§ Mr. McKinlayI beg to move, in page, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (3).
I do not want to press the Amendment, but I want an assurance from the Secretary of State that reasonable care will be taken in using the power given in this Sub-section. Let me give an illustration.
1316 The Clyde Valley has a regional planning authority set up voluntarily and in good faith. What is troubling the larger authorities is that the Secretary of State may take out of their hands any jurisdiction of planning in their areas. What disturbs the minds of the people in Glasgow is that there is nothing in the Clause to prevent the Secretary of State handing the power to the regional committee for planning the whole of the Glasgow area without regard to what the claims of the city may be. If an assurance is forthcoming we do not propose to press the Amendment.
Mr. JohnstonAs my hon. Friend knows, this is a subject on which there is some difference of opinion among local authorities. I have in vain sought to get them to agree. I have had joint meetings with the county councils and the cities. The counties on the one hand want the Bill as it stands, and the cities on the other hand would prefer that these powers should not be explicitly stated or at least should not be given the opportunity of being arbitrarily used. At the, last meeting I had with these joint bodies, I gave them the most explicit assurance, which I now repeat, that in no circumstances will these powers ever be used unless it is with the concurrence of a majority of the local authorities concerned.
§ Mr. McKinlayI am afraid that for the purpose of constituting a majority Edinburgh would be one authority, and the contiguous authorities, possible responsible for a rateable value of one-tenth, would form other authorities. In the case of Glasgow that city would be regarded as one unit for constituting the minority, and the contiguous local authorities would be able to determine what the planning of Glasgow was to be. The right hon. Gentleman's assurance is somewhat illusive and unless we can get words inserted on the next stage, I am afraid we shall have to divide on it.
Mr. JohnstonI shall be delighted if my hon. Friend can assist me or the local authorities with words which would get over the bone of contention. The law as it now stands in the Act of 1932 gives power to the Secretary of State, as it does in the English Act, upon the application of one local authority to set up a joint committee. I am going beyond that and saying that in no circumstances will the power ever be used to set up a joint 1317 committee on the application of one authority but that it will require more than one authority. Indeed, I would ask for a majority of the local authorities concerned. I will be happy to consult with my hon. Friend between now and the next stage of the Measure to see whether there can be any form of words more satisfactory to all parties concerned.
§ Mr. Pethick-Lawrence (Edinburgh, East)My people in Edinburgh would prefer the deletion of this Sub-section, although they do not ask me to carry it to a,Division against the Government unless there is widespread support on all sides for the Amendment.
Mr. MacleanThe Secretary of State has referred to the possibility of an Amendment on the next stage. Is he not taking the Report stage to-day?
§ Lieut.-Commander Hutchison (Edinburgh, West)I welcome what the Secretary of State has said. The Edinburgh Corporation do not like the Clause as it stands, because they feel it undesirable in principle that the Secretary of State should of his own initiative take away the planning powers of a responsible local authority. I would urge that if possible some agreement be come to, although I recognise that the cities are out of step with the county councils in this matter.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clauses 10 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.