HC Deb 04 October 1944 vol 403 cc1053-4

Amendment made: In page 9, line 43, leave out "replacements," and insert: re-location of population or industry or for replacement of open space."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.] Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Earl Winterton

Is the Minister quite satisfied, under the Clause as it stands—it is purely permissive—that if a local planning authority refuses to pay towards expenses incurred by the local highway authority—and there is no appeal to the Minister at all—that that will be a satisfactory situation? Might not a position arise in which there would be a dispute between the planning authority and the highway authority, the planning authority saying: "This is not a very good scheme, and we are not intending to co-operate in it at all"?

Mr. Morrison

I hardly think that the kind of internecine strife mentioned by the Noble Lord is likely to occur; but I will certainly look into the point, and if there is anything in it I will suggest means of avoiding it. The reason why the provision is permissive instead of mandatory is that it has been common form for a long time. Its effect is that if a local authority make a contribution, the local authority cannot be surcharged by the district auditor because they have the permission of the Statute to do so.

Earl Winterton

I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend, but I do not think I could agree that there is no likelihood of internecine strife. I have known of fights between an education committee and a local authority. I think the point needs looking into, because these works are going to be carried out on a very large scale.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.