HC Deb 24 April 1950 vol 474 cc723-40

10.0 p.m.

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

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 19th January, 1950, entitled the Town and Country Planning (Grants) Regulations, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 88), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be annulled. The regulations to which the Motion relates are, like all the products of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, long, complicated and not always easy to understand perfectly, but the aspect of the matter to which, in moving this Motion, I desire to draw the attention of the House is limited only to one of them. The point at issue arises on Regulation 3, paragraph (ii), to which, as I have already intimated to the Minister, I desire so far as I am concerned to confine my remarks this evening.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree when I say that the effect of this paragraph is to provide that where land is to be acquired by a local authority under either Part II or Part III of the Regulations—that is to say, for purposes connected with re-development schemes, provision of open spaces, and a whole variety of purposes—its acquisition will only attract a grant from the Ministry if the condition is complied with that both the valuation of that land and the negotiations leading up to its acquisition are conducted by the district valuer. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a fair summary of the provisions of paragraph (ii).

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Dalton)

indicated assent.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I ask the House particularly to note that this paragraph provides, not merely that valuation shall be done by the district valuer—there may, indeed, be arguments in favour of that—but that in addition to valuation, the negotiations which lead up to the acquisition of the land have similarly to be so conducted.

It is fair to the right hon. Gentleman that I should say that this Order was made by his predecessor and has been in effect since 26th January of this year. It has attracted, as hon. Members will appreciate from their postbags, a considerable degree of attention. But my hon. Friends refrained from putting down a Motion to annul it until the latest possible stage, in the hope that reasonable argument, brought before the right hon. Gentleman and his Department from other directions, might take effect. The right hon. Gentleman, as I understood it, saw a deputation of the local authorities concerned a week ago. I understand that that interview was no more satisfactory to them than the mere fact that having an interview with the right hon. Gentleman is, I am sure, always so. I understand, although I have had no communication from the right hon. Gentleman, that similar conversations during the course of today have, at any rate, been less unsatisfactory—

Mr. Dalton

indicated dissent.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Not conversations then, but communications, have been less unsatisfactory, and I understand that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will indicate what concessions he is prepared to make. It would obviously be both inappropriate and out of order at this stage to say more than that.

If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make what amounts to a deathbed repentence when the order is, if not past praying for, very nearly past praying against, we shall listen to what he has to say, and if we can satisfy ourselves that he really meets the point of the objections which have been raised, it will not be necessary to carry the matter further. Obviously, any such decision must await the House hearing what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. But I thought it right at this stage to give the House an indication that the possibility of the right hon. Gentleman being in a genial mood could not be wholly excluded.

I proceed for the moment on that hypothesis. If the right hon. Gentleman is so disposed it seems to me that the practically sensible course for this House to follow is to adopt—and I hope unanimously—this Motion, so that the right hon. Gentleman shall be able to introduce new Regulations at the earliest possible moment. As the House are aware, and it is nobody's fault, the procedure adopted in this case does not permit of amendment and it is necessary for Regulations to be prayed against in toto, or not at all. Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman sees fit to accept the Motion, he will be free to issue such Regulations as he thinks fit and no harm will be done in respect of grants already made if that course is adopted. The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt familiar with the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. I must confess that it is not my bedside book, 'but the right hon. Gentleman proceeds on a high intellectual level. He will no doubt be aware that by subsection (2) of Section 111 of that Act, if a Motion for annulment is carried, that is without prejudice to anything done while the Regulation is in force. I mention that because it may be that there was some misconception on the point in the right hon. Gentleman's mind.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also be able to give to the House a full and frank explanation as to why the Order was made with this provision in it. It is a provision which has aroused the indignation of, judging from my post-bag, every type of local authority. The lion of the London County Council laid down, however temporarily, with the lamb of the rural district councils, and the more one analyses the effect of this provision the more one is forced to the conclusion that it is not only unreasonable in itself, but highly offensive to the self-respect of the local authorities great and small throughout the country. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to include in his speech, which he can do with some detachment inasmuch as his predecessor is no longer with us, some explanation why this was done and why this Order was made and put into effect three months ago.

The moment the House pauses to consider the merits of the matter it is obvious that at least an error of judgment was made. After all, negotiation with a view to the acquisition of properties is a matter in which responsibility as to the choice of the agency concerned must surely be left to the body undertaking the negotiations. It may be that the local authority will wish to employ the district valuer, who is a highly responsible official. The local authority may be one which is not well equipped with staff and will wish to use him, and nothing I say is designed to cast any reflection upon that hardworking class of official. But equally in the case of a local authority whose town clerk and borough surveyor are in day-today contact with the affairs of the area its officials are in the best possible position not only to know the details about which they are negotiating, but what is perhaps even more important in negotiating, the people with whom they are negotiating. I am told it is the fact that in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames such negotiations are undertaken by the municipal officials, who take the view, as do their superiors, that they can get a better bargain in these cases than can any public official from outside.

Then there is the fact that in the acquisition of this land it is not only the money of the central Government which is involved; the money of the ratepayers is equally involved. These are percentage grants, not 100 per cent. grants. It really seems outrageous that where a local authority is involved in a transaction initiated by the local authority the negotiation about or the valuation of that property should be treated as not the affair of that local authority. The matter goes further because, as I understand it, when the district valuer has made the valuation, the local authority concerned, whatever it thinks about it, has to accept that valuation and has no conceivable means of appeal. Then there is the fact that this provision does not square with our practical experience of what goes on in a local authority. When a local authority is engaged in considering the future of land for planning purposes, there are generally a number of alternative schemes under discussion at the same time, and it is a question not decided perhaps until the end which particular property is to be acquired.

The local authority's committee considering this matter has obviously to have professional and technical advice available before it makes its decision, and that advice is not available from the district valuer but only from its own officers. Yet under this system we are apparently to have those officers debarred from taking any part in the final valuation and final negotiations. The consequence will be the piling of more and more work upon what I am sure is in general an overloaded district valuer, because the amount of work which recent legislation has put upon these harassed officials is within the knowledge of the House. It would therefore follow that the local authority officer who has been concerned in the matter from the start, who has advised the relevant committee throughout the earlier stages, will have to stand back while the matter no doubt waits in the "In" or the "Pending" tray of another hard-pressed public official.

Then there is the fact that a restriction of this sort has not been universally adopted by other Government Departments which have had to handle the problem of such grants. The Ministry of Education, the Home Office, the Ministry of Health, perhaps I might say not less experienced Departments in public administration than that represented by the right hon. Gentleman, have not found it necessary to introduce restrictions of this sort, nor, so far as I am aware, has any evidence been produced that the present practice is unsatisfactory. And there is an aspect of the matter which makes this a bigger matter than we realised when we first heard of it. In these Regulations go through unchallenged this will, according to the inevitable custom and practice of Whitehall, become a precedent. Other Departments will adopt it in connection with their grants. We shall then be assured that it is hopeless to object to it because it has been accepted in connection with these planning grants. That is perhaps one of the most important reasons why my hon. Friends and I have thought it advisable at this stage to challenge the matter.

Finally, the aspect of the matter which seems to me to be the most important of all is the spirit behind this proposal. It obviously cannot have originated from a Department which had real confidence or belief in the independence of the local authorities throughout this country. We all know how local authorities, particularly perhaps the non-county boroughs, do feel sincerely that function after function is being taken from them; that they and their officers are becoming little more than agents of the central Government. We all know that the consequences of that inevitably must be that authorities so placed will not attract to their service men of the independence of mind and of position who are so desperately needed on local authorities. It does seem that no Department which really wished to safeguard that independence of local authorities, which is so vital for their continued health, could possibly have put forward a proposal of this sort, designed to make them in one further aspect of their activities in their own locality no more than the chosen instrument of Whitehall.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson (Liverpool, Walton)

rose —

Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, East)

rose —

Mr. Speaker

I had no notice but I understood that the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) was to second, and that is why I called him.

Sir H. Williams

My name is on the Order Paper in this matter.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Thompson

It is my wish with the pleasure of the House, to second this Motion. In doing so, may I be permitted to say that I have been most impressed by the remarks of my hon. Friend in dealing with the various aspects of local government that are raised by the Regulations which this Prayer seeks to annul. I am quite convinced that there is no local authority in the country at the present time which is not aware of a great sense of consternation at this further attack upon some of the responsibilities and duties that remain with them at the present time, after a number of years of having powers and duties taken from them.

It is our belief that the county boroughs, at any rate, are themselves well equipped within their own departments to carry out these negotiations leading up to the acquisition of land required for re-development. We have in the main county boroughs of the country—certainly in the City of Liverpool and comparable cities—land valuation departments adequately staffed by skilled and experienced staffs many of them able to draw upon long years of experience in their own areas and all of them having at their disposal records and statistics of the land and of the people concerned. We believe that our staffs are fully qualified and perfectly capable of carrying out negotiations leading up to the acquisition of the land we need for the re-development of many of our areas.

Not only have we these staffs, but we are required by the circumstance to which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) referred to continue to maintain these staffs, because we still have residing with us the responsibility of valuing, and negotiating on, land with the various other corporation departments. Many of the local authorities, having taken their staffs through long and often difficult periods of training, are now finding that those staffs are being taken from them—although their services continue to be needed—in order that they may be employed in Government Departments in other parts of the country. It is to the detriment of the efficiency of local government that that should be so. Many, if not most, of the officers employed in our district valuers' offices are men who have been trained and prepared for their task in the local government service. It is our belief that they will be better able to serve the community if they continue in that capacity rather than if they go off elsewhere.

The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said that it is of vital importance to a local authority, if they are to be able to assess the kind of schemes they wish to consider, that the members of the committees considering the matter should have at their disposal all the aspects of the case, including the cost the local authority will have to meet, at least in part, if a scheme goes through. Such facts can be made available only provided that they draw upon the knowledge and experience in negotiation of their own staffs, since it cannot be expected that the district valuer will make available to them the figures and information that he already has. The result is bound to be that there will be considerable duplication in this matter

We believe—and I know that this is the feeling which prevails in many local authorities—that the local authorities are neither corrupt nor inefficient in the matter of land valuation and land acquisition. They are capable of carrying out the work. We ask the Government to show that they are really sincere and earnest in their desire to encourage local authorities, their members and officers, in the public duties they undertake. We have seen large parts of their responsibilities taken from them in recent years. The time has come for a stop to be put to the process of taking away responsibilities from local authorities, and for some steps to be made towards restoring responsibilities to them. I ask the Minister to reconsider his attitude to these Regulations.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Gibson (Clapham)

The House may be somewhat surprised to know that I support this Prayer. It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), but on this matter of the power of local authorities in the valution of land and premises and the power of their valuation officers in negotiation, which is equally important, the points on which objection is made, are valid. Something ought to be done. No one on this side of the House will dispute that in recent years there has been a tendency for the functions of local authorities to find a new distribution—a tendency in some respects to lessen their powers and responsibility; but it is equally true that additional power in other directions has been given to local authorities.

The question of the use by local authorities of their own skilled valuers is most important, and I think that the former Minister of Town and Country Planning made a serious mistake when he introduced these Regulations. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say something which will enable us to go away from this Debate feeling much happier in mind than we are at the moment.

I have heard it suggested in some quarters that these Regulations would economise in manpower and in costs. As a matter of fact, they will do nothing of the sort. The local authorities which have valuation staffs have them not merely for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act, but for many other purposes as well—schools and housing have been referred to. For these purposes, the local authorities, and particularly the large ones, use their own officers, and on the whole they succeeded very well indeed in protecting the interests of the authorities by whom they were employed, though not always without some fierce objections and criticisms from the people with whom they were negotiating. On the whole, however, I think that fairly reasonable figures were arrived at. As I understand it, these Regulations lay down that all the negotiations on that kind of work which is covered by the terms of the Town and Country Planning Act will in future be done by the central valuation office, and, what is worse, there is no appeal against the decision of the central valuation office. I hope the Minister will agree that this is a matter which really must be looked at again. It will not save either manpower or cost.

There is another point which seems to me to be very relevant. We have recently had a Committee looking into the question of manpower in local government service, and it has just published its first Report. In that Report, the Committee laid down a principle which, it seems to me, these Regulations violate in almost every sentence. In a paragraph headed "General Approach," the Report states, and I think it is worth bringing out: … to recognise that the local authorities are responsible bodies, competent to discharge their own functions, and that, though they may be statutory bodies through which Government policy is given effect, and operate to a large extent with Government money, they exercise their responsibilities in their own right, not ordinarily as agents of Government Departments. It follows that the objective should be to leave as much as possible of the detailed management of a scheme or service to the local authority, and to concentrate the Department's control at the key point, where it can most effectively discharge its responsibilities for Government policy and financial administration. That seems to me to be a very excellent definition of the responsibilities of a local government authority in this country, and, as one who has for a number of years been a member of a large local authority and has tried to revive some of the spirit of local administration in this country, I think it would be wrong that we should do things which would reduce the powers of local authorities so that they might cease to be live bodies attracting useful men and women to them.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson (Ilford, North)

The hon. Member informed the House that he intends to support this Motion. Is he going to indicate to the House how he reconciles what he has just said with the support which he intends to give to the Motion?

Mr. Gibson

I think the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson) cannot have been listening to what I was saying. The point I am trying to make is that these Regulations are in direct contradiction of the recommendation of the Committee on local government manpower and therefore ought to be amended in some way or withdrawn.

I ask the Minister to take that into consideration when he gives his reply to this Debate. I ask him specifically to recognise that all the large local authorities, which already have their own valuation staff, ought to be left alone to do this job and that those who have not their own staff should be consulted still further with a view to seeing whether it is desirable to give some accommodation in amended Regulations which will meet the criticism that has been made tonight and by local authorities up and down the country. If he will make some such statement, in better language than I have used, I believe he will largely meet the objections the local authorities have made to these Regulations, and it may not be necessary to force this Motion to a Division.

10.31 p.m.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Dalton)

No complaint could be made of the tone and substance of the three speeches which have been addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, on this Prayer, by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), with his long experience in the London County Council.

These Regulations, which seem to have caused some concern, were made as long ago as 19th January, before the General Election, by my predecessor, as the hon.

Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said. When I entered upon my present office, I had no forewarning that on this matter keen feeling would manifest itself. But I became aware, through representations from the local authorities, that this was a matter on which they felt keenly, and I therefore willingly agreed to meet their representatives, and have done so on two occasions.

On the first occasion, on Monday of last week, 17th April, I met an exceedingly influential and formidable deputation in which all the local authorities' associations were represented. As was natural and proper, Mr. Hayward, leader of the L.C.C., led for the delegation. "Let London Lead" is an old motto. Others gave full support to Mr. Hayward's representations. The A.M.C., the County Councils Association, the Urban district and Rural district and Metropolitan borough councils, formed a solid front with the Labour leader of the L.C.C., and these representations naturally gave me cause for reflection.

Subsequently, at Mr. Hayward's request—he was acting on behalf of all the authorities—I had another meeting with a smaller body last Friday, 21st April. On the first occasion, the authorities' representatives told me in general terms of their objection to the Regulations, and I then invited them to consider what form of words would seem to them to safeguard their interests. This was communicated to me at the second meeting to which I have referred.

Before I mention the terms of this communication, I should like, in reply to the request of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, to indicate why these Regulations were made. There are large sums of taxpayers' money at issue here. When Chancellor of the Exchequer, I negotiated with the Minister of Town and Country Planning the scales of these grants. They are grants made only in respect of the acquisition of land by local authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act and not in respect of acquisitions in general.

I do not wish to weary the House with too much detail, but they are the classes of acquisitions which cover "blitz, blight and dereliction," to use the terse terms which have grown up in this connection. [An HON. MEMBER: "In other words, the Labour Government!"] "Blight" is our present heritage of Tory misrule before the war; "blitz" is the result of enemy action, against which we were all, for a while, united. I do not want to be controversial unless provoked.

As I was seeking to explain, these grants are solely for these classes of land acquisition by local authorities. They do not touch the question of land for schools, houses or other purposes. Under these particular headings, the grants are generous indeed. In the case of blitz, they are 90 per cent. in the first period envisaged, and in the case of blight, due to neglect in the past, they amount to from 80 per cent. down to 50 per cent. according to need diminishing over a period of years. Therefore, very large proportions of the cost are met by the taxpayers and not by the local ratepayers.

In those circumstances, it may well have seemed reasonable at first sight for special safeguards to be introduced to make sure that the taxpayer had not to help to pay an unduly high price to private landowners whose land was being acquired for public purposes. It was this line of thought which led to the laying of the Regulations in the form which we are now considering. There is quite a prima facie case, based on the high proportion of grants from the taxes as compared with the rates, for some special provisions to be inserted here which are not inserted in other provisions for acquisition by local authorities, to make sure that the private owner is not paid an excessive price for land acquired. That is the broad case for these Regulations.

Moreover, it was within the knowledge of my predecessor that, as a matter of fact, some 90 per cent. of the authorities of this country—and this 90 per cent. is in terms of numbers and not of rateable valuation and includes the vast majority of the smaller authorities—do, in fact, make use of the district valuer for such purposes, not having a qualified staff of their own to carry out these functions. These two facts are a sufficient explanation for the laying of the Regulations in the form in which they were laid.

But having become aware of the very strong and universal feeling of the local authorities in the matter, I was very anxious to find some accommodation, because it is evidently desirable, in carrying forward these schemes of town and country planning, that we should proceed with the goodwill of the local authorities whatever the political colour of their representatives. It is my wish and that of the Department for which I am now responsible always to co-operate with the local authorities in these common purposes.

The formula which was suggested to me at the second meeting to which I have referred, which Mr. Hayward was kind enough to suggest and which met with the assent of the other local authority representatives, was in the following terms: They desired that I should give an assurance that if the Motion to annul the proposed Regulations was withdrawn—that is the Prayer tonight—I would forthwith introduce new Regulations, which would provide, in any event, for the exclusion of local authorities, who already have their own qualified staff, from the conditions laid down in paragraph three of the Regulations as regards the negotiations for the acquisition of land and in the settlement of compensation. Further, they desired me to assure the House that, as regards the remaining local authorities, I would open discussions with them as to the form in which the new Regulations should be framed so as to empower me to require the use of the district valuer in these negotiations only in such individual cases as I might from time to time decide. I undertook to consider this sympathetically and carefully.

They met me on Friday, and on Saturday I was able to inform Mr. Hayward that I would be prepared to make a statement in the House tonight to this effect, and to give such an undertaking as he had assured me the local authorities would accept as satisfactory. I would like to emphasise here, another point which I raised very specifically so that there should be no misunderstanding or ambiguity. Mr. Hayward assured me, when this was raised at the larger meeting on the Monday and at the smaller meeting on the Friday, that this point was agreed. On each occasion the local authorities were unanimous in accepting the words which I am now going to read.

The local authorities all accept the condition that a certificate as to value must be given by the district valuer, and that if the payment by the local authority is not in accordance with that certificate no grant will be payable. That is the final safeguard of the Treasury. In my view, and in the view of the Government and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with whom I naturally have discussed the matter, it is a quite satisfactory safeguard for the Treasury. We are content that the local authority should continue to conduct the negotiations with regard to acquisition provided that when the point of price determination is reached, the district valuer is invited to give his view and, if he considers the price is fair, his certificate; and it is on the sum so certified by the district valuer that the grant will be paid. The local authorities are all agreed about this. I felt it necessary to get a perfectly clear answer from them on this subject, because otherwise the Treasury is without safeguard. They all agreed, on both occasions when I spoke to them about this matter, that the district valuer's certificate must be a necessary part of the payment of grant in respect of that acquisition.

That having been accepted, I felt able to give the authorities the assurance for which they asked. I gave them this assurance on the Saturday. The matter might have been allowed to close there. Indeed, I have in my hand a copy of the communication which was sent to the various local authorities' associations. The one I hold was addressed on behalf of the Urban District Councils Association. I gather that the association sent comparable communications to Members of Parliament interested. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I am so informed. The hon. Member has not heard it, so why does he say, "No"? What this communication says is: The Minister said he would have to consider it further"— that is, the proposal made on the Friday— and would let us know this morning"— that is, today— whether he would give the assurance. I have just had a telephone "— this is on behalf of the Urban District Councils Association secretary— message from the Association of Municipal Corporations stating that the Minister will give this assurance if the motion for the annulment of the Regulations is taken this evening. If the Minister makes this statement, we do not desire to press objection to the Regulations. The Motion for their annulment will presumably be withdrawn. If it should go to a Division the desire of the Association would be to support the Government. I make this further statement to the House. I would be quite prepared, as I told the meeting on Friday, to accept the form of words which they propose. On further reflection, I think I can go further and do better. I think I shall be able to give even greater satisfaction to the authorities generally if I now undertake, as I am prepared to do, that if this Prayer is withdrawn, I will, within a few days, introduce an amending Regulation which will wholly repeal that part of the Regulations to which the local authorities have taken objection; that is to say, remove unconditionally, so far as these Regulations are concerned, the requirement that the district valuer shall be required to conduct these negotiations for acquisitions and compensation. If the Prayer is withdrawn, I shall be prepared to introduce an amending Regulation which, I think, will be generally welcome, and would relieve me of certain discussions which might be invidious. That is the offer which I make. I am quite prepared, if the Prayer is withdrawn, to introduce within a few days—within a week—an amending Regulation which will wholly remove the provision to which the authorities have taken exception.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Southport)

I think my hon. Friends will agree that we are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said and also for having realised in time that the original Regulations were meeting with universal opposition from the local authorities. I do not suggest what different effect might have followed if the result of the election had been slightly different; but we are glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman's officials see that a new regime exists in this House.

What he wants, I gather, is that we should withdraw the Prayer on the understanding that he will bring in an amending Regulation. He will realise the difficulty under which, not only now but in the last Parliament, we laboured in that Regulations could not be amended, but only accepted or rejected. Having regard to the safeguard in the Section of the Town and Country Planning Act quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), there would have been no harm in the right hon. Gentleman withdrawing these Regulations altogether. That would have been a neater job. He could have brought in new Regulations, as I think the Home Secretary did on one occasion with the Police Regulations. However, if the right hon. Gentleman assures the House that, in fact, the procedure suggested by him will be the equivalent, and that it will be done in the next few days, I think that I can recommend my hon. Friends to withdraw their Motion.

Mr. Dalton

I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have considered the alternative procedures; that is, whether at the point we have now reached, it would be easier to withdraw the Regulations or, alternatively, to let them go through and, in a few days, introduce a small, short, and clear amending Regulation. The second course, I am informed, is the simpler because, although the Debate has ranged over a wider field, it centred solely on the first part of paragraph 3 (iii) and sub-paragraph (iv). It will be a simple and easy amending Regulation; it will be the equivalent of withdrawal and replacement, but it will be simpler and word saving.

10.49 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, East)

I must make one protest about the way in which the negotiations have been conducted. This matter is here as a result of the efforts of my hon. Friends and not as a result of the action of the local authorities' associations, as some would have us believe. They must not run away with the idea that they can negotiate Parliamentary business. I have received no communication of any kind whatsoever, and as the Parliamentary control on this issue, until something happens, lies with us, the local authorities' associations must not be impertinent, as they have been to my hon. Friends and myself. Here is Parliamentary business, initiated entirely by myself and the other hon. Members whose names were originally down on this. Motion. These meetings, of which we were not aware, have taken place. So far as I know, no report of these negotiations has reached my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I think it is monstrous discourtesy and it does not help Parliamentary business if Members of Parliament are ignored in this way. Some of us have a very considerable capacity for keeping Members up late at night if they do not behave properly.

I shall, in the appropriate way, protest to these associations. We are not their agents; we are not bound by their negotiations. We are perfectly free to take this House to a Division despite these negotiations, and I want to make clear that in future, when negotiations are taking place with regard to matters put on the Order Paper of this House by a number of Members of Parliament, those on both sides had better have the good sense to know how to behave with decent manners of a kind not shown on this occasion.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson (Ilford, North)

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to take the course which he has now taken. This matter was, perhaps, not in itself a matter of major importance. The important aspect of it is this, that it was possible for a Government Department to have the particular attitude of mind which has prompted these Regulations and has made it possible for Regulations of this sort to be introduced. That is the important aspect of this matter. It is, I think, indicative of the approach of some Government Departments to local authorities that it should have been possible that Regulations in the terms of these Regulations should have been introduced, interfering, as they do, with essential and fundamental rights and responsibilities of the local authorities.

I hope that the House will agree that it is a most undesirable thing that Government Departments should allow themselves to fall into the frame of mind which makes it possible for Regulations in a form such as this to be presented to the House. I rejoice that the right hon. Gentleman now sees the error of his ways and has been able to satisfy the objections of the local authorities.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

In view of the very clear and very detailed assurance which the Minister gave, it would obviously be inappropriate to press this matter further, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.