CLAUSE 32.—(Provisions as to displacements from land.) (Hansard, 8 July 1946)

Mr. Ivor Thomas
I beg to move, in page 22, line 42, after "displacement," to insert: being residential accommodation suitable to the reasonable requirements of those persons. This Amendment is intended to bring this Bill into line with the language of the New Towns Bill in which a similar Amendment was inserted as a result of wishes expressed by hon. Members. It prescribes the kind of alternative accommodation which it will be the duty of the Minister to provide for residents who are displaced by the acquisition of land for civil aviation purposes or, for 55 example, by directions for the demolition of buildings. I think this Amendment will commend itself to the Committee without further argument.

§ Mr. Turton
These words appear to be reasonable. I would add that I hope the Minister has looked at the New Towns Bill, to see that there will be no difficulty in the working of this provision.

Mr. McKie
Before we part with this Clause, I would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on getting the Committee to agree to this Amendment without a Division, and on introducing the Amendment largely in response to fears which were expressed in the Standing Committee by several of my hon. Friends and myself with regard to the lot of displaced persons under Clause 32. It is only fair to say that my hon. Friends and myself showed very much more regard for what would be the possible lot of these unhappy people who are to be displaced as a result of the construction of many large aerodromes all over the country, if their fate had been left entirely in the hands of the Government; by that, I mean if we had not expressed very reasonable fears and apprehensions as to what their position might have been had the Clause gone through as originally drafted.
I can only think that the concern which we expressed impressed itself on the Parliamentary Secretary, and particularly upon the learned Attorney-General. I remember saying myself if they did not show, either in Committee or when the Bill came back to the Floor of the House, that they had the concern of these people more at heart it might go very badly indeed with the chances of right hon. Gentlemen occupying the Treasury Bench, and all those supporters of the Government behind them, when another appeal to the country is made. I am bound to say, that I was a little depressed—perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary or the learned Attorney-General will say something about it this afternoon—when we were informed in Committee that it was not contemplated anything much would be done before the 56 year 1950 with regard to really getting this Bill going.

Mr. McKie
The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. Perhaps he will tell us a little about it in a minute or two. The view in the Committee was that the people who were likely to be displaced need not really worry, because by the time 1950 came no doubt the Minister of Health would have a few houses built, or in the course of erection, and there would be houses for these people. However, on reflection wiser counsels have prevailed, and this afternoon the Minister, by moving this Amendment, has very readily induced the Committee, especially hon. Members on this side, to do something which would further safeguard the interests of those persons—and there may be very many of them—who will be displaced from their houses as a result of the passage of this Bill and it becoming an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Thomas
The words which the hon. Gentleman has just quoted from me applied only to the London Airport; when I said there would be no substantial demolition of houses until 1950, that applied only to the extension of the London Airport and was not meant to have wider application. Indeed, we have been looking ahead, before this Bill receives the Royal Assent, in order that it may be carried out as swiftly as possible. I take this opportunity of saying that I cannot deny the hon. Gentleman any pleasure he may feel at improvements made in the Bill upstairs. I must also express my gratitude to other hon. Members, especially my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee who sit for constituencies in the neighbourhood of the London Airport, who have made certain representations. Their advice has been very helpful.

§ Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)
I wish I could share the comforting conclusions of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) regarding this Amendment.

Mr. McKie
I did not mean to be comforting at all.

§ Sir W. Darling
The Amendment says: being residential accommodation suitable to the requirements of those persons. That is a very vague and unsatisfactory arrangement. If I occupied a house 57 which I believed would be taken over by the Ministry it would give me little comfort to know that this was my provision for alternative residence. My reasons are fairly obvious. The building of a new house is a task which is straining to the uttermost the capacity of the Ministry responsible, and the provision of residential accommodation for a person such as myself would seem to be entirely beyond their capacity. Therefore, I find little comfort in the assurance which seemed to please one of the largest landowners in Scotland.

Mr. McKie
I am sure my hon. Friend does not wish to misrepresent me. I am no more satisfied than he is. However, I am a little more satisfied now by the inclusion of this modest Amendment in this Clause. I am very glad my hon. Friend is now expressing what I really do think.

§ Sir W. Darling
My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway has reached a pretty pass. He has reached the pass when he is thankful for small mercies. There was a time when he would take nothing less than his rights.

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)
This is not the occasion on which to estimate degrees of thankfulness.

§ Sir W. Darling
I am grateful to you, Mr. Beaumont, for keeping me in Order. Not only do I not regard this as the occasion, but I myself am no good at estimating those degrees. I will proceed to the more relevant matter of Clause 32. This raises the very large question of what land, generally, is to be used for air development in this country. It seems to me the question of priorities has not been fully considered. Though this may not be the most appropriate Clause on which to discuss it, it does seem to be involved here. Houses, whether they be the humble houses of the poor or the large residential houses of the great, are to be swept away in development. In their place we are assured that "the reasonable requirements of those persons" will be met. I direct the attention of the Minister to the vast spaces in this country which are unsuitable for agricultural purposes and unsuitable for residential purposes, but which might be made available for the purpose of civil aviation. Up till now, the idea of those in charge of civil aviation has been to take a populous area, 58 or alternatively valuable agricultural land, and devote it to their purposes. In this crowded little island there are many places which seem to me to be capable of similar adaptation. If those places were surveyed in any critical way it would be seen that places which were suitable for the use of aircraft during the war might be made equally suitable in time of peace. This reckless use of our national resources without regard to their ultimate value seems to be quite characteristic of the Ministry. It 13 a measure to which I, at any rate, cannoa give my approval. Consequently, I am opposed to Clause 32.

§ Mr. Turton
The Minister, in speaking on this Clause, said that with the exception of Heathrow not many houses would be displaced. I want to press him a little on that statement. He knows that in the Committee I mentioned the fact that in the area of Rawcliffe Aerodrome near York the only four houses built there since the war—all built by private enterprise—have now, we understand, been ordered to be pulled down. When I made that statement upstairs I was glad to see that two days later a representative of the Ministry of Civil Aviation made a statement that the houses were not going to be pulled down. However, my gratitude was very short-lived, for two days later came a counter-order from the Ministry of Civil Aviation saying there was no truth in that assertion. In this matter of people being displaced from their home. by civil aerodromes it is important that, first, the Minister should make up his mind early, and secondly, when he has made up his mind he should let the public know what his decision is. What happens is, a whole host of rumours surround all these proposed sites for airfields, which are alarming to the people trying to make their homes there—and homes are very hard to find at the present time—and it also has the effect of making planning in that area extremely difficult.
In regard to Rawcliffe Aerodrome, at one time we were told that the four houses then in the course of erection were to be pulled down; and we were also warned that 86 other houses, the homes of people in my constituency, were to be pulled down. That has never been contradicted. I have never attached any great significance to that second rumour, because I felt it was so hard on these people that no Minister would want to pull down 86 houses, at a time when so few houses are 59 being built. We now find in regard to the four houses which have just been built, into which the tenants are moving and settling down, the Minister of Civil Aviation tells us they are to be pulled down, and I presume my constituents will be displaced. Where on earth they are to get other homes, I do not know. I think we are entitled to ask the Minister to tell us a little more about what he is doing, and what he is threatening to do, so that these people can continue to live in their homes in peace until more houses can be built.

Mr. Ivor Thomas
I am sorry to learn from the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) that when we acquire land for civil aviation purposes, he does not want us to provide alternative accommodation for persons displaced from that land.

§ Sir W. Darling
If the Parliamentary Secretary understood me to say that, he misunderstood me. I was concerned that this was a not satisfactory guarantee that I would have alternative accommodation in return for that from which I was being displaced; the reason being that His Majesty's Government have been unable to supply ordinary accommodation for ordinary people wanting ordinary houses, and I was doubting the ability of the Government to supply larger residences.

Mr. Thomas
That is very different from what I understood the hon. Gentleman to say, which was that he was opposed to this Clause, as its object is, where we acquire land for civil aviation purposes, to permit us to provide—indeed, to impose upon us the duty of providing—alternative accommodation of a suitable type. I am glad we have cleared that up. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Mallon (Mr. Turton) has raised again the question of the Rawcliffe Aerodrome near York. I obviously cannot go into that, although the hon. Member has very skilfully brought it in by reference to the pulling down of houses. He knows, because he was present at a conference I held, that I gave an assurance that no more houses would be pulled down, except possibly two which had been built in one of the flight-ways of the aerodrome.

§ Mr. Turton
I heard there were four.

Mr. Thomas
As I understand it, there were two, but I gave that assurance, and 60 it was published in the Press, so I feel no difficulty in referring to it here. With regard to the general position, there has been no change; what has happened there is typical of what is happening in many parts of the country. We have a strong demand from a powerful section of public opinion, including the City Council of York, that this aerodrome should be taken over as a transport aerodrome. The acquisition is strongly opposed by people in the neighbourhood, quite understandably, and we have a very difficult choice to make between them. It is obviously the case that if the aerodrome is to be taken over for public purposes, we must safeguard the approaches, and for that reason the warning has been given. Until a decision can be reached which will be satisfactory to everybody concerned, or at least to as many people as possible, I trust there will be no further building in the flight ways, which have to be safeguarded. Actually there cannot be any more now because it has been forbidden. That is all there is to that story. Any delay is not due to any inability on the part of my noble Friend to make up his mind, but to the difficulty of reconciling local interests.

§ Mr. Harold Macmillan (Bromley)
The Parliamentary Secretary used a phrase just now which slightly surprised me. He said that a matter which he was referring to had already been published in the Press, and therefore he found no difficulty in mentioning it to the House of Commons. If I may venture to say so, I should have thought that exactly the opposite was true.

Mr. Thomas
I can explain that. The hon. Gentleman would understand perfectly well; he brought a deputation to see me, and an agreed report was published afterwards. I am referring to that agreed report.

§ Mr. H. Macmillan
I quite understand, but it seems a strange phrase, to which I venture to call attention now, when the rights of the House of Commons are not so sedulously cared for as they used to be.

Mr. Thomas
I am glad the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me in defence of the rights of the House of Commons.