HC Deb 26 May 1936 vol 312 cc1979-81

10.54 p.m.

Colonel Sir JOHN SHUTE

I beg to move, in page 6, line 30, to leave out "as they may deem sufficient," and insert: as the authority may in the circumstances of the case under consideration deem sufficient for the purposes of negotiation. The Amendments standing in, my name both deal with matters which may arise as a consequence of the housing progress in our cities, in connection with slum clearance and town-planning. We visualise that, owing to the matters to which I have referred causing, as they do in one's own city, a complete state of flux, the authorities might not be able to submit to the authority a close, detailed scheme. In the second instance to which I refer in the second Amendment, which I propose to move later, an even more serious position might arise. The authorities, having received a completed scheme and having accepted it, might, when the moment came for its fulfilment, by a last-minute alteration on account of some housing scheme, find it impossible to carry it to fruition.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN

I beg to second the Amendment.

In view of the town-planning in the City of Liverpool, where satellite towns are coming into existence, and the change which is likely to take place with regard to schools, it is most essential that these Amendments should be accepted. Hon. Members who come from large towns—and we all have our housing problems—will realise that these are valuable suggestions, and the object is to do everything possible under the Bill to avoid delay.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY

I understand that for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, you are allowing us to discuss both the Amendments on the first Amendment. The Amendment which has actually been moved is merely drafting in character. It has never been intended that the proposal, the acceptance of which brings the Church schools under the provisions of the second part of the Bill, should be complete in every detail. It must be a proposal sufficient for a local authority to know the part which the Church is prepared to play in the particular scheme of re-organisation. If this new wording makes the position clearer and removes any fear that the proposal must be one for a school down to the last brick and the last bit of mortar. I am prepared to accept it.

The other Amendment is not drafting. It is a new point which I do not believe is likely to arise, but which, I confess, if it does arise, will constitute a hardship, and is not met under the Bill as it stands at the moment. The Church has to submit to the local authorities a proposal which the local authorities must accept before a certain date. The proposal will be based upon the particular town-planning scheme which the authority has adopted at the moment. You might have a situation where a proposal has been put forward which has been accepted by the local authority as being in accordance with the town-planning scheme, and then, after the last date by which these proposals can be put forward and accepted, the town-planning scheme is altered. The proposal for the school, therefore, has to be altered, the time has run out, and the new proposals have not been accepted. That is a position in which the Church would be penalised through no fault of their own, but through an alteration in a town plan, and I am certain that everybody will agree to the acceptance of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 34, at the end, insert: Provided that if the Board of Education are satisfied that any proposals entertained by a local education authority (whether or not an agreement. has been entered into in respect of them) have become impracticable or undesirable owing to any decision made or action taken before the appointed day by any planning or housing authority the board may, notwithstanding anything in this Sub-section, allow new proposals to be entertained."—[Sir J. Shute.]