§ Mr. HareI beg to move, in page 6, line 34, to leave out "twenty-four hours," and to insert "seven days."
We are not quarrelling with the general principle that a local authority should carry out work that would put a site into such a condition as will render it no longer detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood, but we say that this suggestion of merely giving a notification of 24 hours before power of entry is granted, is one which should not be accepted by this Committee. We have, therefore, substituted what we think is the more reasonable period of a week's notice to be given to the owner of such a site before entry is made upon it.
2389 It used to be a fashionable dictum to say that an Englishman's home is his castle. That is somewhat out of date, it seems; but I do suggest to the Minister that to say that a local authority shall be allowed as a matter of right to enter upon somebody's property within 24 hours, when, in fact, the owner of that property may, in all probability, not have received the communication, is an unreasonable suggestion.
We are not dealing with a rush job. These sites have been in existence since the war. They are war damaged sites. We have waited four and a half and five and six years in some cases for this work to be done. Therefore, suddenly to produce in an Act of Parliament, presumably only on the grounds of immediate urgency, the right to enter on to property after only 24 hours' notification is surely an unreasonable proposition.
I think we in this Committee should, as long as we are not damaging in any way the rights and the needs of the community, try to preserve, where we can, the rights of the individual. Here we are suggesting that after 24 hours the local authority should be empowered to enter upon a site, when we know perfectly well that if we pass this Clause as it stands now it will be perfectly in order for the local authority to send a letter to the owner of the site by a Saturday afternoon post knowing full well that that particular notification will not arrive until the Monday morning; and as the Clause now stands the local authority will have every right to enter upon the site and to start the work before the owner has had any chance at all of receiving the notification.
I feel that when the public do not get all that satisfaction when, as individuals, they deal with Government Departments, then we ourselves, when laying down legislation, should not impose really impossible conditions upon individuals. We as Members of Parliament are in a sense fortunate, for we do get quicker replies, when we write to the Minister or to his Parliamentary Secretary, than probably other individual citizens do who may make inquiries of the Ministry of Health. Even so, we do not expect lightning answers. We say we do not get them, perhaps; but we do get a better service; and we accept the fact that there may be 2390 certain delay before proper answers can be delivered to our inquiries. We know there is no need for great urgency. There is not that need, and so I hope that the Minister will be reasonable, since this Amendment is a reasonable one, and will substitute a week's notice for notice of 24 hours.
§ Mr. BevanIt is very difficult to deal with some of the Amendments which have been moved today, and which, as I have said, clearly would wreck the whole purpose of the Bill—and this Amendment in particular—with any patience whatsoever.
§ Mr. BevanLet the hon. and gallant Member think for a minute what is the purpose of this. The purpose of Clause 9 is to enable a local authority to enter upon a bombed site which the owner has, neglected, which is filthy, and which is a nuisance to the neighbourhood. The purpose is to enable the local authority to enter upon such a site and tidy it up and; leave it—in other words, to do what the owner ought to do and fails to do. And because he does not do it the whole neighbourhood is polluted. Subsection (3) of the Clause makes the local authority, having done the work and cleared off, liable to compensate the negligent owner for any disturbance. Is it seriously suggested in such circumstances as that that any great disservice is done to the owner?
I have never heard, in the whole of my experience, of such tenderness as is being shown today for the owners of these bombed sites. The fact is we are getting complaints all over the place, from all around. Now the hon. Member seriously suggests, as a member of the London County Council, that though there is an abomination on the site, a notice shall be put up to tell the owner to do the work in seven days' time.
§ Mr. HareThe right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if a site has become a public nuisance or a danger to health, the county council or any local authority already has power to deal with it.
§ Mr. BevanThere is far more than that involved here. People tip all sorts of stuff on to the sites whenever they like, and it is left there, and it is now seriously suggested that we should have the 2391 pompous position that this eyesore should be there for seven days during which notice is served on the owner by the local authority, saying, "If the work is not done we propose to do it." I have never heard in all my life in Parliament of such a fragile vehicle carrying such a load of nonsense.
Colonel DowerThe right hon. Gentleman blows hot, and then he blows cold. He will probably blow up one day—quite rightly, perhaps; and at not so distant a date, perhaps. The right hon. Gentleman has today paid far more glowing tributes to owners than we have on this side of the Committee. He has said, "Of course, if an owner is liable he will apply for a licence." I should not like to say so. There are some very bad owners who neglect applying for licences.
Colonel DowerI said that the right hon. Gentleman has given an indication that owners have a very strong sense of their responsibilities, and yet at another time he has said that they are the worst people who ever lived, and that the sooner they are all thrown down the drain the better.
§ Mr. Austin (Stretford)Hear, hear.
Colonel DowerCertain hon. Members on that side are far more honest than the right hon. Gentleman, because they are consistent, at any rate. Consistency is a thing that we on this side always welcome. I should like to know what exactly the right hon. Gentleman's argument is. I should like to know exactly where I stand. From what he says, one minute I think I am a good boy and the next minute I think I am a bad boy. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean? If these sites are in this frightful state and all the rest of it, why has not some action already been taken? Sites do not get into an appalling state in one second. This means that the local authorities themselves have been inactive in the matter.
§ The ChairmanI do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman can enter into a Second Reading speech on this matter. It is a small point, of whether 2392 seven days' notice shall be substituted for 24 hours' notice.
Colonel DowerThat is the point I am trying to make. I will explain it carefully, and I am sure, Major Milner, you Will agree I am in Order. What I am saying is that the local authorities have neglected their duty if they have allowed these sites to remain so long, and have then suddenly wakened up to say, "We have to start this work in 24 hours and we shall give 24 hours' notice and no more." That is the point I am making.
§ Mr. BevanClearly, that is a false point. If the offence was of a kind that the local authority had power at once to remedy, it would already have done so. The purpose of the Bill is to extend the powers of the local authorities.
Colonel DowerI fail to follow the right hon. Gentleman. This notice of 24 hours is now being provided for in Measure after Measure. It appeared in the Coast Protection Bill the other day. Now it is being put in here. In every new Measure now there is this 24 hours' notice. I do honestly think, with all respect, that what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) said lay behind this is indeed the case—that what the right hon. Gentleman really wants to do is to destroy individual liberty and freedom.
§ 1.30 p.m.
Commander GalbraithI did not anticipate that I would have to take part in the Debate on this Amendment, but in view of the manner in which the Minister has received it, and the way in which he has worked himself up into what appears to be almost a form of rage about nothing in particular, I must say I think he is being too stupid for words.
Commander GalbraithI am not giving way to the right hon. Gentleman this time. He has been interrupting throughout the whole of these proceedings, and has indeed been telling my hon. and gallant Friend how he should make his speech instead of letting him make it in his own way. The right hon. Gentleman can just remain on the bench this time while I finish what I have to say to him.
2393 The Minister's indignation was quite ridiculous. What we desire is that reasonable notice shall be given. Now it is no good the right hon. Gentleman starting off to hunt owners for not having done their duty. He knows that in many cases that is quite untrue, and quite untenable. After all, it is not up to the owner of a property to be on guard day and night.
Commander GalbraithWell, we shall leave it at that. There is no need whatsoever for the owner of property to have a constant guard on his property. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the whole neighbourhood being polluted, and nonsense of that kind.
Commander GalbraithThe right hon. Gentleman is, of course, referring to his own property. That would be sufficient to pollute any neighbourhood. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, the right hon. Gentleman asked for it: he can take it. The right hon. Gentleman is just talking ridiculous nonsense. If any property is a public nuisance the local authority has already a statutory duty to see that it is put right. The right hon. Gentleman is just behaving very stupidly on this Amendment. He talks about it being "a fragile vehicle carrying such a load of nonsense." How very stupid, childish and ridiculous. The fact of the matter is, the right hon. Gentleman needs his lunch and he ought to go and get it.
2394 It has become customary in Acts passed by this Government always to introduce the very shortest notice. It really is not necessary; and in this case in particular it is not necessary. I know that in some cases in which there is a 24-hour limit on giving statutory notice I get notices weeks ahead. There is no need for this provision for only 24 hours notice. Let us make it something reasonable. Seven days is perfectly reasonable in this case. There is nothing for the right hon. Gentleman to work himself up about on this. Local authorities do not really want to appear within 24 hours to do something and they will not do so. They can quite easily give seven days' notice; the work will proceed with agreement on every side; we shall get co-operation, and the thing will be done very well. I hope my hon. Friend will stand by this Amendment and take it to a Division unless the Minister gives way.
§ Mr. BevanI also hope that the population of London will have followed this Debate, and have realised how much more tender the Opposition is for the property rights—
§ Mr. Bevan—of the owners of blitzed sites than they are for the welfare and health of the London people.
§ Mr. HareI think it would be very unreasonable of anybody to suggest that I should withdraw this Amendment, in view of the extraordinary behaviour of the right hon. Gentleman. I suppose he is peevish because he is peckish. For some unknown reason, he has gone off the handle. He knows perfectly well that no local authority would demand that they should be able to give 24 hours' notice rather than a week's notice to the owner of a blitzed site. He knows that is not a demand which would be made to him by any local authority, because it is not needed. Local authorities already have a great deal on their hands, and they will not need to do everything required on these sites within 24 hours of giving notice. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has behaved in this most unreasonable and foolish manner, and I hope my hon. Friends will join with me in support of this Amendment when we divide.
§ Mr. Walker-SmithBefore the Committee takes a decision on this Amendment, I should like to say that I think the right hon. Gentleman has addressed himself to this simple Amendment in language quite unsuited to the occasion, or the purpose or spirit of the Amendment. One always knows when the right hon. Gentleman has a bad case, because when he is at his most rhetorical, and when his synthetic indignation is at his warmest, his case is at its worst; and it is notorious that his synthetic indignation is often so very warm because his case is often so very bad. This is just another illustration of it.
The Minister talked about abominations existing on these sites. There is nothing in this Bill about abominations. This is the fifth year of this Parliament, and the fifth year of the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of office. If these abominations demand instantaneous treatment, within 24 hours of notice being given, what has been happening during these five years? Why do we only hear about it for the first time in the fifth year of his tenure of office? [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Deritend (Mr. Longden) has a point to put perhaps he will stand up and put it. As he does not stand up I assume he has no point to put, so perhaps he will observe the Rules of the House and when seated remain silent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Nobody in this Committee can lightly accuse me of any lack of courtesy in
§ giving way when any hon. Member has a point to put, but I am surely entitled to ask hon. Members not to do so from a sedentary position.
§ The right hon. Gentleman has clearly, for political purposes, drawn an entirely fanciful picture of the effect of this Amendment. My hon. Friend, with his very extensive experience of local authority matters, is quite right when he says that there is no demand from local authorities, or from the local government world, to have these 24-hour powers. It is quite beyond contemplation that local authorities will suddenly charge down on these sites, to give 24 hours' notice, and then do the work. I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman has taken the view of representative bodies of local authorities whether 24 hours' notice or seven days' notice is more suitable in their view. If he had, no doubt he would have so informed us. The 24-hour period is unreasonably short. If there is any question of a public nuisance existing on these sites there are already very adequate powers for that to be dealt with quite apart from this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has chosen to make this very constructive and moderate suggestion of my hon. Friend the occasion for a party polemic of little relevance and doubtful taste. I hope the Committee will support my hon. Friend.
§ Question put, "That 'twenty-four hours' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 47.
2397| Division No. 287.] | AYES | [1.40 p.m. |
| Adams, Richard (Balham) | Daines, P. | Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Albu, A. H. | Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. |
| Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) | Davies, Edward (Burslem) | Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley) |
| Attewell, H. C. | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. |
| Austin, H. Lewis | Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Leslie, J. R. |
| Ayles, W. H. | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Lindgren, G. S. |
| Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. | Delargy, H. J. | Lipton, Lt.-Col. |
| Barton, C. | Dodds, N. N. | Longden, F. |
| Battley, J. R. | Driberg, T. E. N. | McAdam, W. |
| Benson, G. | Dumpleton, C. W. | McEntee, V. La. T. |
| Berry, H. | Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Macpherson, T. (Romford) |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) |
| Bing, G. H. C. | Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) | Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) |
| Binns, J. | Field, Capt. W. J. | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Follick, M. | Mellish, R. J. |
| Bowden, H. W. | Freeman, Peter (Newport) | Middleton, Mrs. L. |
| Braddock, T. (Mitcham) | Ganiey, Mrs. C. S. | Mitchison, G. R. |
| Bramall, E. A. | Gibson, C. W. | Morley, R. |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Guy, W. H. | Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) |
| Brown, George (Belper) | Haire, John E. (Wycombe) | Moyle, A. |
| Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Nally, W. |
| Burden, T. W. | Herbison, Miss M. | Naylor, T. E. |
| Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) | Holman, P. | Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) |
| Callaghan, James | Horabin, T. L. | Orbach, M. |
| Chamberlain, R. A. | Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) | Pargiter, G. A. |
| Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.) | Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) | Parker, J. |
| Cove, W. G. | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Parkin, B. T. |
| Piratin, P. | Skinnard, F. W. | Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) |
| Popplewell, E. | Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) | Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) |
| Price, M. Philips | Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.) | Warbey, W. N. |
| Pursey, Comdr. H. | Solley, L. J. | Webb, M. (Bradford, C.) |
| Ranger, J. | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank | Weitzman, D. |
| Rees-Williams, D. R. | Sparks, J. A. | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Reid, T. (Swindon) | Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) | Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B. |
| Ridealgh, Mrs. M. | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. | Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) |
| Robens, A. | Summerskill, Rt. Hon Edith | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) |
| Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) | Symonds, A. L. | Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.) |
| Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) | Williams, W. R. (Heston) |
| Royle, C. | Thomas, John R. (Dover) | Wyatt, W. |
| Scott-Elliot, W. | Tiffany, S. | Yates, V. F. |
| Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens) | Turner-Samuels, M. | Younger, Hon. Kenneth |
| Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) | Vernon, Maj. W. F. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Skeffington-Lodge, T. C. | Viant, S. P. | Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins. |
| NOES | ||
| Baldwin, A. E. | Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. | Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. |
| Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount | Ponsonby, Col. C. E. |
| Bower, N. | Hogg, Hon. Q. | Renton, D. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Hope, Lord J. | Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. | Howard, Hon. A. | Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) |
| Byers, Frank | Lucas, Major Sir J. | Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry) |
| Carson, E. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. | Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow) |
| Conant, Maj. R. J. E. | MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. | Smithers, Sir W. |
| Crowder, Capt. John E. | Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight) | Spearman, A. C. M. |
| Davidson, Viscountess | Mackeson, Brig. H. R. | Teeling, William |
| Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) | Manningham-Buller, R. E. | Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Fox, Sir G. | Marlowe, A. A. H. | Wakefield, Sir W. W. |
| Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) | Medlicott, Brigadier F. | Walker-Smith, D. |
| Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok) | Mellor, Sir J. | Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick) |
| Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) | Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) | Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) | Mr. Studholme and |
| Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) | Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. | Colonel Wheatley. |
§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton (Brixton)I beg to move, in page 6, line 42, at the end, to add:
(4) Where in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section any land is fenced by the local authority, half the cost of such fencing may be recovered by the local authority from the owner of the land.I hope that this Amendment will not engender the same amount of heat as was engendered on the previous Amendment. The point of it is this. I am advised, by those who are competent to express an opinion, that unless the site receiving attention under this Clause is immediately enclosed by fencing, the work done and the money spent on the site will be wasted. The most satisfactory form of fencing is, I understand, a chain-link fence with concrete posts, and the cost of such fencing is in the neighbourhood of £1 per yard. That is not a job which can be done by voluntary labour.We have some 500 damaged sites in the Metropolitan Borough of Lambeth, and the cost of fencing alone will be anything up to £15,000. That may not seem a very large figure in relation to the sums with which the Parliamentary Secretary has to deal, but it is nevertheless a large sum to us. The cost will be even greater if the amount is covered by loans, however low the interest rate and however short the period for repayment may be.
2398 1.45 p.m.
I submit it is right and proper that we should make some distinction between the two categories of sites dealt with in the Bill. The first category is the land that is completely taken over by the local authority, and the second category is the land or site which is entered upon for the purpose of making improvements, from which the owner may reap some benefit, and in respect of which the owner continues to use and possess the site in question. There is no valid reason why the owner of the latter category of site, with which this Clause is concerned, should not make some contribution to the benefits that will accrue to him personally. That is why this Amendment suggests that the owner should bear half the cost of fencing the site. He is not expected to pay for the cost of removal of debris or the clearance of the site, and it is surely not unreasonable to expect him to pay half of the cost of fencing.
The proposal will relieve ratepayers, most of whom are not members of the Tory-sponsored ratepayers' associations which exist up and down the country. Furthermore, if the owner wants to do the job himself he can get on with it without waiting for action on the part of the local authority and with or without such contribution as may be obtainable 2399 from the War Damage Commission. As a matter of fact, public-spirited owners have already fenced in their sites. The Clause, which my Amendment seeks to improve, implies that the public-spirited owner who has already erected and paid for the cost of fencing, is to be the subject of discrimination compared with the owner whose land will be fenced in under the Clause at the ratepayers' expense. I know that the usual widow and orphan argument may be adduced; I mean the hypothetical widows who are marched on parade as soon as it is proposed to nationalise anything or to interfere with any proprietorial rights.
This is a problem which can be simply surmounted by carrying out the work and registering the appropriate charge for it. That is done when the local authority carries out repairs under the Public Health Act which the owner has refused to carry out, after the matter has been brought to his notice and the requisite orders have been obtained. We do not ask that the Exchequer or public funds should be subjected to increased burdens. The intention of the Amendment and of those who support me is to relieve the burden on ratepayers and taxpayers and to require from the owner a reasonable contribution towards the cost of fencing his site.
§ Mr. Mellish (Rotherhithe)I support on behalf of the borough which I represent, the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). We have found from experience that it becomes vitally necessary to fence these sites. It is not enough just to clear away the rubble and sow grass seed in the top soil. One must have fencing. In our borough, out of 282 bomb damage sites, the vast majority are owned privately. We have gone into the matter very carefully and we have found that the owners usually do not live in the borough. They have left the property in the hands of agents whose job in the past it has been to collect the rents. Bermondsey is one of the boroughs in which large parts have for many years been eyesores, to a large extent because of neglect of property in the hands of private owners.
During the war, Hitler did us some benefit by wiping out many of our black 2400 spots. Today, because of the passing of a Bill to try to improve the amenities, we are, with voluntary helpers, trying to overcome our problems. We feel that it is not right, where private owners of property have not made the slightest attempt to improve it at all, that the local authorities should take on the whole burden. In many cases it is difficult to trace the owners of some of the sites. We think it only justice to the ordinary ratepayers that they should not be asked to shoulder the whole burden.
§ Mr. BlenkinsopI have of course a great deal of sympathy with the point of view expressed by my hon. Friends. It may be true to say in some cases that some owners have carried out this work themselves and it seems unreasonable that other owners should not follow suit but should have to be required to do the same thing. We have given the matter very careful consideration. We feel, in spite of that, that it would be inequitable to give power to require this of every owner. I think hon. Members are aware that the Clause refers in the main to small sites. It might therefore be a great hardship to a small owner to meet half of what, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, may be a fairly considerable cost.
We apppreciate the points that have been raised as to the deterrent that the cost of fencing will be upon local authorities. I rather think that that was the consideration at the back of the minds of my hon. Friends when they put down the Amendment. As we indicated on Second Reading, the charge need not fall upon the local authorities all in one year. Suggestions have also been made that there might be more consideration given to the penalties imposed upon those who dump or seek to dump rubbish upon these sites. It may be better to deal with the problem along those lines rather than to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. SparksI should like to refer to the point which has arisen as to cost. It will require many thousands of pounds to fence sites with chain link fencing. No one in his senses would erect chain link fencing around sites likely to be in the occupation of the local authority from only one year to a maximum of 10 years. That type of fencing is only used where it is necessary to have a boundary for many years, because the lifetime of the 2401 fencing is between 50 and 60 years. Chain link fencing is unnecessary for the purpose envisaged in the Bill. Alternatives are available at a very much lower cost.
In most cases there is no fencing at all around these sites. The War Damage Commission would have some financial responsibility for its erection in cases where there is no fencing and the site is the result of enemy action. The War Damage Commission should bear the cost of the erection of suitable fencing. In all the circumstances, in view of the fact that the occupation of these sites cannot be for more than 10 years while most of them will be possessed for a very much shorter period of time, I think the Minister is right in saying that the Committee should not accept the Amendment.
§ 2.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Yates (Birmingham, Ladywood)I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) that this is only a small matter. In a city like Birmingham it is a very large and important matter. I was recently in communication with the City Surveyor of the City of Birmingham about these problems. I was dealing with the site formed by the gardens of a number of houses. Through bombing the gardens had gone entirely out of use, and the site had been quite wrongfully used for other purposes. The tenants themselves could not develop the gardens because there was no fencing round the site. One tenant wrote to me and said how dangerous it was because huge holes were being dug and children were lighting fires on the site and things like that were going on.
I wrote to the City Surveyor who replied that his department, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Health, had cleared up much of the bomb damaged property in the City and the cost of so doing was reimbursed to the City by the Treasury through the Ministry of Health. However, the Ministry of Health would not permit fencing unless it was on the grounds of public safety, and for that reason most of the cleared sites throughout the city were left unprotected. In my judgment the landlord of the site to which I have referred ought to have erected fencing. There was no reason why he should not do so.
2402 This is the first Amendment today upon which hon. Members opposite, who have been so careful to protect the interest of property owners, have not said one word.
§ Lieut.-Commander BraithwaiteWait a moment.
§ Mr. YatesIf it had been a question of the protection of private property, they would all have been jumping up at once to try to get in.
This is a matter to which the Minister ought to give more consideration. While we have done very much in Birmingham, many of these sites are in the centre of the city, which was an unhealthy area during the bombing, and the people have, therefore, suffered considerably. I do not see why we should be so tender to landlords who have lost all sense of responsibility towards their property. The Minister should again consider whether some powers should be conferred to enable local authorities to recover part of the cost. I do not see why this should be as expensive as was suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), as my hon. Friend the Member for Acton said that there could be cheaper fencing.
§ Lieut.-Commander BraithwaiteI thought it a pity to intervene earlier in the domestic disputation opposite in which hon. Members are torn between their desire to injure property owners on the one hand, and their desire to assist local authorities on the other. I have broad sympathy with the view put by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). The Committee should be grateful to him for raising a point of so much importance. His arguments were mostly sound. On the other hand, some of his detailed suggestions could not be supported whatever one's political views happened to be. For instance, as there is to be a 15 per cent. charge for the erection of fencing, it seems to me that the owner should have some say in what sort of fence is to be erected.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to be so wedded—I do not know whether one can be wedded to a chain fence; it sounds a mixed metaphor—he seemed to indicate that the only fence suitable for the purpose would be a chain 2403 fence. He was completely answered by his hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), although I do not share the hon. Gentleman's optimism, as I indicated earlier on another Amendment, that this is a temporary affair. I believe that this five and 10 year time limit will be re-enacted in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill under a future Government.
I feel, with the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish), that the Minister brushed this aside a little easily. He seemed anxious to smooth the Committee after our experience with his right hon. Friend a little earlier. The earthquake having departed, a still, small voice followed. A good thing too; it was soothing and calming. None the less, I think he might have given more attention to the views of hon. Members who sit behind him.
I want to make a suggestion. I could not vote for the Amendment in its present form for reasons which have been stressed by the Parliamentary 'Secretary and also by the hon. Member for Acton, but this is a matter which should be looked at further before the Bill passes. The hon. and gallant Gentleman might find that the skilled and learned Law Officers, whose assistance is always readily forthcoming in these matters, could devise a form of words which would broadly meet the point he has in mind. I do not know whether there will be a Report stage today. There will have to be a Report stage because Government Amendments are on the Paper and the Bill will be amended in Committee. Our position is therefore safeguarded to the extent that there is bound to be a Report stage. Or are the Government anxious to push this Measure through all its stages this afternoon? If they are, we shall not have an opportunity further to consider the matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman might get unity on both sides of the Committee if he had another look at this difficult problem.
If there could be an Amendment on the Report stage which would give local authorities a little easement—this is a very heavy burden for many of them—which would at the same time allow owners to be consulted about the form of fencing to be erected and which would 2404 also, while we are about it, give retrospective relief to the public-spirited owners who have already done the work and paid 100 per cent. of the cost, it would surely commend itself to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Let us be fair to all. Let sweet unity prevail now that the Minister has gone to lunch. Let the Parliamentary Secretary say that he will examine the matter again, and let the Report stage be taken, say, this day week when the necessary Amendment can be considered.
§ Mr. Gibson (Kennington)I should like to put a question to the Minister. I do not feel that the Amendment, as drafted, could be operated. In many cases local authorities would find they were dealing with a man of straw from whom they could not claim and from whom they could get nothing. The Clause provides for certain compensation to owners when the site is handed back. I assume—perhaps the Minister will put me right on this—that in the calculations as to the amount of compensation to which an owner might be entitled, the expenditure incurred by the local authority in making the sites pleasanter or more useful for the people living around them will be taken into account. Surely the question of fencing in order to keep dumpers off those sites and to prevent people from misusing them will be a factor in the cost which the local authority will have to bear in mind when turning these horrible sites into something like decent amenites for the local people. Will the Minster tell me whether these expenses will be taken into account when the time comes to calculate the compensation which the owner can claim?
§ Lieut.-Colonel LiptonWe have had a useful discussion on this point though the Parliamentary Secretary has not dealt as fully as he might have done with the important issue raised by this Amendment. I suggest that he was rather side-tracking the issue when he said that it was inequitable to expect a small owner to pay. He admitted that there was unfair discrimination between the owner who will be helped under this Clause and those public spirited owners who have already fenced their sites and thus contributed to the amenities of the neighbourhood. His other point, that the expense does not arise in any one year, is no real answer be- 2405 cause the cost will be even greater if the money has to be provided by loan. Nor is it an answer to suggest that heavier penalties on those who misuse the sites will be effective. It means additional police observation and prosecutions in the courts.
I willingly concede the argument that chain fencing is not the only or best means of dealing with all the sites, and I am sure that alternative cheap fencing could, with the consent of the owner, be put up where the circumstances warrant it. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) misconceived the position when he talked about a local authority not being in possession of these sites for more than ten years. The sites affected by this Clause are those which do not come into the occupation or ownership of the local authority but remain with the private owner.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) that this is a problem which will be with us not merely for two, three, five or 10 years, but that we must be prepared to face the possibility of some of these sites not being fully utilised for a number of years to come. In those circumstances, if my hon. Friend cannot accept the Amendment, I appeal to him to say that, in consultation with such other authorities as he might wish to consult, he will see what can be done to meet this point at a later stage of the Bill. If he would give some such undertaking, the views which have been expressed will be satisfied to that extent.
§ Mr. BlenkinsopI appreciate the points raised, but these are all matters which were considered carefully before this stage of the Bill was reached. With regard to compensation, that will largely depend upon the long-term use to be made of the site by the owner. As I say, we have already given sympathetic consideration to this proposal, not necessarily in this form, but we feel that in practice it is not one which we should embark upon. The suggestion I put forward earlier was not lightly made, and was discussed with all the representative bodies.
§ Lieut.-Colonel LiptonCan the Parliamentary Secretary say whether this aspect of the matter, namely, a contribution on the part of the owners towards the cost 2406 of this fencing, was discussed with any of the local authorities or with any association of local authorities?
§ 2.15 p.m.
§ Mr. BlenkinsopI did not say that the proposal my hon. and gallant Friend has put forward was discussed with the local authorities, but it has had careful consideration by my right hon. Friend and I am afraid we cannot accept it.
§ Lieut.-Commander BraithwaiteThe Parliamentary Secretary has told us that this matter received most careful consideration before we reached this stage of the Bill. I hope it did—but has no impact whatever been made on the hon. Gentleman's mind by the Debate which has taken place today in this sovereign body of the House of Commons? Here we are on the Committee stage, and the most eloquent, moving appeals have been made to the Parliamentary Secretary from hon. Members behind him and by hon. Members opposite. Are they to be told merely that this is a matter which was considered beforehand, that the Minister has gone to lunch, and that the Parliamentary Secretary has received instructions to resist every Amendment which comes up until his return? It is unfortunate if that is so.
I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman had come here without his mind entirely closed to what the House of Commons might feel on the matter. The House of Commons still exists. The House of Commons still has its opportunities of putting forward suggestions. I was hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary would say that in the light of the speeches made this morning, particularly those of hon. Members behind him, he would look at this between now and the Report stage. He has considered it already, we know, but will he not reconsider it between now and then?
§ Mr. MellishI intervene again only because I do not think the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) ought to assume any unfairness on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary. The Amendment was put down on the Order Paper on Tuesday; there were discussions between those of us who support it and the Parliamentary Secretary, and we know some of the difficulties he has encountered. So we are quite certain that this Amendment was given consideration and I would not 2407 like hon. Members opposite to think that it had been completely ignored.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.