HC Deb 08 July 1946 vol 425 cc172-9
Mr. Turton

I beg to move, in page 20, line 43, at the end, to insert: A copy of the notice required to be given in relation to any such order by the Minister under paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, shall be served upon the owner and occupier (except tenants of a month or a less period than a month) of any land to which the order relates, and the provisions of paragraphs 2 to 4 of that Schedule shall have effect accordingly. I submit that unless these words are inserted considerable injustice will occur. The present position is this. The Minister may make an Order defining an area in which he is going to order the demolition of people's homes, the cutting down of trees or woods, the extinction of private rights of way or the stopping of any electrical installations or any new rural water supply, or indeed any telephone wires. At that period all he does is to publish it in the "London Gazette." I do not know if hon. Members have the same experiences in their constituencies as I do, but I do not often find the "London Gazette" on the tables of my constituents for Sunday reading. In addition, there has to be publication in any one other local newspaper which the Minister chooses. Again I really do not trust the Minister of Civil Aviation to know what is the light literature that my constituents find most popular. Therefore it may well be that many of our constituents will not know when he makes an Order defining a particular area as one where he is going to demolish their homes. It does happen; it is what he is doing in my constituency near York. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want me to talk about that now.

At that stage, therefore, only those who have read the Order in the "London Gazette" or in a local newspaper can object. When they object they have the great advantage of a local inquiry at which objections will be properly heard, and in due course they can carry their objections to Parliament in the proper democratic manner. When the later stage comes, and when he is issuing a direction under that general Order saying that a particular home is to come down, it is quite true that then the Government have provided that there shall be due notice of that direction served upon the owner and the occupier of the house. When the owner and the occupier of the house learn that their house is coming down under the Minister's Order, then they have their right under the Fourth Schedule, which is a right to compensation. The point I want to weigh with the House is this, and I hope hon. Members will consider it. I do not think it enough that the only right you have when you know your house is coming down, is one of compensation. I think that any owner or occupier who is to lose his house should have the right, at an early stage, to put his case before a local inquiry or, if necessary, before Parliament. Therefore, I submit to the House—which has always had great regard in these matters to the right of any owner or occupier shall I say, in the Yorkshire phrase, having "a fair crack of the whip"—that a notice shall be served in the first instance upon the owner or occupier whereby he has the right to learn about this and of appealing to a local inquiry and thence to Parliament.

I think this Government are rather too apt to believe that injuries and insults and deprivations can be made to individuals and all be compensated by some sum in hard cash. It is not true to say that any sum of money can today compensate you for your home being pulled down, or for the natural beauties of the countryside being destroyed or for interference with rural amenities. For those reasons I ask the House and, indeed, the Government, to consider what I believe to be a reasonable Amendment. I may add that the Attorney-General, when I moved a similar Amendment in Committee, said he had great sympathy with out words, but felt it difficult for him to amend an Act that his Government had passed in their first flight in the autumn, when they rushed legislation without always considering whether it was truly wise or unwise. They passed this Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he could not possibly accept any sort of amendment of that Measure because it would make matters rather difficult. I do not think that Act was meant to envisage the possibility of Orders that would take people's homes away from them. It rather envisaged some hope that a Socialist Government would build homes, not destroy them, and perhaps instal rural amenities, and not take them away, as these Orders will do. I hope these are powers that neither this Government nor any other Government will take. I admit there may be cases, like Heathrow, where great injury and damage will be caused both to the rights of individuals and to the beauties of the countryside, but I think there ought to be a special procedure under which owners and occupiers would be served with notice, notwithstanding anything in the Act which the Socialist Government passed last autumn. For these reasons I hope the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I beg to second the Amendment.

10.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) always puts his arguments so fairly and reasonably that it is difficult not to feel great sympathy with them. But we have considered this matter again and we are forced to the conclusion that it really is undesirable and impracticable, in these particular circumstances, to depart from the procedure which was recently laid down by this House in regard to all matters which are made the subject of special Parliamentary procedure.

Hon. Members will recall that very recently we passed the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, which, as the hon. Member has correctly said, laid down a uniform code of procedure on all matters that were provided for within the scope of that Act. It provided that before any Order was made or confirmed, it ought to be advertised not only in the "London Gazette" but in a newspaper which circulated in the locality affected. It would be, as I say, both undesirable and impracticable to start making departures from that general code in the case of Orders made by virtue of Clause 29 of this Bill. Nor is there, we think, the slightest danger that these Orders will be made in such a way that the persons likely to be affected by them will be in ignorance of them. Let us consider what happens. First, there is a notice in the "London Gazette." That may pass unnoticed by the occupiers of the land concerned if it stands alone. But of course it does not stand alone. In addition, there is the notice in the local newspaper, and do hon. Members think that, if an Order of this kind is made under Clause 29, and advertised in the local newspapers, indicating the possibility of certain houses being demolished, that it will not be taken up. It will be taken up immediately, just as the bread ration was taken up. You will get the Tory newspapers saying, "this is an attack on the people's homes." The Primrose League, disguised as a Housewives Association, will say, "Look what this Socialist Government is doing: look at these restrictions. Let us have a public inquiry; let us put every possible obstacle in their way, even though we know the inevitable result of any such inquiry will be to confirm what is done under the Act." We really are living in a world of make-believe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am glad that hon. Members agree with me. They do live in a world of make-believe if they think there is any risk of Orders like this being made, and not coming to their notice.

In any case, it would be impracticable to make this departure from the provisions of the 1945 Act. Let me give an example —an extreme example, but one has to test the practicability of amending the 1945 Act in this regard, by taking extreme, but by no means impossible, cases. Take the London Airport case. It is possible that Orders made there may affect, in some small degree, many thousands of cases. It would be intolerable if, because the Government had failed to discover some person who might have some remote interest in some small plot of land, insignificantly affected by an Order proposed to be made under Clause 29, and had failed to serve the proper notice in advance on such a person, the whole proceedings should run the risk of being invalidated. We ask the House to say that there is no serious risk here any more than in any other case—and they are numerous—which might fall to be dealt with under the 1945 Act, that persons affected will remain ignorant and that we ought to adhere to the code Parliament have laid down.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared at one stage to have a very good case to which I think both sides of the House were listening in sympathy. But then, towards the end—as he does so often—he spoiled it by a possibly quite unintended remark, but one on which we must ask for elucidation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does this so often. Rumour has it that he is going shortly to Nuremberg to make the winding-up speech at the trial there. Let us hope that he will not spoil all the good work done by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). [Interruption.] I would point out to hon. Members that the Rule has been suspended today, and that we are not responsible for the Government cluttering up their programme with legislation. We are ready to go on.

In talking of a public inquiry, the Attorney-General said that any public inquiry would "inevitably" end in the confirmation of the Order. The Government are making a series of promises to the inhabitants of Stevenage. Is it to lull people into a sense of security that they have said: "We will have a public inquiry before we do anything drastic about your town"? There are other cases. In any case, do we know that a public inquiry will "inevitably" result in a confirmation of the Order? If so, is that a practical working out in a libertarian country, of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's jeer, "We are the masters now"? This is most interesting, and I think his colleagues, who are equally bound by statements of the senior Law Officer of the Crown, will have something to say to him when the report is published. Not for the first time the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise he has embarrassed his colleagues.

The Attorney-General

As the hon. Member put a question to me, perhaps I might venture to correct the complete misrepresentation he has made both of my observation that "We are the masters now" and of this statement I made about this particular form of inquiry. What I said was that in regard to inquiries of this kind—and the hon. Member knows quite well this is what I said, but he is seeking to introduce one of those debating points which he makes with sun charm but little effect—that the Primrose League, disguising themselves as an association of housewives, would no doubt seek to engineer any obstruction they could. Even though they knew the inquiry was going to result in the Order being confirmed, they would still oppose it——

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green)

Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman read it in HANSARD.

The Attorney-General

Hon. Members will see that in HANSARD tomorrow, and I am quite content to leave it there, [Interruption.] I am not sure that I heard the observation which the hon. Member made. Perhaps it is better so because I think it was a most unfortunate one. I am quite content to rely upon HANSARD tomorrow.

Mr. Beverley Baxter

I did not intend to be discourteous to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

The Attorney-General

I was not referring to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter). I am sorry that I did not hear the gem which fell from his lips. I was referring to another hon. Gentle- man who is occupying a seat on the Opposition Front Brench. He said something which I am sure on reflection he would not wish to say. As I have already said, I am quite content to leave the matter as it is and await what may appear in HANSARD tomorrow. In case the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) should really have misunderstood what I said—and I confess to some doubt whether he did—I want to make it clear that I said nothing of the kind which he suggested.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)

I must rise for once in support of the Attorney-General. He has said one thing which I must support. He said that Mernhers of Parliament stood up for the rights of private citizens whether Tory or not, and as a Tory I thank him for that.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ivor Thomas

I beg to move, in page 20, line 43, at the end, to insert: (5) Before making any order under this section, the Minister shall consult every local authority within the area of which the whole or any part of the area to which the proposed order will relate is situated. Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of section two of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, the duty of the Minister to comply with the requirements of this subsection shall not excuse him from the duty of complying with the requirements of the First Schedule to that Act. These words are also designed to meet wishes expressed by hon. Members in the Standing Committee. They provide for consultation, before an Order is made, with the local authority for the area concerned. We also lay down in this Amendment that notwithstanding anything in Section 2 (1) of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, the duty of the Minister to comply with the requirements of consulting with the local authority does not excuse him from the duty of complying with the First Schedule of the Act.

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

Mr. Turton

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the second "area", to insert "of land."

This is purely a drafting Amendment. The Minister's Amendment is not altogether clear. It reads: Before making any order under this section the Minister shall consult every local authority within the area of which the whole or any part of the area… Not many hon. Members will appreciate that the first "area" refers to the local authority area and the second "area" refers to a specified area under the Bill. Therefore, I think that the Government should accept this drafting Amendment to make it clear that the second "area" refers to specified land.

Mr. Thomas

I should have thought that the word "area" simpliciter meant an area of land, not the area of a local authority, but for the sake of clarity the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.