HC Deb 06 July 1950 vol 477 cc715-27

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,"That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Leather (Somerset, North)

I rise to protest against this Second Reading of the Bath Extension Bill and to put to this House and to the Minister of Health the case on behalf of my constituents, which we feel very strongly the Minister has not at any time heard or considered.

First, may I make it perfectly plain that we in North Somerset know perfectly well that the City of Bath must have more houses and more land on which to build them. There is no doubt about that, but in seeking this land on which to build houses, two principles must be carefully borne in mind. The first is that they must not choose the best possible agricultural land they can find on which to put houses when other land is available. Secondly, we feel the strongest objection to anything in the nature of a large and wealthy cor- poration pushing small country authorities around and doing a deal over their heads by which the views of local people have not only been ignored, but completely flouted.

In regard to the first principle, the question of agricultural land, we are convinced that if the Minister would send any independent inspector to see, he would find sites. I suggest that in the City of Bath and in my constituency there are sites where houses could be built quite reasonably. But, if we read the statement presented by the promoters, we see that the parishes of Claverton, Englishcombe and Monkton Combe—all very small places, but places which mean a lot to the few hundred residents of those villages—are mentioned, and they represent some of the finest agricultural land in Somerset. We protest most strongly against the Minister approving the taking of that land when he cannot possibly be satisfied that other land is not available.

On the second point, the views of local people, I hope in the few minutes at my disposal to produce ample evidence that the local people are 100 per cent. united against this Bill and that in fact it is fair to say that half the citizens of Bath are against it. I have evidence here to support those statements. In one case, which I will quote, the district council originally sought to find out what were the views of the local people and when they found that 99.9 per cent, were against the Bill, they said,"We will forget about that, and not bother to ask anyone else." That is what has been done, and I submit that this is certainly not democracy.

Originally the City of Bath hired a planner. Sir Patrick Abercrombie, who produced a monumental document, representing thousands of pounds—a grand plan. They did not propose only to take the few villages I have spoken of, but half the county and villages seven miles from Bath to make the plan complete. Then the local authorities got cold feet. The idea was appeasement—"For heaven's sake give them something to keep them quiet" —and a deal was done over the heads of the people of these parishes. They were not consulted. I submit that the Minister should consider that as and when the Bill is allowed to go upstairs to Committee.

I would also point out that in one case, in the parish of Claverton, they are proposing to take for housing purposes one of the finest farms in the County of Somerset. Only a few months ago they bought a piece of land on the other side of the road to prevent houses from being built. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of that? They are endeavouring to do what we always understood the Minister disapproved of—they are making this extension for the sole purpose of avoiding having to pay rates to other authorities for education and other facilities. The Minister has told the House time and again that he will not agree to extension of boundaries purely for the convenience of a large authority at the expense of a smaller authority.

I would like to give the Minister some of the evidence, and I stress that it is independent unsolicited evidence. These letters have come from my constituency and from people in Bath without any asking. There are the Women's Institutes to start with. They are a very powerful force in my constituency—[Laughter.]—I do not know about the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, but he is a brave man if he flouts the Women's Institutes in his constituency and I implore him not to flout them in my constituency. Then there is a letter from the clerk of the Claverton Parish Council at which a resolution was unanimously passed protesting against the proposal; and further evidence is given, which I will read. This is an official letter from the clerk of the parish council: A special meeting of the Council was held on 25th October, 1946. The Clerk to the Rural District Council attended and explained at length the proposed City extension and why it should be opposed. That is the clerk of the district council who is reputed or alleged to agree to the Bill. The Chairman proposed a resolution pledging full support to the Bathavon Rural District Council on this matter and it was carried unanimously. There has been an outburst of letters in the Bath newspapers in the last few days, from which I will read one or two extracts. One, from the vice-chairman of the parish council, which appeared in Monday's paper, says: It is common knowledge in Bath, whatever the Minister of Agriculture may think or say, that the main object of including a large part of Claverton in the Bath Extension Bill is to obtain land for building. Even if Bath City Council succeed in including Claverton Down within the new boundaries, the Minister of Agriculture has stated to Mr. Ted Leather that he would resist any specific proposals to acquire land for housing at Claverton unless it is quite clear that no suitable alternative site of less importance to agriculture is available. Alternative sites are obviously available. No large-scale attempt has been made to rebuild the blitzed areas within the city. Here drains, water, gas, electricity are already installed, streets are waiting for houses; sites are ready for homes for people who work in Bath and want to live near their work and not on the top of Claverton Down, three miles away uphill, however much they may enjoy a country walk there along the field paths on Sunday afternoons. Another letter from a resident of Claverton says: A total of 144 letters was sent to people at Claverton and we have had 78 replies. Of these, 76 said they did not want to be absorbed by Bath, and two said they did. My family, of three, received no such letter and pone of our friends have heard anything of these letters. We should all have welcomed the chance to register unyielding opposition. The National Farmers' Union have sent evidence, details, figures and statistics of Rainbow Wood Farm at Claverton, Mr. Hignett's Manor Farm at Southstoke, and Mr. Perry's Heather Farm at Weston and they also point out that, in estimating the loss of food to the nation, if more than 50 acres of good land were taken from agriculture it would mean a loss of the milk ration alone to 800 people, and we are all milk-producers in Somerset.

The next letter I should like to quote comes from the chairman of the Bath Preservation Trust, a prominent and leading citizen in the City of Bath. This is what he says: Claverton Down is one of the last remaining lungs on the immediate outskirts of the city within easy walk. The Twerton area has been destroyed in a most heartless manner, the Admiralty hutments and ribbon development on the Warminster Road are deplorable. The Ensleigh huts on the top of Landsdown have pushed the town another quarter of a mile into the country, and so it goes on. The cost of services at Claverton Down will be gigantic. Water in Bath is notoriously short. Sewage will have to be taken by a new sewer down into Claverton Village. Rock will nave to be excavated to lay the sewers. If the city put a new population of 1,000–1,500 people at Claverton Down there will be no church, shopping and amusement facilities, and a new and intensive bus service via Widcombe Hill will be called for. To my mind the whole thing is an outrage. That, I repeat, is from the chairman of the Bath Preservation Trust.

I have a letter from the Vice-Chairman of the Bath Ratepayers' Association.[Laughter.] I am delighted to hear that hon. Members disapprove of people paying their rates. He writes: No public meeting has been called by the sponsors of the Bill either within this city or outside. The only public meetings of protest have been held by this Association, in the Guildhall, Bath; the meetings were packed, and the public were unanimously against the Bill. A protest was made from the gallery of the council chamber by myself, when the Council decided to take the matter over in committee, thereby turning the public and Press out. The Council were challenged by letter and Press notice to appear in the Guildhall and defend their policy, but not one appeared at the meeting arranged for them. Finally, I quote from the letter which I received from the Minister of Agriculture, of which the Parliamentary Secretary is aware. The Minister wrote: The fact that the extensions sought by the Bath City Corporation—as modified in negotiations with the promoters—are not opposed by the Government does not absolve the Corporation, if the Bill is passed, from the need to obtain the approval of all the interested Departments to the acquisition or use for housing or any other purpose of any of the lands, comprised in the added areas. The Ministry of Health have specifically pointed this out to the promoters. I have not so far heard of any specific proposal to acquire or use for housing any particular sites in the parish of Claverton…but if and when any such proposal materialises it will be thoroughly investigated by my Land Commissioner, and you may be assured that we will resist it unless it is quite clear that no new suitable alternative site of less importance to agriculture is available for the purpose in mind. I submit that my case is complete and clear. Alternative sites are available if anyone chooses to look. The views of the local people have been ruthlessly ignored and overriden. In the case of the Bathavon Rural District Council, the three representatives for the parishes concerned which would be swallowed up under this Bill knew nothing about the Bill until it was complete. To this day one of them contests the legality of what was done. I believe that he was right. I implore the Minister, before these people are swallowed up in a thoroughly undemocratic and high-handed manner, before some of the best agricultural land is swallowed up for housing when other land is available, to look at this Bill carefully, and if we allow it tonight to go upstairs to the Committee, to see that it is drastically amended in the interests and the desires of those concerned, except those very few in the Bath Corporation who are pushing this Bill.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Snow (Lichfield and Tamworth)

I wondered whether I should ask if anyone can join in this private dogfight, but on a matter of principle I should like to resist this Bill, as I resisted the Wolverhampton Bill a fortnight ago—[An HON. MEMBER:"And lost."] —That may be so. That is how the House functions. The House will remember that in the case of the Wolverhampton Bill there was a typical land grab by an ambitious town clerk representing a local authority, using all the machinery at his disposal to bring pressure to bear on the Members of this House. I had no constituency interest in that case, and I have no constituency interest in the case now before us. Nor, with respect, have I any interest in the political views of the hon. Gentlemen who, I suspect, will speak from the other side of the House.

My view is that if we go on permitting these local authorities to nibble away at the little remaining beautiful countryside of this country, we shall reach the position of the West Country being a sprawling squat mass such as one finds in the Midlands of this country, and which I do not want to see repeated. I should like to make three points. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the format of this Bill is suspiciously like that of the Wolverhampton Bill. Whole paragraphs are duplicated. One has the impression that town clerks in the various local authorities have their eye on a piece of land which they want. They watched the progress of the Wolverhampton Bill and said:"Here boys—we're off." For Lower Penn substitute Claverton, and thus we have an exact duplicate of that Bill presented to this House, and the same sort of arguments put forward, such as are contained in this statement prepared on behalf of Bath.

We ought to put a stop to this sort of thing. Has the Minister of Health demanded of these local authorities—in this case, Bath—any information as to the density programme for the city? I was discussing the Wolverhampton Bill with a colleague after its Third Reading, and he queried my plea that there should be more flats provided in provincial cities. I did not understand his argument. I do not know of any case in which a county borough has taken the trouble to find out what demand there is, if any, for flats. I wonder whether there has, in this case, been any inquiry? The ambition of many people who come to London is to have a luxury flat. I cannot believe that in these provincial cities there is not a fairly large proportion of people who would like to live in flats. Therefore, why must we have this persistent spread of squat buildings into the countryside? Why cannot we start building up a little, if necessary copying from the example of some North American cities, some of which are very beautiful indeed, and are to my mind examples which we might copy in this country.

The agricultural question has been raised by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather). The House should have an explanation from the Minister, because I understand that the Minister of Health has made it known that he would give his blessing to boundary extensions which could be proved to his satisfaction to be necessary for the provision of houses. We now know that the Minister of Agriculture reserves the right, even if a Bill like this receives its Third Reading, to refuse clearance for that land to be used for house building. Would it not be better to find out, before the Bill receives a Second Reading, whether the Minister of Agriculture would, if the Bill were passed, give clearance; because we understand that he would not do so in this case—so what is the use of the Bill?

I make this protest because I am a lover of the English countryside which I see bit by bit, year by year, being whittled away. It is about time we waited until the structure of local government is amended and changed before permitting this persistent nibbling away to continue.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Odey (Beverley)

As one who is interested in agriculture and food production in this country, I wish to say how much I sympathise with the remarks that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), and the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow). There are very sound grounds for objecting to this Bill from the point of view of food production but in the few minutes that I propose to address the House, I wish to draw attention to Clause 47, which deals with the compensation of local government officers and which, in my view, has a great deal to commend it.

This House last week considered the South Shields Extension Bill and a Motion was carried which had the effect of replacing a Clause in the South Shields Bill, similar to Clause 47 of this Bill, by the 1948 Regulations. Now in this Bill for the City of Bath, no such Motion has been tabled. I ask is it that the Minister of Health, from whom we understand this proposal emanated, has changed his mind? Has he considered the Debate that took place on the South Shields Bill, and fallen in with the view that was expressed that the 1948 Regulations were quite unsuitable in replacement of the 1933 Act? If there is something wrong with the 1933 Act, the proper thing is for the Minister to bring in an amending Bill and not to insert the 1948 Regulations.

In the debate on the South Shields Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary joined issue with me about the length of the discussion which had taken place on the 1948 Regulations. When I stated that the 1948 Regulations had been discussed only for a matter of about half an hour, he made the statement that the debate went on for two hours. In point of fact, that is quite untrue. I have referred to the actual Debate. It began at 11.30 and terminated about 12.15. The whole point of my contention is that this question of the 1948 Regulations has never been adequately considered by the House. I hope, therefore, that this Bill represents a change of heart on the part of the Minister of Health and that the fact that there is no opposition to Clause 47 does indicate a change of mind so far as the Minister of Health is concerned.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. John Cooper (Deptford)

In view of what has been said, I wish to make certain observations on this question of towns being obliged to go out into the countryside if they are to provide their people with decent housing accommodation. I was amazed to hear about an area like Wolverhampton the suggestion made that rather than go out into the countryside, Wolverhampton should build flats. The case of London was quoted. As a member of the London County Council, I can state the fact that in London there is so little available building space within the County of London that we have perforce to build upwards in the form of flats; but I would remind hon. Members that we are building a considerable number of cottage-houses on the estates outside the boundary.

At one time in Manchester I was connected with a very interesting experiment in the Wythenshawe ward, for which we now have a representative in this House. The same opposition was put up against Manchester going out into the countryside. People who know Wythenshawe will say that today it is a model example of housing development. Those who are perturbed about the swallowing up of agricultural land might take courage from what happened at Wythenshawe. There the Minister of Agriculture did step in. Although we extended the Manchester boundary into Cheshire and were able to give people cottages instead of flats, nevertheless the Minister of Agriculture did protect a considerable number of market gardeners in that area—some were displaced but they were found other spots—and we got development—

Mr. Snow

I hope that my hon. Friend will not accuse me of asking that tenements should be erected. There is a distinction between the kind of tenement he has in mind and the type of modern flat in which a great many people would like to live.

Mr. Cooper

It is impossible to have a fair and reasonable distribution of houses on a modern town planning conception for cities the size of Bath without the possibility of broadening out.

Another interesting point which must not be forgotten is that in this sparsely-populated area around the periphery of the city, many people enjoy cheap rural rates and at the same time all the amenities of the town. When the hon. Member talks about the need for the development of a sewerage system and better transport, is it not a blessing to the countryside to get such modern local government development?

Mr. Leather

If the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Cooper) will forgive me, he has missed the point. Quite obviously it could not be, if the farmers who at present make up the countryside were kicked out and told to go elsewhere. That is what we are complaining of.

Mr. Cooper

There are other people living in the countryside in addition to farmers, as there always have been. Of course, they resent the encroachment of the town and the town stretching out in order to give its people decent housing accommodation. The Bath Council have been sufficiently careful in their development planning to bring in Sir Patrick Abercrombie as a consultant. If it is suggested that his view with regard to development ought not to be given due weight, that is raising a very serious challenge. I noticed that the hon. Member did say there has been an attempt to modify Sir Patrick Abercrombie's original plan. That may be, but nevertheless I submit that, taking the Bath case, the fact that they have called him into consultation is an indication that they do not wish to plan haphazardly, and that they want the most eminent specialist to assist them.

Mr. Leather

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member again, but I stress that he should have a look at the Bath plan. The thing we complain about is that, having gone to all this trouble and expense, they have now completely ignored that plan, and have done exactly what Sir Patrick Abercrombie advised them not to do. Claverton was the only part of Sir Patrick Abercrombie's green belt that they had not built on, and now they are going to build on it.

Mr. Cooper

I think that is an assumption and the same sort of assumption that occurred in the case I have quoted in Manchester. There the assumption was that the city would extend over every available area, but anyone who knows anything about Wythenshawe will know it is just the opposite.

Mr. Leather

Does the hon. Member know anything about the Bath scheme?

Mr. Cooper

It is a balanced development.

Mr. Leather

It is not.

Mr. Cooper

The Wythenshawe scheme in Manchester is a balanced development in which the Minister of Agriculture has protected the agricultural interests, and it is, as I think most people who are interested in housing development will agree, one of the finest schemes in the country.

I have joined in this discussion because it appears to me that very narrow-minded motives indeed are being put forward to prevent a large city from taking the opportunity of housing its people reasonably well.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman (Bath)

I am glad that the Heather Farm, Weston, has been mentioned, because in my very early youth the milk upon which I was brought up, I am quite convinced, came from that particular farm. Therefore, I have a very real sense of the difficulty of balance between the claims of agriculture and the very human and rightful claims of housing.

I have the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), to say that he will not divide the House if he can obtain from the Minister of Health the assurance for which he asks, that the question of whether there are any other alternative sites on which houses can be erected will be considered before that particular agricultural land to which he has referred is built upon. I believe that that assurance can, and will, be given by the Minister, who I am sure will consult the Minister of Agriculture and go into the precise proposals, when they are made, very carefully indeed, to ensure that no building takes place unless there are no alternatives and then only the minimum. That being so, in the hope that the House might allow me to speak again, if anybody else other than the Member most concerned wishes to divide the House and says so, I will cut my remarks down to the minimum.

There is one misunderstanding, however, under which the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) may be labouring which I ought to clear up; it is that, whereas the Wolverhampton Corporation Bill was bitterly opposed by the county council and the rural district council, that is not the case with this Bill. The county council and the Bathavon Rural District Council have agreed this Bill with the Bath City Corporation, and I wish in this House to support the properly constituted authorities for representing the people both of the rural district, the county and the city which I have the honour to represent

Mr. Snow

It was only out of a sense of delicacy that I did not mention the Somerset County Council, which I do not think has done its job as a planning authority.

Mr. Pitman

I submit that I should reserve my answer, because there always are two sides to every case and, if there is not to be a Division, then the proper place where the answer to this case should be given is upstairs in Committee. There is a petition there already, and there is all the machinery available. If that is not sufficient, there is the Report stage and the Third Reading. With those three securities, and with the additional security for which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), has asked, namely that the Ministry should take great care to see that this proper balance is maintained, I commend the Bill to the House.

7.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop)

It might be convenient if I intervened now to support the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) that the matters which we are discussing should properly be considered by the Committee upstairs, which will have the opportunity of considering all these questions rather more fully than we can consider them on the Floor of the House—which is the normal constitutional procedure on Private Bills. I would only add that the general question of the use of the land had been under consideration be- tween the Ministries concerned before agreement was given for this Bill to go forward.

It is true, as was made clear in the letter sent by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), that the actual use of specific parts of this new area will still be submitted to the ordinary procedure. There will be the fullest examination of the use of the particular parts of this new area before any housing or other work can be done upon it. The point about the position in Manchester and Wythenshawe is perfectly relevant. We are satisfied that there is the fullest protection of agricultural interests, and the fullest consideration will be taken of them before any project for housing work is started in the area.

Mr. Pitman

Will the hon. Gentleman give my hon. Friend the undertaking that he will look very carefully into the matter, and that no building will take place unless there is no alternative site?

Mr. Blenkinsop

That is always the assumption upon which we proceed. We consider any proposals most carefully with the Ministry of Agriculture before any approval is given.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

Resolved: That, in the case of the said Bill, so much of Standing Order 115 (Notices to Members of Committees) as provides that the Committee of Selection shall give not less than seven days' notice, by publication with the Votes and Procedings or otherwise, of the week in which it is necessary for a Member to be in attendance for the purpose of serving as a member of a Committee on an Opposed Private Bill, and Standing Order 177 (Interval between Committal and Sitting of the Committee) be suspended, and that the Committee of Selection have leave to appoint the Committee on the Bill to sit and proceed on Wednesday, 12th July."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Forward to