchman the parable of the mote and the beam. There is, after all, far more serious industrial dislocation in America, and more racial strife, which he also claims to be an expert in curing. I really feel that it is selfish of us to keep him here any longer when they need him so badly at home.

The Home Secretary quoted that great text, "The wind bloweth where it listeth"; even Home Secretaries or backbenchers can quote Scripture for their purposes, and one could reply by saying that one should "beware of false prophets." But I have tried to argue this case on a somewhat higher level than that of merely bandying texts. I apologise sincerely for the length at which I have spoken, but I did want to build up a substantial and serious case. For the reasons I have given, I suggest that this journey of a team, perhaps 100 strong, perhaps 50, was, at the best, unnecessary, and should not have been facilitated by a British Government, a British Labour Government; and that, at its worst, this movement is essentially, in its leadership, mystique and in its history, anti-Socialist and anti-democratic.

4.8 p.m.

The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) said that he was glad that so much time was available for his speech. I notice that out of the hour he had available he took 35 minutes. I suppose that the Home Secretary will want 15 minutes in order to answer his part of the case, and therefore the hon. Gentleman has endeavoured, in what he described as a serious argument, to prevent anybody else speaking for more than 10 minutes. At any rate that is the effect of what he has done, and as he is presumably in his right mind he must be presumed to have intended what he has achieved.

The hon. Gentleman has come to the House saying that he was dreadfully misunderstood in a supplementary question which I ventured to put to the Home Secretary on the former occasion when he raised the subject. The hon. Member claimed: "I was only arguing that at a time when shipping space was short, it was unwise or unnecessary that as many as 100 permits should be issued." He added, wrongly, as I understand: "Probably most of them were Americans." I hesitate to contradict the hon. Member flatly, but that was not what he was arguing then, and not what he has been arguing today. That is a travesty of what he was arguing. I think I am entitled to say that he knows that perfectly well. The Question by the hon. Member which provoked my supplementary was this: he asked

There was in my first supplementary.

The hon. Member was using those words about shipping space, in his supplementary, but in his original Question he was trying to prevent facilities being given to these people. There was no suggestion in either original Question or in the supplementary that there was any wrongful priority given, and, as a matter of fact, I understand that no priority was given. The case argued here is that certain people ought not to be allowed to enter this country, but ought to be turned out by police action. If that is not a curtailment of civil liberty, I do not know what is. What is the ground on which that case is based? Not that these people have been convicted of any crime whatever, but that about 10 years ago one of their number said, "I thank heaven for Adolf Hitler," and that on some other occasion, as I understand from the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert), their leader falsified his entries in "Who's Who." Where are we getting to if people are to be refused admission to this country simply on the grounds of tittle-tattle of this sort which would not do credit to the senior common room of a girls' school?

But the point about "Who's Who" is rather more than that. The point is that this man got special privileges from the Board of Trade and other Ministries, and that it is a serious offence to make a false statement in a British work of reference in order to get privileges from the Government. That is the point of which we should take notice.

That is missing the point. We are discussing whether entry to the country ought to be refused to such a man. The hon. Gentleman is playing an unworthy, but I am glad to say unusual, role as an advocate of a police State in suggesting such a thing.

Special privileges.

The curious conclusion to be drawn from the speech of the hon. Member for Maldon is this: Apparently he is so worried about shipping space that he is afraid that families may not be reunited because of this voyage. At the same time, he is so anxious to get these men out of the country that he will use shipping space again in sending them back. The real truth about this business, as was apparent in almost every sentence of his speech, is that this is an abuse of the process of the Adjournment Motion of the House. It is not designed really to criticise the Home Secretary at all—

On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman in Order in arguing that an hon. Member has been abusing the procedure of this House? Is it not a reflection on the Chair?

That is not a reflection on the Chair. The hon. Member is entitled to reply, and as time is very short and I know the Home Secretary wants the full time to reply, I trust the hon. Member will be heard without further interruption.

Further to that point of Order. Do I understand from your Ruling that there can be no other speaker, and that the next speaker will be the Home Secretary who is to reply?

I am afraid that that is fairly obvious. Time is limited; we are bound to finish at half past four, and, after all, the Home Secretary has been attacked and is entitled to reply.

But there is a considerable body of opinion, apart from the Government, amongst hon. Gentlemen on this side who will get no opportunity for voicing their views.

I cannot alter the hour at which the House is bound to close.

This certainly illustrates the point I was endeavouring to make at the beginning, that the hon. Gentleman was a good deal too long in putting his argument. When I was interrupted I was endeavouring to make the point that what was really behind the hon. Gentleman's speech was something very much more sinister than he was prepared to admit. He was apparently attacking or criticising the Home Secretary for letting these gentlemen in, but what he was really doing was using the processes of this House as a cloak in order to vilify and attack a set of people who had no opportunity of answering back. It does not matter to me one jot whether this attack was correct—

They were not here in 1940. Why did they not come before? Why come now?

It matters to me not in the least whether this attack is justified or unjustified. It is an abuse of the process of this House to use the privilege of freedom from actions for libel and slander, which has been developed through the centuries and for which men have fought and died, as a sneaking cloak in order to attack people of whom one disapproves on political and religious grounds. It is that to which we have listened this afternoon from that persistent enemy of civil liberty to whom I have referred before.

I only venture to add this. I am not a member of this Group, and I would venture to say to the hon. Member for Maldon, who is familiar with the terminology in such cases, that if I were as closely identified with it in my opinions as some of us think he is with certain other parties, I should not be a "crypto" but I should be flying under my own colours. However, in one sense I can claim to be a fellow traveller. I believe that the spiritual realities have some value in this world; I can only speak of my own experience, but I have found that whatever else may be true about Dr. Buchman's movement, those who are members of it are genuinely searching for truth and are in possession of a genuine religious experience.

My submission to the House is this. It is altogether inappropriate to bring in police action, the limitation of movement, and the curtailment of opinion in order to prevent the growth of such a movement. I made you a promise, Mr. Speaker, which I will keep. The hon. Member for Maldon quoted Scripture at the end of his speech, and as he rightly pointed out, there are more types of person than one who can quote Scripture. Sir, the correct attitude for a Minister, for a Parliament or for an assembly dealing with a religious movement was, I believe, laid down some 2,000 years ago by a certain Gamaliel, for whose speech to the Sanhedrin I have always had respect. He was dealing with the development of a most difficult and obstinate group of men, and he spoke to the Speaker of that day in that Parliament assembled. He said that the way to deal with that group of men was quite simple: Let them alone. For if this thing be of man it will come to naught. Let them fail like Theudas, or like the other examples which he quoted. He went on:

4.15 p.m.

I greatly regret that, owing to the length of time that was taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) in developing his case, it is not possible for other hon. Members to intervene in the Debate. I would have desired an opportunity for a number of Members to give expression to their views as some guidance to me in dealing with this matter. I am sure that, heavy and responsible as the duties of Home Secretary are, they would be quite insupportable if he had, in considering whether to give a visa to a person to enter this country, to have in mind all the considerations in each individual case that were brought before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. I know that in these matters where politics and religion are intermixed, it is exceedingly difficult to prevent heat from arising and I desire to discuss this matter as calmly as I can. I share the views of Queen Elizabeth in that I desire to have no windows into men's souls through which I have to gaze. I wish to view this subject entirely objectively, as far as I can, and to deal with the facts of the situation in so far as my responsibility is concerned, as I understand that responsibility.

There were never 100 American citizens included in the group. There were fewer than 50. British citizens can return to this country without any action on my part. If they can get a passage they have the right to come; and undoubtedly a substantial number of the people who came with this group were British citizens who had been in the United States at a time when they might have been better employed on this side of the Atlantic. I do not desire to conceal my views on that point. There were also a certain number of American citizens who desired to come. My hon. Friend insinuated that, for some reason, I had shown special favour to these people. Let me say that I have been approached during the 11 months that I have been in office by, I think, nearly every religious denomination of any size in this country with regard to the admission of people whom they desired to have in this country for conferences, for rehabilitation, or for some form of communion.

I have, at the request of the leading members of those denominations, brought into this country members of the Established Church, of the Roman Catholic Church—and I would say to my hon. Friend that I am certain I have admitted more Roman Catholic clergy and nuns than I have admitted members of this Group—and of various Free Churches, Jews, and Christian Scientists. I was even approached by an hon. Member on this side of the House to admit Mormons. Having ascertained that polygamy is no longer a tenet of the Mormon faith, and having been asked by people in this country who hold that faith, I have agreed that certain emissaries of that faith shall be admitted. I want the House to understand, therefore, that this admission was in accordance with the general policy of His Majesty's Government under which the passport control officers have delegated authority to grant visas to delegates to religious conferences, persons coming here for religious instruction, and generally for carrying on the religious life of the community.

Was the head of the Mormon deputation or mission a man who has made false entries in a British work of reference?

Just fancy what the task of a Home Secretary would be if he had to take "Who's Who," Debretts "Peerage" and Kelly's "Handbook of the Landed Classes"—in which I somewhat mistakenly appear to have been included, not by my own request—to find out whether all the information given there was accurate. Really, the task of government is quite heavy enough without having that duty imposed on the Minister. I do not myself dissent from the views expressed by the hon. Member for Maldon—if my personal opinion were asked—with regard to the influence that this particular form of religion has on certain minds, but I have ample evidence from members of every Christian denomination in this country that there are some people who have benefited from it. My experience has been that there is no denomination in this country, where toleration is practised, which does not do benefit to some and harm to others. As was implied by the text which I quoted to the hon. Member, and by which I still stand, one has to leave these mysteries to the workings of a Power that is higher than Governments and works out in its own mysterious way its influences on the souls and lives of men.

The same thing applies to what my hon. Friend said about the politics of this matter. It may be that this play which is being shown may influence some people to think that the bosses should be left in control. All I can say is that this play appears to have made a tremendous appeal in the mining areas to the leaders of the miners' lodges, and it may be that this is a very good way to prepare for the State ownership of the mines. But there again this party does not claim that people who do not happen to hold its political views should have no hearing and no right of appeal to the country. In fact, may I say that part of my difficulty in dealing with some subversive movements in this country is the fact that some other movements prevent them from making the statements that I would like to hear—if in fact they are the tenets of those people—on which appropriate proceedings could be taken.

I am not prepared to apply religious or political tests to people who desire to come into this country unless it can be established that they desire to come here to carry on subversive propaganda as defined by the Acts concerned with seditious practices. Let us hear all things, for I believe the commonsense of the British democracy is such that in the long run they will winnow the chaff from the wheat. A democracy that has had the long experience that ours has, can be safely left to deal with these movements properly when it has heard their case expounded by themselves.

Now I want to deal with one or two other points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. I am certain of this, that no person of the class he said we would like to see come over was in fact, prevented from doing so by this mission to this country. I have nothing to do with priorities. If a person has a right, under the policy of His Majesty's, Government, supported by this House, to have a visa, the visa is granted. What happens after that is a matter for the person's own arrangements with the shipping company or with such other means of transport as are available. I am very glad to be able to say that I have been able, during the past few days, considerably to increase the number of people to whom I shall be able to grant visas, including, where they are desirable persons—I hope the House will note that I have put it in that positive way—the husbands of British-born women. I am hoping also to be able to get a larger number of people from Germany and Austria who are in the categories that I announced last November.

I will be quite frank with the House, as I have been throughout with regard to this difficult question. I am very disappointed at the small number of people who have presented themselves at the door which I then opened, and I fear that in Germany and Austria there may be some bottleneck which is preventing the flow of immigration which I had hoped would have been in process by this time, and therefore, in consultation with my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I am sending my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in my Department to Germany and Austria to see if he can find out where this bottleneck is so that it may be burst.

I desire that the ancient record of this country as a place of free speech, where the flow of ideas from all parts of the world is welcome, may be maintained; and while I will not guarantee that some of the people I admit may not be charlatans, may not, in the words of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), even be false prophets on occasion, I desire to impose no censorship other than that which the law entitles me to impose against subversive propaganda on any person who desires to come to this country to meet people of his own persuasion. I am confident of this, that as far as this particular movement is concerned, there are some people in this country who gain spiritual sustenance from it. I do not feel that I could get it myself, but I am equally sure that in the places where I hope I find spiritual sustenance, the people who benefit from this movement would find themselves in a particularly arid desert. Therefore I desire to live and let live in this particular matter.

In one second, may I ask the hon. Gentleman who took so long to bring forward many points that had little to do with the actual subject on which he started, to repeat these things in public?

It being Half-past Four o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.