I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, to leave out paragraph (f), and to insert:

(f) in a case where the whole street, being less than one hundred yards in length, or a part of the street not less than one hundred yards in length and comprising the whole of the part on which the building will front, was at the commencement of this Act built-up to such an extent that the aggregate length of the frontages of the buildings on both sides of the street or part constituted at least one half of the aggregate length of all the frontages on both sides of the street or part;

(g) in a case (not falling within the last preceding paragraph) where the local authority, being satisfied that the street was at the commencement of this Act substantially built-up, by notice in writing exempt the building from this section.

I beg to second the Amendment.

As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said. this Amendment represents something in the nature of a compromise between those of us who took different views about the merits of the Bill as it was first submitted. One of the principal defects which some of us saw in the Bill was that it applied not only to the new streets, in the sense of streets being laid out for the first time, but that it applied also to existing streets. Some of us thought that the evil which hon. Members were seeking to remove did not exist in existing streets, but was only to be found in new streets which were being laid out for the first time by an estate developer.

I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 4 to 9, and to insert:

(g) in a case where the building is proposed to be erected on land belonging to, or in the possession of, the council of a county, county borough, metropolitan borough or county district, the Common Council of the City of London, or a development corporation established under section two of the New Towns Act, 1946.

"secure the satisfactory construction, lighting, sewerage, furnishing and completion of streets."

I beg to second the Amendment.

In view of this strange combination of hon. Members, I should like to put it on record that the London County Council are not entitled to any credit for this Amendment. They did not spot the difficulty in the Bill, but those who took an active part in the proceedings upstairs pointed out what a mess the County Council would be in without the Amendment and, also, that this question also involved the new towns. It was entirely due to the efforts of one or two Members of the Standing Committee, and I think that that should be put on record.

May I correct the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) on one point? It is not without significance that when we went upstairs with him progress was small. We had to drag him far nearer to the infernal regions in the basement of this building before we could get any further.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 44, at the end, to insert:

"and any local Act amending that Act."

I think, if the House agrees, that that would be the more convenient course.

These Amendments relate to the same matter. They deal with what is a minor point, but a point of some importance, and I think it is unlikely that they will arouse any criticism or opposition. As the Bill was submitted, it provided that the private street works code, which is referred to in certain Clauses, should be the Private Street Works Act of 1892, certain sections of the Public Health Act of 1875 and certain local Acts in which parts of those two Acts are incorporated.

I beg to second the Amendment.

This rather technical point has been put so clearly by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson) that I would not wish to add to what he has said, except that I think that these Amendments, too, represent an improvement.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 5, to leave out from the beginning to "and," in line 6, and to insert:

"(c) in any county borough or county district in which sections one hundred and fifty, one hundred and fifty-one and one hundred and fifty-two of the Public Health Act, 1875, are in force, those sections."

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

When this Bill was first moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley), it seemed to some of my hon. Friends and me that the purpose which he had in mind was a purpose which we on this side of the House should desire to support. Even the speech that was made on Second Reading by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) did not dispel that first favourable impression.

"I am a resident of Ilford, and although but 21 years of age have lived there almost all my life. I am engaged to an ex-naval man, and we plan to marry during this coming July. Our main problem, of course, is that of other young couples the country over—where to live.

We thought we would solve our problem without bothering other people overmuch by building a bungalow of our own ourselves."

"So, with hopeful hearts and all the faith in the world we pooled our resources (a naval gratuity representing the larger portion of these) and purchased a plot of ground some 150 feet by 77 feet in June last year for the sum of £275….

When buying the land we were under the impression that a claim lodged for exemption from payment of development charges made by the previous owners was transferable to us and that we should not have to pay development charges outright, but that they would be set off against this claim. This was confirmed by our solicitor. But, however, after the transaction was completed and our plans for the bungalow were passed by the Council and sent to the Central Land Board, Cambridge, we were informed by these worthies that we should have to pay, although we stood to have the money refunded in securities, in part or in whole, in 1953.

After some six or seven months of pleading and discussion with the Land Board and solicitor, we have had to resign ourselves to the fact that in our innocence and zeal we bought the land by the wrong process and that we should necessarily have to succumb to the ruling of the Land Board.

We have had the development charges assessed by the District Valuer—a very nice young man I understand from my fiancé who has met him—and the sum arrived at is £170. Well, this is a shock from which we have just about recovered. But enough of that….

We have the land, our plans have been passed and approved, and planning permission has been given; we propose to do the work ourselves, calling upon no labour from the Festival of Britain or anywhere else; we have agreed that we must pay the development charges. We are young, we are willing. We want a house, a home and a family…

I am aware of the very valuable work you have done with regard to the New Streets Bill.

This Bill concerns us in no small way in our proposed building on an unmade road as you will appreciate, and when I learned of your amendments and your fight to eliminate the worst features of the Bill, I thought to myself"—

"Hence this letter—rambling perhaps, a trifle incoherent, but sincere.

I ask you…to consider this case and, if possible, to do something that will assist us in our fight to obtain a licence—and in that you may, directly or indirectly, help many hundreds of others."

I understand that the difficulty of the young lady whose letter has just been read was that she had not had very good advice before she started her negotiations. I think that the lesson to be taken from that is that any young lady from that constituency contemplating launching herself in holy matrimony, should always take the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson) before doing so. I feel that if the young female constituents of the hon. and learned Gentleman would do that, probably a great deal of hardship would be avoided.

I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that where the young lady went wrong was not in a matter of law, but in one of those matters which is, unfortunately, laid down in a circular issued by the Central Land Board; so even if she had obtained what the hon. Member considered to be the best possible advice, she might still have encountered the same difficulty in the end.

But the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been able to give advice on many other aspects of this matter, apart from purely legal aspects.

"to secure"—

"the satisfactory construction, lighting, sewerage, furnishing and completion of streets adjacent to new buildings, and to oblige and empower local authorities to adopt such streets."

I am glad to have the opportunity very briefly to express my satisfaction that the Bill is making such good progress on its way towards the Statute Book. All of us to some extent look at this Measure from the point of view of our own constituencies. I have the privilege of representing a constituency, which has a very unusual shape. It is, in fact, a complete circle around the City of Norwich. The whole of the fringe areas of the city therefore come within that constituency, and we have not merely a few unmade streets but miles of them; and many of them have been in an unmade condition for upwards of 15 years.

As one whose name is on the Bill but who was not a member of the Committee which dealt With it, I should like to wish it well on its Third Reading and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinky). I think he has rather overlooked his own work in connection with this Bill. It is quite true that it was the luck of the ballot which made it possible for him to join the Billstickers' Union, but billsticking is a very necessary function, and his name and good work have been very useful in connection with this Bill.

Nobody listening to this debate would realise exactly what happened upstairs in the Committee. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) has moved the Third Reading, but I know that during the Committee stage, which he attended with great devotion, he was very much under the weather. He took no part in the proceedings except to vote. I am very glad to see him alive as well as kicking, this morning. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was verging on the offensive when he suggested that I occupy the nether regions of the House.

It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), because, however uncontroversial a Measure is, one can be certain that he will say something with which one can disagree. He was good enough to say that he thought that in its first form the Bill would have paralysed building development. I should like to amend that remark, and then I think I shall agree with him. In its first form the Bill would have paralysed the estate developer. I and a great many of my hon. Friends much regret the changes which have taken place in the Measure, and if we agree to the Third Reading today, it is only because the Bill is the best that we can get.

The hon. and learned Gentleman recognises no doubt that the bad estate developer, against whom the Bill was originally directed, does not work in existing streets but only on new estates.

That may well be so, but the evil that he does lives after him. It may well be that we need some legislation now, and when I deal in a little more detail with the way the Bill will affect my constituency, the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that we need power to deal with the bad estate developer and with what the bad estate developer was doing in 1936 and 1937. One of the principal criticisms of the Bill and of the hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they never introduced it at the time the main amount of street building was being done by means of the Private Street Works Act.

In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who has just left the Chamber, he said that he appreciated that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) had been ill and that he was glad to see him restored to his normal state of health.

I do not want to be drawn into side-lines. I know that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) has a Bill which he is hoping to move at another stage, but it is fair to say that such remarks in regard to my hon. Friend might have been far more suitably made in the Committee when he was suffering from illness and where he was exposed all the time to what I suppose was intended to be good-natured chaff.

I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. As soon as it was made known to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) was unwell, he at once withdrew the comments in the Committee.

In that case we have at least reached one point of agreement. We can now all congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, while during the Committee Stage only one side of the Committee was prepared to do so.

Not typical.

Then there is no need for the Bill. It is not to restrain the good estate developers; it is to deal with the evil ones. There may be good estate developers, but the people with whom we wish to deal are the people who have behaved in an improper manner towards the public.

The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that I was saying that they were not typical. There are black sheep in every fold. There are some bad estate developers, and it is with them that this Bill seeks to deal. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not entitled to say that they are typical.

I may not be entitled to say that, and I did not attempt to do so; I was saying that these estate developers were typical of the people at whom the Bill is aimed. Now we are agreed.

The hon. and learned Member will appreciate that under existing legislation the question whether a standard specification for a street is a reasonable specification must eventually be a matter for a court and not for the Minister.

I appreciate that; it is a valuable point and I am glad that the hon. and learned Member has made it, otherwise I might to some extent have misled the House. The real difficulty, which arose also when the Bill contained a number of Clauses—it is a good thing, perhaps, that we do not have them now—providing for ultimate appeal to the courts, is that that is a difficult, complicated and expensive procedure which may involve considerable delay. It would be much better if we were to embark on some administrative means, if only by means of advice, to see that we get a uniform, and perhaps not quite such a superior, specification in some particular cases.

I join with all those who have spoken in this Third Reading debate in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) and his legal adviser, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). They will join a very select group of Members who have been privileged to get a Private Member's Bill on to the Statute Book. On behalf of the Government, I accept the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friends on the good work they have done.

Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, will he deal with the case, which I did not submit as a particular instance but as one with general application, concerning a new town, where the county council insists on specifications when the reason for which they insist does not exist, because the very fact that it is a new town will mean that they are never to be called upon to take over the road in question. They never had any liability, but have the right to impose specifications far greater than those which would be normally required.

The point which my hon. and learned Friend raises is a very important one. But, after all, the surveyor to the Essex County Council is not here to answer for himself, and it would, perhaps, be unfair to go too far into the matter. I think I may say that, speaking departmentally, the situation to which my hon. and learned Friend has drawn attention has been under consideration for some months with the Essex County Council, and I am hopeful that it will lead to a satisfactory conclusion. It is a very important factor in the rents, because if part of the development goes into the cost of these houses built by the new town—

On a point of order. This Bill does not apply to the new towns. Is it in order for us to discuss the question of street specifications in the new towns?

The general question of specifications has arisen, and I believe the situation is as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham. There has been a swing over from the old conditions, and specifications in many instances today are unreal in relation to what is to be carried over a particular byroad or a cul-de-sac. I could give instances where roads have been required to be constructed in a modern style, steel-barred and concrete-topped, in a cul-de-sac where there have been no more than 10 houses in the cul-de-sac.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the question whether the specification is reasonable or not must be decided by the court, not by the local authority or the Minister?

That only arises when a frontager objects to the charge by the local authority, and there is a dispute. People do not want to go into the courts all the time. Again, what is likely to happen when an individual takes a case to the court in such circumstances, is very haphazard, and in fact is dependent on a particular person who happens to be in charge of the court at a particular time. In similar sets of circumstances, we could have different decisions in two different courts.

He sometimes wins.

And sometimes somebody loses. Therefore, I agree that the less we get this matter settled on the basis of determination by the courts, and the more it is placed on the basis of reasonable specifications—if not universal, at least generally accepted—the better it will be.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will remember that, at one stage of the Committee proceedings, I endeavoured to persuade him to adopt standard specifications, but he was not willing to do so.

That is a very fair point. The hon. and learned Gentleman, or his hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), pointed out that I was not very often present during the Committee stage of this Bill, and there were two reasons for that. The first, and most important one, was that we had the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Bill a little lower down the corridor, at which my attendance was more necessary, and the second reason was that in this Committee we had general agreement, and my hon. Friends who were in charge of the Bill were quite capable of handling it.

Will the hon. Gentleman include the building trade organisations in these conversations?

My Ministry is the Ministry of Local Government and Planning and we have certain responsibilities in regard to streets. In the first instance, perhaps it would be better for us to consult the local authority associations and the local authorities themselves, and, in due course, we could bring in those asso- ciated with the development of new towns and those associated with the building industry. We shall be only too pleased to deal with these bodies and treat with them so that we can get as large a measure of agreement as is possible. I feel that, in certain instances, local authorities building new houses, and those concerned with building houses in the new towns, may find that these matters have a great effect upon the weekly rent which is charged by the local authority.

I heartily agree with the last words of the Parliamentary Secretary. They put the Bill into proper perspective, a perspective which has commended itself to my hon. Friends since we began our consideration of this Measure. I find myself less able to follow the opening words of the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not know whether he meant to imply it, but both he and the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) appeared to imply that the Amendments which had ultimately been made by agreement between the promoters and those who were opposing certain aspects of the Measure, were responsible for the fact that the Bill in its present form would not apply to the unmade roads already in existence.

Does not the hon. Member consider it a grave disappointment that in the days when private building was at its height his own party did not introduce such a Measure, when these great evils were occurring?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has, with his customary debating skill, moved from one foot to the other. The challenge he offered me is a stimulating one which at this hour on a Friday I am tempted to take up. But I know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you would very soon stop me from entering upon a debate which would be entirely out of order.

May I assure the hon. Member that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch is not one of the Members of the House whom I should like to silence?

I think that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering has misunderstood me. I did not say that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch was a Member he would like to silence: I merely congratulated him on having silenced him for a period of a few days, with the result—

Perhaps I did not make absolutely clear the part which I played in Committee. I made one short speech, a most vigorous speech, about the long and obstructionist speeches being made from the other side of the Committee.

In the speech with which he has recently favoured us, the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch described himself as having exercised such rare self-control in Committee that he had confined himself to moving the closure at certain intervals. I do not think that his recollection was entirely correct in that respect. I remember not one but a number of lively interventions by the hon. and learned Member.

We cannot now go over the Committee stage again.

If I may respectfully say so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that was the point I was endeavouring to establish when I was interrupted by the hon. and learned Member.

I should like to congratulate the hon. Members who have produced this Bill on the work they did in its early stages. When I added my name to this Bill I was sorry that, because I was sitting on another Committee, I could not take part in the early discussions. To my amazement I found that the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson) managed to sit on both Committees. I think he must have worn a pair of roller skates to get from one Committee to the other. At any rate, I made a choice and had not the privilege of listening to the debates which took place when the Bill was drastically amended in Committee.

I do not speak from the legal aspect because I am not a lawyer, although I see that the legal fraternity are well represented on both sides of the House—they know that as a result of the passing of this Bill there will be litigation. The Bill is another instance of something being done by this Government which ought not to have been necessary; it should have been done by previous Governments if they had the interests of the people really at heart.

"To secure the satisfactory construction, lighting, sewerage, furnishing and completion of streets adjacent to new buildings "—

"and to oblige and empower local authorities to adopt such streets."

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley), and, so far as I have been mentioned personally, on my own behalf, I should like to thank those hon. Members who have spoken so kindly about what we have tried to do in promoting this Bill. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) that it was not in order to enable the legal profession to earn more fees that we brought forward this Measure. If he does not feel prepared to absolve me from blame, I hope that he will entirely absolve the hon. Member for Bootle, whose Bill it is. In any case, I had perhaps better put him right by telling him the real reason.

Will my hon. and learned Friend give us the benefit of his undoubted knowledge of the Bill and of his legal training? Will he tell the House what would be the position under the Bill where development takes place on the opposite side of a road which has not been adopted or made up? Take the case, for instance, where the corporation develop. The frontagers on the opposite side of the road get no benefit under the Act, whereas on the developed side of the road they would be affected. That is probably a detailed question, but it is one upon which my hon. and learned Friend might give us the benefit of his knowledge.

I should hesitate, for the moment, to embark on a question which has so many possibilities tied up in it, but if my hon. Friend were to consider Amendments made in my name this morning I think he would find the answer to his question. I repeat the thanks I gave at the beginning, on the behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle and myself, for the very kind reception the House has given to our efforts in this matter, on both sides, and I commend the Bill to the House for its Third Reading.

I approach this Bill with a warm welcome and commend it warmly to the House, and as a Member of the Committee that considered the Bill, I want to pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for all they have done for the Bill; and also I would go so far as to pay a tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson), for he was very helpful, too.

I should like to join with those hon. Members who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) who has the good fortune of having brought to such an advanced stage the New Streets Bill, of which he was the principal sponsor. I always regard it as something in the nature of a miracle if a Private Member's Bill gets as far as Third Reading and its passing by the House, because my experience, in connection with other Private Members' Bills, has certainly not been as fortunate as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle. Perhaps next year if he is lucky in the Ballot he will be disposed to accept as the subject for another Bill a subject which I shall be happy to suggest to him when the appropriate time comes, and I hope that in doing so he will have the same good fortune as he has had with the Bill we are now discussing.

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will remain after this Bill is passed, he will hear me putting my views on another Bill.

I should be even more interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say on this Bill than what he might have to say on another Bill because, if I may say so, he would probably speak with far greater knowledge and experience on the New Streets Bill than on such other topics as may engage his attention a little later. I very much regret that, for reasons best known to himself, he is not going to make that valuable contribution to the Third Reading of this Bill which I am sure he could make if he were so disposed.

I also wish to join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) upon being successful in getting this Bill through to its Third Reading. Those of us who have been associated with local government know full well the tremendous importance and value of the Bill. We know of the vast problem which has confronted local authorities and property owners, the ordinary owners, because of the failure on the part of builders to construct roads suitable for people to travel on. I also congratulate my hon. Friend upon the scope of this Bill, because it covers a large number of matters which have been of serious concern to local authorities throughout the country.

I must apologise to the House for not having been present for the earlier stages of this debate, but I shall endeavour to put my views clearly even to Members of the Opposition, of whom there are now precisely five present in the Chamber. Although I have not had the advantage of the guidance and information given during the earlier stages of the debate, this is a subject with which I am not unacquainted. In the years between the two wars it was the Labour Party in most of our great urban and city areas, which drew attention, time after time, to the situation that was arising because large numbers of decent working-class people, who had got together sufficient savings to transfer from private landlordism to the landlordism of the building societies, found themselves face to face with a liability which they did not properly understand, and of which this Bill seeks to relieve them.

My hon. Friend is making a very good case, but it is very sweeping. I certainly agree with it, but he was not here when I was speaking. There is a very large number of cases such as he has described, but it would be wrong to state a case which would lead one to believe that that type of thing was universal. There were good builders and good estate developers. They built good estates, according to the life and times in which they worked, and they fully carried out their obligations in respect of roads. I should not like it to be thought that the other type of behaviour was universal. My hon. Friend is certainly bringing out the evils that existed.

I have a very natural desire to save time and, as a consequence, I was compelled to make generalisations. In view of what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I will venture to qualify my remarks. It is true, and the six Members of the Opposition who are present—the number has grown—will be glad to hear that I know of private builders—they will be able to quote me case after case—who took pride in their job and who regarded it as part of their responsibility to see that at the same time as the small, semi-detached, desirable whatever-it-was was going up, the roads and streets were being made.

On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to cast a reflection upon hon. Members sitting on this side of the House when he himself had not been in the House more than five minutes before he began to talk on a Measure about which he apparently knows nothing?

I was not here when the hon. Member came in.

Far from reflecting on the Opposition, I was about to say that two or three hon. Members opposite who are present could say whether my statements are correct about private builders who, before the war, received money from would-be occupiers to carry out street works which they could have carried out then but failed to do.

Order! We are dealing with streets and not houses. This is the New Streets Bill. We are not discussing the building of houses.

I certainly accept that, Mr. Speaker, but you will understand that the Bill is largely based upon the fact that when houses are built, the provision of the streets does not take place contemporaneously.

In speaking of new buildings we cannot go back to 1939. The Bill refers to new buildings.

In that case, I shall certainly bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I hope that my final point will come within the rules of order.

On a point of order. Have you not already ruled, Sir, that we are dealing with the New Streets Bill and that it is not necessary for us to go back as far as 1939?

My hon. Friend is trying to get within the rules of order. Give him time.

I was completely unaware, Mr. Speaker, subject to your Ruling, that I was out of order. I should have thought that if we are to talk about streets which are to be built, it would be equally relevant to discuss streets that are not now built. The only point, for hon. Gentlemen who do not already know it—I see that the number opposite has now been reduced from nine to eight—

The Bill deals with the present and we must stick to what is in the Bill and not deal with what one would like to see in the Bill. To talk of the past was a very good thing on Second Reading, but it is not on the Third Reading.

There are now only seven hon. Members opposite present.

That is far too many for the quality of the speech.

The only thing that worries me in making any speech is that one day I might gain the approval of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), who has just, happily, left the Chamber, in which case I should have to reconsider my attitude to the point that I had made.

I think that the House is well advised on the merits of this Bill. I feel sure that in future hon. Members will not be faced with the same difficulties as they have met in the past. This Bill compels those who desire to build houses to make the necessary provision for the streets as well. We are all aware of the difficulties which follow when that is not done. In many cases, a person buys a house and he is not aware of the charges which naturally fall for the making up of the street. His whole economic budget is unbalanced when he discovers that he is responsible for a much greater liability than he at first expected.