TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) [MONEY] (Hansard, 24 February 1947)

HC Deb 24 February 1947 vol 433 cc1823-47 1823

§ Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.—(King's Recommendation signified.)

§ [Major MILNER in the Chair.]

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision with respect to Scotland for planning the development and use of land, and for purposes connected therewith (in this resolution referred to as "the Act"), it is expedient to authorise—

A. The charging on the Consolidated Fund of the principal of and interest on stock to be issued under the Act in satisfaction of payments to be made there under in respect of interests in land which are depreciated in value by virtue of the provisions of the Act (not exceeding in the aggregate, together with payments to be made by virtue of any corresponding provisions which may be enacted in relation to England and Wales, the sum of three hundred million pounds); the charging on and issuing out of that Fund of expenses in connection with the issue and management of any such stock; and the issuing out of that Fund of sums necessary to enable the Central Land Board to be established under, any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision for planning the development and use of land (in this resolution referred to as "the Board") to pay interest on any such payments pending the satisfaction thereof.
B. The issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of sums necessary to enable the Board to make other payments under the Act in respect of interests in land which are depreciated as aforesaid, being land which has sustained war damage in such circumstances that the appropriate payment under the War Damage Act, 1943, is a value payment, and to pay interest on such payments pending the satisfaction thereof.
C. The raising of money by the Treasury, in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939,—
1. (1) for the purpose of providing sums for the redemption of any such stock as is mentioned in paragraph A of this resolution;
2. (2) for the purpose of providing sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund as mentioned in paragraph A or paragraph B of this resolution, or of providing for the replacement of sums so issued.
D The payment by the Board into the Exchequer, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of annual instalments equal in the aggregate to the aggregate amount of
1. (1) any such payments as are mentioned in paragraph A of this resolution which are satisfied by the issue of stock; and
2. (2) any sums issued to the Board out of the Consolidated Fund as mentioned in that paragraph in respect of interest on such payments,
together with interest on the said aggregate amount; and the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums so paid into the Exchequer, and their application in redemption or repayment of debt or, in so far as they represent interest, in payment of interest otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.
E. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in making grants, in accordance with regulations made under the Act, as follows, that is to say:
1. (1) grants to local planning authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by those authorities under the Act or under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, in connection with the acquisition and clearing of land acquired or appropriated by those authorities for or in connection with the redevelopment of areas as a whole, or for the purpose of bringing derelict land into use (including sums paid by those authorities by way of compensation or otherwise in connection with any restriction on the development or use of such land imposed by or under any enactment), not exceeding
  1. (a) in the case of land acquired or appropriated for the redevelopment as a whole of areas of extensive war damage, or for the relocation of population or industry or the replacement of open space in the course of such redevelopment, ninety per cent. of the annual costs incurred or treated in accordance with regulations as being incurred by the said authorities in respect of the borrowing of money to defray expenditure in respect of which the grants are made;
  2. (b) in the case of any other land, eighty per cent. of the said annual costs;
2. (2) grants to local planning authorities—
  1. (a) in respect of expenditure incurred by those authorities in the payment of compensation (other than compensation for the acquisition of land) under the provisions of the Act in that behalf;
  2. (b) in respect of loss incurred by those authorities in connection with the acquisition and clearing of land other than such land as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph (including sums paid by those authorities by way of compensation or otherwise in connection with any 1825 restriction on the development or use of such land imposed by or under any enactment),
  not exceeding sixty per cent. of the amount of the expenditure or loss in respect of which the grants are made;
3. (3) grants to local authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by those authorities (including expenditure incurred by joint committees of which those authorities were constituent authorities) under Subsection (4) of Section ten of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1932, or under that Subsection as applied by Section four of the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) (Scotland) Act, 1943, or under Subsection (2) of Section seven of the said Act of 1943, in connection with applications for permission to develop land dealt with after the eleventh day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-three, or in respect of the revocation or modification, after that date, of any permission to develop land whether granted before or after that date.
F. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the following expenditure, that is to say:—
1. (1) any administrative expenses incurred by the Board for the purposes of the Act;
2. (2) any expenses of the Secretary of State in connection with the making or amendment of a development plan under the provisions of the Act in that behalf;
3. (3) any expenses incurred by any Minister or by the Board in the acquisition of land under powers conferred in that behalf by the Act, other than expenses so incurred which are required to be defrayed out of the Road Fund;
4. (4) any sums authorised or required to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament by virtue of any of the provisions of Sections eighteen to twenty-nine of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, as incorporated with the Act;
5. (5) any additional expenditure incurred by any Minister in the payment of compensation under Section twenty-three of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, by reason of the provisions of the Act amending that Section;
6. (6) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport (other than expenses incurred in the construction or improvement of roads) under the provisions of the Act relating to the stopping up or diversion of highways;
7. (7) any sums payable into the Road Fund for the purpose of, defraying expenses of the Minister of Transport which are payable out of that fund by virtue of any of the provisions of the Act;
8. (8) any sums required by the Board for the repayment, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, of sums received by the Board in respect of development charges (including sums received by the Board in lieu of such charges under the provisions of the Act relating to land of local planning authorities and of development corporations established under the New Towns Act, 1946) or for making contributions towards compensation 1826 payable by local planning authorities under the Act;
9. (9) any expenses incurred by any Minister or by the Board in the payment of compensation for damage caused in the exercise of any power of entry conferred under the Act;
10. (10) any expenses of the Secretary of State in the payment of remuneration and allowances to the chairman and members of any tribunal, or in the payment of the expenses of any advisory committee, established for the purposes of the Act or of regulations made thereunder;
11. (11) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the Act.
G. The payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Board in respect of the disposal of land acquired by the Board under powers conferred in that behalf by the Act."—[Mr. Westwood.]

§ The Chairman
The Committee will have observed that there are several Amendments on the Order Paper. For the convenience of the Committee, I think I ought to say that, with one exception, I do not propose to call any of those Amendments. The majority of them are out of Order. The only Amendment I propose to call is that standing in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): in line 84, to leave out sub-paragraph (1).

§ 10.11 p.m.

§ Mr.J.S. C. Reid (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Hon. Members who have looked at the Amendments on the Order Paper will no doubt have observed that they form a connected whole. If only one Amendment is called, namely, that to delete the expenses which the Board might incur, that would not satisfy our views at all. I do not -for a moment question your Ruling, Major Milner, but as the main Amendments are out of Order I do not think it would be useful to seek to move the subsidiary Amendment. Therefore, I shall restrict myself to making some remarks upon the Financial Resolution as whole.
The Resolution is extremely long and detailed, and has the effect, as must have been obvious to the draftsmen, of preventing discussion in the Committee upstairs on the question whether there should be a separate Land Board for Scotland. Now, it is possible that that was done, in the first place, under a misapprehension. One quite realises that in the rush and hurry which this Govern- 1827 ment impose on all their officers such things can happen. Quite frankly, I am not wholly surprised, Major Milner, that you ruled certain of the Amendments out of Order. The main purpose of putting them on the Order Paper was to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that he was excluding a most important point from the purview of the Committee. His attention having been drawn to that, if he had been willing for the Scottish Grand Committee to have a free hand to discuss this important point, it would have been very easy for him to withdraw the Financial Resolution, and to bring forward one in more general terms, which would have left the question open to the Committee. But as he has not done so we must conclude that his course of action is deliberate; and I therefore take this as the basis of my speech, that the right hon. Gentleman has deliberately prevented Scottish Members from expressing their views on the question whether there should be a separate Land Board for Scotland.
Now why has he done that? For a very obvious reason: because he knows that he cannot justify the proposal. In the course of his opening remarks today he made some assertions of the reasons why he had refused a separate Land Board. But he gave nothing in the way or argument, and I hope he will do so now. We all know that Scottish Labour Members were returned to Parliament for the purpose of supporting devolution in Scotland's affairs. They have steadfastly refused to adhere to their Election pledges, and, obviously, the right hon. Gentleman withdraws from the Scottish Grand Committee an issue on which it would be awkward for his supporters to vote. I charge him, therefore, with abusing Parliamentary procedure for that purpose. It is quite deliberate.
Let us see what the Lord Advocate said about this matter. The Lord Advocate went out of his way to charge us with having suddenly become Scottish nationalists. Nothing could be further from the truth. It has been our policy for as long as I have been in the House—and what I am now saying is in line with that policy—to support devolution of administrative matters. Administration in this case by the Land Board is just such administration as previous Governments regularly gave to Scottish bodies, and 1828 such as this Government certainly ought to give to Scottish bodies. How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman justify the administration of Scottish land from London? Because that is what it amounts to. The Lord Advocate referred to this as though it were an Inland Revenue matter. It is nothing of the kind. If it is an Inland Revenue matter, why does the Bill provide that the directions given to this Board are not to be given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but by the Secretary of State? It would be very odd, indeed, if the Secretary of State for Scotland were given power by the House to give directions of all kinds, of two specific kinds, to an Inland Revenue body. Therefore, I am afraid that the Lord Advocate has completely misapprehended the purpose of this Board.
May I remind the Committee of the purpose of the Board for which they are now being asked to vote money? I think it is in Order, because I can, I think, seek to persuade the Committee that they should not vote money for a Board of this kind. The Board does not merely assess the amount of compensation to be paid to landowners. If that were all it did, I should not have this strong objection. I am not sure that then I should have any objection to a joint Board, because that would be truly in the nature of an Inland Revenue matter. But the main purpose of this Board is to assess the amount of development charges on every bit of land and every building in Scotland of which the owner proposes to make some use different from that which was in operation when the Bill was passed. Of course, it may well be that under this Government there never will be any development—that is quite possible—and that, therefore, Scotland will just stagnate; and it will just not matter whether the Board is given this duty. That is quite possible.

§ Mr. Rankin (Glasgow, Tradeston)
On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the Committee to discuss now the setting up of the Central Land Board when the House has already approved of such a course of action?

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member has raised a perfectly proper point. It was fully in my mind. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was rather addressing himself, in Second Reading terms, to the Financial Resolution. The question 1829 before the Committee is that of the purposes for which this money is being sought. It is not competent for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to deal with the merits or the demerits of a Central Land Board.

§ Mr. Reid
I appreciate that there is a line. It is certainly very difficult to draw, and I have never been able to discover just where one does draw it, but I agree that there is a line. Perhaps, for my guidance you will tell me, Major Milner, if this is right: that one is entitled to point out the purposes for which the money is to be voted. One is entitled to point out the nature of the body which Parliament is asked to set up and subsidise, and I hoped that I had not gone beyond that to argue the Second Reading merits of the Bill. I certainly did not want to do so, and I am glad it was pointed out to me that I was getting near the borderline. I think, however, that I am entitled to say—I do not want to repeat myself, but it is rather difficult with these interruptions to make a connected speech—

§ Mr. Rankin
On a point of Order. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not casting any aspersions on the point I raised. It was a perfectly relevant point.

§ Mr. Reid
I think the hon. Gentleman knows well enough that the last thing I ever object to is an interruption. I would like, if it were in Order, to deal very fully with the hon. Gentleman's interruption, but I am afraid that if I did that, I should perhaps get into more trouble, so I will keep my answer to the hon. Gentleman until another time. I can assure him, however, that he will get an answer sooner or later, and I think I can assure him that it will be one which he does not altogether like—but that is another matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that a threat or a promise?"] It is only a promise.
If I may resume the argument, the point to which I wished to draw the attention of the Committee was that this House is not only being asked to vote money for a Central Land Board, but the Government have gone out of their way so to draw this Resolution that we cannot vote money for anything else. My complaint against the right hon. Gentleman is, therefore, two-fold; first that he should not have agreed to the Central Land Board, for reasons which I have already given—I 1830 agree that to develop those reasons would be to infringe on Second Reading points—and second, my more immediate corn-plaint just now is that the right hon. Gentleman has deliberately withdrawn this question from the attention of the Scottish Grand Committee. That is not, as I apprehend it, a Second Reading point at all; it is a point directly relevant to the Financial Resolution, and I would hope that the right hon. Gentleman would have rather more respect for the Scottish Grand Committee than in fact he has here shown. Why cannot we be trusted to manage our own affairs upstairs? Why should this House be used to prevent the Scottish Grand Committee from having any say in this important matter? It is perfectly true that we could reject Clauses from the Bill and make the whole Bill unworkable, but what we are not allowed to do is to put in any alternative machinery. I have drawn the right hon. Gentleman's attention to that by the Amendments on the Paper, I have drawn his attention to it again now, and unless the right hon. Gentleman will now agree to withdraw this Financial Resolution and to bring one in which will enable us to discuss effectively in the Scottish Grand Committee the constitution of the Land Board which is to look after development in Scotland, we shall have no alternative but to come to the conclusion, and to make it public, that this is not being done for any genuine reason but is being done solely to prevent embarrassment to the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters upstairs.

§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Western)
Before coming to the point dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hill-head (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), I wish to raise one or two other important points connected with this Financial Resolution. The first part of the Resolution deals with what are commonly called "payments for depreciation of land values." We are asked to vote a considerable sum for that purpose, and the first question I want to ask is what is to be Scotland's share? We are voting a large sum for England and Wales, and for Scotland, and we, as Scottish Members, are entitled on a Resolution which deals primarily with financial arrangements arising from a Scottish Bill, to ask whether the share allotted to Scotland will be alloted in accordance with the customary eleven-eightieths rule; and if 1831 not, on what basis this global sum is to be divided between the countries concerned?

§ The Chairman
I do not think that the question of the eleven-eightieths rule arises here. The Bill will decide how the amount voted will be dealt with.

§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
With great respect, I submit it is not in the Bill—

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member is only entitled to discuss what is in the Resolution.

§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
Then perhaps I may come to another point. I am sorry if I transgressed, but I did so quite unwittingly, because I thought the point was covered by the Resolution. We are asked to agree to: The charging on the Consolidated Fund of the principal of and interest on stock to be issued under the Act in satisfaction of payments to be made Before I can agree to that provision, I want to know on what basis these payments are to be made. It is a point to which I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will address himself when he comes to reply.

§ The Chairman
The precise conditions are a matter which it will be within the province of the Committee on the Bill to decide. The Financial Resolution is obviously in wide terms, and the Committee will have an opportunity to decide on any question of detail of that sort.

§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
Then I hope that I shall be lucky with my third point.

§ Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)
On a point of Order. Cannot the hon. Member argue whether the Financial Resolution is too wide or too narrow?

§ The Chairman
I appreciate what the hon. Member says, but it does not seem to have any direct relevance to my Ruling. My Ruling was that details of stock to be issued, which is dealt with generally in the Financial Resolution, are matters which the Committee on the Bill would no doubt have a right to decide upon at a later date.

§ Mr. J. S. C. Reid
It is important to get this right for our guidance. Do I take it that your Ruling, Major Milner, is that there is nothing in the Financial Resolution which would limit Amendments on these particular matters to the Bill, if the Committee upstairs were so minded?

1832

§ The Chairman
The question of the £300 million and any figure being one below that amount, is another matter, and I must not in any way prejudice the position of the Chair upstairs.

§ Mr. Reid
I take it that it is your view, Major Milner, that it would be in Order to put in the Bill upstairs, that Scotland should have a fixed sum of, let us say, £100 million; otherwise I should have thought my hon. Friend was entitled to make his point.

§ 10.30 p.m.

§ The Chairman
I cannot prejudice in any way the Ruling which the Chairman of the Committee upstairs might give with regard to the hon. Member's speech. I should be glad to hear any more he has to say.

§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
I was in some difficulty because I anticipated it would be difficult upstairs to suggest that Scotland's share of this global sum should be in accordance with the eleven-eightieths rule. Therefore I was anxious to hear what was in the mind of the Secretary of State about the provision of this global sum. I still hope it will be in order to ask the Secretary of State to enlighten us on how this sum is to be divided between England and Wales and Scotland. It is Scotland with which he and I are particularly concerned.

§ Mr. Scollan (Renfrew, Western)
I am also interested in this matter, and I want some guidance. Is it, or is it not, the case that the setting aside of a sum for Scotland should have been dealt with on the original Town and Country Planning Bill, and not in the Scottish Bill at all?

§ The Chairman
I do not think I can give a Ruling on that. Parliament is omnipotent and it may be that in Committee some proportion may be fixed. I do not know, but I do not think I can rule that the hon. Member's hypothesis is the right one.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
Surely it stands to reason that, a global sum of £300 million having been voted, it is perfectly competent for the Committee to allot that sum as it wishes. As it seems possible from your Ruling, Major Milner, that it will be in Order to do so, we shall move an Amendment that there should be a larger share than the mere eleven-eightieths.

1833

§ Mr. Scollan
How is it possible to vote £100 million for the purposes outlined in the first Bill for England, Scotland, and Wales—without any definition being given of the proportions to be paid—and then when the Scottish Bill comes forward, for somebody to move something into that Bill which obviously affects the previous Bill.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
It does not in any way affect the previous Bill, for the previous Bill did not lay down any division. It is still competent for those of us who see the possibilities of making a division, to move that the sum allotted to Scotland should be greater than the narrow eleven-eightieths and we shall have great pleasure in doing so. I submit that it is fully in Order, and does not in any way conflict with the more general provision. If not, what becomes of the suggestion of the Secretary of State that this is a separate Bill?

§ Mr. Scollan
If we get to the stage where under the second Bill we propose to pay more than the eleven-eightieths then we are taking the power from the Central Planning Authority to pay out £300 million for Scotland, England and Wales. You are obviously then saying "You pay out so much to England and Wales, and so much to Scotland," which is entirely different from the provision in the original Bill.

§ The Chairman
These, surely, are considerations which must be put before the Committee on the Bill when the time comes. No doubt the Government will in the first instance put forward the global sum, and its disposal will be a matter for consideration. It is not a point of Order, and it is not a point on which I can rule.

§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
I feel I must apologise for the fact that through me, though quite inadvertently on my part, the Chair has been involved in this difficulty. I am glad, Major Milner, that you have given us the satisfaction of your Ruling, and we will, of course, pursue this matter upstairs. There is just one point, following that raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hill-head (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), to which I would like to refer.

§ Mr. McAllister (Rutherglen)
On a point of Order. After you have given your Ruling, Major Milner, the hon. 1834 Gentleman now says that the party opposite intend to pursue this matter upstairs because of that Ruling. May I submit that the matter is completely out of perspective; that the £300 million is not to be allocated as between England, Scotland and Wales, but that a sum is to be paid, ex gratia, to individual landlords, according to the degree of hardship suffered by them, and that the party opposite are really merely trying to make some cheap political capital by bringing in this foreign issue?

§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
If you will allow me, Major Milner, I should like to say how much I resent the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) saying that we are trying to make cheap political capital out of this issue. In point of fact, what we are trying to do is to obtain some sort of justice for Scotland. If the hon. Member for Rutherglen suggests that we are making cheap political capital out of this, then I suggest that he is not doing his best for his native country.

§ Mr. McAllister
rose—

§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
No, I will not give way to the hon. Member. I would like to return to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead. Part of the money that we are asked to vote tonight is in respect of a Central Land Board, which we had hoped would represent Scotland, but which we now hear is to represent England, Wales and Scotland. What proportion of that Board of ten members will be elected in respect of Scottish interests? Before we vote this money we ought to know that. We have been told by the Minister that it is in his mind that the chairman of the Board will be a whole-time, salaried official, but that the other nine members of it will be on a part-time basis.

§ The Chairman
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the constitution of the Board is clearly a matter for discussion by the Committee on the Bill, and not in the Debate on the Money Resolution. None of these matters relates to the Resolution.

§ Mr. J. S. C. Reid
Surely, Major Milner, it is relevant, before we vote money for the setting-up of a Board, that we should know the Government's intention in regard to the constitution of 1835 that Board? We should be perfectly willing, no doubt, to vote money for a Board constituted in one way, but very averse to voting money for a Board constituted in another way.

§ The Chairman
Are not the details of the constitution of the Board set out in the Bill?

§ Mr. Reid
There is not a word about it in the Bill.

§ The Chairman
Are they not set out in the previous Bill? This really seems to be a matter to be debated on the Committee stage of the Bill.

§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
If I may say so, Major Milner, the composition of the Board is set out in the English Bill, but we are now dealing with the Scottish Bill. We are asked to vote money in connection with this Bill for some part of the salaries and expenses of the United Kingdom Board, and that is the point I am trying to make. I think that, as Scottish Members, we ought to know, before voting the money, how many members on the Board will be in receipt of that money. That was the only point I was trying to make. I hope that the Secretary of State will give a satisfactory reply on that and the other points I am raising.

§ Mr. McAllister
I would not have risen again except for the fact that the hon. Member for West Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) was grossly discourteous in replying to my intervention. We are asked to vote £300 million, as we were asked to vote a similar sum when the Bill dealing with England and Wales came before the House. As I said, when I interrupted the hon. Member, to make a perfectly reasonable and not a discourteous statement, that sum is not for allocation as between country and country, but for allocation between individuals, and it does seem to me to be a gross perversion of Scottish nationalism and Scottish national sentiment, by the party opposite to suggest that, because we are Scotsmen, we should attempt to grab the largest part of the £300 million. It is all the more so when we have no idea of the number of Scottish landlords who must receive these payments in comparison with the English landlords. This is a question of getting money for a group of people in Scotland—and it is a group 1836 well represented by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.

§ Mr. J. S. C. Reid
Before the hon. Member leaves that point, may I point out that it would be to his advantage if he would carefully read the relevant provision? Clause 48, (2) provides: The aggregate amount of the payments to be made by virtue of this section shall be the amount apportioned to land in Scotland by order made by the Treasury under any Act of the present Session making fresh provision for planning the development and use of land. The sum allotted is clearly by order of the Treasury, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) is quite right in the point he has made.

§ Mr. McAllister
Land means building, and land and building means ownership, and this is a payment to the owner.

§ Mr. Reid
Scotland also means Scotland.

Mr. McKie (Galloway)
The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) went out of his way to accuse my hon. Friend of discourtesy. I can only say that, having watched the hon. Member throughout the discussion on this Resolution, and earlier in the day during the Second Reading of the Bill, I have been struck all the way through by his apparent discomfiture. He knows something of this Financial Resolution, and I suggest that that discomfiture arises from the fact that right hon. and hon. Members on his own Front Bench are being caught out this evening. But I very much hope, Major Milner, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will be in a position later, so far as is allowed within the limits of your Ruling, to reply to the points which have been made by my right hon. and learned Friend. I think that a very valuable contribution has been made to the Debate to-night. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has made a valuable reference as to what we may be able to do with regard to the allocation of these moneys when we discuss this matter in the Scottish Grand Committee. But it was not to deal with this point that I rose. I press the Secretary for Scotland to reply to that very important point which has been raised on how far we may be able to go in the Scottish Grand Committee with regard to the Central Land Board.

1837

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member is out of Order. The Secretary of State is not in a position to say what the Scottish Committee shall, or shall not, do.

§ 10.45 p.m.

Mr. McKie
I am sorry, Major Milner, but I am pressing for the reason why this Financial Resolution, so far as it relates to the Central Land Board, has been drawn in this way. It may possibly prevent adequate discussion upstairs on this very important point. I feel sure I am entitled to point out on the Financial Resolution that, if our fears should be realised and if the unusual manner in which the Resolution has been drawn prevents discussion, this Bill will be viewed in Scotland with dissatisfaction and disfavour. I will say in passing, by way of illustration, that this is a matter which should be of special concern to a Socialist Government. This Left Wing Government have always held to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) of devolution in Scotland. That is a question with which the Left Wing in Scotland has been concerned for 60 years.

§ The Chairman
That is certainly not a question that can be raised now.

Mr. McKie
Let me just say that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this question of devolution—

§ The Chairman
I think the hon. Member has said all he can say on that point.

Mr. McKie
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will clear up the point whether this was done deliberately, or accidentally. If it was done deliberately, we feel that he has been less fair to the people of Scotland, who were promised Home Rule by Mr. Gladstone—[Laughter]. Certainly, and whether the right hon. Gentleman—

Hon. Members
Order.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member has disregarded the advice I gave him. I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. McKie
With great respect, Major Milner, I apologise. But under the Rules of Order, if you ask me to refrain from referring to a certain subject, I think I am still entitled to say I hope that whether the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to clear up the point or not, we shall register our dissatisfaction and dis- 1838 approval with the whole Bill, by voting against the Final Resolution.

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood)
I can assure the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) that I have not the slightest intention of withdrawing this Final Resolution tonight. If I were to do so, I would not have provision for the finance necessary to make operative the Bill which has now received a Second Reading. Nor have I any intention of changing the Resolution. There was no deliberate intention, when the Resolution was framed—as has been suggested—to keep the Scottish Grand Committee from discussing any legitimate point which should be considered by that Committee. On the Second Reading of the Bill, I made it clear that the question of having two Land Boards had received very careful consideration, and that in the interests of both Scotland and England—I put Scotland first, although some hon. Members opposite often put England first—I thought one Board could meet the requirements, and enable us to see that justice was done to Scotland. I have been asked to say what the constitution of the Board will be and if I am in Order—

§ The Chairman
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to do that, either. The constitution of the Board is set out in the English Bill. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in referring to it here, any more than is any other hon. Member.

§ Commander Galbraith (Glasgow, Pollok)
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, regarding what he has just said, whether he really considers it appropriate that before any development can take place in Scotland, application has to he made to an English Board?

§ Mr. Westwood
No. It will not be an English Board; it will be a United Kingdom Board, on which there will be good Scotsmen representing Scottish interests. With that, I trust that the Committee will now let me have the Financial Resolution, which I believe is in the best interests of Scotland.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
We are in a rather extraordinary position. The Secretary of State has just been ruled out of Order in attempting to develop an argument to show why he should have this money. I have rarely seen a Secretary 1839 of State ruled out of Order. It puts the Committee in a difficulty. When asked if this was an English Board the right hon. Gentleman very strongly said it was not, that it was a United Kingdom Board. But he found himself totally unable to discuss it with reference to anything else but an English Bill. I put it to you, Major Milner, that the Secretary of State has placed the Committee in a position of extraordinary difficulty. He has drawn this Resolution so that it can only be valid by reference to a Measure which is not law, and which is still before the House, and he finds himself precluded from discussing the constitution of this body, to which we are being asked to vote money.

§ The Chairman
I would point out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the reference is to "any Act of the present Session," and therefore covers the Town and Country Planning Bill, which is now in Committee upstairs, and also the present Bill.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
With the utmost respect and deference, the Resolution cannot in any way bind Parliament, and we do not know what this body is, because as you have said, Major Milner, the very Measure defining it is in Committee upstairs, in process of passing through the House. The body which is to be set up is not defined in that Bill because it is not yet an Act. Its terms are not before us. For the Secretary of State to ask for a blank cheque on this very flimsy basis is straining the authority even of a Secretary of State, and is straining the affection we have for the right hon. Gentleman almost to breaking point. The proposal which the Secretary of State is here making is brought forward in the name of Scotland. He explains that in doing this, he is putting Scottish interests first. He puts Scottish interests first by voting money to a body which he is not allowed to mention on the Floor of the House, and, as I understand it, he will not be allowed to mention it upstairs in the Scottish Grand Committee.

§ The Chairman
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must not assume that. I do not know, nor do I for a moment say, whether or not the right hon. Gentleman will be allowed to mention this matter upstairs. As far as I am aware, it 1840 will be for the Chairman for the time being to decide. It is not correct to say that I have ruled in any sense that that Committee cannot discuss it.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
This is a most interesting point which we shall have pleasure in pursuing. Do I understand you to mean, Major Milner, that we can move a new Clause upstairs defining the Board, because the Board may be the subject of discussion upstairs?

§ The Chairman
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows quite well—no one better—that it is not my province to decide what may or may not be discussed upstairs. I say that these are matters for discussion in Committee on the Bill, and not on the Financial Resolution.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
Both the Secretary of State and myself are in a difficulty in this matter. As you have said, Major Milner, you have had to rule the Secretary of State out of Order. You have not yet ruled me out of Order but you have indicated—[Interruption.] I would point out to hon. Members that there is only one chairman in this Committee, and that he has not yet ruled me out of Order. You, Major Milner, have indicated that those matters will be at the discretion of the Committee upstairs, and naturally I would fully agree to that. The fact that you have not found it possible to rule this completely out of Order, opens up some very interesting avenues of discussion, into which we do not propose to enter here. We do not ask any Ruling on it because, as you truly say, it would be limiting the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee upstairs. But it certainly is a fact that we find ourselves in a position of difficulty and considerable interest. [Interruption.] If it is desired by hon. Members we can pursue the matter for some time. If the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) objects to the faces of Conservatives and that objection leads her to interjections, it might lead me to pursue the question at considerable length.

§ Mrs. Braddock (Liverpool, Exchange)
I will have a battle with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman at any time.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
The hon. Lady cannot have a battle with me because this happens to be a Scottish matter. If the hon. Lady wishes to make a speech on 1841 Scotland, no one would be more interested than myself. I should be very glad to resume my seat—

§ Mrs. Braddock
Get on with it. Do not "matter."

Mr. McKie
Is it in Order for an hon. Member to accuse the right hon. and gallant Gentleman of "nattering"?

§ The Chairman
I did not hear that expression. I certainly think it is reprehensible for the hon. Lady, or any other Member, to continue interrupting in this fashion.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
The Resolution before us asks the Committee to vote a considerable sum to a body, which, admittedly, is not defined in the Bill, for purposes of an indefinite character. The Lord Advocate directed the greater proportion of his speech in winding up the Debate on Second Reading, to a defence of the financial provisions of the Bill which this Resolution is to implement. The essential point he made was that under the Bill it would be possible for much greater developments to take place than ever before. The Government, he said, were facing up to the financial implications of these development projects. It is true that provisions are made here for grants to be made and for sums to be handed over to the local authorities, and for administrative expenses, and so on, to be paid. All we say is that this Resolution, among other Resolutions, is depreciating the value of the currency in which those grants are made. More and more, it is becoming clear that it is not possible to carry out the social policy of the Government, the housing policy of the Government, or any of the policies laid down in the Bill, because the cumulative weight of all these Financial Resolutions is piling upon the currency of this country an expense which it is not able to stand. It is shown by the gradually rising costs—in some cases, by the steeply rising costs—and by the great changes in administration which are taking place.

§ The Chairman
There will be other occasions for the discussion of these points, but the present discussion is limited to the Financial Resolution.

§ 11.0 p.m.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
Far be it from me to want to discuss all the other expenses, because it would take too long. I merely 1842 say that £300 million is a substantial sum, of which a proportion, and an indeterminate proportion, has to be found by Scotland. I am saying that this, in particular, is proving that the social policy of the Government is breaking down because of the financial implications involved.

§ Sir J. Mellor
May I, as an English Member who made some reference to the Money Resolution on the English Bill, rise in support of the complaint made by my right hon. and learned Friend that this Resolution also is too narrow? I was astonished at the very cursory way in which the Secretary of State replied to the Debate. In the course of his Second Reading speech, he referred to the constitution of the Board, but now he seems to be quite content that the Committee should be deprived of an opportunity of discussing the question of whether there should be a United Kingdom or a Scottish Board. Surely, the whole question before this Committee—and it is an important constitutional question—is whether or not the Resolution is sufficiently wide to enable the Scottish Grand Committee to discuss Amendments? As things stand at present, it will be obviously impossible for the Amendments which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) has in mind, to be discussed before the Scottish Committee. In my submission, that is manifestly wrong, and this Committee of the whole House would not be doing its duty if it insisted on passing a Financial Resolution in such narrow terms as to preclude discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee. It is a perfectly simple point. It is not necessary, in a Committee of the whole House, to go into these questions at all. That is not the function of this Committee. The function of this Committee is to see that the Financial Resolution is drawn in such wide terms as to give discretion to the Scottish Committee to debate the various points which arise and to come to a conclusion on them. I express my astonishment at the very offhand way in which the Secretary of State dealt with this important matter.

§ Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries)
There is one point to which I should like to draw attention. If I understand your Ruling rightly, Major Milner, it would be open to the Scottish Committee to make any Amendment to the Bill, but the point 1843 is whether, to carry the matter to a reductio ad absurdum, the grant of compensation is to be up to the full amount of this Money Resolution, that is, 299,000,000 19s. 11½d. It might equally well be possible for the other Committee which is dealing with the English Bill to do exactly the same thing. I cannot understand how it is possible to reconcile the activities of these two Committees. I suggest that the Money Resolution has been drawn up in a manner which is unreal and ridiculous, and, for that reason, I shall oppose it.

§ Mr. Scollan
I want to know, when we get Amendments like this—and we have wasted nearly 20 minutes of time in skating over this question—

§ The Chairman
The hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself to the Question before the Committee. There is no Amendment before the Committee. The simple Question is whether the Financial Resolution, in the terms in which it appears on the Order Paper, shall be approved by the Committee or not, and that is the only Question which hon. Members are entitled to Debate.

§ Mr. Scollan
I am still wondering whether it would not be wise for the Secretary of State for Scotland, when a matter of this kind comes up, to accept what was originally proposed. All this row is about one pound. There is one pound difference between the actual estimate and the Amendment put down. I do not see why we should have wasted all this time on that.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member is not entitled to speak about a waste of time. That is certainly not appropriate.

§ Mr. Scollan
The purpose of the Money Resolution is to meet the necessary expenses incurred in the passing of the Scottish Bill, and this requires the consent of the Committee. Obviously that is what we are discussing. I cannot understand why this Committee should be asked to grant permission for the Crown to spend a sum of money, without discussing the reasons for spending it.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member is quite wrong. The purpose of the Resolution is to provide an overall maximum amount and the Committee on the Bill will have the right, as I understand it, to 1844 dispose of such sum as they think right and proper. It is perfectly competent for this Committee to propose a reduction. It is not competent for the Committee, nor is it competent for the Committee upstairs, to act except on the terms of the Resolution on the Order Paper.

§ Mr. Scollan
In that event, it means that a sum of money is being asked for, and that all we have to do is to vote that sum of money without giving reasons for or against it. If that is the case, it is a simple matter. After listening to the discussion tonight, I came to the conclusion that we were allowed to give certain reasons for or against. The Resolution includes a sum of £300 million, a proportion of which obviously is for Scotland. I put a question, earlier, to the Secretary of State for Scotland. That question was whether he would define for us how compensation for land for development which the landlord had planned, but was not allowed to carry out, would be arrived at. I was told that I would get the answer in the Committee. But I have not yet got this information, or any reason. Quite frankly, I do not think that is playing the game. This is like giving a man a blank cheque, on the understanding that he will tell you after he has spent the money what he is doing with it. Here we have a situation where landlords in Scotland—and now there will probably be a spate of them—will draw up plans for the development of their own estates. The planning committee will turn them down, and then there will be claims for compensation, although it is not called compensation. When I was told by the Minister that it was not compensation, I asked him what it was. The answer was "Oh, it is a kind of gratuity." So what we are to get is a kind of gratuity, without a means test, handed out to landlords in Scotland, to be paid out of this money we are voting in the Financial Resolution. [Interruption.] Evidently some hon. Members do not want to listen. There is no bolt on the door; they can go home at any time. The other point I do not like about this Bill is that this money is to be spent on town and country planning. Today, while listening to the discussion, we heard, first one hon. Member opposite telling us that there was no planning in the Bill, then another hon. Member—

§ The Chairman
Those are matters relating to the Bill itself. and not to the Financial Resolution.

1845

§ Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities)
The only point I wish to raise is a quite small but, I think, important one. I think we could all be satisfied if the learned Lord Advocate would explain the position that will arise. It is for that reason that I am raising this point. Let me say at once, I accept, of course, without question, all the Rulings you have given, Major Milner. The point I wish to raise is in connection with the words in brackets in lines 8 to 10 of the Financial Resolution. As you, Major Milner, have said, quite rightly, the purpose of this Financial Resolution is to fix the limits for the Committee on the Scottish Bill that will work upstairs. I can quite see that it might be possible to deal with the limits of this Financial Resolution by reference to a sum fixed by another Act. But when another Bill and not another Act is mentioned, it seems to me that we get this very great difficulty. You have suggested, Major Milner —and I think we can all appreciate the reasoning that actuated you in expressing that opinion—that it might be in Order for the Committee upstairs to fix-a sum for Scotland—although without prejudice to the Ruling of the Chairman of that Committee—within the £300 million. In exactly the same way in the case of the English Bill, it might again be perfectly in Order for the Committee upstairs to fix a sum for England and Wales, provided it were less than £300 million. Now, the two sums together might exceed £300 million, and therefore be clearly wrong—

§ The Chairman
If the hon. and learned Member would he good enough to look at Clause 48 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, the Financial Resolution of which is before us, he will see in Subsection (2): The aggregate amount of the payments to be made by virtue of this section shall be the amount apportioned to land in Scotland by order made by the Treasury… I have not the English Bill before me, but presumably the Treasury have a similar power in that Bill. I also assume —although here I am afraid I am entrenching slightly on my own Ruling as to discussing the merits and demerits of the Bill—there will be a central body which will avoid the confusion to which I gather the hon. and learned Member is referring.

§ Mr. Strauss
I am much obliged to you, Major Milner. I hope I have understood 1846 your point correctly. I quite agree that under those Clauses, if they go unamended, the confusion will not arise. But we are not entitled to assume that these clauses will not be amended in any way; that is, within the Financial Resolution dealing with the particular Bill. That Clause which you have just cited to me may be amended perfectly consistently with the rules of order, provided it remains within this Financial Resolution. It could be amended by saying that the sum allotted to Scotland should be £200,000,000, and in possibly the same way the corresponding amendment could be made in the English Bill.

§ 11.15 p.m.

§ Mr. Tiffany (Peterborough)
On a point of Order. Does not the Money Resolution specifically state: Not exceeding in the aggregate, together with payments to he made by virtue of any corresponding provisions which may be enacted in relation to England and Wales, the sum of three hundred million pounds. Does that meet the point being raised?

§ Mr. Strauss
I think the hon. Gentleman who has just interrupted could follow the point if he would concentrate upon it. If the other Bill were an Act then his point would be perfectly sound, but when this Bill goes upstairs the only limitations to amendments on this Bill will he this Financial Resolution. As it will he unknown what has been done on the other Bill which is going simultaneously through the House, there would be nothing out of order, in my submission, and it would be quite consistent with your ruling, Mr. Chairman, in fixing a sum under this Bill which, together with the corresponding change made under the other Bill, would make the sums together in excess of this maximum. The point I want to put as the result of this reasoning is that this is an absurd way of proceeding, namely to proceed with a Financial Resolution that refers to two Bills proceeding simultaneously without imposing any limitations by rules of order on what may he decided by either committee. The learned Lord Advocate has studied all the precedents on this matter, and will be able to direct the Committee without any difficulty to such precedents as exist and will be able to explain how the difficulties which I have adumbrated to the Committee can he avoided. It is in order that the Lord Advocate can relieve all our minds on the absurd position to which the Government 1847 would otherwise admittedly be leading this Committee that I venture to put this point.

§ Resolution to be reported Tomorrow