HC Deb 07 July 1947 vol 439 cc1916-25
Mr. J. S. C. Reid

I beg to move, in page 17, line 7, to leave out "purposes," and to insert "class or classes of purpose."

This was a matter which was raised in Committee, and it was thought, I think in all quarters of the Committee, that the definition required some reconsideration, because, without that, there was great doubt as to what were the purposes, and how narrowly the particular purposes might be defined. We thought it was better to put in "class or classes of purpose" to make sure that the definition would be pretty wide. The point is, as the House is, no doubt, aware, that when planning permission is granted for the erection of a building, the permission may specify the purpose for which the building is to be used; and our object is to make certain that that will be done in a very broad way, so that it will say whether it is for shop or business purposes, or for residence, or for some broad purpose of that sort. The application would be for a commercial office or for a draper's shop, or something of that sort, and would make it clear that the permission would be for the shop, or offices, as the case might be. The person who applies for the permission necessarily says what he wants to use it for. If he is a draper, he obviously says he wants to use the thing as a draper's shop. But unless the permission is made a good deal wider than that, when the time comes when he wishes to move to larger premises, and Wants to realise on his present premises —or his executors want to realise on those premises—and if the new person to use the premises is not a draper at all. but an ironmonger, or something else altogether, it will be necessary to go back to get a planning permission, and pay another sum. That would be ridiculous I think the hon. Gentleman was sympathetic to that case—

Mr. Buchanan

No.

Mr. Reid

I must have been giving too much credit to the hon. Gentleman, but I certainly thought that his view was—and I submit now to the House that the view of the House ought to be—that if a man had paid his charge and got his permission for a shop, then, provided he did not want to increase the size of the shop or alter its design, he ought to be allowed in future to use those premises for any kind of shop—except a kind of shop which he is not allowed to put in under public health regulations and the like. There are certain places where one is not allowed to have a butcher's shop or a fishmonger's; and that will persist whatever we do in this Bill. But there is no reason why one should not change from being a draper to being an ironmonger without paying another development charge, surely? Surely the development charge is not going to be so narrowly calculated as to be one figure for a draper and another for an ironmonger, so that if a man changes from being the one to being the other, he has to pay the balance between the two charges? It may be that the hon. Gentleman has a case for saying—though I do not think so—that we ought to have some control over the number of shops—ߞ

Mr. Buchanan

No.

Mr. Reid

—or over the particular kind of shops in a particular street. But if that is not his view—and he says it is not—then, honestly, I do not see why he should object to this Amendment. Is the Government's purpose to make money for the Government out of the change? Is it to control the number of drapers' shops in the district? If it is not one or the other of these hampering controls at all, I do submit that this and the following Amendment—which is precisely the same Amendment, proposed to be made in line 8 as well as in line 7—ought to be accepted, unless the hon. Gentleman has some good reason he has not yet disclosed.

Mr. Buchanan

I wonder if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would excuse me making this personal reference to him? The more I sit here the more I remember my callow days spent in the Glasgow High Courts with the right hon. and learned Gentleman as the procurator, and myself as the criminal in the dock. Because with everything I do the question arises: "What are you going to get in the way of money." Let me assure him that that is not what is in my mind. I am sorry the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. John Henderson) is not present, because what I had in mind is what happens in the city, part of the representation of which he and I share, he in the West and myself in another part. We must give local people some power in these matters without their being cribbed, cabined and confined. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says: "Here is a butcher's shop I want it to be changed into an ironmonger's shop." In my own place, what happened was that overnight a butcher's shop was turned into a cobbler's shop, much to the annoyance of everybody near at hand, as well as spoiling one of the finest streets in the country. Huge machines were installed, without anything being added to the shop. Overnight into this first-class residential quarter they moved powerful machines, with a shocking effect on the street, as anybody who knows that area will appreciate. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) knows it, because it is in his Division, namely, the Victoria Road district of the City of Glasgow.

I will not stand that, and I trust that other hon. Members will not stand it. That is what we want to avoid in this respect, apart from the Public Health Acts. There have been baker's shops, conducted on very limited lines, and the whole atmosphere has been changed suddenly, while still nominally retaining the baker's shop, with a consequent shock to the residents in tenement localities. They are the people of whom I am thinking in this regard—the people in the tenement localities. The one safeguard in this connection is not the Government at all, but the authorities who are administering these provisions. In my view, they will continue to administer them as they have done constantly in the past, with a fair measure of justice and equality.

Mr. Henderson Stewart

The strange tiling is that in the course of his speech the Joint Under-Secretary has made the case for the Amendment.

Mr. Buchanan

No.

Mr. Stewart

I think he has, with respect. And if he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will see that that is so. What did he say to us? He said: "We do not want to do more than give the local authorities the power to indicate the general class of shop."

Mr. Buchanan

No, I have not. It is not only the class of shop but the particular shop.

Mr. Stewart

That is new. That is not what the hon. Gentleman said before. His case was that a butcher's shop was turned into an industrial factory. That is exactly what we want to do. We are quite agreeable to giving local authorities power to say it should be a shop or a factory; or that it shall be some kind of commercial shop. These are two distinct classes, for which we are asking in the Amendment; that is precisely what we do want. I do not think the hon. Member would want to give a local authority power to say: "You must not have a baker's shop. You must have an ironmonger's shop," or something of that description. Surely, that is asking too much? If the hon. Gentleman asks merely for a general classification of shops, then I really do not know why he does not accept the Amendment, because that is all we are asking. Would not he look at it again? I think that in essence we are agreed upon this. I do not think the words at present in the Bill, if Interpreted by anyone else, would bear the same meaning as the hon. Gentleman has put upon them. I accept what he says; I accept that that is his intention. That is what the words mean. I submit that the words we propose more accurately translate his meaning.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Bechervaise (Leyton, East)

What is the difference between ?classes of purposes "and" purposes"?

Mr. Stewart

I should have thought that it was quite simple. It is the difference which was shown by the Joint Under-Secretary. The industrial concern is one class; another class of purposes is the baker's shop, the butcher's shop, or some other kind of shop. It is wrong to give a local authority power to say that there can be a grocer's shop but not a baker's shop.

Mr. C. Williams

It is very interesting to hear the Joint Under-Secretary defending the amenities of the better districts. I think we are all trying to achieve the same purpose. What we all wish to ensure is that an area shall be for shopping purposes rather than for manufacturing purposes. It seems to be largely a question of words. Both sides of the House seem to wish to achieve the same purpose. In the circumstances, it might be a good thing to see whether words cannot be found to cover the meaning we want. None of us wish to see the kind of thing the Joint Under-Secretary mentioned happening in the future. On the other hand, we do not wish to have the use of an individual building restricted too narrowly. Is it not possible to get a form of words to meet the purposes both sides of the House have in mind?

Sir W. Darling

I think the Joint Under-Secretary, from his experiences, can now see more reasons for this Amendment than he did when he first saw it on the Order Paper. I suggest that he has seen the development of many suburbs in the great city to which he belongs. The first development is not the final development. When the new suburb comes into being, the kind of shop opened in the first instance is probably an "a things," but, as the population fills up, the original "a' things" or haberdashery shop becomes a shop of a more exact character, and other shops are built up around it, until there are adequate shops to meet the demand. If this is followed, the original purpose is apparently the final purpose for a very long period of time.

I have in mind the little shop failing to get adequate custom to support it, which is bound to fall into some manufacturing process, such as a cobbler's shop, to the detriment of the area. I have seen that happen more than once. In Edinburgh, we have seen corporation shops taken over, not for shopping purposes, but for residential purposes, with the result that the original intentions of the local authority have been defeated. I suggest that if they were guided by such words as "purposes or class of purposes," they would have greater latitude. In Scotland, there are scores of buildings designated as masonic halls which were erected some 40 or 50 years ago. These were places for public meetings, but they have long since departed from their original and narrow association, now being public halls in the fullest sense of the term. They are used for dances, cinemas, public entertainments, even political meetings. It seems to me that if such a hall was being built by a body specifically designated for that purpose, this Subsection would limit it to that narrow use. If the Government accepted the Amendment it would not be so limited. The local authority, if they had the power, would be able to widen the designation, and would be given the measure of freedom which the expanding or contracting character of the community demanded.

May I refer to a further instance, which is well known to me from my experience as a Scottish shopkeeper? The Scottish co-operative societies are alive and expanding. They feel their way. They do not open large and extensive premises in new areas. Throughout Scotland, because of the limitation in housing, there are wooden buildings in many of the new developing suburbs which belong to the co-operative societies, and from which vans distribute goods. These would be designated under the Bill for a specific purpose, and the societies would seem to be hindered in developing. Their interests would be restricted, if not actually extinguished. In a Scotland which is developing, there should be the maximum freedom, through this Measure, to local authorities to control essential planning.

Mr. Stephen

I am in difficulty about the words of the Amendment, because they do not appear to do what the Opposition suppose they will do. They propose to leave out, "purposes," and to insert, "class or classes of purpose." "Purpose" is a general term, but it seems to me that the words, "class of purpose," introduce a limitation. The Clause says: Where planning permission is granted for the erection of a building the grant of permission may specify the purposes for which the building may be used.… What would any lawyer read into the word "purposes"? I, as a lawyer, do not take it to relate to the provision of drapery shops, but to a shopkeeper. If I were to put in an application I would say that my building was for the purpose of providing shops, and stores in connec- tion with that shop. It would not be a question of whether a draper was going to give place to a bookshop or a candlestick maker. I take it that the authority would require to specify what kind of shop was meant by the word "purposes." That power under "purposes" might be too wide, but any changes in the form should not be allowed. It is worth while for the Government to consider whether there should not be some alteration of the words.

Commander Galbraith

The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has said that the word "purposes" is wider than the words proposed in the Amendment. It is because there can be introduced under that word anything, and it would allow for specifying that there must be a baker's shop or a grocer's shop that we put in "class of purposes." We want to see the Clause worded so that there shall be permission for shops or for factories. I thought, when we had a previous discussion on this matter, that I was in full agreement with the Joint Under-Secretary. I agree with him that on no account should a shop be turned into industrial premises, and that is what has been happening, to the intense annoyance of those who live round it. The hon. Gentleman said that we ought to treat the local authorities as reasonable persons. They are to a large extent reasonable persons, but there are times when they do things which cause the greatest annoyance in certain localities. It is the people living in the localities who really know what is best for themselves, and if a shop is put in a locality where it is not necessary, that shop is quickly removed because it goes bankrupt. I suggest that there are many instances in which the local authorities are not the best judges of what is required in their particular localities. We have known of instances where a local authority has had a grievance against some locality—perhaps because of the person who represents it—and it vents its displeasure by restricting facilities to that locality. I have known cases of that kind to happen, and here the power is being put directly into the hands of a local authority, and it is a very great power. I am fully with the hon. Gentleman in what he wants to stop, but, at the same time, I think the local authorities should not have this complete power of designating exactly the type of shop that should be put in a particular place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the wording of the Amendment.

Mr. Buchanan

The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), says that the Clause may be too wide as it stands; therefore, make it more strict. My answer is that the local authorities on the whole will be the best judges as to strictness and fairness. It may be that the words are rather wide, but I believe in trusting the local authorities. I think I know the object of the Amendment which has been put down, but I think that the words would allow the abuse to go on. I am advised, and I know from my own practical knowledge, that it would not be advisable to accept the words put down by the Opposition. I do not wish to do hon. Members opposite any injustice in the matter. They think that a local authority may use these powers in a harsh way and prevent a private trader from getting a shop as against a co-operative society. That, I feel, is at the back of their minds.

Let us see what happens. When I look at the immense powers which local authorities, have I am surprised at what the Opposition say. They have got increasing powers throughout Scotland. They own all the new shops in the housing estates and they can allocate them to whom they like, while at the end of 12 months they can turn them out if they so desire. I think of these which are in my native city and owned by the local authority—now run by school friend? of mine—and they are not allocated in a prejudicial fashion. Every person gets a fair share. They have more power than is given under this Bill. I defy anyone to say that the local authorities who own shops do not let them equitably and reasonably. My plea is for the Opposition to make up their mind. A minute ago they were criticising me because I was forcing things on them, and here I am asking them to give the local authorities a greater measure of control

Question put, "That 'purposes' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 73.

Amendment made: In page 17, line 12, leave out from "granted," to "then," in line 14, and insert "for any develop ment."—[Mr. Buchanan.]