HC Deb 06 June 1932 vol 266 cc1662-71
Mr. E. BROWN

I beg to move, in page 44, line 21, at the end, to insert the words: (3) The Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, appoint a person to act as an inspector for the purpose of conducting a local inquiry to be held in pursuance of this Act and may confer on the person so appointed any of the powers conferred on an inspector of the Ministry of Health for the purposes of inquiries held under the Public Health Act, 1875. This Amendment carries out a pledge which was given to the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) on the Committee stage. It enables the Minister to appoint a person, other than an officer of the Department, to hold a local inquiry and to arm him with the powers of an inspector; for example, the power of summoning witnesses and calling for documents.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain WATERHOUSE

I beg to move, in page 44, line 21, at the end, to insert the words: (3) The report of the person holding the inquiry shall be made available to the parties concerned and to the newspaper Press, and in important cases shall be officially published by the Minister. The object of this Amendment is quite clear. It is necessary that the reports of the inspectors whom the Minister sends down to inquire into schemes shall be available to any interested person. When we discussed an Amendment not dissimilar to this upstairs, we had not the advantage of having before us the report of the excellent Committee on the Minister's powers presided over by Lord Donoughmore. Having carefully perused that report, the Minister may have modified the views which he expressed upstairs, because in several material particulars they were diametrically opposed to those of the Committee. The Committee took evidence on both sides, and said that those who appeared before them might well be in doubt as to whether a true picture of the representations made at local inquiries ever got to the Minister at all. I know that to be the case from my own experience. It often happens that an inspector is obviously sympathetic to some particular line which is put to him, and those who hold that line think that they have his ear, and, thinking that they have convinced him, take it almost for granted that their case will carry conviction with the Minister. They often have a nasty shock when they find that the case has gone dead against them, and they feel that possibly there were other arguments which they might have adduced but which they did not.

It seems to be contrary to the whole spirit of British justice that an inspector, who is in a way in a semi-judicial position—the Minister is the judge, but the inspector is the assessor on whose opinion the Minister frames his judgment—should be able to make a purely confidential report to the Minister. In Committee the Minister laid great stress on the importance of getting confidential reports of this sort. It is therefore rather striking to find that Lord Donoughmore's Committee said: In our opinion, this should never be done in the case of an inquiry preliminary to a judicial decision. I submit that in many cases the decision that the Minister has to take is to all intents and purposes a judicial one, for example, when he is deciding, under Clause 19, what particular provisions he will exclude from compensation. The Donoughmore Committee came to the definite conclusion that, on balance, publication was right. I hope, too, that the Minister, having had time for reflection, has come to a similar decision. He said earlier in these discussions that town planning must be worked by co-operation. We entirely agree with him. By far the best way to get co-operation is to avoid all possibility of mistrust and to take away all chance of it being thought that hole-and-corner work is taking place in preparation of a scheme. The best way to do that is to have everything clear and above board. The inquiry is in public, the representations and the evidence are made in public, and it is only right and fair that the facts which are to be placed before the Minister should also be available to the public. If they are not, no body of people and no person who go before the inspector with a case are at all sure that their case has been adequately placed before the Minister.

Mr. MOREING

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG

This Amendment recalls an interesting and full discussion which we had on this question in Committee, the result of which was that a similar Amendment was withdrawn by its Mover. In reply to the appeal made by my hon. and gallant Friend, I am afraid that I can only say that, on further reflection, I feel that the views and arguments which I then expressed are justified. In fact, I have confirmed them. What exactly is the nature of the case here? The inspector goes down and holds an inquiry into the rights and interests involved, and into the question whether there shall be a town planning scheme or not. Then he reports to the Minister. This is not, except by a curious extension of the meaning of the word, a judicial inquiry. It is an administrative inquiry to be decided according to administrative policy. Who is in our constitutional and administrative practice the person to whom we entrust that administrative policy? It is the Minister, with the assistance of the civil servants in his Ministry who perform the skilled and expert service on these matters of administrative policy. In the first place, therefore, the decision is administrative and not judicial, and that takes it out of the recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee.

In the second place, the person responsible is not the inspector, but the Minister. The Minister has to discharge these functions; he is responsible to the locality for seeing that the functions are properly discharged and that right decisions are taken; and the Minister is responsible to this House for the discharge of his functions under the Bill. This House should think once and twice again before it does anything which would have the effect of weakening the authority of the Minister to discharge his functions under responsibility to this House. That is surely the foundation stone of the Constitution. As a matter of practical common sense, do we not know that if we deprive the Minister of his power to get a confidential report from the inspector who is holding the inquiry, we really deprive him of a large part of his responsibility and authority? If we insist upon the publication of the report—there may be conditions where the matter is not appropriate for publication—do we not know, in the world of commonsense, that we make it extremely difficult for the Minister to do anything but what the inspector tells him? The Minister ought not to be tied down to do what his inspector tells him to do. He ought to discharge his functions and responsibilities himself.

There is an idea that the Minister in fact does nothing about these things. That is untrue. In these matters affecting the intimate interests of persons and of communities, it is an established practice, which has certainly continued during my short time, that the Minister shall give his own close personal attention to them and come to his own decisions upon them. It will be a long step in the wrong direction to do anything which will have the effect of substituting an inspector for the Minister, with his personal responsibility to this House, on matters which are not judicial but are administrative. I appreciate the argument that on judicial matters where a judicial decision is to be taken, the decision must be made by the man who sits in the court and hears the evidence, and there are many matters in the extremely interesting and valuable report of the Donoughmore Committee which require consideration and decision, but they require consideration and decision in a wider scene and in other aspects than on the very small front of a Town Planning Bill. For these reasons, here as in Committee, I shall find myself unable to accept the Amendment.

Sir H. CAUTLEY

I hesitate to charge the Minister with inconsistency, and therefore I do not do so. I will point out, however, that only to-day we have done something which seems to be inconsistent with what he has said. Under Clause 33 (1) the Minister can hold a local inquiry, and if satisfied that a scheme ought to be prepared by any authority, can give orders to the authority to make a scheme. Further, in Subsection (3), if the Minister is satisfied, after holding a local inquiry, that any authority has failed to adopt a scheme proposed by owners of land in a case where a scheme ought to be adopted, he may order the authority to adopt the scheme proposed. Again, in Sub-section (4), if the Minister is satisfied, after holding a local inquiry, that a responsible authority has failed to enforce effectively the observance of a scheme which has come into operation or has failed to do a number of other things, the Minister may by order require the authority to do those things. The decision in these cases are not judicial, and yet the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Minister proposed an Amendment to that Clause laying down that The Minister shall furnish a copy of the report made to him by the person who holds a local inquiry directed by this section to every authority concerned and, on payment of such fee as may be fixed by the Minister, to any person interested. 7.0 p.m.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he reconciles what he has said with what the Parliamentary Secretary said when proposing this Amendment. If a report is to be furnished in those three or four cases that I have quoted, which concern some of the most important duties that the Minister has to perform under the Bill, why should not a report of other inquiries that have to be made be published? For the sake of uniformity, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be better to accept the Amendment. Why should the report of an inspector be kept secret and locked up in the Minister's breast, and those reports which are given in far more important cases be supplied to any person interested? I entirely agree with the Mover of the Amendment about the report on the powers of Ministers. There is a feeling throughout that report that it is wrong that important decisions affecting the property and possessions of a subject should be taken privately, either by Ministers or their subordinates, that such concealment is not good government, and that publicity and information ought to be given wherever possible. In the spirit of its recommendations I again urge that we should have uniformity in this Bill and that these reports should be made available to those concerned.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE

The Minister made the same defence today as he did in Committee, and I am as little satisfied with it now as I was then. These are Star Chamber methods by which the person concerned does not see what has happened. Although the Minister may direct the person concerned to pay all or a proportion of the costs, he cannot see the report. That is not my idea of justice. The Minister referred to the fact that the Amendment was withdrawn in the Committee stage, but that was due to the assurance which the Minister gave that on Report he would move the Amendment which he has moved on Clause 33. That does not go far enough, and we would like to see this Amendment carried.

Sir H. YOUNG

Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that the Amendment to Clause 33 does not carry out my undertaking?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE

No, but it does not go far enough, and therefore I urge that this Amendment should be carried.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT

The Minister resisted this Amendment largely on the ground that it would be unwise to interfere with the Minister's private information and decision on administrative matters. It is true that in the past that information has not been published, but one reason is that the administrative matters over which he has had jurisdiction have been considerably less important than those dealt with by this Bill. Very grave matters can be dealt with under this Measure. The working of a new discovery of a mineral may be entirely prohibited under some Clauses of this Bill and the decision would rest with the Minister. It is becoming increasingly difficult, even when Minister's decisions are unjust—and they are unjust sometimes, no matter what Government is in power—to bring proper attention to bear on the injustices done.

Members of this House do not want to waste their time on considering whether a village should be in one county or another, but when it comes to important matters of the development of large areas of property and of the question where the main seats of industry should be, it is essential that not only should there be an opportunity of questioning the Minister's decision but that the House and public should know on what grounds the decision was taken. If the House is to give wider powers over the life and industry of the country into the hands of local authorities and of individual Ministers, thus making a wide departure from anything done before, then this is a good occasion to lay down the rule that decisions on broad matters of policy should be taken on information which is made public. The country can then know on what principles these decisions are made and whether it is getting the justice and the equity it has a right to demand.

Mr. GREENWOOD

It pains me to find myself sharing in any degree the views of hon. Members who have spoken on this Amendment. It is the first and probably the last time that we shall share views in common. I do not agree with the wording of the Amendment, but there is another place where it can be improved. Nor do I regard the report of the Donoughmore Commission as having all the authority of Holy Writ, but I feel somewhat impressed by the arguments hon. Members have used on this Amendment and very little impressed by the arguments of they Minister himself. This desire for secrecy is one which has never been carried out in the case of far more important inquiries which affect a wider range of industries. The logic of the Minister's decision is that, if he sets up a committee of inquiry, he should proceed with his decision and never inform the House of the committee's report. If that principle had been carried out, there would have been no Donoughmore Report on which he could base his case and the House would have lost this wealth of argument. It is true that the Minister must be held responsible for these decisions, but is there any reason why a decision should not be made and the public be fully aware of the facts on which it has been made? Is it not a fact that in the case of the newest experiment, the Tariff Advisory Committee, the reports have to be published? But does that mean that the President of the Board of Trade can shelter behind the

backs of the Committee? He has to take final responsibility. I hope that the House will show greater courage on this matter than on some of the earlier Amendments, and we shall be glad to support them in the Lobby.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

I should not have intervened but for the fact that the last speech has greatly pained me. The right hon. Gentleman has deserted those principles of secrecy which were the guiding light of his life not long ago. This discussion began with a desire for reports to the people concerned, but it has grown until I see a desire for a universal report to practically every elector in Great Britain. There should be some balance on this question. I do not think the Minister would wish to hide anything detrimental to the people concerned. This Minister would not, but others might. We have to legislate in this matter and we have to rely upon what future Ministers may do to carry out the work of their Department. For that reason, after the very vicious character of some of the speeches, the House will be well advised, after having a very interesting and instructing Debate on this occasion, to follow the advice of the Minister rather than the red herrings which have been drawn across the Debate.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 240.

Division No. 212.] AYES. [712 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Price, Gabriel
Attlee, Clement Richard Groves, Thomas E. Rathbone, Eleanor
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks, Aylesbury) Grundy, Thomas W. Remer, John R.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Bracken, Brendan Hartington, Marquess of Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Buchanan, George Hicks, Ernest George Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Hirst, George Henry Thorne, William James
Chalmers, John Rutherford John, William Tinker, John Joseph
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Cove, William G. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Craven-Ellis, William Leonard, William Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Cripps, Sir Stafford Logan, David Gilbert Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)
Daggar, George Lunn, William Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Withers, Sir John James
Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Edwards, Charles Maxton, James TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Milner, Major James Lieut.-Colonel Aciand-Troyte and
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) Mr. Moreing.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Parkinson, John Allen
NOES.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Allen, Rt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Atkinson, Cyril
Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Albery, Irving James Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.) Aske, Sir Robert William Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Balniel, Lord Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Patrick, Colin M.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Gunston, Captain D. W. Peake, Captain Osbert
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Hales, Harold K. Pearson, William G.
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Penny, Sir George
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. Hanbury, Cecil Petherick, M
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) Hanley, Dennis A. Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n. Bilston)
Bossom, A. C. Hartland, George A. Pike, Cecil F.
Boulton, W. W. Hasiam, sir John (Bolton) Potter, John
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Heligers, Captain F. F. A. Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsf'd) Power, Sir John Cecil
Broadbent, Colonel John Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Procter, Major Henry Adam
Brockiebank, C. E. R. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Pybus, Percy John
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th"d., Hexham) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J, G. Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Holdsworth, Herbert Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) Ramsbotham, Herwaid
Burnett, John George Hornby, Frank Ramsden, E.
Caine, G. R. Hall- Horsbrugh, Florence Ray, Sir William
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Howard, Tom Forrest Rea, Walter Russell
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley) Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Carver, Major William H. Hume, Sir George Hopwood Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Cassets, James Dale Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Rentoul Sir Gervais S.
Castle Stewart, Earl Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Rosbotham, S. T.
Cazalet, Tholma (Islington, E.) Janner, Barnett Ross, Ronald D.
Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.SirJ.A.(Birm., W) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Ker, J. Campbell Runge, Norah Cecil
Chotzner, Alfred James Kerr, Hamilton W. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Kirkpatrick, William M. Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Clarke, Frank Knox, Sir Alfred Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Clarry, Reginald George Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Clayton, Dr. George C. - Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Savery, Samuel Servington
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Leech, Dr. J. W. Selley, Harry R.
Colville, John Leighton, Major B. E. P. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Cook, Thomas A. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Cooke, Douglas Levy, Thomas Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Cranborne, Viscount Lewis, Oswald Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe- Skelton, Archibald Noel
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Lloyd, Geoffrey Slater, John
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Loder, Captain J. de Vere Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Crossley, A. C. Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Somerveil, Donald Bradley
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom Mabane, William Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. McKie, John Hamilton Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) McLean, Major Alan Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Dawson, Sir Philip Maclean, Rt. Hn. sir D. (Corn'll, N.) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Denman, Hon. R. D. McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Dickie, John P. Magnay, Thomas Stevenson, James
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert Maitland, Adam Stones, James
Donner, P. W. Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Storey, Samuel
Doran, Edward Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. Strauss, Edward A.
Drewe, Cedric Martin, Thomas B. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Duckworth, George A. V. Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Dunglass, Lord Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Sutcliffe, Haroid
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Elmley, Viscount Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Thorp, Linton Theodore
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Milne, Charles Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw- Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Turton, Robert Hugh
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Everard, W. Lindsay Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Morgan, Robert H. Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wailsend)
Fox, Sir Gifford Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan) Wells, Sydney Richard
Fraser, Captain Ian Morrison, William Shepherd White, Henry Graham
Fremantle, Sir Francis Muirhead, Major A. J. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Fuller, Captain A. G. Munro, Patrick Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Wills, Wilfrid D.
Ganzoni, Sir John Newton, Sir Douglas George C. Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Glossop, C. W. H. North, Captain Edward T. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Nunn, William Womersley, Walter James
Goff, Sir Park O'Connor, Terence James Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W.) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Captain Austin Hudson and Commander Southby.
Grimston, R. V. Palmer, Francis Noel