HC Deb 28 October 1946 vol 428 cc408-17

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

9.57 p.m.

Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)

I am glad to have had the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, in order to call attention to a matter which I believe to be of great interest to a large number of the people of this country. In July of this year the Government issued, as part of the National Savings campaign, an advertisement. That advertisement was headed, "A bit of land of your own." It contained a picture of a man smoking a pipe and leaning on a gate, and having an air of contentment such as is very rarely seen under the present Government. Underneath this picture the following appeared: Lucky chap, with a little place of his own in the country. Must be grand to own a few acres right away from the smoke and bustle of town. Are you doing anything about getting that little place you're dreaming about—or is it just another castle in Spain? If you keep up your savings and don't fritter them away now, you will be able to buy that bit of land before very long. That's the way to make your dreams come true. And then: Bank your savings in the Post Office or a Trustee Savings Bank. Now, as an advertisement, that is an admirable one; it was well calculated to appeal to the traditional and most wholesome British desire to own land. Indeed, if it had been issued by a Conservative Government, it would have been beyond reproach, but, issued as it was by a Socialist Government, I can only describe it as a fraudulent prospectus.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Sir J. Mellor

It seems clear that the Treasury are rather anxious at the present time, when they wish to borrow as much of the people's savings as they can, that people should forget what was written in that document entitled "Let us Face the Future." In the paragraph dealing with land on page nine, one finds the following: Labour believes in land nationalisation and will work towards it. The Treasury, in issuing this advertisement, certainly made the Minister of Town and Country Planning feel very uncomfortable, because he asked that this advertisement should be withdrawn. Whether or not his request arrived after the advertisement had run its course, is neither here nor there, in the point I am making. On 8th October, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied to a supplementary question which I asked. My supplementary question was: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning admitted that they requested the withdrawal of this advertisement? The Financial Secretary replied: My advice is that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning did no such thing, but that the matter was wrongly reported in the Press."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th October, 1946; Vol. 427, C. 32, 33.] It will be seen from what follows that that reply by the Financial Secretary was both inaccurate and very unfair to the Press. On 13th October the "Sunday Express" published an extract from a letter sent by the private secretary to the Minister of Town and Country Planning dated 30th July, and the last paragraph was as follows: The Minister does agree that the National Savings Campaign advertisement is inappropriate, and you will no doubt be glad to hear, that steps are being taken to have it withdrawn. In consequence of that, I put down this Question, for a reply on 22nd October, to the Minister of Town and Country Planning: To ask the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he approved the letter, dated 30th July, signed by his private secretary, a copy of which has been sent to him, stating that the Minister regarded the National Savings advertisement, entitled 'A Bit of Land of Your Own,' as inappropriate and was taking steps for its withdrawal. and the answer was: Yes, Sir. The Parliamentary Secretary proceeded: But it so happened that no such steps were necessary as the advertisement had already run its normal course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1946; Vol. 427, C. 337.] He continued by saying he was sending a letter to amplify his answer and, although it is rather long, I feel it necessary that I should read the whole of it. I think it would not be fair to the Minister if I merely took extracts from it. The letter was dated 21st October and read: You have addressed a Parliamentary Question to me on the subject of the national savings advertisement entitled "A Bit of Land of Your Own." As a reply to the specific Question you have put will not give you the full story and as there seems to have been a good deal of misunderstanding about this matter, I am supplementing my answer by this letter. As you know, recent legislation relating to the replanning of blitzed cities and the planning of new towns lays down that land may be acquired compulsorily and that the freehold shall, with certain exceptions, remain in public hands. After the national savings advertisement in question appeared, a number of people wrote to the Prime Minister and to me protesting about it. Their contention was that it was bad enough to have the freehold of their property taken from them without at the same time being told by another Government Department what a good thing it is to own land. I have never supposed that it is possible to build new towns and reconstruct old ones without in the process causing some personal inconvenience to a number of people and it was apparent to me that this advertisement was causing offence to such people. My Private Secretary, on my behalf, put this point to the National Savings Committee and received the reply, by telephone, that the advertisement would not be appearing any more. This message was interpreted at the time as meaning that the advertisement was being withdrawn and some letters and verbal inquiries were answered in this belief. A few days' later, however, it was found that no further insertions of the advertisement would have appeared in any event; and subsequent letters and inquiries were answered on this basis. The misunderstanding which prevailed during these few days has unfortunately given rise to a good deal of confusion. The facts of the matter simply are that I did consider that the advertisement was having undesirable results and had better not be repeated and that steps were taken to make this known to the National Savings Committee, but that representations on my part turned out to be unnecessary because the advertisement had already run its course. I think what I have read is quite sufficient to expose the inaccuracy and unfairness of the supplementary reply given by the Financial Secretary on 8th October. I am sure the House is always ready to forgive a Minister who makes a slip, provided he takes the opportunity to own up to it.

To take a broader point, I want to ask, What is the Government's policy in this respect? Has there been a change since their party prepared "Let us Face the Future" and fought a General Election upon it? Have they now grown kinder to the idea of private ownership of land? If that is the case, I most warmly welcome it as the first sign of their having learned something while they have been in office. Meanwhile, great confusion reigns between the Treasury and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. The Treasury, through this advertisement, were clearly encouraging the idea of the private acquisition of land. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning were taking the opposite view, and protesting against the Treasury giving that encouragement. Where do the people who responded to this advertisement stand? I think they have a right to know what the Government's policy really is. Do the Government stand by that advertisement, or do they repudiate it? I think we are entitled to direct answers to the questions I have asked.

10.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Fred Marshall)

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) has invested this matter with a significance out of all proportion to its importance, and he has been well backed up by a Press which has made an attempt to extend what is a very small and administrative act into a matter of major import. I wish to quote from an article which appeared in one of these papers, because this quotation will give me, possibly, a background from which this matter can be put in proper perspective. The quotation is: The desire for private ownership is deeply implanted in the average breast. It is recognised by the savings authority as a trump card in their appeal to the farsighted. It happens, however, to conflict with the political theory and policy of the Government of the day. The fact that it is true, that it accurately reflects public opinion and legitimate aspirations, is of no account. Politics win. I want to describe that quotation as undiluted nonsense. It discloses a complete ignorance of the policy enshrined in two very important Acts of Parliament. Perhaps I might remind the hon. Member of a certain provision in the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944. This provision gives power to local authorities to designate and acquire considerable areas of land in connection with their reconstruction schemes. They cannot dispose of this land except by way of leasehold unless there are very exceptional circumstances, and then they must secure the consent of the Minister. That provision in the 1944 Act was, I am sure, supported by all parties in this House and was piloted through its various stages by a Conservative Minister. If that provision conflicted with any political theory held by the Conservative Minister in question, let it be said to his credit that he placed public good before his own political theory. In the New Towns Act of 1946 we followed that excellent example, and all the freeholds existing in the area designated for a new town will be converted into leaseholds except where there are very special circumstances to warrant otherwise.

The point I make is that this policy has been approved by two Governments and by all parties in this House, including the party to which the hon. Member himself belongs. It is a policy designed in the interests of good planning, both in our reconstruction areas and our new towns. If the desire to see our people live and work in more gracious surroundings is "political theory," as the article suggests, then we plead guilty—but we are entirely unrepentant. The hon. Gentleman quoted the letter which the Minister sent to him and I wish to quote one passage from it. The Minister said: I have never supposed it is possible to build new towns and reconstruct old ones without in the process causing some personal inconvenience to a number of people. Persons who are having their freeholds taken away naturally will feel aggrieved and one can understand they will also feel some resentment when, with that prospect in view, they are urged to save to buy a piece of land. That is the background from which this matter must be judged. The private secretaries to the Minister and myself have to deal with hundreds of letters upon all sorts of subjects. It is a tribute to their ability and efficiency that, as this vast amount of material passes through their hands, complaints are few and far between. This happens to be one of the very rare cases when a genuine misunderstanding occurred. The advertisement in question was submitted in the usual way by the National Savings Committee. I want to correct the hon. Gentleman by informing him that the National Savings Committee is a non-political body and that the advertisement in question was not published by the Treasury.

Sir J. Mellor

Will the Parliamentary Secretary deny that the National Savings Committee is an agent of the Treasury?

Mr. Marshall

I say that the National Savings Committee is an independent body. I will explain the connection between the Treasury and the National Savings Committee if the hon. Member will be a little patient. The advertisement in question was submitted in the usual way by the National Savings Committee for the approval of the Treasury, who passed it. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning were not consulted either by the Treasury or by the National Savings Committee. While the National Savings Movement is independent of the Government, its Press advertisements are paid for with public money, and are submitted to the Treasury before issue, so that the Treasury may scrutinise them for accuracy, and may see that they do not conflict with general Government policy. It was not thought necessary in this case to consult the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, as the private ownership of land is not in itself contrary to Government policy. I think that answers the hon. Member's question.

In the light of the Ministry's subsequent attitude to the advertisement, the Treasury recognised that their scrutiny of it, when it was submitted for approval, was inadequate. The advertisement appeared in the Press between 7th and 20th July, and was not published again after the latter date. It had, in fact, come to an end before it was made public that any query had been raised by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning.

When the Minister's private secretary consulted the National Savings Committee about the appearance of the advertisement, she was given the reply that the advertisement would not be appearing any more. This she interpreted as meaning that steps were being taken to have the advertisement withdrawn, and the letter complained about was written in this belief. It did not, as the hon. Member concluded, state that the Minister himself was taking steps to cause the withdrawal. The most the Minister could do was to point out that the advertisement was giving offence, and he acquainted the hon. Member of this fact in the letter, an extract from which I will take the liberty of reading to the House: The facts of the matter simply are that I did consider that the advertisement was having undesirable results and had better not be repeated, and that steps were taken to make this known to the National Savings Committee, but that representations on my part turned out to be unnecessary because the advertisement had already run its course. It was later found that the advertisement had run its normal course, and would not be appearing again in any event. Subsequently, the hon. Member put a Question on the Order Paper to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the facts were given by way of answer by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. There is absolutely no inconsistency between the answer given by my hon. Friend and the statement in the Minister's letter, to which reference has already been made, in which it was stated that steps were being taken to withdraw the advertisement, since it was never suggested that the Minister had taken any action himself, beyond pointing out its inappropriateness.

Sir J. Mellor

Does the hon. Gentleman deny that, even if the request came too late, nevertheless there was a request that the advertisement should be withdrawn? The Minister admits that he requested it should not be repeated. Further, when the hon. Gentleman justifies the supplementary answer of the Financial Secretary, will he explain what the Financial Secretary meant when he said that the matter had been wrongly reported in the Press?

Mr. Marshall

The Minister himself has no power to order the withdrawal of an advertisement.

Sir J. Mellor

I said "requested."

Mr. Marshall

I shall take the Minister's word for it that he did not make the request. It was pointed out by his private secretary that the advertisement in question was altogether inappropriate. Naturally, he would have left it to the War Savings Committee to take whatever action they thought appropriate in the circumstances. In the meantime, to supplement our answer, my hon. Friend, recognising that some confusion had resulted from an unfortunate but genuine misunderstanding, sent to the hon. Member a letter giving a full statement of the facts and informing him how the confusion had arisen. Personally, I should have thought that the explanation given by my fight hon. Friend would have mollified the hon. Member's righteous indignation against this slight slip, and satisfied his consuming desire to see that everyone operates at 100 per cent. efficiency. However, he has raised the matter and I have given the House the reason for the misunderstanding. My feeling is that it is a storm in a teacup. It has been a very natural slip on the part of the staff, and I trust that the explanation I have given to the House will be satisfactory.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

Reference was made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) to a supplementary answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I am happy to see the Financial Secretary on the Front Bench opposite and I hope that he is not going to allow this Debate to conclude without giving the House some explanation of his supplementary answer. As I understand it, he told the House that this matter had been wrongly reported in the Press. In fairness to the Press, and to the House, I hope he will utilise the few minutes that remain available to him in explaining exactly what that error was.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Poole (Oswestry)

It appears as though the Financial Secretary to the Treasury does not intend to reply to the very natural request of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). It occurs to me that he does not realise how very important this matter is felt to be by hon. Members on this side of the House. Just after the last Election, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an appeal to the whole country to support the National Savings Campaign, and many hon. Members on this side of the House, including myself, wholeheartedly supported his appeal to the public. I believe I am right in saying that one of the towns in my constituency has the highest figure of savings per head, of any town in England; it certainly has in the region in which it is located. The saving campaign in that town was opened by me. I opened four others, all of which achieved and passed their target and yet, during the course of the summer, this poster was put out to which many people responded. It appealed particularly to the people in my district who were in no way affected by the town planning activities of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Then we find that it is entirely unsupported by the Government, and requests are made for its withdrawal and this misunderstanding arises. Not only that, but when the question is raised by the hon. Baronet, the most evasive and misleading answer is given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. I feel that, in fairness to us as Members of an opposing party who supported the National Savings Campaign, the least that the hon. Gentleman can do is to give some explanation tonight.

10.23 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth)

I should like the matter made clear because I am getting more and more confused by the various answers given from the Government Bench. The supplementary question which was put by the hon. Baronet and which appears in HANSARD reads: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning admitted that they requested the withdrawal of this advertisement? The Financial Secretary replied: My advice is that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning did no such thing, but that the matter was wrongly reported in the Press."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday, 8th October, 1946; Vol. 427, cols. 32 and 33.] Which is it? We are entitled to have a definite answer, and I hope that in the five minutes that are left we shall be told definitely what happened in this matter.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Drayson (Skipton)

I think that perhaps one good thing has come out of this Debate, and that is the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government are in favour of the ownership of land although, no doubt, that is so only where this does not conflict with the plans of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. When we know what the Minister of Town and Country Planning wishes to do, the investor who has subscribed to the National Savings movement will then know whether he is free to remove his money from those funds and put them into land. We have heard that this advertisement gave a certain amount of offence, but I suggest that it gave very much more pleasure to those people who had thought of buying a bit of land of their own.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedford)

We really must press the Financial Secretary. I think it is treating the House with very considerable discourtesy when, having made the effort to come here, which we appreciate, he professes ignorance as to what appeared in the Press with regard to which he gave a reply some weeks ago.

Forward to