HC Deb 04 October 1944 vol 403 cc1083-90
Mr. Tinker

On a point of Order. Could I ask how far the Government intend to go to-night?

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I would like to get this Clause, if possible—no more.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 18, line 7, to leave out paragraph (b).

It will be seen that, under this Clause, power is given to purchase commons, open spaces, and fuel or field allotments. But that power is provisional, and the Minister has to be satisfied, under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1), that other land has been, or will be, given in exchange for such land. The people who are deprived of their allotments will get other land in exchange. No one will quarrel with that. But, under paragraph (b), the Minister has power to deprive these allotment holders of the right to get any other land in exchange, for there it is said: that the giving in exchange of other land is unnecessary whether in the interests of the persons, if any, entitled to rights of common or other rights or in the interests of the public, and certifies accordingly. In some parts of the country these small allotments and these rights of common are very highly valued indeed; and it seems to me quite wrong that it should be left to the arbitrary decision of the Minister whether these people should be deprived of their rights without getting equivalent rights in return. One does not know what test the Minister will apply in deciding whether it is necessary or not to give other land in exchange. I think that this Bill would be much better if that paragraph were left out; and in cases Where commons, open spaces and fuel or field allotments are taken there should be a right to get alternative land in place of the land of which the person is deprived.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Erskine-Hill (Edinburgh, North)

I desire to support in every way this Amendment, which I think is most excellent and will greatly improve the Bill. It is not only that the rights of people who have allotments are important things to protect. It is also because they belong to a class of people who are humble and who find it difficult to draw their case to the attention of the Minister. It is important for this Committee, in view of these considerations, to support this Amendment.

Earl Winterton

I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions. There is a very important organisation in this country, containing hundreds of thousands of members, called, I think, the National Allotment Holders' Association. I would like to ask whether he has consulted them. They represent, as my hon. and learned Friend has mentioned, in the main very humble people, allotment holders cultivating a few acres of land. I think they would be described as a democratic organisation composed of wage-earners. Have the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society been consulted, and have other organisations interested in the preservation of rural land and rural amenities been consulted?

I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact, which I think has a bearing on this Sub-section of the Clause, that there have been some very bad cases in the past of urban authorities taking away from allotment holders the right to cultivate allotments. Being the owners of the land, they have, in some cases, acted in a most arbitrary manner, causing in some localities a great deal of ill- feeling. There have been extremely bad cases of local authorities taking away common rights, and turning them into recreation grounds, and prohibiting people who had sheep, goats or cows pastured on the common, from continuing to do so. This is a matter which has created in the past more bitter local feeling than all the bigger questions there are, and I ask whether the Minister did consult these various authorities before he put this proposal in the Bill, because, if not, I think there will be very considerable opposition.

It is interesting to note, as I have said once before, how urbanised we are becoming here. I am convinced that if a former House of Commons had been asked to give power to abolish any such rights, there would have been the most tremendous political controversy and by-elections would have been fought upon it. But this Clause is considered at a late hour, when we are about to adjourn, and, had it not been for the Amendment, it might have escaped attention altogether. I suggest that it is a very important matter indeed.

Mr. Silkin

From the speeches we have heard, one might assume that the purpose of this Clause was to take away open spaces and common land from the public. In fact, the purpose of the Clause is quite the reverse. In the normal way it would have been the duty of the authority to provide an equal amount of space to that which is taken away, but there are, conceivably, places where that is not necessary. I can imagine a case straight away where it might not be necessary to substitute another equal amount as an open space. In such a case the Minister may certify accordingly, but, before this becomes operative, anyone who has any objections whatever, and any person interested, including all the organisations referred to by the Noble Lord, can make representations and the Minister is bound to consider them. If necessary—and I am sure it would be necessary in the case of any of the organisations referred to—there would have to be a public inquiry. I cannot imagine for one moment that, after the public inquiry, the Minister would get away with filching land from allotments. The whole thing would be publicly ventilated. I feel that this amount of latitude, with the safeguards in the Clause, ought to be permitted.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

Does my hon. Friend know of any case where a public inquiry has resulted in the order which it was proposed to make not being made?

Mr. Silkin

Yes, I do, and if my hon. Friend will ask me again in 24 hours' time, I will give him the details. It is true there are relatively few, but the fact remains, and I cannot imagine that the vigilance of this Committee and of the whole country on a matter of this sort would allow it to be possible for the Minister to act arbitrarily, or take away an open space without giving a proper substitute. I think that some method, in extreme cases, ought to be found.

Mr. H. Strauss

I should like to assure the Committee, as one who cares a great deal about open spaces, that the vigilance of every section of the Committee in defence of this cause is something which we should welcome, and we do. I can reassure hon. Gentlemen on the point they raised, that this was in effect some novelty that could not be done under existing legislation. That is not so. There is a precisely similar provision, and there has been since 1932, which is contained in paragraph 4 (1, b) of Part 11 of the Third Schedule of the 1932 Statute. The purpose in this provision is really that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). It is to avoid the prevention of something that would not injure anybody. It is a de minimis provision. If I may give an example, it may arise in town areas where an improvement has been very necessary which involves a very slight encroachment on a common or an open space, perhaps the very smallest road widening or improvement or something of that kind, and it is very convenient that that should be dealt with on the lines the hon. Member for Peckham has just suggested. If the Minister certified an improper case or disregarded legitimate objections the vigilance of this House would soon call that Minister to task. There is nothing sinister whatever intended under the Clause. There has been a precisely similar provision, which has not been abused, in the law since 1932, and I think the safeguard is sufficient. I ought to add one word about allotments. The allotments in this Clause are not allotments quite in the sense that we generally speak of allotments. They are defined at the end of the Clause with which we are dealing. I hope that with the explanation I have given my hon. Friends may think fit to withdraw their Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe (Brighton)

The answer which the Parliamentary Secretary has given makes it even more disturbing because he suggests that the only remedy open to allotment holders is representation in this House. He knows, as well as I do, that the unfortunate small man holding an allotment is not going to get much chance to put his case forward in this House. I particularly wish to support the Amendment. Although this is not the time to go into the question of common rights, I am particularly interested in the question of allotment holders. In time of war we call upon them and seek their support and ask them to do everything they can to help the war, and when it comes to post-war legislation it looks as if we are throwing them over and purporting by this Sub-section to take away the right to work their allotments in their own way. I hope that the provision will not stand in the Bill and that the rights of allotment holders will be protected.

Captain Duncan

I should have thought that this Sub-section was unnecessary for the working of the Bill and I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would reconsider the matter. The procedure for dealing with open spaces and garden allotments is similar under the main part of the Clause and it seems unnecessary to have paragraph (b). When there is an infringement of an open space or a common, let there be a Provisional Order and let it come before Parliament in every case so that Parliament will know, and if there are no objections it will go through without any trouble. Time after time we are seeing in this Bill the rights of the individual citizen and small man, lost in the interests of ease of administration, and that is a thing which I want to avoid as much as I can because it is up to the administration to improve itself and not filch away the rights of the small man.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I have listened with the greatest possible attention to everything that the Parliamentary Secretary has said. It seemed to me that his arguments were not very strong. The first argument seemed to be that because this power had been slipped in in another Bill which had been passed through without any argument we should repeat the process this time and let it pass at this late hour of the night without pursuing the matter any further. I am not in the least convinced that this Sub-section is necessary. I think that when it comes to depriving any individual of his rights in regard to common or allotment then it ought to be by Provisional Order or, if the Minister can so deprive them, that he gives them other rights in exchange. I have listened with great attention to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said and I cannot accept his invitation to withdraw.

Mr. Douglas

I should very much like to congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Noble Lord upon their zeal in favour of the owners of common rights in land. There are not a great many of them left nowadays, unfortunately, and it is of course under provisions of this kind that millions and millions of acres were enclosed without any compensation whatever to those who had enjoyed the use of them and who were deprived of their livelihood. It is delightful to see, even at this last minute of this last hour, this sincere repentance.

7.45 P.m.

Earl Winterton

I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who is a most eloquent speaker and most popular in the House, on his heavy sarcasm, but I wish to address a word to the Minister of a more serious nature than that of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken.

Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs)

What the hon. Member said was true.

Earl Winterton

I can tell the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) that I am quite as capable of being rude as he is. I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to put his supporters in a very difficult position. We feel very strongly on this matter, and he has not answered the question I put to him. It was a perfectly proper and simple one: whether he had consulted the National Association of Allotment Holders. They have been in communication with hon. Members of this House on a great many aspects of land legislation at the present time, and he should have consulted them. He has not really answered the point that this Sub-section appears to be quite un- necessary. I would make a suggestion to him to consider the matter before Report, to have, if necessary, discussion with the National Association of Allotment Holders and the other bodies affected, and if, as a result of that discussion and further consideration, he is prepared to withdraw the Sub-section, he can do it on Report.

Mr. Erskine-Hill

I want to add my appeal as well to the Minister to regard this matter seriously. There is a large body of this Committee who feel strongly. It is not going to make any substantial difference to the Bill if he gives way, and I should like him to show willingness on the part of the Government to meet those of us who feel very strongly on this matter.

Mr. H. Strauss

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) I am sure unintentionally, rather misrepresented what I said. I certainly did not say that an unfortunate allotment holder would have no chance whatever except in this House. If he looks at Sub-section (2) very specific rights are given there to make objection.

What I did say was that if the Minister did ride rough-shod over such people the House would correct him. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend did not wish to misrepresent me. I appreciate the Noble Lord's zeal, and I will look into the matter to see how it can be improved from the point of view which he put forward. I think some such words as these in the Sub-section are wanted. Let the Noble Lord consider this: Suppose you are taking a yard or so of a road which goes across a common. Supposing you deny this right, would one yard, given somewhere else, be of the slightest use to the public? The idea behind this Subsection is to prevent the machinery being held up where there is no reason for it to be held up. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) talked about something having slipped into the 1932 Act. I do not know what he means. One might ask him whether he can give any example, from the period which has elapsed since then, where the particular power of which he is now complaining has ever been abused or has brought about any consequence to which he objects. However, I am most willing to give the Noble Lord a promise to look into the matter again and see if there is anything too wide in the Clause as drafted, but I have given reasons why I think something on the lines of the Sub-section is needed.

Mr. Manning;ham-Buller

In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has now said, and believing that he will find some form of words which will give the Ministry slight and limited power to take a few yards away from the corner of a common, and no more, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman

Does the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill) wish to move his Amendment to this Clause?

Mr. Erskine-Hill

No.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move,

"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I would like to express my thanks, and those of my colleagues on the Treasury Bench, for the progress which has been made by the Committee to-day in dealing with this most difficult Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.