Commons Sitting of 10 June 1952

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 30th May, 1952, for the Whitsun Recess—met at Half past Two o'clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Thomas Fotheringham Cook, esquire, Member for Dundee, East, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF LONDON (GUILD CHURCHES) BILL (By Order)
  Third Reading deferred till Thursday, at Seven o'clock.
  ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
  SCOTTISH MUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL
    PORT OF LONDON BILL [Lords]
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  PRESTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    To be read a Second time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Copyright Committee (Report)
    Mr. R. Robinsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received the Report of the Copyright Committee; and when it will be published.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): No, Sir. I have not yet received the Committee's Report. I understand that progress is being made with drafting it, but I cannot yet forecast when it will be presented and published.

    Commonwealth Economic Consultations
    Mr. T. Brownasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now consider the advisability of reconvening the conference of Commonwealth Ministers with a view to securing a broader co-operative economic policy.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It is our hope to discuss these matters with other Commonwealth Governments. Our object would be a frank and full discussion with them on our common interests in this field. In the meantime, the close and frequent consultation between Governments in the Commonwealth, which the conference of Finance Ministers in January reaffirmed as their aim, is proceeding as a matter of day to day business.
    Mr. Brown: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this conference of frank

    3
    talking to each other will take place? Can he give a specific date? Is he aware that the situation in Lancashire is growing progressively worse week after week and that people are tired of waiting for the Government to do something? Nothing appears to be being done.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The question of the timing and of consultation will, of course, be a matter for the whole Commonwealth as well as for the United Kingdom. On the question of Lancashire, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am having discussions at the present time on that particular matter.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Has the President of the Board of Trade seen the report of Mr. Menzies's speech yesterday, in which he said that there was no time to lose before comprehensive consultations on the lines of a new Commonwealth conference were put in hand? Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's earlier answer that the Government have decided to summon such a conference, or at least to ask immediately the other members of the Commonwealth whether they are in favour of such a conference?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I not only saw the report of Mr. Menzies's speech, but also had the great privilege of listening to it. On the question of the timing of a conference, the Government are just as seized of the urgency of our problems as is anybody else, but I think it would be wrong to announce timings of conferences. I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the preparatory work before the conference is often as important as the conference itself.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government had approached the other members of the Commonwealth suggesting that such a conference should now be held. Will he give me an answer to that question?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Her Majesty's Government have not summoned a Commonwealth conference in that sense at all. Their policy is as stated in the answer to his Question which I gave the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Government are content to engage in unilateral discussions with the various Commonwealth countries? Would it not
    4
    be more advisable, and, indeed, is it not urgent, that there should be a general conference in view of the common interests involved?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have already said that I think there are substantial advantages in having a general conference, but that, at the same time, that is not the only method of consultation. I rather agree with the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman's own Government when they were in office, that a formal high level conference such as contemplated is by no means the only method of securing these ends.
    Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees with Mr. Menzies that comprehensive consultations were extremely important and necessary and there was no time to lose?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If the right hon. Gentleman will read my answer, he will see that in fact I did say that I thought there was substantial virtue in having a conference of this character.

    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
    Mr. Beresford Craddockasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now completed his examination of our future external commercial policy; and what decision has been reached.
    Mr. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As I indicated on 8th May in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), this examination raises fundamental and complex questions of economic policy. It is unlikely that I shall be in a position to make any further statement before the Summer Recess.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that nobody apparently wants this Agreement because nobody is trying to ratify it? Is not that a very good reason for starting the business of getting rid of it altogether as far as the Empire is concerned?
    Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise—it is not at all a difficult conception—that it is quite

    5
    ludicrous that this country should remain in its present condition and continue to try and force its products into those markets that quite clearly do not want them and will do their best to keep them out while half the world is waiting to receive them?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: There may be specific arguments for departing from the policy pursued by this country for the past six years, but at the same time, before we make alterations of a dramatic character affecting many people besides ourselves, very careful consideration should be given to the course we adopt.

    Experimental Fabrics (Imports)
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieuasked the President of the Board of Trade whether arrangements can be made for the import, free of duty, of small quantities of fabrics which British textile machinery makers require for experimental purposes.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1950, provides that duty-free Licences may be granted by the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Board of Trade, for goods imported for examination or tests with a view to promoting or improving the manufacture of similar goods in the United Kingdom. My Department is always ready to consider applications.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Could the President of the Board of Trade please expedite the granting of licences, because the delay to which the imports of these experimental fabrics are subject is discouraging foreign buyers of British textile machinery?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am aware of one case, upon which I think my hon. Friend has written to the hon. Member. I am anxious that these applications should be expedited, and I think that if the applicant in that case had stated quite fully what his purpose was he would have had his application granted rather more quickly.

    Film Quota (Defaults)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade what recommendations he has now received from the Cinematograph Films Council about the prosecution of film quota defaulters; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In respect of 55 theatres out of 105 cases of first feature default so far examined by the Cinematograph Films Council the advice given me is such that I would not be justified in issuing a certificate under Section 13 of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938. I am considering which of these cases are suitable for prosecution. As regards supporting programme defaults, investigations are still proceeding. In the circumstances it would be best for me not to make any further comment.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the right hon. Gentleman speed up his consideration of these widespread defaults in order to make the quota effective? Will he also look very carefully at the recommendations of the Cinematograph Films Council in view of the fact that the most notorious defaulters are represented in that Council and sit in judgment upon themselves?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: With regard to the speed of my operations, I am doing a good deal better than the previous Government did. For the quota year 1948–49 no prosecution was heard until November, 1950.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he told me some weeks ago that the question of the prosecution of the Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, was under consideration, that cinema having shown one British film in the last two years? What is happening about this prosecution?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am now, as in duty bound, taking the advice of the Cinematograph Films Council. When that advice is received, as it has been in these cases, I am examining the question of evidence and so forth with regard to prosecution.
    Mr. Wyatt: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say he was considering the prosecution of this cinema before he received the advice of the Cinematograph Films Council?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Member has a question on a particular cinema, perhaps he will put it down.

    Japanese Cloth (Re-exports)
    Lieut.-Colonel Schofieldasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the alarm caused to many

    7
    cotton spinners and manufacturers by his decision to extend the markets to which Japanese cloth brought here for processing may be re-exported; and whether, in view of the fact that this cloth was imported on condition that it would only be re-exported to a limited number of specified markets, he will agree to restrict severely any new extensions in order to give absolute priority to all-British cotton goods, the export of which can give greater benefit to Lancashire.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the issue of new licences to import Japanese cotton and rayon grey cloth is at present suspended. There are, however, importers already holding licences granted on their undertaking to re-export these goods to certain markets after processing in this country. My decision to consider any such individual cases for re-exporting the goods to a limited number of additional markets was intended to help move the present heavy stocks and so clear the way for new orders for Lancashire cloth. Each application will be considered with this object in view. I am not aware that alarm has been caused by this decision, which has been taken in the best interests of the Lancashire cotton industry as a whole.
    Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask if he does not agree that these re-exports of Japanese cloth must displace cloth that could be manufactured in this country and that, although the quantities which may be re-exported may not be great, the psychological effect of re-exporting Japanese cloth at the present time is very great indeed, particularly in Lancashire where spindles and looms are stopped for want of orders? Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear in mind the points my hon. and gallant Friend makes. There is, in fact, only one such case. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce were informed of what was happening, and I certainly had no complaints from them.

    Fondant and Sugar-Fat Mixtures
    Mr. Profumoasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent international agreements prevent the
    8
    United Kingdom from cutting out altogether imports of fondant and sugar-fat mixtures from foreign countries.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: We have obligations under the O.E.E.C. Liberalisation Code and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade not to administer import restrictions so as to cause unnecessary damage to the commercial and economic interests of other countries. However, these obligations quite apart, in determining the level of our import of particular commodities, we obviously must have regard as a practical matter to the desirability of admitting certain quantities in the interests of our general commercial relations with foreign countries. We have in fact already cut imports of fondant from foreign countries from about £8 million in 1951 to a rate of approximately £3 million in the first quarter of this year.
    Mr. Profumo: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that as we now have to meet our E.P.U. deficits in gold, and assuming that we are taking what sugar we can get from Empire sources, it would be very much cheaper for us if we were to buy real sugar from Cuba for dollars? As regards G.A.T.T.—the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade—is my right hon. Friend not aware that the American slang expression for a revolver is a "gatt," and is it not high time that this highly dangerous weapon was removed and prevented from threatening our trade?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I was in fact basing my answer not on the terms of international trading agreements so much as the practical desirability of not stopping all imports to this country because, if we do, we shall not be able to export. I really think that practical side must be borne in mind.

    Hire Purchase Order (Evasions)
    Mr. Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take in respect to the evasion of the Hire Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order, 1952, following consideration of the details sent to him by the hon. Member for Dartford in respect to rental agreements.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Investigations have been made into certain alleged hire

    9
    agreements which may be in breach of the Order and the question of instituting proceedings is now under consideration.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the need for urgency in this matter? Does he appreciate that most of the business is going to less scrupulous traders and that, unless a decision is made quickly, the other traders will have to introduce a similar technique and the whole object of the Order will be lost?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am grateful to the hon. Member for calling my attention to an important matter. As I said, I am considering the question of prosecution at the present time.

    Textile Industry (Assistance)
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has made to the letter sent to him by the Textile Officials' Association enclosing a resolution passed at the Association's annual conference at Southport, urging the Government to stimulate the purchase of textiles on the home market, and to take further steps to keep the overseas market open.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have thanked the Association for their letter and noted the points made in the resolution, copies of which have, I understand, been circulated to all Lancashire Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Greenwood: Is not the President of the Board of Trade aware that Lancashire needs more than thanks for bringing these matters to his attention? Does he not appreciate that statistics on unemployment published in today's papers are conclusive proof that the Government in fact have taken no effective steps whatsoever?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: This resolution was not one to ask me questions about particular aspects of policy but was couched, in perfectly proper terms, to draw my attention to certain problems that exist. I do not think a point arises on giving courteous thanks for that. It was a proper thing to do. If the hon. Member has any questions on specific details of policy, perhaps he will put a Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Leeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that
    10
    in the textile producing areas there is now a danger that shortage of purchasing power will cause slump conditions in other industries; and whether he will take immediate steps to remedy this position.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am, of course, aware of this possibility, but there is little evidence of any substantial increase in unemployment in industries other than those concerned with textiles. The Government are watching the situation and have already taken substantial action to assist the textile areas.
    Mr. Lee: Is the Chancellor aware that in actual figures there may not be a lot of evidence; but the slackening down of the number of industries in which there is now no overtime being worked, or in which piece-work earnings are dropping, is quite alarming? Would not he agree that where one has 140,000 or 150,000 people who were earning £7 or £8 per week and who are now drawing 30s., some effect is bound to be felt?
    Mr. Butler: We have done our best to help, within our powers, and we shall continue to do so. The hon. Member is correct in saying that if there is a substantial area of unemployment there must be some effect on the ancillary trades concerned.
    Mr. Pryde: Is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that whole paper mills are now being closed down in Midlothian?
    Mr. Butler: I am aware of most things; but if the hon. Gentleman will give me details I shall be only too glad to have them.

    Gold and Silver (Trade Returns)
    Mr. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish in the Trade and Navigation Accounts the details of the imports and exports of all forms of gold and silver in the same way as for other metals.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. The United Kingdom Trade Accounts now include only those items of commerce which constitute merchandise trade. Gold bullion and monetary items are consequently excluded. This exclusion conforms with the recommendations of the International Monetary Fund.
    Mr. Russell: Can my right hon. Friend give the reasons for this?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I understand that the reasons which the International Monetary Fund put forward are that gold is used both as money and as a commodity and that it is not always possible to distinguish between the two in transactions; and also that changes of ownership of gold often take place without transhipment and, therefore, the returns would be misleading. Those are the views put forward, but I must say that the contrary views can be held.
    Mr. Stokes: Why is there this secrecy about the movement of gold? In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the fact that some of it is used for commercial purposes, can he explain why the gold which is put in teeth, and which is of less value, costs more than the gold that is put into Fort Knox?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman has defeated me in the latter part of his question. I think the point is that it is not a question of secrecy but that the figures would be quite meaningless if published.

    Coronation Souvenirs
    Mr. P. Robertsasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to restrict the importation of German and Japanese Coronation souvenirs, in order that British manufacturers, who are now experiencing a recession in trade, may obtain the maximum benefit possible.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Import licences are not being issued for any goods from Japan which might be sold as Coronation souvenirs. I hope to make a statement shortly with regard to imports from other countries.
    Mr. Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that unfavourable remarks were made about foreign souvenirs during the Festival of Britain, and will he make certain that this does not occur again next year?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I was not responsible for these matters during the Festival of Britain. I hope my hon. Friend will await the statement which I hope to make shortly on the whole question of imports of Coronation souvenirs.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these souvenirs have already come into the country? In view of the speed exercised in cutting out the import of food and other essential supplies, why was action not taken much more speedily in this matter?

    Strawberries
    Mr. Baker Whiteasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why the permitted imports of foreign strawberries in the period 1st June, 1952 to 31st December, 1952, have been raised from £65,000 to £165,000; and when the decision was taken to make this change;
    (2) what consultations his Department had with the representatives of British strawberry growers before raising the permitted imports of foreign strawberries from £65,000 to £165,000 in the period 1st June, 1952 to 31st December, 1952; and what steps were taken by his Department to make this change known to the horticultural Press.
    Sir H. Roperasked the President of the Board of Trade why his decision to raise the import quota of foreign strawberries for the period 2nd June to 31st December from £65,000 to £165,000 was not, in accordance with usual procedure, published in the Board of Trade Journal.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The additional £100,000 for strawberries is intended to reduce the hardship which our import cuts will inflict on a locality in France which is economically dependent on a crop of strawberries grown specially for the United Kingdom market. The total quota for strawberries in the last seven months of 1952 is, nevertheless, much smaller than the quota provided for June and July, 1951, before severe restrictions were imposed on imports. In these circumstances, no formal consultations were held with representatives of United Kingdom strawberry growers. The decision was communicated to the French Government, in response to representations which they had made to us, on 15th April, 1952. The global quota was published on the same day.
    Mr. Baker White: Will my right hon. Friend consult with the Minister of Food in order to ensure that these strawberries go to the Northern market as well as the

    13
    Southern market, so that there may be equal distribution of imported and home strawberries over the whole country?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will convey that point to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. A. Edward Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman, while ensuring that the growers have reasonable prices, see that there is a sufficiency of supplies so that the industrial towns in the North, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) has said, can get strawberries at a reasonable price?

    Fruit Pulp
    Mr. Bullardasked the President of the Board of Trade the reasons for increasing the value of licences for the importing of fruit pulp in the period 8th November, 1951, to 30th June, 1952, from the £480,000, originally announced, to £895,000.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his Question on 27th May. The additional licences were issued, at the request of the Governments concerned, in cases where the sudden incidence of our import restrictions had interfered with the performance of outstanding contracts and caused exceptional hardship to exporting interests abroad, for example, where pulp had been specially prepared for the United Kingdom market and was unsaleable without serious loss elsewhere.
    Mr. Bullard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the quantity and value of fruit pulp imported in the first four months of this year were actually higher than those imported in the first four months of the previous year? In view of the fact that there is every prospect of a very fair crop of home grown soft fruit, is my right hon. Friend aware that this is very discouraging to the home grower and will he see that these quotas are observed and tightened up?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: While appreciating the point made by my hon. Friend, I must point out that we do try to administer these cuts, if we can, in a way which has some regard to contract obligations. We do it in the hope that other people will also do it for us.

    Moscow Conference (Textiles)
    Mr. Baker Whiteasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of contracts placed for British textiles by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and her satellites and by China as the result of the International Conference in Moscow.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: So far as I am aware, no contracts for the sale of textiles have been concluded as a result of the Moscow Conference.

    N.E. Development Area (Government Orders)
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the Government orders placed in the North-East Development Area during the six months ended 31st March, 1952, relate to engineering and electrical work.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The information for which the hon. Member asks is not readily available and could not be obtained without an expenditure of time and labour which could not be justified.
    Mr. Willey: Without pressing the right hon. Gentleman on that matter, may I ask him to pay attention to the fact that there is a feeling in the North-East that they are not getting a fair proportion of these types of contracts? These particular trades are rather slacker than we expected them to be.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will call the attention of my right hon. Friend to that point.

    Development Areas (Inquiry)
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the report of the inquiry at present being held into the administration of the Development Areas.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I understand that the inquiry will take another two or three months to complete.

    Soft Fruit and Vegetables
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the President of the Board of Trade what trade agreements which he has made recently provide for the import to the United Kingdom of foreign soft fruit and vegetables, including tomatoes.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There have been no recent trade agreements containing provisions of this kind. There are, however, certain small quotas for some kinds of fruit and vegetables, not including tomatoes, from Yugoslavia, and of bilberries from Poland under the five-year Agreements which were concluded with these countries in 1949.
    Mr. Maitland: Is there any intention to conclude such pacts in the near future?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is a different point.

    Tomatoes
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the resident of the Board of Trade how far e plans to lower the import quota foreign tomatoes at the height of the Scottish growers' season this summer.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As was stated in the Board of Trade Journal of 2nd February last, the open general licence for tomatoes will be suspended this year from 16th June to 15th October inclusive. During this period the quantities of imports to be licensed are 3,600 tons from 16th June to 30th June, 7,200 tons from 1st July to 31st July, 2,300 tons from 1st August to 31st August, and none from 1st September to 15th October.
    Both the periods of suspension of the open general licence and the quantities to be imported during those periods will be subject to review in the light of supplies available from home production.
    Mr. Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that imports last year were lower than the quotas, which is an argument for lowering the quotas themselves? Will he bear that in mind in relation to the Scottish season?

    Australian Import Restrictions
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the President of the Board of Trade what results he has achieved in conversations with the Australian Government about cuts in imports of British goods, including Scottish textiles, and chenille in particular.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am still discussing these and other trade matters with Mr. Menzies and cannot make any statement at present.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the rapid using up of Australia's sterling balances, he will arrange a long-term credit so as to enable the speedy resumption of shipment of goods from this country to Australia.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. I am afraid that our economic situation does not enable us to finance the export of British goods in the way proposed.
    Mr. Stokes: If that really is so, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose that we shall ever get Commonwealth development far enough forward so that we get our consumer needs satisfied within a reasonable time? Surely this is a most retrogressive attitude?
    Mr. Butler: In the case of capital goods, of course, the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the Export Credit Guarantees which provide a certain proportion on shipment and a certain proportion within two years. If he is referring to capital goods, he will see that there is some consideration there.
    Mr. Stokes: I was referring to capital goods, but I still regard the answer of the Chancellor as completely unsatisfactory. Here we are wanting more consumer goods from Australia but not doing nearly enough to supply them with the necessary capital goods to produce them.
    Mr. Butler: The original answer was provided before a little bird informed me that the right hon. Gentleman intended to say "Capital goods."

    Empire Tobacco
    Mr. Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the percentage of Empire tobacco now used in the manufacture of cigarettes in the United Kingdom;
    (2) the average price paid for Empire tobacco and the average price paid for American tobacco;
    (3) what inducements have been offered to the producers of Empire tobacco to improve both the quantity and quality of their product.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Trade and Navigation Accounts show that in the year ended 31st March, 1952, the preferential rate was paid on 42 per cent. of

    17
    the tobacco retained for home consumption. Separate figures for cigarettes, as distinct from other tobacco manufactures, are not available. The Accounts also show that the average c.i.f. value excluding duty, of United States tobacco imported in the 12 months ended 31st March, 1952, was 4s. 11d. per lb. The corresponding figure for Empire leaf was 4s. 1d., but the types and grades were not necessarily comparable.
    The import of dollar tobacco is severely restricted on account of our balance of payments, but for the rest the users may import such qualities and quantities as seem best to them. My hon. Friend will be aware of the preferential duty allowed to Empire tobaccos, and that in recent years there has been an appreciable increase in the quantity of tobacco on which preferential rates were paid.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is there any suggestion that we should give a long-term contract to Empire growers to increase the supplies in view of the urgent need to save dollars?
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the President's answer mean that about half the tobacco which we are consuming in so-called Virginian cigarettes does not now come from Virginia?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: On an average, 42 per cent. of cigarettes, however described, came in under the preferential rate.

    Fruit Juices and Sugared Fruits
    Mr. Alportasked the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of fruit juices and sugared fruits it is intended to import during the next 12 months; and how these quantities compare with imports during 1951.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): I have been asked to reply.
    I cannot make an estimate. These commodities are imported from the sterling area by private traders under open general licence and from other countries under licences which limit the value and not the quantity imported. Imports from all sources during 1951 were just over seven million gallons of fruit juices and 170,000 cwt. of sugared fruits.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Personal Incomes (Net Receipts)
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the net income derived from an earned gross income of £1,000 a year in March, 1914, March, 1939, March, 1951, and March, 1952. respectively.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: For a married man with two children, £962, £888, £831 and £833, respectively. The figure for March, 1952, does not take account of my Budget proposals which came into operation only from 6th April: the corresponding figure under my Budget is £888.
    Sir T. Moore: Does not this confirm the wisdom of my right hon. Friend's policy in seeking to reduce the cost of living? Does it not also show the necessity for reducing the standard rate of Income Tax as soon as possible?
    Mr. Gaitskell: In view of that supplementary question, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House by how much the cost of living has been reduced?
    Mr. Butler: I have stated with the utmost frankness the effect of the Budget on the cost of living. I am glad to have, in the person of my hon. and gallant Friend, a witness to the wisdom of the Chancellor's policy.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Is the Chancellor aware that there are still a few workers who are under the £1,000 a year level? Would he give comparable figures for them?
    Mr. Butler: I am glad to say that in the case of some 16 million persons and their dependants there will be a considerable reduction in operation from the end of this week or thereabouts. That would seem to be a very satisfactory state of affairs, and I hope that it will have its effect on the cost of living.

    Foreign Films (Import Cost)
    Dr. Broughtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of importing cinematograph films from the United States of America and from other foreign countries, respectively, during the first quarter of this year.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The cost of films from the United States of America was approximately £2,070,000 and that of films from other non-sterling areas approximately £172,000.
    Dr. Broughton: Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer any intention of altering this ratio when the existing agreement with United States film interests expires in September?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Member is quite right in saying that the agreement expires in September; but, of course, we are at liberty to review the position before that date. Further than that I cannot go.

    National Debt Commissioners
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the National Debt Commissioners last met; how many staff are still employed in their offices; and what is their function.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Commissioners last met in 1860. Their functions are exercised by the Comptroller-General of the National Debt Office who has direct access, when the occasion arises, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the-Governor, and Deputy Governor, of the Bank of England who are the three active Commissioners.
    The staff of the National Debt Office totals 49. Their main functions are the investment of a number of public funds including the Post Office Savings Bank, The Trustee Savings Banks, and the National Insurance Funds, and the application of Government Sinking Funds. They also grant and pay Government Life Annuities, and have administrative duties in connection with the Trustee Savings Banks.
    Mr. Donnelly: Would it not be a good thing to tidy up this queer administrative anomaly?
    Mr. Butler: The arrangement seems to be working perfectly satisfactorily.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that these Commissioners will meet regularly every century?

    EQUAY PAY (CIVIL SERVICE)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what arrangements he has made, and what date has been fixed, for the calling of an early meeting of the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service to discuss with the Staff Side the early implementation of the principle of equal pay in the Civil Service;
    (2) on what date he submitted his proposals to the National Whitley Council for the gradual introduction of equal pay in the Civil Service, in accordance with the recent decision of the House of Commons.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the course of the debate on 16th May on the Motion by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell).
    Mr. Lewis: I am well aware of that, because I was in the House at the time; but the Financial Secretary made a promise and said it was the Government's policy gradually to introduce equal pay. I am asking, in both Questions, the date when he made the application for the Whitley Council to meet and to decide this issue. Can he tell me if he has made an approach or when he intends to make an approach to the appropriate Whitley Council for the introduction of equal pay?
    Mr. Butler: If I remember rightly, the Financial Secretary said that discussion would not be precluded when our consideration had been carried a stage further. We have not yet concluded our consideration, and therefore I cannot carry the matter a stage further.
    Mr. Lewis: Will the Chancellor give an assurance that when his investigations are completed he will make an application, through his appointed officers, to the National Whitley Council?
    Mr. Butler: I shall naturally adhere to the considered statement which was made by the Financial Secretary.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is not it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman's answer is one more example of shelving this particular problem? Will he not give some firm date on which we shall have some answer to this question?
    Mr. Osborne: Is it not a fact that this question was shelved by the three previous Chancellors?

  BUSINESS PROPRIETORS (DISPOSSESSIONS)
  Mr. Crouchasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions during the last 10 years owners and proprietors of businesses, other than agriculture, have been dispossessed by a Minister of the Crown on grounds of inefficiency.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: Four, Sir.
  Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that from the outbreak of war to 30th April last no fewer than 2,950 farmers were evicted on grounds of alleged inefficiency?

  U.K.-AUSTRALIAN TRADE (DISCUSSIONS)
  Dr. Broughtonasked the Prime Minister whether, as a result of his conversations with the Prime Minister of Australia, he can now announce any steps that are to be taken to encourage more trade between the United Kingdom and Australia.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): The discussions on trade matters are continuing and it is not yet possible to make any statement.
  Dr. Broughton: Are we to understand, from that statement of the Prime Minister, that as yet no success has been achieved in the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to encourage more trade between the two countries?
  The Prime Minister: I think that what I said was quite plain and simple. I could not endeavour to force upon the House any other conclusion than that which would naturally arise.

  MILITARY PERSONNEL (POLITICAL STATEMENTS)
  Mr. Lewisasked the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to ensure that military personnel seconded to inter national appointments are precluded from making political statements which could cause difficulties in international relationships.
  The Prime Minister: I should prefer to deal with this general question in terms of some particular example.
  Mr. Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that in Athens, on 9th May, Field Marshal Montgomery stated that no nation should maintain in peacetime such armed forces that the standard of life of its people suffered? Is that in accordance with the re-armament policy of Her Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: I should like to be furnished with the full text. That might perhaps be the subject of another Question.
  Mr. Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that this statement appeared in the "New York Times"? I will see that he gets a copy of that statement and then perhaps he can let me have a reply through the normal channels.
  The Prime Minister: It might have been reported in the "New York Times," but before answering any Question on the matter I should like to refer it to the officer in question.

  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
  Dr. Bennettasked the Prime Minister whether he will call a general conference of the Commonwealth and Empire for next year, to discuss economic, political and strategic matters, in view of the fact that such a conference has not been held for a long time and that the Coronation provides a most appropriate occasion for it.
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend can rest assured that these matters are being attentively considered.
  Dr. Bennett: Before bringing about such a conference, will my right hon. Friend consider the matter of the tariffs of the various countries?
  Mr. Dugdale: If any such conference is held, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Colonies, which play such an important part in our economic struggles, are adequately represented?
  The Prime Minister: Both those points—one on the material and the other on the structure—are obviously among the matters which, as I said, are being attentively considered.

  SOUTH KOREA (POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will instruct the Minister of Defence to express to President Syngman Rhee personally the concern of Her Majesty's Government over the constitutional crisis which has arisen in South Korea.
  The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government's concern at recent political developments in South Korea has already been expressed to President Rhee by Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Pusan.
  Mr. Henderson: Was it made clear to President Rhee that British forces are fighting in South Korea to protect that country from aggression and not to ensure establishment of a self-constituted dictatorship? Secondly, may I ask whether any reply has been received to the representations made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: I was not present at these interchanges and I would not be able to say what detail they took, but I am quite sure that the various points the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made would not at all have been excluded from the purview of the British representatives.
  Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to furnish to the House indicating that the attitude of President Rhee has changed as a result of the representations which have been made?
  The Prime Minister: The Foreign Secretary tells me that he is to answer a number of Questions on this matter tomorrow.
  Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great concern which exists in the country about this thug and blackguard in Korea? Is he further aware that the behaviour of President Syngman Rhee is making a complete travesty of the actions of the United Nations in Korea?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that no responsible Government in this House would like to have such expressions used without any regard to international considerations, and I am sorry that the hon. Member has taken the course he has taken.

  GOVERNMENT PRESS ADVERTISING
  Mr. Profumoasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that advertising campaigns in connection with the various Departments of Her Majesty's Government are carried out almost entirely by London agencies; and whether he will consult with the Departments concerned with a view to placing these contracts more evenly among agencies throughout the United Kingdom.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The selection of agents to handle Government Press advertising is the responsibility of an independent committee composed of representatives of the Press and of commercial advertisers. This committee has on its approved list a total of 83 advertising agencies of which six are provincial and three are Scottish. One provincial and three Scottish agencies have in the past handled Government campaigns and one Scottish agency is at present handling one. In addition, there is a special arrangement of long standing between the Scottish Savings Committee and another Scottish agency.
  Mr. Profumo: Whilst recognising that my hon. Friend has no powers of direction over these nationalised concerns, State Corporations, or public bodies, may I ask if he will call their attention to the fact that some similar arrangements within their orbit would be very valuable indeed?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No doubt what my hon. Friend has said will be noticed by the persons directly responsible.

  HOUSING

    Building Licences (Pool)
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, by arrangement with housing authorities, he will provide a pool of building licences on a regional basis, in order to help applicants who, while satisfying the criterion of housing need, live in one district and are desirous of building in another.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): Since the decision whether a licence should be issued rests with the local authority, my

    25
    right hon. Friend does not think the suggestion would secure the object his hon. Friend has in mind, but if he has any particular cases in mind my right hon. Friend will look into them.
    Mr. Braine: If my hon. Friend is willing to look at particular cases he must be aware that hardship is being caused. Is it not absurd that people who ought to move through reasons of health are condemned by this system to stay put? Will he devise some administrative solution?
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend agrees that the system does not work smoothly in all cases and, if my hon. Friend has particular cases in mind, the best way to provide a solution would be by approaching the local authority.
    Sir Edward Keeling: Surely my hon. Friend has information already.

    Private Building (Development Corporations)
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many new town development corporations are issuing private building licences to suitable applicants; how many such licences have been issued; and what proportion of the housing allocation they represent in the case of each corporation concerned.
    Mr. Marples: Seventy-two licences have so far been issued or approved for issue by local authorities on the recommendation of the development corporations in England and Wales. These figures represent a very small proportion of the corporations' total housing programme.
    Mr. Braine: Does the answer mean that some development corporations are not issuing licences at all? Is it the policy of the Government to encourage house ownership outside new towns but not inside?
    Mr. Marples: The policy of the Department is to encourage private enterprise licences in the case of development corporations in suitable cases. For the information of my hon. Friend, "suitable cases" means, for example, persons coming from outside the designated areas whose residence in the new towns arises through development by the corporation as a new town, such as those
    26
    from the exporting authority's area. Also suitable are cases where persons already resident in the designated areas are dispossessed.

    Council Houses (Defects)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) what steps he takes to satisfy himself, before Exchequer subsidies are paid, that newly-completed council houses are not jerry-built;
    (2) whether, since expenditure of public money on subsidies is involved, he will inquire into the jerry-building of council houses by private builders on the Bartley Green and Rednal Estates of Birmingham City Council.
    Mr. Marples: It is a condition of grant in respect of new dwellings that the certificate of completion by the surveyor or other authorised officer of the local authority shall state that the dwellings have been constructed in a proper and workmanlike manner. As regards the specific cases mentioned, my right hon. Friend has made inquiries and has been informed that certain constructional defects disclosed in a relatively small number of houses have been remedied by the contractors at their expense.
    Mr. Chapman: Is the Minister aware that there are quite scandalous defects in these houses? I have sent some of the details to him. Is he content to take no action when there is a gross waste of public money and materials, when there is culpable neglect on somebody's part in housing people in decent houses and great inconvenience to great numbers of people who are moved out or have half their houses demolished? Is this not quite a bad case?
    Mr. Marples: The reason for the constructional defects was that the chimney flues incorporated a liner recommended by the Building Research Station for the erection of a particular type of approved heating appliance and the liner proved defective in a few houses. Their use required more supervision during construction than can normally or reasonably be given. Therefore, the use of this liner has been discontinued. It is not accurate to ascribe the whole blame in these cases to private enterprise.
    Mr. Chapman: But that was only part of the trouble which I put to the hon. Gentleman. There are actual cases of houses being built which are so damp that people are being moved out just after they have been put into them. The hon. Gentleman has given only half the case.
    Mr. Marples: Inquiries my right hon. Friend made show that the district surveyor inspected and approved these houses with the exception of those few with the particular defects I have mentioned.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Inland Water Survey
    Mr. Powellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on the work of the Inland Water Survey; and if he will give an assurance that this will not be terminated or restricted.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not able to make a statement at the moment on the work of the Inland Water Survey.
    Mr. Powell: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that unless the collection of this type of information goes on steadily over a number of years it may be largely useless? Will he take that fact into consideration in coming to a decision?
    Mr. Marples: I will ask my right hon. Friend to bear that in mind.

    Coastal Defence Works (Steel)
    Mr. Edward Evansasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how much steel for the purpose of coast defence works has been authorised; how much issued to the local authorities of Lowestoft and to Lothingland during the past 12 months; how much has been asked for; and whether he is satisfied that the needs of these authorities are being adequately met for the purpose of combating sea erosion.
    Mr. Marples: It is not the practice to publish information about steel authorisations; my right hon. Friend will do his best to see that the needs of both schemes are met in so far as available supplies permit.
    Mr. Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in both these areas there has been a long and continuous battle against encroachments by the sea, and that the support given by the late Government through the Coast Protection Act resulted in a great deal of previous damage being repaired? Is he going now to allow, through an inadequate supply of steel, the land we have already saved to be washed away again? Is it not a suicidal policy to save Britannia from Mars and then hand her over to Neptune?
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is perfectly aware of the importance of this work and of the excellent constructional work done by both local authorities. In the case of the Lothingland rural district scheme, there is about to be an issue of more steel. In the other case, that of Lowestoft, in January the Department met the engineer concerned, who agreed that at the present moment a supply of steel was not necessary and could be deferred for a few months.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the debased paper currency now in circulation is being considerably increased by steel authorisations issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government which it takes local departments many months to honour, and that these steel authorisations are for considerable periods not worth the paper they are written on?
    Mr. Marples: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any specific instances which support the general statement he has just made, perhaps he will be kind enough to send them to my right hon. Friend.

    Highways Depot, Laceby
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government for what purpose the Lindsey County Council store on the Laceby—Grimsby road at Laceby is being built; and how much it will cost.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I have been asked to reply.
    This building is required for use as a highways depot. Its estimated cost, including land, is £6,562.
    Mr. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the local people regard this as a piece of wasteful extravagance? Will

    29
    he look into it to see that public money is not wasted in the way in which it is believed that it is being wasted?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that my hon. Friend will disabuse his constituents' minds of any such view. This is highly desirable expenditure, and necessary for the County Council to discharge its functions as a highway authority.
    Mr. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the local people regard the place now being built as far too expensive for the purpose for which it is to be put and demand that the economy that was promised should be practised?

    Water Supplies, East Ravendale
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he wil give permission for piped water to be taken to East Ravendale, North Lincolnshire, where there is at present only one tap for the whole village and where, for the past nine months, the present water supply has been condemned.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is asking the Grimsby Cleethorpes and District Water Board to complete as soon as possible their preparations for submission to him of the necessary scheme.
    Mr. Osborne: Is my hon. Friend aware that the scheme was held up because his Department—I think it was his Department—would not give sanction earlier on? Can we have an assurance now that that sanction has been given so that the work may be put in hand straight away?
    Mr. Marples: The first scheme which was proposed by the water board was thought to be too expensive by the Grimsby Rural District Council, who had to give the financial guarantees. A second scheme is now in course of preparation, and my right hon. Friend will consider it as soon as it is put forward.
    Mr. Osborne: Is my hon. Friend aware that the people living in these rural places, who have to grow the food for us, do not regard pure water as being too expensive in any circumstances?

  UNEMPLOYMENT, SCOTLAND
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Labour his plans to arrest the increasing unemployment in Scotland; and when they will be implemented.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Harold Watkinson): Unemployment in Scotland is decreasing not increasing as the hon. and learned Member suggests. A considerable volume of defence work has been allocated to Scotland and should soon absorb additional workers. It is hoped that the recent improvement in the employment position in Scotland will continue.
  Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman will look into the figures once again he will find that his initial statement is inaccurate. Is he aware that for five years there was real employment in Scotland, and will he try to live up to that high standard?
  Mr. Watkinson: Since February the unemployment figures in Scotland have decreased by just under 10,000, and in Aberdeen, where is the hon. and learned Gentleman's own constituency, by approximately 900.
  Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has given a completely false picture, because although that may appear from the figures shown by the labour exchanges, at any rate, in one of the best employment areas in Scotland—Kilmarnock—the fact is that there is short-time working in all the consumer industries throughout Scotland? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these facts disprove completely the false impression he has given in that answer?
  Mr. Watkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend in no way under-estimates the difficulties which lie ahead of all of us in this unemployment problem. There have been difficulties in Scotland, due particularly to cancellation of orders from Australia—[HON. MEMBERS: "There still are."]—as my right hon. and learned Friend knows well; but I have answered the Question asked by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and unemployment in Scotland at the moment is decreasing.
  Mr. Manuel: Nonsense.
  Mr. Watkinson: We hope to continue that decrease.
  Mr. Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that it is inaccurate for him to take certain phases of industry where there is no unemployment and give figures for those alone? I asked for the

  31
  figures for the whole country, and I suggest to him that the figures for the whole country show that there is increasing unemployment in Scotland.
  Mr. Watkinson: On the contrary. It is important to get this matter right. I did quote to the hon. and learned Gentleman the figures both for the whole of Scotland and for his own area of Aberdeen, and in both cases, as I told him—and I am very glad to be able to announce this from this Box—there is at the moment a decrease of unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I should have thought that hon. Members on the other side of the House would have been as delighted as I am to know this. It is my sincere hope, and the hope of my right hon. and learned Friend, that we shall be able to maintain this tendency.
  Mr. Hamilton: In view of the grossly misleading nature of that answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not the proper way to give notice. The hon. Member ought to say, "In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply …" and so on.
  Mr. Manuel: May I say that now?
  Mr. Hughes: In view of the entirely unsatisfactory and inaccurate nature of the answer, I give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest moment on the Adjournment.

  ST. STEPHEN'S CRYPT
  Mr. Mellishasked the Minister of Works when he expects the repairs to St. Stephen's Crypt to be completed.
  The Minister of Works (Mr. David Eccles): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 6th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane).
  Mr. Mellish: Why were not the repairs to the Crypt done during the Summer Recess? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, because the repairs have not been done, during the last few months hundreds of people—many thousands of children—have been barred from access to one of the most beautiful and interesting parts of this Palace? Why was not some ingenuity shown to get the repairs done during the Summer Recess?
  Mr. Eccles: During the last Summer Recess the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends were in office.
  Mr. Vane: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the purpose of the Crypt is not primarily for school children to go through in parties but for services to be held there?

GERMANY

  Contractual Agreements and E.D.C.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): I should like to give the House a brief account of the important agreements which I signed in Bonn and Paris on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on 26th and 27th May shortly before the Whitsun Recess.
  These agreements are subject to ratification by all the signatory Powers. Copies of all of them have already been laid before the House. There will be opportunity for full debate before they are ratified.
  Mr. Dodds: See the "Sunday Express."
  Mr. Eden: I explained to the House in my statement of 28th February, and again in my speech in the Foreign Affairs debate on 14th May, that two sets of negotiations had been proceeding concurrently; those in Bonn to establish a new relationship between the three Western Powers and the German Federal Republic; and those in Paris to set up a European Defence Community embracing Germany and other leading countries of Continental Europe.
  The agreements establishing a new relationship with the German Federal Republic were signed in Bonn on 26th May by Dr. Adenauer, M. Schuman, Mr. Acheson and myself. They will enter into for, when they have been ratified by all four signatories and when the Treaty establishing the European Defence Community has also entered into force. They will remain in force indefinitely but will be subject to review and modification by all the parties in the event—to quote the words of the contract—of the unification of Germany, the creation of a European federation or any other development which all the signatory States recognise to be of a similarly fundamental character.

  33
  These agreements were in all their details the product of free and lengthy negotiations, in which the German Federal Government took part from the outset on an equal footing with the other three Powers. They thus provide a sound basis for Germany's future co-operation with the Western Powers in defence and in other matters. They rest upon the conception that the German Federal Republic shall henceforth have full authority over its internal and external affairs, the three Allied Powers retaining only those special rights which they must keep, in the common interest of all the signatories, because of the special international situation in Germany.
  These rights are those relating to, first, the stationing of armed forces in Germany and the protection of their security, secondly, Berlin, and thirdly, matters affecting Germany as a whole, including the unification of Germany and a peace settlement. The agreements define the manner in which the Allies shall exercise each of these special rights. They provide that the four Powers shall work together for the peaceful re-establishment of a united, democratic Germany, which shall be entitled to assume similar rights and obligations to those now being assumed by the Federal Republic and with which a freely negotiated peace settlement may be concluded.
  The agreements lay down in detail the rights and obligations of the foreign forces stationed in Germany. They record the obligation of the German Federal Republic to make a continuing annual contribution to the costs of defence, including a contribution to the costs of those forces in Germany which, like the United Kingdom forces, will not be part of the E.D.C. forces.
  The Financial Convention could only cover in detail the arrangements until the end of the N.A.T.O. year 1953. These should fully meet the local costs of United Kingdom forces stationed in Germany during that period. The Convention also lays down the procedure for negotiating the division of the German financial contribution in subsequent years. The agreements make detailed provision for the settlement of matters arising out of the war and the occupation. They establish an Arbitration Tribunal for the settlement of disputes.
  34
  At the time of signature in Paris of the Treaty establishing the European Defence Community the German Federal Chancellor addressed to Her Majesty's Government and the other Allied Governments concerned letters accepting the controls over armaments production laid down in the Treaty and giving certain additional assurances about civil aircraft production and controls in the field of atomic energy in the German Federal Republic.
  Although, as the House knows, Her Majesty's Government are not a party to the Treaty establishing the European Defence Community, I signed in Paris on behalf of Her Majesty's Government three related documents.
  First, there is the treaty to establish mutual security guarantees between this country and the members of the European Defence Community. I made a statement to the House about this treaty on 21st April.
  Secondly, there is the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty under which all the parties to that treaty agree, in return for a reciprocal undertaking from the members of the European Defence Community, to regard an attack on any one of those members or on the E.D.C. forces as an attack upon themselves within the meaning of the North Atlantic Treaty. I informed the House in my statement on 28th February that these reciprocal guarantees between the two organisations had been decided upon at the Lisbon meeting last February of the North Atlantic Council.
  Thirdly, there is the declaration by Her Majesty's Government, the United States Government and the French Government in which they summarise their common policy for Europe. This declaration demonstrates the confidence of the three Governments in the various acts completed in Bonn and Paris. It states their belief that these acts provide a new basis for uniting Europe and preventing conflicts. It affirms that Her Majesty's Government and the U.S. Government have an abiding interest in the effectiveness of the E.D.C. Treaty and in the strength and integrity of that community. The two Governments declare that, if action from whatever quarter threatens the integrity or unity of the Community, they will regard this as a threat to their own security and will act in accordance

  35
  with Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The Tripartite Declaration also affirms that the three Powers regard the security and welfare of Berlin and the maintenance of their position there as essential elements to the peace of the free world in the present international situation. Accordingly, they will maintain armed forces in Berlin as long as their responsibilities require it and will continue to treat any attack against Berlin from any quarter as an attack upon their own forces and themselves.
  As the House knows, I was able after the signature of these instruments in Paris to pay a visit to Berlin. I was impressed by the resolution and calm of the people of that city. I was glad to have this opportunity to convey personally to them the undertakings embodied in the Tripartite Declaration. I was able to show them our own continuing interest in Berlin. All this, I am assured, was highly valued.
  All the agreements and declarations which I have mentioned must be regarded as forming a single whole. Taken together they represent a very important further step towards the consolidation and unity of Europe. Ever since the formation of the German Federal Republic in 1949, it has been the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government and of the French and United States Governments to bring the Republic into the Western European community and at the same time gradually to relax the Occupation controls. The present agreements represent the culmination of that policy.
  Though forced upon us by Soviet actions, our policy in Germany has never been directed against the Soviet Union. Nor are the present agreements. It is not our choice that co-operation in Europe ends on the Elbe. We shall miss no chance of extending it. But meanwhile we can best serve peace by lending our full support to all efforts to foster international unity wherever co-operation is possible.
  That is our purpose in signing the present agreements. They are an achievement of which all the countries concerned may well be proud. They offer a new hope for the future. If ratified and brought into force, they will make possible an intimacy of partnership and
  36
  collaboration among the ancient nations of Europe which they have long dreamed of but never in modern times attained.
  Mr. Attlee: We shall, of course, study the right hon. Gentleman's statement with great care. Meanwhile, may I ask him what is the present position with regard to the conversations with Soviet Russia and the other Powers as to a meeting on the general question of Germany?
  Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that we received from the Soviet Government a reply to our last Allied Note. I do not want to debate the reply now, but I think he will agree that it was not a reply that carried us very much further, to put it mildly, and we are now engaged on the answer we shall send to that Note. I should not like to say more than that we shall do our best to ensure that our reply is truly constructive.
  Mr. Attlee: May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the position with regard to the decision as to the powers of the present German Parliament for signing? There is the question of the two-thirds majority; is that now before the courts?
  Mr. Eden: Of course, that is not a matter for us. That is an internal German constitutional question and it is now before the courts in Germany.
  Mr. Wyatt: Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement mean that we have now altogether abandoned any notion of ourselves joining the European Defence Community as a participating member, and does it mean that we have irreparably handed over all control over the German arms industry and the recruiting of German soldiers to the French, Italians and other members of the European Defence Community—because that is what the Treaty says—or is there to be some arrangement by which we can have a voice in the European Defence Community itself?
  Mr. Eden: The undertakings given to the European Defence Community are also addressed to us separately and to the United States—that is, the undertakings of the German Federal Republic. As regards our relations with E.D.C., we have made a number of suggestions on this point, one of which was discussed at

  37
  Strasbourg. There is not any question of our becoming a member of E.D.C. That was a decision taken some time back and we re-affirmed it. I do not think that the House will consider that it can be physically re-opened, apart from any other reasons, at this time. We shall, we hope, work in close collaboration with E.D.C. by the various methods, political and military, which we are now pursuing.
  Mr. Bevan: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that arrangements have been made to cover the cost of British troops in Germany up to the end of next year? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the provisions afterwards, and what will be the annual cost to Great Britain?
  Mr. Eden: I said until the end of the N.A.T.O. year, which is to the end of June next year. For that period I am satisfied, but it cannot be guaranteed. It depends on a number of circumstances which we cannot control. In general, I am satisfied that up to June, 1953, no major financial problem will arise; I hope no financial problem at all. After that period, the German contribution, like everyone else's contribution, will be decided under N.A.T.O. arrangements, as ours has been hitherto. Obviously, I cannot forecast what the N.A.T.O. arrangement will be, and what their decision will be, after June of next year.
  Mr. Bevan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman able to give the House some idea of the financial implication of the treaties entered into? Can he give us no idea at all of what may be the cost to Great Britain of maintaining her troops on the Continent?
  Mr. Eden: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has seized my answer. The position is that until June of next year there are sufficient funds to bear the whole cost of British expenditure in Germany. After June next year, Germany will itself be making a contribution, together with all the rest of the Powers, which will be assessed by the international authority which has always assessed international contributions for the defence of Europe. We are, of course, represented on that authority, but it is clearly impossible for me now to say what the assessment will be at that time. Germany will make a contribution, but the assessment of that contribution must
  38
  obviously depend on Germany's own costs in respect of her own defence contribution.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is it not perfectly obvious that, after the N.A.T.O. arrangement has come to an end in June, 1953, whatever new arrangement is come to, our contribution to the maintenance of our Forces in the West is bound to be higher than it is at the present time? Is not that perfectly obvious, whatever the arrangement will be?
  Mr. Eden: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is entirely true and, of course, that is always part of the necessary consequences of a German contribution. What this House has to bear in mind is whether we would prefer that or prefer a situation in which Germany is taking no part in arms contributions or otherwise, and remains free to compete with us as much as she likes in the export trade.
  Mr. J. Hynd: The Foreign Secretary will realise that, while most of us welcome any step towards the liberation of Germany or as much of Germany as we can deal with, it is essential that the greatest possible support should be given in this House and in the country for any such step. Therefore, does he realise that it would be unfortunate, to put it mildly, if the question of ratification were brought before this House before we could be satisfied that every opportunity had been examined by Her Majesty's Government and every opportunity given to the Soviet Government to test the offer that has been made for consultations regarding the possibility of an all-German election and an all-German Government?
  Mr. Eden: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree—I hope he will agree and that the House will agree—that our last Note on this matter was as constructive as it could be made, and it did make very clear certain specific proposals to the Soviet Government. I do not want to go into this in detail and prejudice future discussions, but, unfortunately, the reply we got was very negative and seemed to go back on what they had offered before. I can assure the House that our next communication will, I hope—and I think I can be sure—be constructive in its nature, but I cannot admit that the power of the free countries of

  39
  the West to take action is dependent entirely upon the quality of the replies we receive from the Soviet Government.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it may be, possible more quickly to determine what are the Russian intentions by a conference, without a prolonged further exchange of Notes, and that in fact we might greatly serve the interests of Germany and of Europe if a conference could be called at an early date?
  Mr. Eden: I do not want to be drawn into this, but that thought, perhaps I can say, is not excluded from my mind.
  Mr. Wade: If it should so happen that the Contractual Agreements are ratified by all the Governments concerned but not the E.D.C. Treaty, will the terms of the Contractual Agreements be put into effect, or am I right in understanding from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the one is dependent on the other?
  Mr. Eden: The two enter into force together, but if there were prolonged delays about the E.D.C. part of the arrangements, there is a clause in the Contractual Agreements which requires us to meet and discuss the situation, but there is no obligation.
  Mr. Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he will ask the House to ratify these arrangements? Can he also give any indication of the time-table of ratification in other Parliaments? Does he not think it very unwise for us to proceed with ratification when there is plentiful evidence that a majority of the German people may be opposed to the whole proposition?
  Mr. Eden: I should not care to be as self-confident as the hon. Gentleman that I know what the majority of the German people think.
  Mr. Bevan: Find out.
  Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman says "find out." There are ordinary democratic processes for doing that, and elected Governments in Germany have just as much right to speak for their people as have elected Governments in any other country——
  Mr. Bevan: Just as much right.
  Mr. Eden: —and I do not think we should conduct our foreign policy on the basis of a belief that it is only Socialist Governments that represent the people who elect them.
  To return to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, so far as our own proposals are concerned, it is, of course, a matter for discussion through the usual channels, but I think we had it in mind that the House would want to look at these agreements for a while and maybe it would be useful to have a debate on them, say, towards the end of the month. As regards what the other Governments will do, I really cannot tell. It is a matter for them, and they have to shoulder their responsibilities.
  Mr. Crossman: I should like to return to the problem of the financial agreements and to ask two questions of the Foreign Secretary. Is it a fact that up to now £130 million a year in hard currency, a large sum, has been paid by the Germans towards the cost of B.A.O.R.? Do I understand from the Foreign Secretary's statement that the whole of that will continue to be paid by the German Government up to June of next year and that no further cost will fall on the British taxpayer? Secondly, do I understand that after June of next year most of this colossal sum will fall on us? In that case nobody will tell me that it will not be very expensive for us to re-arm the Germans and to pay this enormous sum ourselves for the Army of the Rhine.
  Mr. Eden: As regards the first part of the supplementary question, it is my hope—I cannot give an undertaking; it depends how these things work out——
  Mr. Crossman: Is it agreed?
  Mr. Eden: I am dealing with an international negotiation and the final result, even to June, 1953, will, of course, depend on the rate at which ratification takes place. The hon. Gentleman need not get excited. It is quite a reasonable proposition. I am pretty confident that the sums to June, 1953, will be broadly sufficient to meet any charges that are at present met by the Germans; in other words, I do not think there will be an important, if any, additional contribution from us up to June, 1953.
  After June, 1953, as I have repeatedly explained, a new assessment will be

  41
  necessary, and the House must clearly understand that the policy of Germany making a contribution to the European Army is not a policy which can be carried out without any expenditure, and that has to be taken into consideration. Then it will be necessary for the "Three Wise Men," or whatever authority is set up, to make out an assessment. Clearly, at that time there will be an additional burden on countries other than Germany in accordance with the increased contribution in the military field which Germany herself makes. That was, of course, axiomatic in the proposals of the late Government.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: There is no Question before the House.

  BAMANGWATO RESERVE (TRIBAL DISPUTE)
  The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on recent events in the Bamangwato Reserve.
  As hon. Members will remember, a deputation composed of certain members of the Bamangwato tribe recently visited this country, for the purpose of asking Her Majesty's Government to reverse the decision to which they had come with regard to the future of Seretse Khama. My noble Friend had two interviews with them. He listened to all that they had to say, which contained nothing new, and explained to them at length the reasons why it was not possible for the Government to alter their decision.
  He also gave to them a document incorporating his statement to them, in order that they might transmit it to their fellow tribesmen, and told them that in order that the expenditure of their journey should not fall on the tribal funds, Her Majesty's Government would defray the cost of their tickets. It will therefore be clear that they were treated not only with courtesy but with generosity.
  On 21st May the deputation arrived back in Serowe. On 26th May the District Commissioner proceeded to the kgotla ground in order to announce to the
  42
  tribe the terms of my noble Friend's reply to the deputation and the Government's further policy. He found there a number of tribesmen, not large but extremely vociferous, who had obviously been organised to prevent the Government's views being communicated to the tribe; and in fact the statement could not be made. Tribesmen who wished to speak and to listen to the Government statement were prevented from doing so.
  This was clearly a deliberate challenge to the authority of the Government and firm action became necessary. It was essential to prevent misuse of the traditional meeting place by a minority group. Accordingly, on 31st May the District Commissioner issued orders that no meetings should be held in the kgotla-place without his permission and that Khama's old law restricting the brewing and consumption of liquor should be strictly enforced.
  Two attempts on Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning to defy the first order were successfully dealt with by the police. But unfortunately on Sunday afternoon, 1st June, concerted attacks were made by a bigger crowd, many of them the worse for drink and among whom were many women, on the small force of police stationed at the kgotla ground. Two European officers, who with great gallantry stood their ground, were seriously injured, before being rescued by police reinforcements and eventually, in the face of a hail of stones and sticks, the police had to retire, leaving the mob in possession of the kgotla-ground. Three African policemen were unfortunately killed.
  The situation remained difficult until reinforcements had been brought in from Basutoland and Southern Rhodesia. With the arrival of these reinforcements and the Commissioner of Police from Mafeking, the situation was rapidly restored. Raids in Serowe resulted in the arrest of the ringleaders and many of those responsible for Sunday's rioting. Constant patrolling restored order throughout the town. The police then turned to other areas which might be affected. The Administration and the police are now in complete control and the situation is expected steadily to improve.
  It is clear from all the reports that my noble Friend has received that this was a

  43
  deliberate attempt by a small faction of the tribe to flout the authority of Government. Only a minority of the tribe took part in the disturbances—a maximum of 800 out of a total population in the Reserve of 100,000. It is significant that after the kgotla on 26th May, many leading Bamangwato, concerned at the deliberate defiance of Government and the discourtesy shown to Her Majesty's representative, went to the Administration for advice and guidance.
  Secondly, a considerable proportion of the rioters were under the influence of drink. This in itself is evidence of that serious deterioration in the tribe to which reference has been made in earlier statements. The first step must be to restore law and order and to punish the ringleaders for this breach of the peace, which has led to the death of three police officers in the execution of their duty. Steps are already being taken to this end, and also to transmit to the general body of the tribesmen the statement of Government policy which it was the object of the dissident faction to keep from them. There is good reason to hope that, when that has been done, the great majority of the tribe, who are moderate, loyal and peaceable, will turn to the essential business of selecting a new chief.
  I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for the length of the statement, but my noble Friend thought that the House would wish to hear as soon as possible about the events in the Reserve.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: While I join with the hon. and learned Gentleman in expressing regret at the disturbances and sympathy with the relatives of those who have been killed and injured, may I ask him three questions? First, do I gather—it was not clear from his statement—that the District Commissioner proceeded to the kgotla ground in order to convey to the tribesmen the decision of the Secretary of State? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether arrangements were made for the convening of a kgotla so that the delegation could themselves report to their fellow tribesmen on the interview with the Secretary of State?
  Secondly, it has been said—and I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to confirm it or otherwise—that
  44
  the solicitor who advises the Bamangwato tribe, Mr. Frankel, who accompanied the delegation here, on hearing that there was some disturbance, offered his good services to intervene to prevent further disturbance and that his offer was not accepted. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any news of that, and, if so, does he not think it would be wise to use the services of anyone who can bring his influence to bear to prevent disturbances of this kind?
  The third question is this. Is it the hon. and learned Gentleman's information that the disturbances were due in part to the fact that the tribe have made up their minds that they will not make nominations or select a new chief, and if that turns out to be the view of the majority, what then will be the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Foster: With regard to the first question, the deputation was certainly allowed to go to the kgotla, and, in fact, the date of the kgotla was put off from 23rd to 26th May at the request of those who came from England. But it now becomes clear that the reasons given for necessitating that adjournment were not made in good faith. The delegation had arrived on 20th May, and the adjournment to 26th May was in order to pack the kgotla with agitators.
  With regard to the second question, I do not know anything about the offer of the solicitor, and, of course, we must rely on the Administration to deal with that matter. However, I will take note of the information which the right hon. Gentleman vouchsafed.
  With regard to the third question, it seems clear that the disturbances were the work only of a minority. Many of the Bamangwato tribe, as I said in the statement, approached the District Commissioner after the disturbances on 26th May and before the serious riots and expressed their dissatisfaction and regret at what had happened. It seems to us that once this minority has been firmly dealt with, the tribe will turn to the election of a new chief.
  Mr. Griffiths: May I follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's first answer a bit further? I gather that the date of the kgotla was postponed in order to enable the delegation to report. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman now tell

  45
  us that at that adjourned kgotla on 26tb May it was made clear that the Administration had invited the delegation to report on their interview with the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Foster: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that, because the kgotla was entirely abortive. The District Commissioner was going to give the message, but nothing happened because he was shouted down. There was this group who were determined that he should not convey to the tribe what had been decided in London.
  Mr. Griffiths: This is rather important. My information—it may be wrong—is that some at least of the resentment felt was at the fact that the kgotla had been called. It was known that the District Commissioner was to convey the views of the Secretary of State but that no arrangements had been made for the delegation to report. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make an inquiry into that?
  Mr. Foster: I will certainly make inquiries.
  Mr. Fenner Brockway: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make a very careful inquiry as to the reports he has received, because it is the desire of all of us that this state of affairs should not continue in Bechuanaland? Will he particularly ask whether the tribe itself does not claim the right to call kgotlas and that a kgotla was held at which the full statement of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations was read, that that was followed by a report of the delegation, and that all the facts were stated to the tribe?
  Secondly, can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether his Department has received an offer from Seretse Khama to assist in the present situation in Bechuanaland and whether his Ministry will respond to that offer?
  Thirdly, in view of the importance of Bechuanaland becoming a model of racial equality because of its vicinity to the Union of South Africa, will the hon. and learned Gentleman do his utmost to secure a situation there where the democratic desires of the people may be fulfilled?
  Mr. Foster: With regard to the first question, the hon. Gentleman's information is entirely at variance with the information received by the Department, but naturally I will have inquiries made. With regard to the last question, it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that these breaches of law and order must be firmly dealt with.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: Whose law?
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman asks, "whose law?" I should have thought anybody's law would condemn the death of three African policemen.
  The second question asked by the hon. Gentleman was with regard to the offer made by Seretse Khama. I have no knowledge of it myself, but I will pass it on to my noble Friend.
  Miss Lee: There was one passage in the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement which I should like to have clarified. On the first occasion when he used the phrase "the worse for drink," he at the same time said that the women took a very active part in those demonstrations. I know we all want to be careful about statements which go out from this House, and I think the impression could legitimately have been given that the women were drunk, and that therefore their action was irresponsible and unrepresentative. I think it is very important that we should have this point clear, because Mrs. Seretse Khama got on very well with her husband's tribeswomen. There is a good deal of strong feeling there. Many of us were impressed by the members of the delegation to this country. They seemed responsible and, in fact, distinguished men, and therefore it is very hard for us to accept the impression given in the statement that this was just an unrepresentative rabble and that the women taking part were drunk.
  Mr. Foster: I am afraid it is the fact as regards many of the people taking part. There was a lot of drunkenness about, and, as I understand, it was a minority rabble. The kgotla had been packed with agitators and many of the tribespeople, men and women, were the worse for drink. The hon. Lady probably knows it is contrary to tribal custom to introduce women into the kgotla. If they were in that state, one can well understand the results of what happened.
  Mr. Snow: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that twice within recent weeks I asked him whether a meeting had taken place between the Primate of All England and his noble Friend on this matter. Twice he told me and this House that he had no knowledge of this meeting. Is he aware that the Lord Bishop of Lichfield, who is a constituent of mine, has announced at a diocesan conference that he has had such a meeting with Lord Salisbury, and will the hon. and learned Gentleman be frank with the House and tell us what happened at that meeting?
  Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman says the Lord Bishop of Lichfield had a meeting, I am also unaware of that. If he says the Primate had a meeting, I am unaware of what took place at that meeting.
  Mr. Snow: The hon. and learned Gentleman should know what went on at that meeting.
  Mr. Driberg: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman at least agree that there were no disorders at all in the tribe during the quite long period when Seretse Khama was living there, with his wife, after their marriage? Would he make a statement on the resignation of Keoboka, and is he satisfied about the legality of all the present actions of the District Commissioner?
  Mr. Foster: I am satisfied about the legality. I seem to remember disorders when Tshekedi was not allowed by a factious rabble of men and women to make a statement about observers sent out by the late Government.
  Mr. Driberg: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered my question about Keoboka.
  Mr. Foster: Keoboka, I understand, resigned as chief tribal representative, and he has also been deprived by the District Commissioner of his warrant.
  Mr. Driberg: What does the hon. and learned Gentleman think of that?
  Mr. Foster: I think he was right.
  Mr. Paget: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a minority. Is there any doubt at all that the vast majority of the tribe want Seretse to come back, and when the hon. and learned Gentleman refers to a minority is he not, in fact, referring to the leadership of the people who want Seretse back and who always, as against the general followers, are the minority? Does it mean anything except that some of those people who want Seretse back are more active than others?
  Mr. Foster: That activity resulted in the murder of three policemen. I referred to a minority because our information is—and we believe it—that the majority of the tribe are not murderers and drunkards. There was a minority which did murder three African policemen. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that during the debate it was agreed that there was a majority of the tribe who wanted Seretse back but, for the reasons adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman's own Government, and with which we agree, we thought it would not be in the interests of the tribe that Seretse should return.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TOWN DEVELOPMENT BILL
  Order read for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee.)
  4.12 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 2, page 2, lines 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 45; Clause 3, page 3. line 46; Clause 4, page 4, line 7; Clause 10, page 9, lines 39, 40, 42, page 10, lines 2 and 7; Clause 22, page 16, line 18; and of the new Clause, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Harold Macmillan."
  Re-committal is necessary because there are certain Amendments which I undertook during the Committee stage of the Bill to make and which involve an increase in the charge on the Exchequer or on local rates, and there are consequential Amendments which may have this effect. In order to make these Amendments, it is necessary to re-commit the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the two Amendments which are on the Paper to the Minister's Motion, one of which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren). The matters to which that Amendment is introductory were adequately discussed in Committee. As regards the other Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), it is not necessary to re-commit the Bill in order to discuss it. As he has put it on the Order Paper, I will call it on the Report stage, when we reach it, so that he can move it as a manuscript Amendment.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: On a point of order. Is not the re-committal of any Amendment which involves a change in the distribution of rates or a charge on the Treasury automatic? Is not the discretion whether it is to be selected when it goes back to the Committee that of the Chairman of the Committee and not, I respectfully suggest, of Mr. Speaker? By rejecting the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) on the ground that it covers matters already adequately discussed in Committee, you are, I respectfully suggest,
  50
  usurping the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee.
  Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order. I carefully considered the matter, because the same point did occur to me before I came to my decision. In selecting an Amendment to the re-committal Motion, I have to assess what is meant if the House accepts it. Of course, it would be introductory to the discussion in Committee of the various Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough. Therefore, it was necessary for me to go into the matter to see how these subjects have been dealt with in Committee. I came to the decision that they had been adequately discussed in Committee and that the Amendment could not properly be selected.
  Mr. G. Lindgren: I agree entirely that the discussion in Committee was very extended and adequate. Most of the Amendments which I have down for the re-committal stage will fall, because the Minister has carried out the undertakings he gave in Committee that he would put Amendments on the Order Paper. There is one Amendment which is important, namely, that which proposes to include the County of Middlesex with the County of London. From my point of view that is a vital matter, and if possible I should like some opportunity for the proposal to be discussed by the Committee.
  Mr. Desmond Donnelly: Further to the point of order, and with regard to the point about Middlesex. The Minister's Amendment half meets us in this respect. I submit to you that by admitting half a loaf of the discussion in Committee, you have agreed to the principle of discussing this particular point. So far as Middlesex is concerned, half a loaf is not good enough, because this is a very important point to the people concerned. As you have allowed us to discuss the Amendment put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, you should allow us to discuss the Middlesex point, because it is the same kind of subject.
  Mr. Speaker: In coming to my decision, I had in view the length of time which was occupied in discussing—as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) frankly agrees—this matter previously. I also had in view the extent

  51
  to which it seemed to me, from reading the Amendments in the name of the Minister, that some attempt had been made to give effect to what was said. On all those counts I must therefore adhere to my Ruling.
  In further replying to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), I must point out that I take the responsibility instead of leaving it to the Chairman of Ways and Means. There is a Ruling of my predecessor on exactly the same lines, I find, and for exactly the same reasons. If I were, as a matter of form, to allow the Amendments to be re-committed, it would be very hard for the Chairman of the Committee to fail to select them. I must take the responsibility. Otherwise, an awkward burden is placed upon the Chairman.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I had thought of raising a point of order, because there were certain matters I would have liked to put to you, Mr. Speaker. There are certain observations I want to make on the discussion, and I can make them without criticising your Ruling, the force of which I appreciate.
  The procedure now being adopted for the Minister's Motion places the House in very great difficulty. This is the first Sitting day after an Adjournment. The Motion for re-commital is put on the Order Paper in respect of something like 16 or 17 Amendments, almost an unprecedented figure, I should think, for a comparatively small Bill like this. We are put in great difficulty, and I want to put the difficulty to you, because it is a serious one.
  You have been good enough to say you will accept a manuscript Amendment on the Report stage which will repeat the Amendment which has not been selected for the re-committal. Members seeking to assist the Committee are placed in a dilemma when the House has not been sitting, because they have very little opportunity of obtaining the advice which is available when the House is sitting. They table Amendments of this kind, in case the Chairman of the Committee takes the view that their Amendments involve a variation of the charge. That is a view which could be held.
  It is exceedingly difficult, if not almost impossible, to say what will happen in
  52
  the interpretation of a Measure of this kind, which the Minister has told us has been almost deliberately drawn in very vague terms. Not many Bills have been drawn in such vague terms as this one. I do not think that is a harsh criticism, because it does not involve us in individual action. It involves only action by the Minister and by local authorities in relation to matters which normally would not involve any invasion of individual or general human rights. Therefore, it may well be wise that the Minister should have wide and fairly well-defined powers so that he may be able to grant or withhold charges where he thinks fit, impose certain conditions, and so on. The result, however, is that it is impossible for us when drafting an Amendment to say what effect it will have.
  As I understand the Ruling, it is necessary to re-commit any Amendment which involves any shifting of the charge from one authority to another, and it would even be appropriate to re-commit it if there were any shifting of the burden of rates from one authority to another. It certainly appears on one page only of Erskine May, very briefly, and not with any clarity, that any proposal which involves any shifting of burden, even within the terms of the Money Resolution, should be the subject of a re-committal order.
  We are now asked to re-commit this Bill, which has never been considered in Committee of the whole House. I hope, Sir, you will forgive me if I venture respectfully to put the point I had in mind with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren). My recollection of the Ruling given by your predecessor was that the Amendment had been considered adequately in Committee, and it was not given where the Committee stage had taken place upstairs and where 550 Members of this House had no chance of taking part in the deliberations. Therefore, although there may have been some discussion amongst the Members upstairs, the large majority have had no opportunity of putting their views.
  Even the Second Reading of the Bill took place upon one of those unhappy days when the discussion had to be split into two parts by the introduction of an Adjournment Motion lasting three hours.

  53
  So there was no chance for many of us to put the point of view of the towns we represent. So far as I am concerned, these are considerable problems and I hope we shall have some variation of the procedure for the future.
  We have to take the chance of whether this falls within the ambit of a shifting of burden or not. If it does, we have to table an Amendment to the Motion to re-commit. If the final decision is that we are wrong in our apprehension, we are out of order on re-committal, and we become out of order on Report because we have tabled it on re-committal. From your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I apprehend that you will permit me to move a manuscript Amendment to remedy that position. At the same time I feel that the moving of a series of manuscript Amendments on the Report stage is not a desirable feature of our procedure. If there is any way of avoiding it, it is important that we should seek to do so.
  May I say to the Minister, with great respect, that when he said originally that the Bill was all right because it had been drafted by his predecessors, he might have had some regard to the period of gestation of the Measure, and not necessarily have assumed that, merely because it was drafted in part by Labour Ministers, it was necessarily complete and in a condition to be put before the House without any further reflection. The right hon. Gentleman must agree that to produce 17 or 18 Amendments, every one of which necessitates re-committal, is to place the House in a serious difficulty in considering a highly complex Measure of this kind.
  All of us would express gratitude to those hon. Members who made such useful and adequate contributions during the Committee stage. Many of them are here now, like my hon. Friends the Members for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) and Acton (Mr. Sparks), who have a specialised knowledge of these questions and who contributed a great deal of help in Committee. Now, however, we are starting afresh to consider a series of Amendments on re-committal. Under the present Ruling, as I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman's Motion to recommit a certain matter will automatically put my Amendment up for consideration and selection by you, Sir, on the re-committal stage. I hope I am right in thinking that.
  54
  Subject to that, the re-committal stage consists entirely of Amendments put down in fulfilment of undertakings given by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee. I think it is a procedure which ought not to occur again. Considering the difficulties in which hon. Members are placed, it might be useful if we did not normally take a highly controversial and detailed discussion of a Measure like this on the first day after an Adjournment. Hon. Members have either to jeopardise their holidays in order to put down Amendments or to have Order Papers sent long distances into remote parts of the country. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that. Subject to that, I do not propose in detail to oppose this Motion.
  Mr. Paget: I want to enter a protest at the manner in which this is being dealt with. We have here no fewer than 18 Government Amendments to the Bill on re-committal to a Committee of the whole House. As far as I have been able to ascertain, there seem to have been practically no Amendments accepted in Committee. This is a procedure which does not seem to me to be a proper way to legislate or a proper way to treat either the Committee upstairs or the House. By it we discuss a matter in Committee and the Government reject suggestions made. Then we come on the Report stage, not to re-commit the Bill as a whole, as I believe we should do in these circumstances, not to commit the Clauses as a whole, but simply to re-commit a series of Amendments.
  Nowadays, apparently, we are not using Committees upstairs for amending Bills. A new fourth estate, the Department, has to be consulted, and in a Bill of this kind a large number of Departments have to be consulted. Thus the views of a Committee which Parliament has appointed have to be rejected, and it cannot do the work for which Parliament has appointed it until agreement has been reached between the various Departments. That may be necessary but, if so, there should still be a Committee stage, because the first stage was simply an exploratory one and not a Committee stage at all. The Committee could not revise the Bill because the consent of the various Ministries had not been obtained. So all the Amendments had to be rejected. Sound, sensible, necessary as they appear at a later stage, then they had to be rejected.

  55
  Therefore, this revision stage never took place, although this may have a necessity with this complicated inter-Departmental type of legislation. For that reason, let us have a proper Committee stage when the proper consultations have taken place and when the Government are ready to do their job. The whole Bill, and not just a few selected Amendments, ought to be re-committed to the Committee so that it can be properly considered.
  I have to attend a Select Committee elsewhere, and I hope that the House will not consider it discourteous on my part if I cut my speech unduly short and if I have to depart without hearing the remainder of the debate.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  TOWN DEVELOPMENT BILL

    Clause 2.—(EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS TO COUNCIL OF RECEIVING DISTRICT.)
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, at the end to insert "or."
    Perhaps it would be convenient if we were to discuss at the same time the Amendment in page 2, line 12, as the two are linked together.
    The Amendment results from a long and interesting discussion which we had on the Committee stage dealing with rather special cases which were not otherwise covered by the terms of the Bill. It may be remembered that the main purpose of the Bill was the contemplation of moves from a county borough into another area. It was argued, however, that there were some authorities which, owing to the war, to the long delays in attempting to make new demarcation of boundaries, and to the difficulties and delays in any proposed local government reform, would perhaps have been in the position of other county boroughs which were ruled out of the possibility of obtaining benefits by that mere fact.
    Hon. Members who were in the Committee will remember that specific problems of this kind were brought very forcibly before us and that I undertook to look into the matter and to see whether something could be done to meet that
    56
    kind of case. The purpose of the Amendment is to meet the promise which I then gave and to make possible Exchequer help for in-county moves which are part of a large conurbation. It will deal with that kind of problem that was put to us. It will deal with London and with some of the problems near London—for example, Essex and the like. It will deal with some of the problems of the great conurbation of Lancashire.
    I think I may say—I hope, with the support of all Members—that the Amendment meets the major part, at any rate, of the case that was then made. It will bring into the sphere of the potential recipients of Exchequer grants, for the purposes for which the Bill exists, a number of authorities which were ruled out as the Bill was originally drawn by the mere fact that although they were large authorities in that kind of category, they would be not officially county boroughs; and therefore, the in-county move would have ruled them out of the possibility of benefit. I hope that the Committee will feel that the Amendment carries out the purpose of the major argument that was put to me.
    Mr. Lindgren: The Amendment carries out to the full the undertaking given by the Minister during the Committee stage, and for that reason those of us who were involved are grateful. It does not, however, go quite as far as it should go. It is true, as the Minister has said, that it meets by far the larger portion of the cases that are likely to be dealt with.
    It was pointed out during the Committee stage that the county which represents the best example of the hardship that was created by the Clause as it was originally drafted was Essex. The Amendment certainly meets the point so far as London and large county conurbations are concerned, but it does not meet the case of the small country town which is hinged by common land and which, for one reason or another, it is undesirable should get any larger and which ought to export population.
    I should like the Minister to explain why it is necessary to put down these words, even granting that they meet the undertakings which he gave during the Committee stage, when a simpler method would have been to adopt the procedure which is suggested in a later Amendment, but which, by Mr. Speaker's Ruling, will

    57
    not now come before the Committee. If we were making it possible for the district councils who are involved to be authorities for dealing with an export of population, we should have dealt with the matter properly. Nevertheless, I agree that the Amendment meets 99 per cent. of our problem from the Committee stage, and we are grateful to the Minister.
    Mr. C. W. Gibson: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) that this is a very useful Amendment, but it still leaves in the Bill a difficulty which some of us visualised in the Committee: that is, that no attempt is made to define "overcrowding" and "congestion." It will be remembered that during the Committee stage I moved an Amendment which was designed to try to provide that definition; and we suggested that if an area was overcrowded on the basis of its town plan, which had been drawn up and carefully considered and accepted by the Minister, it should qualify under the terms of the Bill for assistance if it had to move population.
    It is very much to be regretted that the Minister has not taken advantage of the opportunity to clarify the point. I know from experience that local government administrators are concerned about this, and would like to have a definition of the meaning of "congestion" and "overcrowding." We certainly do not want the definition of "overcrowding" as it is under the existing law: that if there are not more than two persons to a room, reckoning every room in the house, there is no overcrowding. By such a standard there could be very considerable overcrowding, even under present conditions.
    We thought, therefore, that the sensible thing to do would be to adopt the plans made by a local authority under its town planning powers, defining "congestion" and" overcrowding" for its own purposes and under its own scheme, and to include a reference to that in the statute to make it quite clear that the Bill was intended to assist with the problem of overcrowding as it is understood by those who have to deal with it. I regret that the Minister's Amendment has not done that. Otherwise, it is an improvement and will probably be of some assistance to some of the areas to which we referred during our discussions in the Committee.
    Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: These Amendments have been introduced to meet a matter which I raised during the Committee stage. All that I desire to say about them this afternoon is that my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated upon having found a solution which adequately meets the difficulties of the authorities in question. The difficulties of these authorities were, I think, the major problem which the Bill presented in the form in which it was originally drawn.
    The Amendments will certainly meet the case of large boroughs like the Borough of Ilford, the representation of which I share with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper), and of the other large suburban boroughs in Greater London. It was in those boroughs that this problem was particularly acute, I hope that the effect of the Amendments will be to facilitate the solution of their housing problems and that it will be reflected in reduced rents for the council houses which they may build with the help which they may receive under this Bill.
    I cannot agree with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren). He put the case of what he described as the small county towns. This Bill ought not to be applied to the small county towns. If a small county town no longer has sufficient room within its boundaries to re-house the natural increase in its population its proper course is to extend its boundaries.
    Mr. Hale: How?
    Sir G. Hutchinson: By a proper boundary extension. County councils can do it. That is precisely the case where one ought not to apply the procedure contemplated by the Bill.
    My right hon. Friend is taking the right course in restricting the extension of the Bill, which is involved in these Amendments, to those places where the problem is really exceptional and acute, leaving outside the scope of the Bill those other places whose difficulties ought to be met in another way. I thank my right hon. Friend for the course he has followed in this matter.
    Mr. J. A. Sparks: The proposed Amendment is good as far as it goes, but it certainly leaves a lot to be

    59
    desired if it is examined in connection with that part of the Clause to which it is supposed to refer. This is an Amendment of paragraph (b)of Clause 2 (1). The essential part of the paragraph reads:
    "That the provision of the accommodation will relieve congestion or over-population in"—
    and it then goes on to specify three categories:

    "(i) a county borough,

    (ii) the administrative county of London, or

    (iii) a county district outside the county in which the development is to be carried out."

    Our problem in Committee was the fact that the Clause left out of the consideration a county district within a county area where development was taking place and prevented it from participating in the financial benefits of the scheme. In other words, if development were to take place in a county area, and any population were to go from another part of the county where overcrowding existed, the Minister would be unable to make a financial contribution to the scheme. To enable him to make financial contribution, the only county district who could send their surplus population would have to be a county district from outside the county area. If it were a district inside the county area, the Minister could make no grant.
    I think the Minister could have made this change very much more simply had he deleted from item (iii)the words after "a county district," because even his own Amendment is very hazy about the latter portion of the subsection.
    "(iii)a county district in an area of continuous urban development adjacent to the administrative county of London. …"
    In a sense, that is fairly clear—
    "adjacent to the administrative county of London."
    But then it goes on to say,
    "or in an area of continuous urban development adjacent to another big centre of population,".
    If that big centre of population is not a county borough it is automatically ruled out and the Minister is unable to make a financial contribution. There are many big centres of population which are not county boroughs but are county districts. If we had a county district adjacent to another county district which was
    60
    a big centre of population, the Minister would be debarred from making a financial contribution. He cannot make a contribution to a county district within a county area which is exporting its population to the area where the development is taking place.
    I appreciate the Minister's difficulties in finding precise words. It is perhaps to some extent easier to define the administrative county of London, but if the words
    "of continuous urban development adjacent to another big centre of population"
    could be defined, perhaps defining what we mean in terms of local government status by "a big centre of population" the position would be very much clearer.
    At the moment it seems to me to perpetuate the old grievance which we complained about in Committee, that the Minister is not given power to grant to a receiving authority that financial assistance which it should have if it receives population from another county district within the county area. I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up that very important point before we approve the Amendment.
    4.45 p.m.
    Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: I want to add my thanks to those of other hon. Members to the Minister for putting the Amendment on the Order Paper. He will remember, and hon. Members of the Committee will remember, that we were subjected to a certain amount of verbal bi-play in Committee as a consequence of our having withdrawn our Amendment.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) and I are very pleased that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) took the stand he did. It has done us a great deal of good in the division, because now the local Labour Party will have to eat humble pie, which is something of a meal I am sure they will not digest very readily. We are grateful to the Minister for meeting us in this very satisfactory way.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: There is a very small and drafting point I should like to be considered. I am not altogether clear from the Amendment on the Order Paper—that which which inserts paragraph (iii)at the end

    61
    of line 12—whether it replaces a paragraph, or comes before the paragraph in the Bill, or whether paragraph (iii)of the amended Bill has to be re-numbered. We have now given permission for the Bill to be recommitted, and I think the intention of the Amendment on the Order Paper should be cleared up so that we know exactly how many paragraphs there will be to the Clause.
    Mr. Christopher Hollis: I think it might save time if I reminded hon. Members that the argument of such hon. Members as the Member for Clap-ham (Mr. Gibson), about defining the phrase "over-population" or defining what is meant by "a big centre of population," would be very pertinent, as was said over and over again in Committee, if the Clause were putting upon the Minister an obligation to give assistance to these various areas. But, of course, it is not doing so. It is merely giving him permissive power to give assistance to these various districts. That being so, it would be of no advantage to anybody to have an exact definition; it would merely limit the class of places that might get assistance.
    I shall be interested to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say on the point made by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), that there were places worthy of assistance which would perhaps still be excluded by the working of the terms of the Amendment. I cannot think of any likely places that would not come under the definition of
    "an area of continuous urban development adjacent to another big centre of population,"
    which would be at all likely to qualify for assistance under this Bill. There is no point, as my right hon. Friend said again and again, in simply widening the class of cases that can receive assistance under the Bill as the amount of money to be available is limited, and it would simply mean that a larger number of places would have to be ruled out.
    Mr. Donnelly: The hon. Member for Devizes said just now that he could not think of any large populated area which would not be covered by this Amendment. I understood that to be the gist of his argument.
    Mr. Hollis: I accept that.
    Mr. Donnelly: I note that the hon. Member agrees with me. I put it to him and to the Committee that a place such as Luton is not covered by the Amendment. Luton is not contiguous to London, it is not part of the London conurbation, it is separated from it by a large Green Belt. Yet it is a big industrial town which is already far too large.
    It should not be allowed to expand any further because its population is comparable to that of Ilford, and it is a typical example of the kind of place which my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) and I had in mind in the Committee discussion upstairs when we suggested that it would be far better to have left out the words from "district" onwards, as my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has already said this afternoon.
    Places such as Luton will suffer great hardship. The Minister has come only half way towards meeting us instead of viewing the problem as he should have done and, having conceded the principle, conceding the whole of the case. He has met the case of the large conurbation. He has met many of the problems which arise. Having done so why should he have not gone a bit further and taken into consideration these few other places also? The right hon. Gentleman will probably be receiving rude letters from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if the latter shows more courage than the two Members for Ilford showed in the earlier stages of the Committee discussion.
    Having said that, I welcome, within the limit of what it does achieve, the Minister's Amendment, for no other reason in that it has brought a spark of real pleasure to the heart of the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson). I never hoped before to see that happen in this House. I was extremely glad to see the hon. and learned Member so positively happy as a result of the Amendment proposed by his right hon. Friend.
    Sir G. Hutchinson: I can assure the hon. Member that his observations in the Committee gave me the greatest satisfaction.
    Mr. Donnelly: I am delighted to hear it, and the hon. and learned Member has very good reason for that appreciation

    63
    as it was because of the stand which we on this side of the Committee took that the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward this Amendment today. Accordingly, there is every reason why that should give some pleasure to the hon. and learned Member.
    There is a dark secret which should be disclosed to the Committee, namely, why the right hon. Gentleman has put down this Amendment at all. Perhaps I might recall to the mind of the Committee what happened earlier. The hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North, the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) all made vehement fiery speeches—as fiery, that is, as the hon. and learned Member is normally accustomed to make—saying that there was no sense in the Bill as it stood. That is what the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South said.
    As a result of these speeches it was felt that the Minister might give way in the early stages of the Committee discussion. He did not do so, and the Members for Ilford and Wimbledon had to eat humble pie and spend a great deal of time working their passage and in making their peace with their makers—their constituents.
    The right hon. Gentleman has now come forward with this Amendment, which is dear to the hearts of the two Members for Ilford. I suggest to the Committee seriously that the reason why the right hon. Gentleman has done so is the startling result of the Essex County Council elections, which has shown exactly what will happen to the two Members for Ilford should they have to face the Parliamentary electors at any near date.
    Sir G. Hutchinson: The hon. Member should not allow his sense of disappointment to get the better of him.
    Mr. Donnelly: That is as good a one as I have heard for a long time.
    The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman has seen the nakedness of the two Members for Ilford, their abject political cowardice when they appeared before the Committee, and he has been providing them with some clothing so that they can
    64
    face their electors at some future date. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this kind of machination is far too Machiavellian. The British public like to see people stand by an Amendment when they have put it down. Nevertheless, I am glad that the two Members for Ilford are looking so pleased about it all. They will not be looking so pleased for very long in the future.
    I wish to turn to another point which has disturbed me about the non-acceptance of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and myself in the early stages of the discussion in Committee. In the course of the discussion in the Standing Committee, the Minister said:
    "I do not promise that we should be able to accept the Amendment in this form or in any particular form, but I will consult the Chancellor to see how far we can meet the case which has been put."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 25th March, 1952; c. 101.]
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said, the Minister has done very well for us. He has come here and put forward an Amendment which meets some of the difficulties which we outlined to him earlier. But the right hon. Gentleman disclosed a very serious constitutional state of affairs in his remarks when he said that he would have to consult with the Chancellor.
    As I said in the earlier stages of the discussion in Committee, that is a very serious matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has repeatedly said that the powers of the Treasury far exceed the normal powers which we should accept as belonging to the Treasury. Here is the Minister of Housing and Local Government having to go cap in hand to the Treasury to ask them to determine a vital part of town planning policy. Here is the Treasury deciding whether or not people in the East End of London, Ilford, or Luton or anywhere else are overcrowded or not, whether they should be transplanted to another part of the country or not.
    The right hon. Gentleman has shown quite clearly by that statement that as Minister of Housing and Local Government he may make recommendations but that it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who decides whether anything is to be done. This revelation, which is only one of many which we are constantly getting,

    65
    is a striking example of the way in which policy decisions are being made behind the closed doors of the Treasury. I wish to register my protest against the disgraceful way in which the Treasury are usurping many of the functions of Government and determining many actions and policy decisions which are far beyond their competence to judge satisfactorily.
    5.0 p.m.
    I think it is wrong that the Minister should have to go cap in hand in that way, as the kind of tyrannised tool of the troglodytes in the Treasury, who have little or no idea of the living or working conditions of ordinary people in many of the great cities in Britain. The right hon. Gentleman should get some stiffening, and face the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and tell him that at any rate we in this Committee—however pusillanimous some of his hon. Friends may be, including the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North—are not agreeable to the Minister of Housing and Local Government being the play-thing of the troglodytes in the Treasury.
    I think many serious ramifications are exposed by the earlier admission by the Minister, and by the fact that he has come back here having got the patronage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by the fact that he is able to move this Amendment. I do not wish to keep the Committee. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is anxious to make his contribution to this debate——
    Mr. Hale: I am never anxious.
    Mr. Donnelly: My hon. Friend says he is never anxious. It is the spirit of great duty which moves him. We appreciate his disinterested purpose, and the way in which he forces himself to speak on rare occasions in this Committee.
    I commend the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. I am sorry he did not propose it before. I am glad that it will bring hope and happiness and a chance of a new and better life to many people in many of the great cities who would not otherwise have experienced it; that is, if the right hon. Gentleman does something about it, having got this Bill on the Statute Book.
    Mr. Hale: I always appreciate any testimonial which I receive from either
    66
    side of the Committee, but I received that commendation from my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) with slightly mixed feelings, because my main purpose in rising is to find out how this affects Oldham, West, and I am still unable to find that out.
    I do not approve of the somewhat dubious claim of the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) to the paternity of this Clause and the respect in which he based his claim, having moved an Amendment and voluntarily withdrawing it and having refused the support of hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I do not propose to challenge the paternity of this Clause. I consider it a bastard Clause, well conceived but ill-delivered. I doubt very much whether it conveys what the right hon. Gentleman intended that it should convey.
    I usually listen to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) with respect and attention, but on this occasion I do not think he had thought over the problems. Or perhaps he had thought them over in relation to Wiltshire but not Lancashire, which, obviously, has special problems in this connection. I would like some clarification. On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) made an intervention and received some elucidation from the Minister, in which it was said that Sal-ford was a county borough, as is Oldham, and therefore the crossing of the county boundary merely occurred once one moved out of Oldham into Lancashire.
    So far as a county borough is concerned it can have a receiving district in the same county under the Bill as originally drafted——
    Mr. Lindgren: That is right.
    Mr. Hale: I am obliged for the confirmation of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren). That makes it much more sure than had I merely received nods from one side of the Committee.
    I would put this seriously to the right hon. Gentleman, because it is a serious problem. It is a very unusual one and a rather special one. The new Clause refers to
    "an area of continuous urban development."
    That itself is very vague—and here I would like the attention of either the

    67
    Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary who are engaged in conversation, because this is a point of some importance.
    Oldham had a population of 140,000 some 20 years ago. Today, it has a population of 120,000. Can that, by any stretch of the imagination be described as an area of continuous urban development? I know what the right hon. Gentleman will be thinking. Indeed, I see the Parliamentary Secretary leaping to the bait. He is saying, "Of course, this is a county borough and this Clause does not apply to county boroughs." But the wording of the Clause governs the adjacent county district.
    In my division there is the urban district of Chadderton, with a population of over 20,000; and the other qualification which Chadderton can have is that it is a county district in an area within the definition of the Clause, an area of continuous urban development. In other words, it is adjacent to Oldham; or, if the Committee wishes, to use a term which I, and I am sure the Minister, use with reluctance, adjacent to the conurbation of Lancashire.
    Through no fault of its own, and through a succession of Tory Governments, Oldham lost 20,000 of its population who were driven south seeking work during a period of unemployment and semi-starvation. Can that be claimed to be an area of continuous urban development? It may be convenient to deal with this now because it is a point of substance in this matter. Oldham is adjacent to Yorkshire. Almost immediately over the county boundary are the Yorkshire moors. At the moment, to use another beastly word, there is an overspill population in Oldham, even with the diminishing population.
    I think the Parliamentary Secretary will be sufficiently well acquainted with the place to know that what I am saying is true. The circumstances are that the medical officer of health in Oldham has said that 10,000 houses ought to be condemned forthwith. That represents something like 25 per cent. of the houses in Oldham. One in four of them ought to be condemned.
    It is true that one might argue that the population in 1923 was four per house and that today it is three per house. But
    68
    the houses have deteriorated very progressively and there are houses now, back-to-back houses, in Oldham which are still being occupied. I do not want to exaggerate but I would sincerely like to show the Parliamentary Secretary some of the houses in Oldham which are still occupied, and also houses in the Chadderton county district, which has more reserves of land.
    Let us take the problem as it now exists. There is no ground anywhere in Oldham on which a housing scheme could be carried out; and so, at the moment, the overspill has gone into that very narrow section of Lancashire right by the boundary which separates Oldham from Ashton-under-Lyne. An hon. Member opposite, I think it was the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North, said that the job of a county borough or county town which wished to build outside its area was to apply for powers to extend its boundary. I will not dispute that for a moment—[Interruption.] I think the hon. and learned Member used an expression something like "county town." He made clear——
    Sir G. Hutchinson: The expression was used by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who spoke of a small county town or a non-county or a county borough.
    Mr. Hale: I am obliged. I think the term small or county town conveys the picture and I would not challenge that.
    When the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was Minister of Health he said, and the House agreed, that on the whole it was to be regretted that so many extension Bills went through before we had an opportunity to consider the whole structure of local government. It was not fair to murder small county districts one by one by extensions, and so on. I had 25 years' experience as a member of a midland county council and I know that this is a very serious problem. It is serious when big central towns like Leicester can be extended to take more rateable value, and a greater burden goes on the inhabitants of the county.
    Mr. Lindgren: And they take over valuable agricultural land.
    Mr. Hale: Yes. This is a serious problem. I do not dispute what was said by the hon. and learned Member for

    69
    Ilford, North. I sympathise with him. But there are material, political and sociological reasons why the Committee does not wish to encourage towns to expand. On the whole, extensions should be limited to the intake of the limited areas on which building is taking place on behalf of the town. One of the objects of this Bill is to prevent that continuing even to that extent.
    Under the Bill the housing estates can be in an adjacent or a remote area. The Minister, in answer to a question by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) on Second Reading, said that the overspill of the Black Country could be located in what was naturally referred to as the delightful County of Montgomery. That is a long way away, with two or three other counties in between. It may be that that is remotely possible under the wording of the Bill, but it would involve some difficult considerations in the way of location of industry and transport.
    Let us consider the basic problem in Oldham. Can it be said that it is an area of continuous urban development, or that the whole conurbation of Lancashire is an area of continuous urban development and that, therefore, Oldham is part and parcel of it? If we consider the matter on the basis of the conurbation of Lancashire itself, we come up against some real problems in considering whether this Amendment is adequate. I have referred to the extensions which Oldham has now in Lancashire in the limited area available. When that area is built up, it will become necessary to go into Yorkshire.
    Oldham has to the west six miles of continuous road into the heart of Manchester and, to the north, many miles of continuous road over the hills right through Burnley to Nelson and Colne. In almost every direction it is part of an immense conurbation of factories, houses, industrial plant, and so on, running higgledly-piggledly together so that it is impossible for anyone to now when he has left one town and gone into the next. If we are to have any benefit under this Bill, we must go into Yorkshire.
    Then we come to the problem which is in my mind. The urban district of Chadderton is in my area. One always has proposals for amalgamation, but I should be the last to make any observation
    70
    about that. There is a good deal of interest in the parish pump in Lancashire, and a great deal of difficulty in getting one pipe and operating two pumps. But, certainly, in this field of housing there might be a desire to co-operate. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that it might be good to have co-operation.
    If two or three neighbouring units can concentrate and develop one big site we can provide the necessary social and public services much more economically. We are not talking about building a new town under the New Towns Bill but about developing an area in the best interests of the inhabitants and trying to provide a housing scheme which will give reasonable amenities.
    As I understand the position, there is a fear that the urban district of Chadderton may not come within this Clause because, although it is not a county district it can be argued that it is in a county district and an area of continuous urban development. That would be a tragedy. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer on that point. If he cannot answer now, I hope that he will be able to reply before we leave this Amendment.
    5.15 p.m.
    There is another vital question. I have talked about the conurbation of Lancashire, but within a distance of 12 miles the great conurbation of Yorkshire starts. When we talk about reception from a county district, we realise that it is exceedingly unlikely that the County of Yorkshire would want to give any preference or special help to the overspill from Lancashire before it has made provision for its own overspill. To make sure that I am impartial in this War of the Roses, let me say that the County of Lancashire would take the same attitude about overspill from Yorkshire.
    What means has the Minister of seeing that there is a substantial measure of cooperation between the northern counties in trying to make this additional provision adequate? I do not think it could be argued that Oldham is not part and parcel of a big centre of population. I should have thought that a population of over 100,000 would be within the terms of this Clause. I have several times asked the Parliamentary Secretary to answer the

    71
    fundamental point about the area or continuous urban development. I am entitled to know whether this Bill applies to the area of Oldham and Chadderton or whether it does not. I have given the facts with complete accuracy and I have several times asked for a reply on this question. Is an area which had a population of 140,000 in 1920, and which has a population of 120,000 now, an area of continuous development or is it not? Surely I am entitled to an answer.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I will answer at the end of the debate.
    Mr. Hale: I am much obliged. As we are on the Committee stage I have the right to speak twice. If the answer is not satisfactory I shall try to avail myself of that right. I think that we should have saved time if I had had an answer some minutes ago.
    Mr. Macmillan: The reception given to this Amendment has been friendly and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) and others who have spoken. There is one point which I should like to clear up before I come to the points of substance. The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) asked how this paragraph would appear if it were inserted in the Bill. This Amendment is designed to insert a new paragraph (iii) in subsection (1). If this Amendment were carried then, on the Bill being reprinted, the existing paragraph (iii) would appear as paragraph (iv). That is the normal procedure.
    There has been a general view that we have tried in this Amendment to meet the main questions raised in Committee. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) raised a question of great interest, and I waited until he had finished what he had to say so that I might give my mind to the point he put. As he appreciates, under the Bill as drafted, and without this Amendment, Oldham is one of those districts already dealt with as possible recipients of Treasury assistance if it were not to expand—not to swell, as we use the expression—but to hop into another area where it was regarded as beneficial that development should take place.
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether the adjacent urban district of Chadderton
    72
    would come within the terms of this Amendment. That, of course, would depend. I am not sufficiently well acquainted with the precise character of the area to say whether it is an area of continuous urban development, but the question of what we have in mind was answered by the hon. Gentleman himself. I think he said that there was land ready for development in the immediate area of Chadderton.
    Mr. Hale: Let me put the point again. In Oldham, there is no land at all. Chadderton is quite an extensive area in which there is a fair amount of land, most of which, curiously eought, is unsuitable for the purpose, because it stretches into the hills. What I have in mind is the possibility of Chadderton and Oldham going in for the development of a combined scheme, either in an adjacent Lancashire area, or, much more likely, an adjacent area in Yorkshire.
    Mr. Macmillan: Oldham would be covered by the Bill, whether the development was in Lancashire or in Yorkshire. Whether the hon. Gentleman wants to amalgamate Chadderton with Oldham I am not quite sure, but I thought I saw the beginnings of the Special Bill procedure in what he was saying.
    If Chadderton has land, it is quite right to develop it in the ordinary way, and it is not necessary to make this hop. This Bill is intended to provide for the kind of case where the whole area is built up, and the Amendment provides for the case in which only a county district is considering building and finds it impossible to carry out the development within its own immediate sphere, in which case it ought to have some advantage of the kind which is contemplated in the Amendment.
    I am grateful for what was said by the hon. Member for Wellingborough. He has said that the Amendment gives him 99 per cent. of what he wanted. In human affairs, if one can get 99 per cent. of what one wants one does not ask for the odd 1 per cent., which has caused a lot of trouble to many people from Napoleon to Hitler. So perhaps the Committee would agree that, having conceded 99 per cent. of what was asked by this Amendment, it is reasonable that it should be incorporated in the Bill.
    Mr. Hale: I am very grateful for the Minister's courteous explanation. I did say that the question in regard to Chadderton is phrased in very wide terms in the Bill. Everyone appreciates that it is as well, in dealing with a particular matter of this kind, that the Minister should have a wide discretion and fairly wide powers, but I do suggest that, at least, we should be able to say what the words in the Clause are intended to mean.
    I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on asking for wide powers of this kind, and I suggest that, earlier, he took the middle of the way, but is now beginning to get more and more to the Left, so that his many Socialist admirers refer to him as a Liberal and some of his Conservative friends regard him as a Socialist in introducing a measure of Socialism of the kind indicated in this Bill.
    However, I do ask the right hon. Gentleman, between now and the end of the day, to see if he can give us a further assurance. There is a genuine problem here, not merely the case of providing a couple of houses here and there, but of trying to provide a really first-class housing estate with all proper services. I appreciate the Minister's courtesy, and although I do not press the matter further now I hope that he may have something further to say in the course of the debate.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 12, at end, insert:
    (iii) a county district in an area of continuous urban development adjacent to the administrative county of London or in an area of continuous urban development adjacent to another big centre of population, or.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, after "such," to insert "local government."
    This is a drafting Amendment, consequential on the introduction of the new paragraph (iii) to which the Committee has just agreed. This Amendment is intended merely to clear up to what the word "areas" properly applies.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, after "may," to insert:
    "in pursuance of undertakings in that behalf given by him."
    I suggest that this Amendment, the next one to line 17, and that to leave
    74
    out lines 20 and 21 should be taken together, as they all run together. Their effect would be that the first sentence of the subsection would read as follows:
    "The Minister may, in pursuance of undertakings in that behalf given by him, with the approval of the Treasury, make contributions to the council of a receiving district towards expenses of any of the following kinds incurred by them in relation to development to which this section applies."
    The purpose really is to simplify the subsection, and bring it into line with the structure of Clause 4. It deals with a point which was raised in Committee as to whether the Minister should be expressly requested to fulfil the undertaking which he gave. The Clause, as amended, follows common form by empowering the Minister to make contributions in pursuance of these undertakings.
    It was always the intention, and it was accepted in Committee, that the amount of the contributions should be a matter for the Minister's discretion, and it is obvious that, if he gives an undertaking, he will, in fact, honour it. I think that these three Amendments merely improve the actual wording of the Clause.
    Mr. Lindgren: These Amendments, as the Minister has said, cover a point which was raised in Committee, but I should have thought that the Amendment to line 18 would also have been taken at this stage. As the Clause was originally drawn, there was the word "may" in line 16 and there is the word "may" in line 21, and we had a discussion in the Committee stage as to whether or not that wording was grammatically correct. Certainly, we raised the question whether the second "may" should not be "shall." I accept the Amendment which has been moved by the Minister, which certainly improves the Clause, and makes redundant certain other Amendments which might not have been called in any case.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 17, leave out "undertake to."—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 18, after "incurred," to insert "or to be incurred."—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Mr. Hale: The Minister, in moving the last series of Amendments, excluded reference to this one, but it seems to me

    75
    that there is some point in suggesting the inclusion of the words as originally drafted, because, as the Clause has been amended, the words "or to be incurred" may now be found not to be quite suitable. As it has now been amended, the Clause will read:
    "The Minister may, in pursuance of undertakings in that behalf given by him, make contributions to the council of a receiving district towards expenses of any of the following kinds incurred or to be incurred by them. …"
    The words "to be incurred" are not governed by the undertaking, but by the contribution itself, and, if that is so, this is a very wide power indeed which the Minister is taking. I have left out the words "with the approval of the Treasury," because I have an Amendment down on the Order Paper for the Report stage for the omission of those words.
    The Clause now provides that the Minister shall have power to make payments in respect of obligations to be incurred, and I should have thought that that provision goes much further than his present powers, I may be wrong, but I have always understood that housing grants are made on the issue of a certificate or a report by an officer of the local council to the effect that the council had already spent so much money.
    Mr. Gibson: No.
    Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), who is Chairman of the L.C.C. Housing Committee, says not, and I defer to his superior knowledge.
    Mr. Lindgren: As one who raised the point in Committee, I would point out that, of course, there are expenses in connection with works other than housing, and the Minister may make a grant towards the development of a reservoir or a sewerage works. I think it is correct to say that he should have in mind not only what is being done at the moment, but what that council is likely to have to meet in the near future and the expenses it has incurred or may be incurred.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Hale: I am not sure whether we are in agreement or not, and I ask my hon. Friend to assist me here. What I am saying is that, while no undertaking
    76
    is given here which would bind the Minister, as I understand it, these words would enable him to pay money over before work started. I should have thought that was something new. I speak with some hesitation on this subject after the interjection of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), but it seems to me a very wide power and I should have thought, particularly with regard to a reservoir, that some time should elapse before——
    Mr. Lindgren: If my hon. Friend will excuse me, I am sure that with his local government knowledge he will appreciate that to give an undertaking that a contribution will be made does not mean that a contribution will be made before the actual expenditure is incurred. It would be new for a Government Department to make an actual contribution towards expenditure before that expenditure was incurred. I think it is quite within the rights of a Government Department, and it is to be encouraged, to say that, in the event of a particular type of development being undertaken, they will make a grant towards the expenditure.
    Mr. Hale: I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend and I was referring to the Amendment on the Order Paper and to the Bill. It will be seen from these that, if this Amendment is carried, the Clause will read:
    "The Minister may, in pursuance of undertakings in that behalf given by him"—
    that is one of the Amendments we have just agreed to—
    "… make contributions to the council of a receiving district towards expenses of any of the following kinds incurred or to be incurred. …"
    In other words, the words "to be incurred" cover the making of the contribution and not the giving of an undertaking to the undertaker. That is precisely the point I am making. It may seem to be a small point, but it is of constitutional importance.
    If it had been the practice to make payments in advance, there would be no force in my argument, but certainly in my experience that is not so. My hon. Friend was gracious enough to refer to my local government experience, and I might add, by way of explanation, that it was by being a member of a county council that I got my experience of local government, and such a body is not a housing

    77
    authority. I have not had any experience of membership of a housing authority. My experience is limited to the other side of the table, because I have some interest in the building industry.
    I always understood that payments from Government Departments were made on certificates. I do not want to challenge for a moment the right and duty of the right hon. Gentleman to give undertakings in respect of all such services as the construction of reservoirs, the provision of roads and so on, but I should have thought that to give an undertaking to pay towards expenses to be incurred was going perhaps a little too far. I am dealing only with the date of the payment, and I suggest that the Minister should not be empowered to make substantial payments to local authorities who are proposing to construct reservoirs until at least someone has cut the first sod and is able to report some work done and and some progress made.
    It is a small point and I do not want to labour it. That is why I started off by pointing out that the words "to be incurred" would have been perfectly appropriate had they been in the Clause as it was originally drafted. In the amended Clause they considerably widen its powers, and for that reason I should have thought that some explanation was necessary. I hope we shall have an answer from the Minister.
    Mr. Macmillan: I thought that this matter was being settled by internal arrangements in the party opposite. This wording is in common form.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, leave out lines 20 and 21.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Mr. Macmillan: I beg to move in page 2, line 45, at the end, to insert:
    (f) payments made by virtue of this Act to a river board or drainage authority in respect of expenses incurred by that river board or drainage authority in the execution of works rendered necessary by the carrying out of the development.
    This Amendment enables the Exchequer contribution to be made where the local authority carrying out town development contributes to the cost of drainage works consequential upon that development. The power to contribute to
    78
    the expenses of land drainage works will be conferred if the Committee agrees to a new Clause which we shall consider later entitled "Contributions to expenses of land drainage works." This Amendment is really in anticipation of that new Clause, and must be taken in connection with the new Clause in order to put the Bill in order.
    The circumstances envisaged by the new Clause were those which the Heneage Committee had in mind in their Report on land drainage legislation, that is to say, where large-scale development gives rise to land drainage problems in neighbouring areas. We have had some experience of this in the new town of Crawley, where the Thames Conservancy have spent a considerable sum of money improving the River Mole in order to take the effluent from the new town of Crawley.
    Heavy expenses for this purpose may be necessary early on in development before the product of the development becomes apparent, and it is hoped that it will prove useful for the Exchequer to help authorities which have to meet these expenses at early stages. It will be similar to the need for helping towards the expenses of sewage disposal, for which the Bill already makes provision, and this merely completes the plan already approved by extending this power for Exchequer contributions to be made for drainage purposes as well as sewage purposes. It is, therefore, a logical extension of the principle of Clause 2.
    Mr. Lindgren: This Amendment is gladly accepted. It will make it easier for these authorities to assist river boards to deal with river pollution, and, in fact, it would be very necessary expenditure unless someone in those areas who was not really affected by the development would bear the cost. I think it is a good addition.
    Mr. Benn: The point I have to raise is a small one, but it occurs to me that the words "incurred or to be incurred" ought appropriately to be here, because the expenses of a river board or drainage authority for heavy works of this kind would be such that a small town would be committing itself to great expenditure in advance, and it might be wise for the Minister in this case, as he has done in the other, to give an undertaking to make

    79
    a contribution in advance of that expenditure. Possibly he could introduce some Amendment on the Report stage to meet this point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Lindgren: I would not have intervened at this stage but for the fact that an Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) has not been called on account of a Ruling given by Mr. Speaker earlier this afternoon. That Amendment referred to putting the county of Middlesex on the same standing as the county of London as being an authority able to undertake housing activity and to amalgamate the activities of the district authorities within its area.
    I know that it can be said that London is London and there is nowhere quite like London, but that is not exactly true in so far as the general problem of development within the county of Middlesex is concerned. I ought to make it quite clear that I speak now not as one associated with Middlesex but as one associated in local government with an authority which might be a receiving authority from Middlesex. Under this Clause as now amended, the various housing authorities within the county of Middlesex——
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman is developing an argument on an Amendment which was not called. If that be true, it would be out of order on the Question that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Lindgren: The last thing I would wish would be to get out of order if I could help it. I was trying to see whether on this Question, I could ask the Minister to allow for a voluntary arrangement within the county of Middlesex. If I could develop that argument perhaps you could consider then, Mr. Hopkin Morris, whether it would be in order.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment not having been called, it would be out of order. We can now discuss only what is in the Clause as it stands.
    Mr. Hale: I want to speak on the Question that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, and to raise what is in a sense a rather similar point. The Bill has been re-committed and we are now on the Committee stage, and we are considering whether this Clause should stand part of the Bill with the omissions about which my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) is complaining at the moment.
    I submit, with respect, that there is no authority whatsoever laid down to say that if a matter be perfectly within the rules of order on discussion of the Question that a Clause, as amended, stand part of a Bill, the fact that it has not been discussed previously because Mr. Speaker has made a Ruling previously is a reason why it should not be raised on the Question that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    The Deputy-Chairman: But this is not part of the Clause.
    Mr. Hale: Precisely. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough is saying that he is in some dubiety and difficulty as to whether he ought to support the Clause when it is going forward with that omission, and the comment he is making is that he would support the Clause if it had been submitted in that way. We are on the Committee stage and not the Report stage, and I should have thought there was nothing wrong in saying that the Clause would be very much better and would stand part of the. Bill very much more effectively if it had certain additions to it.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member is now saying what I said. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) can touch upon and not develop the argument.
    Mr. Hale: I am very much obliged. I appreciate that the word "touch" has various meanings.
    Mr. Lindgren: As I was about to say, there are in the County of Middlesex 26 housing authorities, of whom 22 have their areas almost absolutely built up. They are authorities who in fact will now have to make arrangements for their population to be accommodated within various boroughs and urban districts outside the county. The county with which I am associated in the field of local

    81
    government—Hertfordshire—will be a natural outlet for quite a number of these authorities and we shall be delighted to have these people.
    It will have been noticed that during the Second Reading of this Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) congratulated the counties of Essex, Kent and Hertfordshire on the manner in which they co-operated with the London County Council in the reception into those counties of the population from London. We were very grateful to him for the compliment which he paid to us and we can return it and say that the L.C.C. were quite a good authority to deal with.
    It was a tremendous advantage to us in the receiving areas that we had the London County Council to deal with rather than 28 Metropolitan Boroughs, which would have been an impossible, or at least a much less satisfactory, arrangement. At the moment we are dealing with this problem very satisfactorily indeed and the London County Council, with their vast resources and very competent staff, have been able to assist the Hertfordshire County Council and their officials in development in a very fine way.
    5.45 p.m.
    I do not wish to suggest that the borough or urban districts within the County of Middlesex have not competent officers and staff or would not be amiable people to deal with, but if in Hertfordshire we are to receive the overspill from 10 or 15 areas on the Hertfordshire side of Middlesex, surely it is common sense that there should be some arrangement for collective negotiations with us in Hertfordshire on schools and other facilities.
    Industry does not in any way associate itself in London or Middlesex with the homes of the people and that is the problem of transport in London. If there is a factory in a borough or urban district in Middlesex, the people working in it may be living in 10 or 15 different Metropolitan Boroughs. If we are to deal with the overspill of Middlesex and are to relate it to industry, the workers associated with the industries which are moved must come from a large number of urban districts and boroughs within that county and even within the County of London.
    82
    Therefore, I should have liked this Clause to include the possibility of Middlesex having the same standing as London. That is not possible now because we are discussing the Question that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, and the Amendment to which I have already referred has not been made. But I should like to ask the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary whether or not Middlesex County Council, who have a very effective planning authority and have a very fine record in a very difficult situation in the planning of Middlesex, could be encouraged to make some collective arrangement within the county for collective development outside the county in the receiving areas.
    That would not be by any means as effective as would be an arrangement whereby Middlesex would be the statutory authority; but it would give an opportunity for having some responsible collective organisation and it would enable the planning authorities in the reception areas to have some general responsible authority with whom they could talk on the basis of joint planning and detailed application. I should be glad if that could be done.
    Mr. Gibson: This Clause deals with the Exchequer contribution for the real core of this Bill. If no money is provided nothing will happen, and if very little money is provided very little will happen. To make the Bill a success and to deal effectively with this problem of overcrowding and congestion in our great industrial cities, a lot of money ought to be provided.
    In Committee upstairs, some of us were pressing for the fullest possible application of these grants to housing authorities. I admit that this would have resulted in the necessity for a larger sum of money to be provided by the Treasury, but we insisted on this in order to deal with a very bad problem, not only in London, but in Oldham, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and Glasgow, and similar large and over-populated cities. Time after time we were informed by the Minister that he did not envisage that this would help very much. In Standing Committee he said:
    "I did not want to hold out exaggerated hopes,"—

    83
    I think it was a pity to put it in this way—
    "and I think of this Bill in terms of houses to be built each year. I cannot think that in the next three or four years the expansion is going to be enormous."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C;18th March, 1952, c. 44.]
    That depends entirely on the Minister and the success with which he presses the Treasury for money. It is obvious that there will be no large attacks on the problem of overspill population unless very considerable financial help is given. The financial problem is enormous even for wealthy local authorities such as the one to which I have had the honour to belong for 25 years, but even there we are governed strictly by our finance officers, because of the enormous cost of building estates outside London.
    I should imagine that towns with a much lower rateable value than London, even if they had not got such an enormous housing problem, would find it extremely difficult to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill to overspill their population into towns which can be developed, where there is room for development, unless they can get considerable financial assistance. It was because I felt the Minister had been a little too cautious about this aspect of the Bill that I took the opportunity to press him in Committee on more than one occasion, though I cannot say with very great success.
    It is quite clear that, unless there is to be a large sum of money provided in the way of grants, there will not be any large-scale re-housing of people under this Bill and it will, therefore, be a failure. I think it would be a mistake if the country got the impression that in passing this Bill we were solving the overspill population problem in our great industrial areas. We are not. The Bill provides machinery for doing the job a little more effectively than it is done at the moment under the existing law. It provides the chance to oil the machinery by Treasury grants; and unless the oil is there the machinery will not work.
    I am not suggesting that the local authorities ought not themselves to bear a fair share of the burden. I do not believe in the State providing all the money for the local authorities. I think that we probably tend to reduce the sense of re-
    84
    sponsibility of even the best local authorities, such as my own. They must provide some money. In the present financial situation, faced with the present housing problem—the problem in London, for instance, which not only has 170,000 people——
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is making a Second Reading speech which is not directed to this Clause.
    Mr. Donnelly: With great respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, may I submit that Clause 2 is the operative part of the Bill and deals with Exchequer contributions to receiving districts? May I respectfully submit that my hon. Friend's remarks come within the ambit of this Clause?
    The Deputy-Chairman: It is not in order on this Clause to speak on the whole Bill.
    Mr. Gibson: I was trying to show that the problem with which Clause 2 purports to deal is a big one. That, I think, is admitted, but it will not be solved unless the Exchequer contributions provided are available in large amounts.
    Time after time in the Committee upstairs the Minister made quite plain that the Government themselves visualised this, not as a first-class measure aimed at trying to do something in a big way, but as a small thing which would help to ease the problems of a few towns here and there and would not cost very much money. I think it would be a mistake for the country and for the local government representatives who are so enthusiastic about this problem to get the impression that, by using the provisions of this Bill in their future housing work, they will be able to make any large-scale impact on the enormous problem of congestion in our large towns.
    Mr. Sparks: In spite of any limitations there may be in the Bill as a whole, I am sure the Committee will welcome the improvements that the Minister has suggested by way of Amendments. They have been improvements, although, in the opinion of some of us, their effect is very limited. The Amendment to incorporate areas of continuous urban development adjacent to the administrative county of London will to some extent help the problem of Middlesex, which was dealt with earlier.

    85
    It does not concede all that we would like in respect of Middlesex as a county, but it certainly gives to most of the county districts the power of participating in the scheme, so far as development within the county of Middlesex is concerned. Obviously it gives to the county districts of Middlesex the same status as a county district of any other county in so far as they may go outside into another county area and, in conjunction with the receiving authority, participate in a scheme.
    But there is one great weakness about this Clause. The Minister, on the one hand, has been kind enough to enlarge the scope of the Bill, and this Clause in particular, with regard to county districts adjacent to the administrative county of London, but the Clause itself places them to some extent under a financial handicap, because, as will be noticed, the provisions of subsection (2) of the Clause lay down the kind of expenses which the Minister will consider in making Treasury contributions to councils and receiving districts.
    There is a great omission here, and I think the Minister ought to have been prepared to include the participating authorities in addition to the county receiving districts. Some of the county receiving districts to which he has referred are very small authorities. They could not possibly develop a scheme within their own locality. Some of them have only part-time clerks who work a couple of hours a day. They have no technical staff at their disposal. It might well be that an exporting county district was equipped with the technical means of developing such a site, and the receiving authority might say to them, "You have the technical knowledge and the technical staff. You can do the job in our area."
    6.0 p.m.
    If that is done the exporting authority is under a financial handicap, because the kinds of expenses enumerated by the Minister in paragraphs (a)and (c) are to be denied to the exporting authorities who may undertake this work in the area of the receiving authority. In order to be quite fair to all concerned, the Minister ought to consider, at a later stage, whether he should make the terms of subsection (2) applicable not merely to the receiving districts and to county councils, but also to the exporting authorities, who might themselves carry
    86
    the responsibility for development in the area of a receiving authority.
    If it is thought proper to make a contribution to the receiving authority on the basis of paragraphs (a)to (f), it is equally just that that contribution should be available to the county district—the exporting area—which is carrying the burden of responsibility for developing the scheme. I do not know why he distinguishes between the receiving authority and the exporting authority in this matter, because it is obviously an unfair distinction.
    I hope that the Minister will look into the matter and see whether he can balance this Clause fairly as between receiving and exporting authorities, based on the question of whichever one takes the responsibility for actually developing the scheme in a particular area.
    Mr. G. A. Pargiter: If I may refer for a moment to what my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has said, I thought that Clause 7 did intend to do something in this connection. If it does not, I shall be rather surprised. I thought it was the intention that where the exporting authority was undertaking to do the work they would be in the same position as the receiving authority. If I have misunderstood the position, perhaps the Minister will be good enough to make it clear afterwards. If I am right, I think my hon. Friend's point is met.
    The provision contained in Clause 7 is an important one, because it applies not only to an exporting authority but to the county council of the county district in which the area is situated. I thought that Clause 7 had widened the scope fairly well in order to permit a lot of people to come into the scheme for the purpose of development.
    Mr. Sparks: That may be so with some authorities, but the financial contributions from the Treasury are based on Clause 10, which excludes county districts.
    Mr. Pargiter: I thought that county districts would receive the advantage of these contributions. It is obviously the intention that the money should go to the area where the development is carried out, in order to meet the expenses of those who actually incur the expenditure. It would be quite illogical to make a contribution to an authority which had not incurred expenditure. I hope the Minis-

    87
    ter will make quite clear where the exporting authority comes in on this matter.
    With regard to the question of the Greater London area and the limitations of Clause 2 in this respect, we have to recollect that the more completely developed the area immediately around the Green Belt the better it will be. It seems to me that the number of areas which will be available beyond the Green Belt will be extremely limited.
    I hope that the Minister will find it possible to say that on this particular question, where there are likely to be a number of local authorities competing for a relatively few areas, he will issue the type of advice, in sufficiently strong terms, which will encourage a measure of co-operation between them to ensure that the best development takes place, in order that it shall not be limited to one lucky authority which may not necessarily have the most difficult problem, but shall be spread out over all the authorities in such a form that they will all be able to get some relief.
    If one takes the area of Middlesex, beyond the Green Belt, it can look only to a relatively limited number of areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) has referred to the fact that there are 26 authorities in Middlesex who will be able to compete to go into the surrounding area. I do not wish to repeat the figures which I gave to the Committee in relation to the problem of overspill; but that problem is linked up with the question of good planning. While the Clause might have been strengthened by the inclusion of Middlesex, I think the object can be achieved by a good, strong directive suggesting that co-operation and joint consultation should take place. It would at least help to make the Clause operate rather better than it would do at present.
    Mr. Donnelly: I apologise to the Committee for not having been here for the whole of the discussion on the Question that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. If I may make one or two points to follow up what has been said by my hon. Friends, I should like to say how much I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) has already said. He has been a great champion of the people of
    88
    Middlesex and he has done a great deal for them. The work he has done on the Middlesex County Council and his great experience of their problems show that what he says is very relevant to the administration of this Measure, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to accept all the suggestions which my hon. Friend made earlier and which he has been making again this afternoon, because they come from someone who knows much more about town planning than either the right hon. Gentleman or myself.
    I think there are three very disturbing points about this Clause. They are disturbing not because of the legislative effect of the Clause but because of the indications of the administrative action which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) quite rightly spotlighted the shortage of money, about which the Minister has always moaned in the discussions on this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether he is going to waste the time of this Committee by producing a Bill which he does not mean to implement because he has not the money, or whether he does mean to do something about it.
    The right hon. Gentleman, in talking about spreading the butter thinly, and the small amount of the Exchequer contribution under Clause 2, has given this Committee no satisfaction, just as he gave the House no satisfaction on the Second Reading. There is no indication of what we are doing. The House of Commons has grown up with its powers because of its control of fiscal policies. It has had the central control over moneys voted by the British people to the Crown, and yet the right hon. Gentleman has the gross impertinence to come here and produce a Bill without giving any evidence of what he proposes to do. He should think again, because this is not the right way to treat the Committee.
    Before we agree to this Clause, we should get some indication from the right hon. Gentleman as to his intentions. I know it is very difficult to get nothing out of nothing; but if he has something in his head about this matter I think he should be able to produce some kind of answer which will tell the Committee

    89
    exactly what they are doing when they agree to this Clause.
    Secondly, I should like to press again the question of the unfair penalisation of some areas which do not come within the ambit of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not accept the Amendments we put down in the earlier stages. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) and I put down an Amendment today, which for reasons into which I need not go now has been ruled out of order. That Amendment would have brought into the orbit of this Clause many areas which do not come in even as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
    Earlier in the discussion on the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman, I mentioned the example of Luton, which does not seem to be covered by this Bill at all. There is a great manufacturing town which has been penalised. There are many other areas, great, growing industrial centres, which the right hon. Gentleman is penalising because he is not prepared to accept in practice what he has already accepted in principle and to extend this Clause to include those towns.
    Mr. Hale: Luton had to come to this House with a Bill to extend its boundaries and to the best of my recollection some of Luton's desires were refused. Luton is a town which has very special needs in this connection.
    Mr. Donnelly: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and I am grateful to him. We feel that Luton is sadly in need of good Parliamentary representation and it is hard that Luton's claims should have to be pressed by my hon. Friend and myself. They should not be allowed to go by default. I feel that in some respects we shoulder the burden of trying to see that Luton is not forgotten.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member should direct his attention to Clause 2, which is the subject under discussion.
    Mr. Donnelly: I am grateful to you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but my complaint was that Luton was not included in Clause 2.
    The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member had been here earlier he would have heard me point out that we cannot
    90
    discuss what is not in the Clause, but can discuss only what is in the Clause.
    Mr. Donnelly: I apologise for saying that it would be desirable to have it in the Clause. I will try to keep in order for the rest of my remarks.
    There seem one or two administrative problems which arise as a result of the fact that the county of London, quite rightly, is given special powers under the Bill, but the county of Middlesex is not given such powers. I wish to reiterate the plea which my hon. Friend the Member for Southall made about the need to see that the claims of Middlesex are not allowed to go by default. I am not asking now that they should be written into the Bill as a legislative act, but I am saying that, administratively, we should see that those claims are looked at under the Clause as it stands.
    There are many other problems about which the right hon. Gentleman has been extremely vague. Some of the wording of the Bill seems a little difficult to understand. For instance, subsection (3) of the Clause reads:
    Contributions under this section which are towards annual rate fund contributions falling within paragraph (a)f the last preceding subsection, or towards periodical payments falling within paragraph (e) thereof, shall be by way of corresponding annual or periodical payments, and in other cases shall be by way of such lump sum or periodical payment or payments as the Minister may determine.
    I want to know why only the Minister has powers to determine that. Most towns want to know how they will stand. Before they put up schemes to the Department, they want to know what are their chances of receiving any grants for the schemes and proposals they make. They do not want to go to the trouble of negotiation and to raise high hopes and create a general atmosphere of enthusiasm and then find their hopes dashed.
    The right hon. Gentleman could give a clear indication of his general policy during his tenure of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and of his intentions in assisting towns seeking to expand and what kind of towns he proposes to help. He should give a general indication to many local authorities in the possible receiving areas and large conurbations, whether or not it is worth while going ahead and producing proposals to help revive or assist their localities, to prevent a drift of population and also to help people coming from

    91
    crowded areas, slums and over-populated districts of London, Manchester and other cities.
    6.15 p.m.
    Another point is the problem of the small country town in the midst of very good agricultural land. If the town expands it has either to increase its boundaries or the population has to go elsewhere. I can think of half a dozen country towns in the centre of fertile agricultural districts where it is extremely undesirable that the boundaries should be extended. If there is an overspill of the population it should go somewhere else altogether. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to correct me if I am wrong, but I understand those towns do not get help under this Bill. Can he propose any administrative action, within the terms of Clause 2, to help these country towns?
    There seem to be three problems. We have no indication from the Minister of how much money is to be voted, how it is to be used and what is to happen to it, nor of what his general policy is to be. Yet he has the colossal cheek to get as far as this stage in this House without producing a single tangible expression of policy. I appreciate that there is a great shortage of policy on the benches opposite. That is one of the chief difficulties facing right hon. and hon. Members opposite, but I think we should get an expression of policy on how the Clause is to be implemented.
    Secondly, I think that once more the right hon. Gentleman ought to have brought to his notice the protest we make against the number of omissions from this Clause, which might well have been avoided had the right hon. Gentleman been ready to adopt a slightly more tolerant attitude and shown himself willing.
    Thirdly, I think the Minister ought to look at the problem of the small country towns with their real needs. There are very bad slums in these small towns. Picturesque exteriors may hide shocking conditions. The right hon. Gentleman, who wrote that admirable book, The Middle Way" which showed a great feeling of humanity for his fellow men, should go back to his middle way and think of his fellow men now that he is in a Ministerial position in which he can help them. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to show that he has some
    92
    policy, to show that he means business and is not wasting the time of the Committee.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I am in something of a difficulty. If I abide by your Ruling Mr. Hopkin Morris, I must discuss what is in the Clause. But I shall then be in the difficulty that I shall be hardly able to answer any of the points raised in the course of the discussion because they are not in the Clause. Either I shall be accused of discourtesy for not answering, or I shall be ruled out of order for answering; but perhaps I may be allowed a little lattitude to answer one or two of the points without trespassing too far one way or the other.
    The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) made a point about the main feature of the Clause which is, as it always was in the Bill from the start and in the whole plan of the Bill, to give support to those receiving authorities which could not carry these burdens themselves. That, after all, is the purpose of the Bill—that the money should go where the money is going to be spent; but there are, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), I think, pointed out, some provisions in Clause 7 which to some extent meet the point the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
    The hon. Member for Southall, who always speaks with authority on these matters, and who, in the Committee, helped us very much, made an appeal to me to give helpful advice to the local authorities as to how this Bill should be used. That, I am sure, we shall be able to do. My officers are in constant touch with the local authorities, and are always discussing where expansions or housing problems should be assisted in one way or another, and once this Bill becomes an Act they will go on doing so. Indeed, they are already doing so hoping it will become an Act, and we are holding those discussions with the local authorities. If there is anything more I can do to help, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not fail to get in touch with me on specific questions.
    The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) made a point again that he made in Committee. He said that this was not a great Bill; it was not going to do immense things; it was not going to cost vast expenditure of money on the building of houses. As I

    93
    pointed out to him in Committee, he cannot have it both ways. I understood that it was the whole line of his party that it was physically impossible to build more than 170,000 to 190,000 houses a year in this country. Now they are attacking me because I am not doing more than I am; now the hon. Gentleman says we should build hundreds of thousands more houses and spend millions of pounds. I shall do all I can, but the problem is not one of money provided under the Bill. The problem, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and as we all know, is how the whole resources of the country can be so adapted as to produce the maximum possible results.
    As for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), I should have made some reply to him, but he was good enough to say he did not expect any reply, because, he said, nothing comes out of nothing, and so I would not try to match his vast intellectual powers by anything that would come from my vacuous mind. All I can say is that, if most of the things he said were irrelevant, all the rest were offensive.
    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), as usual, made his point with great firmness and skill. I do not want to go into the Middlesex argument. I do not know whether later Amendments will be called or not. I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that, with the Clause as now before the Committee, with the Amendment we have accepted, we have gone a long way to help the Middlesex position, because in the event of a moving of population from Middlesex into a neighbouring county it would be a movement out of one of the constituent county districts, and therefore that position will be covered by the Clause as amended. I think that that will, at any rate, help to meet some of the points the hon. Gentleman has in mind. That is quite different from the later Amendments. However, I think the Clause moves a little in the direction of meeting his difficulties.
    I hope that the Committee will feel that this Clause ought to be agreed to. I should be sorry if the Committee thought it necessary to divide against the Clause. I am sure it will be useful. Indeed, it is the predominant Clause of the Bill. I do not claim that we shall be able to make vast, fantastic progress; but
    94
    I think we shall be able to make useful progress, and that, whatever may be the numbers of houses that can be built in the next five or 10 years with the resources available, this Bill will help to see that they are built in the right places—and that, after all, is as important as is the number that is built.
    Mr. Hale: Let me say at once that the right hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension as to what hon. Members on this side of the Committee have said in general about the housing programme. It really should be put right. The Committee will remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), when he was Minister of Health and responsible for housing, said that the need for priorities was the need of Christianity. There was a limit to the building force. It was not a question then of money, but of men and materials. We could build schools, we could build hospitals, we could construct electricity generating stations, or we could build houses.
    Somebody had to make the wretched decision, which was to have priority, which was to have the most substantial proportion of the building force—how much of the building force and of the materials should be allocated to repairs under controls, how much should be allocated to new construction, how much should be allocated for the rebuilding of the devastated areas, how much should be provided for the motive power of industry, and so on.
    That was the tragic decision that had to be faced by any Minister. The right hon. Gentleman, for purely party electoral purposes, said we should build no schools or electricity stations but rely on those the Socialist Government had already provided, and that we should cut down our expenditure on everything.
    The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the Clause.
    Mr. Hale: I entirely agree, Sir Charles, but I should not have had to make these observations if it had not been necessary to correct the obvious misapprehension in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not take the same view of his intellectual capacities as that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), and I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman has

    95
    apprehended by now what I should have said if I had been able to conclude this particular dissertion, as I should have done but for your well-timed intervention, Sir Charles.
    But there are some points about this Clause which need elucidation, and I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he must not just say to the Committee, "I am not prepared to tell you anything about my intentions. I am not prepared to give you any guidance or assistance as to how the Government will read this Bill. I am not prepared to say anything of the legislative priorities. I am not prepared to say whether we are going to implement this with priority in the development of the new towns. I am not prepared to say anything but that we just take general powers."
    I concede at once—in so far as I have the right to concede anything in the course of the argument; and I use the word only in so far as my own contribution to the discussion is concerned—that, in a matter of this kind, the Minister must have wide powers. We Socialists always have accepted the view that the State must have wide powers in planning and control, but no Socialist has ever said that Parliament should surrender altogether its duty of watchdog over public expenditure, or that Parliament should abdicate its right to watch how and when public money is expended.
    A great number of the points that have been put so ably by my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee have not been answered at all by the right hon. Gentleman—not answered at all. He accused my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke of rudeness. My hon. Friend is perfectly competent to defend himself on that charge if he likes, but the right hon. Gentleman did not make an attempt to answer the very reasonable arguments my hon. Friend put so ably—and those arguments came from one who has had very long experience of town planning and who has very special knowledge of town planning, so that his arguments, one would have thought, would have been treated with more respect that they were.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) raised an important question—and here, perhaps, I rather part company with him in the argument—that small councils have not the services of
    96
    full-time experts, but, perhaps, only of part-time clerks, and part-time sanitary inspectors, and have not really skilled surveyors to help them. It may be difficult for them to carry out a scheme of this kind, or, indeed, to formulate one.
    My own view is that when we come to consider the whole question of local government some of those authorities will have to go. In part, they are already going through expansions that are taking place. There is a case in Lancashire, that of Lymehurst Rural District Council, which is losing a bit to Ashton and a little bit to Oldham, but is still maintaining an individual existence on what territory it has left. We are entitled to know what the Minister's intentions are under Clause 2.
    6.30 p.m.
    I do not agree that Clause 7 provides the machinery for giving the sort of assistance that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton had in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke referred to subsection (3) of this Clause. It is a sorry and unhappy task to discuss the activities of the Parliamentary draftsman. Everybody knows that he faces tasks of very great difficulty, and that he brings to them very great ability. But when we look at this very long Clause it would seem that it started as an idea and developed into a curious combination of almost incomprehensible sentences.
    The Clause does not say anything at all in the end. We are given a fantastic list, now extended by the addition of drainage, sewerage, and so on, of the sorts of things to which the Minister can contribute. Why it did not say that he could contribute to the services of a housing estate—to the building of houses, and so on—in one generic Clause I do not know.
    In subsection (3) we get this extraordinary wording:
    "Contributions under this section which are towards annual rate fund contributions falling within paragraph (a)of the last preceding subsection, or towards periodical payments falling within paragraph (e)thereof, shall be by way of corresponding annual or periodical payments, and in other cases shall be by way of such lump sum or periodical payment or payments as the Minister may determine.'
    What that means technically is that for some reason the Minister has said in respect of paragraphs (a)and (e) he will make periodical payments and he undertakes to do so. There is not the slightest

    97
    reason to say that. He could make them periodically without binding himself to do so in the Clause.
    The rest of the Clause really means that the Minister can make contributions in any way he likes, either by a periodical payment, or on an architect's certificate, a work's certificate, a certificate of development, and so on. Why statutes do not use perfectly simple and homely language and say, "It is a matter for the discretion of the Minister" and leave it at that, I do not know. That sentence would cover the lot.
    Mr. Paget: Why say that? If unnecessary words of limitation are not introduced the Minister can do as he likes.
    Mr. Hale: Yes, but I am not at all sure that I want to let any Conservative Minister do as he likes. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the Clause would be just as effective, would mean just as much and would not actually give the Minister any wider powers than he has already got under the Clause.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) both raised the question of how the Bill is to be implemented. Surely, before we leave this Clause, which governs the main question of the Government's contribution to the actual working of the scheme, the Committee are entitled to be told something about the Government's intentions.
    Let me remind the Committee of the position under the Clause. The contributions to which we are referring in this Clause do not involve any extra contribution by the Exchequer at all. The extra contributions would come under Clause 10, as I apprehend the Bill. In the main, the sort of contributions we are talking about under Clause 2 are mere transfers, as it were, from the payments to be made for the Oldham County Borough Council for building within their own area to the Lymehurst Rural District Council, which is undertaking a building scheme on behalf of Oldham and will allot the houses to Oldham people.
    The grant given to the receiving area in respect of the exporting area involves no extra expenditure on the Exchequer. That, of course, is not completely true, because in dealing with a large housing
    98
    estate outside the area there is some extra expense, extra planning, and so on. But in the main, under Clause 2 the expenditure envisaged is merely a transfer from one authority to the other, so even if we face the implications of this Bill really being introduced with the intention of dealing with this very substantial and serious question of overspill in the great conurbations of the country, even if we accept that the Government are serious in their intentions, under this Bill there really is not a very wide additional obligation being placed upon the Exchequer.
    Surely, therefore, we are entitled to be told by the right hon. Gentleman how he proposes to administer this Clause. At the moment I am referring to Clause 2, and Clause 2 only. That is the Clause which imposes the obligation to make the initial payments, to pass initial schemes, to consider the initial proposals. It is well known that there are many schemes already in existence and formulated for dealing with overspill. It is well known that there are many areas already in need of assistance and guidance.
    Will the Minister not tell us what his intentions are with regard to those? I know that under this Clause the payments have to be made with the approval of the Treasury. I have on previous occasions objected to that, and have indeed tabled an Amendment for the Report stage of the Bill on that matter, although it is for you, Sir Charles, to decide whether or not it can be called.
    The right hon. Gentleman should tell the Committee whether he had seen the Treasury about this. Has he got a clear understanding of the Treasury's intention? Has he been given general authority to go on with this method, if it be for only six or seven months? Has he power now to say to the Committee, "Certain proposals are already approved in principle, in respect of which I intend to formulate undertakings under Clause 2 of the Bill."
    There is no question that the information is available in the Department. There is no question that these matters have been subject to discussions between the exporting councils and the receiving councils. Indeed, the very necessity for the Bill arose when it was found that some of these schemes could not be carried out under the existing law merely because of this extraordinary technical

    99
    difficulty which Clause 2 is designed to remedy—the right which did not previously exist under any statute to make these grants to an area which was receiving houses on behalf of another corporation, instead of the normal method of making the grant to the area actually doing the building in its own area. That is the problem.
    I do not want to labour the matter, and I hope I am not labouring the matter. But this is an important Clause; it is the Clause which provides the whole machinery. The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, agree at once that if this Clause goes the whole of the Bill goes; the rest of the Bill becomes meaningless and quite impracticable.
    Therefore, I submit that at this stage the Committee is entitled to say to the right hon. Gentleman, "We ask you now to give us some information." If he refuses to give us that information, then, I suggest, we have a right to doubt his sincerity in introducing this Socialist Measure at all. He himself defended it on Second Reading by saying that, after all, it was on the stocks; it was already drafted; it had already been considered by the previous Government, and that it was therefore being introduced for this purpose.
    Is this Bill being introduced sincerely with an intention of trying to give help to the industrial areas of Lancashire and London, to the big overcrowded areas of the country, or is it not? If it is, what possible reason can there be for the right hon. Gentleman not being forthright about it, and not coming to the Committee and saying what no one would blame him for saying, "I am not going to be precise and specific about this. I am not going to give you the precise details about everything I am going to do, but I am prepared to say that I have discussed this matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as a result of those discussions I am now in a position to say that in the main we can allow a sum of £5 million or £6 million out straight away in doing this; that in the main we are prepared at this moment to give some words of encouragement to harassed county boroughs so that they can come forward and formulate proposals at once with some hope of getting them approved."
    100
    If that were done it would mean that here and now, at this very appropriate stage of the year—because two months' delay in building now is a very serious matter—these harassed boroughs, who at the moment cannot go forward with their schemes until the Bill is passed because there is no chance of getting a grant until we have got Clause 2, would be in a position to formulate proposals at once and come up and see the Minister and say, "Here is our hard case. Can we go on and have a general undertaking? Can we get on with this mighty job?"
    I think it important that that should be done, and I hope that the right hon. hon. Gentleman will do it. I have never accused him of discourtesy. I have always said that he is very courteous. But I think it would be discourteous to the Committee if, at this stage, he did not give us much more information about the intentions of Her Majesty's Government than we have had up to this moment.
    Mr. Benn: It is at a moment like this that we could wish that we had a coordinator dealing with the work of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Although we have had no answer from him, if he had been subject to the supervision of a co-ordinator in another place we might have heard something about the Government's intentions, and as likely as not they would have conflicted with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, which might possibly have led to a statement from the Prime Minister and to the resignation of the Minister, and we might have seen a little more clearly in the end what were the Government's intentions.
    I join with my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), who are both lawyers, in criticising the drafting of this Clause. My two hon. Friends make their living by explaining and interpreting the nonsense which we enact. I must say that when I look at some parts of this Clause, that, for instance, dealing with sewerage, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not tell the hon. Member for Pembroke that he was introducing the development of main sewerage or those things which, in the opinion of the Minister, are deemed to be sewerage.

    101
    At any rate, as a complete layman, I must accept the wording of this Clause. It is not for me to query it. It seems a little strange that there should be all these complicated provisions laid down when it is far from clear, as many of my hon. Friends have stressed, how much money is going to be made available. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is going to be easy to get money out of the Treasury, then I think he must be very much mistaken. The Minister of Education has such a reputation for cutting out frills that I believe that she would approach a Bikini bathing suit with that intention. We have seen with what hard hearts the Treasury can turn their attention to such problems as blitzed cities, and we have been told that if we are to lead a housing crusade something else has got to go.
    This Clause has been amended in one respect which seems to me to be important. Whereas before the Minister might, with the approval of the Treasury, undertake to make contributions, now, we are told, the Minister may, in pursuance of undertakings, with the approval of the Treasury, make contributions. I do not know whether my interpretation of that subsection means that in future the Minister can make an undertaking without the approval of the Treasury but will be dependent on the Treasury's approval to pay the money, or whether it is simply another of the drafting jungles which I do not understand.
    It seems to me that it is on that point that we have the key to the whole problem of Treasury control. If this Clause were to say that the Minister could make undertakings to pay the moneys in accordance with certain schemes to be approved, but that the moneys would not be forthcoming without Treasury approval, I do not think that many hon. Members would disagree with that arrangement. Obviously, the Treasury must control the amount of money to be paid out.
    What we have protested against again and again on this and on other Bills is that some troglodyte in the Treasury should have the right to vet the schemes. I hope that when this matter is discussed, or if it is discussed by the hon. Member for Oldham, West on the Report stage, we shall have some assurance about that from the right hon. Gentleman. At any rate, it is a question of finance which is
    102
    going to condition the success or failure of this Bill, and also, I suspect, the success or failure of the right hon. Gentleman as Minister for Housing and Local Government.
    For the Minister, who is supposed to be leading a housing crusade, to stand up at that Box and say that he expects this to be a big Bill, but that he can only build 180,000 houses is like St. George protesting that he could not kill the dragon on the ground that previous attempts had failed. The right hon. Gentleman is expecting to make use of the methods contained in this Bill in order to increase the number of houses built in this country, and also to adopt a system which is rather more satisfactory for dealing with the overspill of which we have all complained in the past. I hope that he will be able to bring his influence to bear on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that the money is made available.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Paget: I ask the Minister, now that we have gone all through this, to have another look at this Clause from a drafting point of view to see whether we cannot have something better. Perhaps it is too late for that to be done here, but it might be done in another place. This Clause has grown. It has been referred to one Department, which says, "Let us put this in," and to another Department, which says, "Let us put that in," and it has got longer and longer and more meaningless as it has gone on. To require one and a half pages of Statute to do what this Clause intends to do is fantastic.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give me his attention for a moment, and to go through this to see how much of this verbiage is really necessary. It starts off:
    "This section applies to development to be carried out after the passing of this Act.…"
    Then in subsection (4, a,)we have:
    "For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section—(a)development carried out between the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, and the passing of this Act shall be treated as if it had been development to be carried out after the passing of this Act if the Minister is satisfied that it was carried out as part of, or with a view to the future carrying out of, such development as is mentioned in the said subsection (1). …"
    I ask the Minister: why not cut out all of paragraph (a,)and simply say: "This

    103
    section applies to development to be carried out after the thirty-first day of July, 1951"? That is what we want. Why have about 10 lines of not very elegant language instead of putting what he wants to say in the first sentence? What is the difficulty about it? Perhaps someone on the Treasury Bench will tell me?
    Then there is subsection (1, a):
    "that it will be town development within the meaning of this Act on a substantial scale. …"
    That seems to be all right. Paragraph (b)states:
    "that the provision of the accommodation will relieve congestion or over-population in

    (i) a county borough,

    (ii) the administrative county of London, or

    (iii) a county district outside the county. …"

    To which we have certain additions and Amendments today:
    "… a county district in an area of continuous urban development adjacent to the administrative county of London or in an area of continuous urban development adjacent to another big centre of population. …"
    What is the limitation? What has he cut down—the general meaning that the provision of the accommodation will relieve congestion of population? What do we intend to cut out? Will the Minister tell me that? We have three subsections getting wider and wider. What do they now omit? They have no meaning if they do not omit something. What population, what congestion and what overpopulation is not to be relieved? Can the Minister tell us that? If some congestion and some over-population is not to be relieved, why is it not to be relieved? Why not simply leave out subsection (1, b,)sub-paragraphs (i), (ii), and (iii) and simply have: "the provision of the accommodation will relieve congestion or over-population"?
    What is the difficulty with that? Can we have a reply? I will give way to the Minister if he will tell me what the difficulty is. I know that I have not had the advantage of hearing the earlier part of this debate, though I have read all that was said in Committee, but I had to attend a Select Committee at that time. Perhaps the Minister will tell me why he wants these three paragraphs.
    104
    Then we come to subsection (2):
    "The Minister may"—
    Then we have the Amendment which has come in today:
    "in pursuance of undertakings in that behalf given by him with the approval of the Treasury, make contributions to the council of a receiving district towards expenses of any of the following kinds"—
    Why not "of any kind"?
    "incurred by them in relation to development to which this section applies."
    Then what is the point of:
    "The said kinds of expenses. …"
    If they have any meaning at all they are words of limitation to make the general words of the Clause mean less than they otherwise would. What does the Minister want to exclude? Why does he wish to limit the powers here? When one looks at paragraphs (a,)(b), (c), (dand) (e)and the latest addition (f), it would appear that they cover everything one could think of. If the object is simply to write down everything the Minister can think of, what is the point of writing it down at all when it is only a limitation? I am sorry if I am being a little long, but when one gets no reply it is always apt to make one a little longer.
    Mr. Hale: Might I remind my hon. and learned Friend that Pascal said of his eighteenth letter that he would have made it shorter if he had kept it longer.
    Mr. Paget: That is a difficulty when one is coping with this sort of thing. We have paragraph (a):
    "annual rate fund contributions under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, in respect of houses provided in the course of development. …"
    Here are the things described:
    "(b)expenses of acquiring land on which any of the development is carried out, or of acquiring land in substitution for land on which any of the development is carried out;
    (c) expenses of site preparation and other works for making the area of land within which the accommodation is to be provided suitable for the provision and use thereof;
    (d)expenses of providing, extending or improving, in the course of the development, main water supplies, main sewerage, or sewage disposal services:
    (e)payments under section one hundred and twenty-three of the Public Health Act, 1936, or under section thirty-six or thirty-seven of the Water Act, 1945 (which sections relate to the giving of undertakings by local authorities to suppliers of water for payments in connection with action needed for making

    105
    supplies available) in respect of action needed for the purposes or in consequence of the development."
    Apparently the Minister thought he had left something out, and so today we get an addition, and that is:
    "(f) payments made by virtue of this Act to a river board or drainage authority in respect of expenses incurred by that river board or drainage authority in the execution of works rendered necessary by the carrying out of the development."
    What does the Minister mean to leave out? Unless he means to leave out something there is no point in having any of that at all. It would be amply sufficient if we confined it to the words "make contributions to the council of the receiving district towards expenses of any kind incurred by them in relation to development to which this section applies."
    What are the expenses incurred by them in relation to developments to which the Clause applies with regard to which the Minister does not want to have power to make contributions? Can the Minister tell us that? Unless there is something which he deliberately wants to exclude, there is no point whatever in the whole of that. It can come straight out because it has no meaning except as words of limitation.
    We now come to subsection (3):
    "Contributions under this section which are towards annual rate fund contributions falling within paragraph (a)of the last preceding subsection, or towards periodical payments falling within paragraph (e) thereof, shall be by way of corresponding annual or periodical payments, and in other cases shall be by way of such lump sum or periodical payment or payments as the Minister may determine."
    We have had no inkling of the point of putting that in. Will somebody tell us? If we leave that out, the Minister can make his payments in any form or way he likes; there is nothing to prevent him. Therefore, there is no point in the subsection unless one wants to stop the Minister making payments in some way. Will the Minister tell us in what way he wants to be stopped from making payments?
    Unless the Minister tells us that there is no point to the subsection and it is simply words of limitation. It does not explain anything and it does not give him any additional power. The general power gives him the ability to make his
    106
    payments how he chooses. The subsection cuts down. What form of payment does he not want to make if he wishes? Can he tell us that? Unless there is something which it is intended to cut out, the subsection is unnecessary.
    I have dealt with subsection (4, a). Why cannot that simply occur as a single date in the first line? There may be a reason, and I should like to hear it. It seems unnecessary to have a separate subsection with a paragraph of great length when a single date in the first line would provide all that the subsection provides.
    Finally, we come to paragraph (b):
    "the reference in paragraph (b)of the said subsection (1) to the county in which the development is to be carried out shall, in relation to development partly in one county and partly in another, be construed as a reference to the county in which the part of the development which is in the opinion of the Minister the more substantial is to be carried out."
    Why on earth have a special subsection to tell us that a previous subsection does not mean what it says instead of simply making it mean what it says? Why not say, "the county or the county in which the most substantial part of the development takes place…"? What is the objection to inserting those words and having subsection (1) say what it was intended to mean, instead of putting it in the form in which it does not mean what it was intended to mean and having another paragraph of great length later on to tell one that it means something else? With a great economy of words, one could do it all in the first paragraph.
    One has seen progressively worsening drafting here. This Clause has meandered into a tangle of incomprehensible verbiage. It has spread, as everyone has got another idea and another idea, until it has become a veritable absurdity. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at this in the light of what I have said and to introduce in another place a nice simple Clause which will give him all he wants in about one-tenth of the space. Remember that each one of these unnecessary additions—[Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman may laugh, but surely he has the experience to show that wherever anything unnecessary is put into an Act of Parliament it is never known what trouble it may give, what difficulties it may introduce into the courts and what thousands of pounds in expenditure may

    107
    be involved in construing words which ought never to have been put there at all.
    If it is left open we may do the things that we want to do in this Bill, but if we try to describe every circumstance we are certain to miss the one which we want to include just because we did not think of it at the time. All this description is a waste of time and an embarrassment. I know it has grown to the point where simplicity does not occur to anyone, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter and see whether he cannot simplify this Clause.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Donnelly: I shall not keep the Committee for more than a minute but I want to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if he thought I was being offensive. Nothing was further from my mind and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that. I apologise and I am extremely sorry if I hurt his feelings. However, we ought to press. this point about the money.
    We ought to know what we are doing, and we ought to have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman. I saw the Minister of State for Economic Affairs come into the Chamber a short time ago. Unfortunately he is no longer with us, but at one time he was Chairman of the Council of the Town and Country Planning Association. I know he had to give up all thoughts of planning when he joined the Government, but that is neither here nor there. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary, whose bicycling feats I always admire, would go and fetch the Minister.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not know what bicycling feats have to do with this Clause.
    Mr. Donnelly: None at all, but I think we ought to have some answer from the Treasury or someone.
    Mr. Benn: I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the fact that the Minister of State for Economic Affairs has now come into the Chamber.
    Mr. Donnelly: I am sorry I did not notice the right hon. Gentleman, and I apologise again. The bicycling will not be needed after all.
    I think we ought to have some answer about the extent to which the Government
    108
    propose to make private grants under this Clause. We want to know where we are going, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not think we are unreasonable if we insist on some kind of an answer, because we should only be moving in harmony with the traditions of this Committee and with our duty to the people who sent us here. We do not mind if the answer is not detailed, but we want some answer, because we want to have some idea what we are doing. It may be fashionable these days not to know what we are doing, but we should like to know and we press the right hon. Gentleman on this point.
    Mr. Paget: Am I not going to get an answer to the specific question I put? I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he wants sub-paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). Where would he be worse off if those were left out? I have also asked why he wants paragraphs (a), (b)and (c).
    The Deputy-Chairman: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman is not going to make the same speech over again, for that would be repetition.
    Mr. Paget: We are on the Committee stage, and if the right hon. Gentleman hopes to get any speed in obtaining this Measure, he should reply. He will not be assisting the passage of the Bill if he refuses to answer specific questions which are put to him.
    Mr. Macmillan: I could not resist such an appeal from the hon. and learned Gentleman, even though he has only been here for a short period during the discussion on the Clause. He made a long speech in favour of economy of words, and he made an appeal for this Clause to be re-drafted and then by general agreement brought back from another place in the shape of an Amendment. I never before had the experience of introducing a non-controversial Bill which is supposed to have the general approval of all sides of the House. I am bound to say that after this experience I would rather have a solid, controversial Bill where we could get on. This is a Bill with which everybody agrees. I hope that in that spirit we may make progress.
    I will strike this bargain with the hon. and learned Gentleman. If I can make

    109
    an arrangement for the Bill to be completely re-drafted to meet the wishes of the Parliamentary draftsmen and to be introduced in another place, dealing with all the things which ought to be in the Bill, and can have an assurance that it would be carried by the whole House without further ado, then I will try to meet him. What he was saying probably was that the modern practice of Parliamentary drafting might perhaps be simplified and shortened. All I can say is that this Bill was drafted in the way it is because I am advised by those whose advice I must take that it is the proper way to draft it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3.—(CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT OF EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS.)
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move, in page 3, line 46, at end to insert:
    (3) The Minister, in exercising his power under subsection (2) of this section of withholding or postponing any payment to a council, shall have particular regard to securing that the penalty so imposed is no more than proportionate to the extent or degree of default of the council.
    This Amendment is intended to meet a point raised in the Committee upstairs, that in exercising the power to withhold or postpone the payment of contribution because the houses are used for the wrong tenants, the Minister should make the punishment fit the crime. The Amendment was supported upstairs by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren). The Amendment seeks to enable the Minister to give money for the purposes of relieving overcrowded and congested areas only. It is just possible that a local authority might obtain the money and then allot the houses to the wrong tenants. If that happens, my right hon. Friend or any successor who may occupy his office must have power to withhold or postpone the payment of contributions.
    It is only just that that should be so. If the homes go to the wrong people, as the Bill was originally drafted it would mean that if a local authority had put a wrong tenant in one house out of 1,000, the Minister would probably have to withhold all the money that he was going
    110
    to give to that local authority, in which case he would be using a very big stick for a very small offence.
    We all agreed upstairs in Committee that the punishment should fit the crime and that the penalty should be apportioned to the offence. It has not been possible to draft a formula which would do justice with mathematical accuracy and precision, but the Amendment expresses a general principle which, I think, is an ample safeguard to local authorities.
    Mr. Hale: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "penalty so imposed," and to insert "sum so withheld."
    I do not think there is any disagreement in the Committee about the utility of the Amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary, and my Amendments are merely designed to avoid what are difficulties in the Government Amendment. In dealing with this matter in Committee, the Minister said:
    "I am happy to say, as so often on this Bill, that I am able to accept the principle, if not the words, of the Amendment. I see the possibility of the situation arising which my hon. Friend has described. Say we had agreement to contribute to expenditure designed to produce 5,000 houses, on the understanding that the houses were to be used for the population of the exporting authority, and that in breach of the agreement 500 of the houses had been sold to somebody else. Obviously, the contribution ought not to be withheld in respect of the 4,500 houses that had been properly used. I will certainly see whether it is possible to find a form of words to meet the point, if my hon. Friend will leave it to me."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 1st April, 1952; c. 202.]
    The right hon. Gentleman put the point perfectly clearly and fairly.
    I very much dislike the sentence which the Parliamentary Secretary used when he talked about the punishment fitting the crime. I know that that is from W. S. Gilbert and was in a sense a quotation, but that is precisely the form of words, although used in a jocular sense, that my Amendment is designed to improve. The Amendment of the Minister talks about withholding payment. We there get into difficulty about the back payments on account. How the Minister will deal with that point I do not propose to try to follow out; but why talk about "penalty" in this connection?
    A penalty, in its legal connotation, very often involves a payment in excess or

    111
    something that is punitive in its essence. I know that is not the intention here. I am suggesting a very simple form of words to which I see no objection whatsoever, and which, the Committee will notice, is precisely the form of words used by the right hon. Gentleman when he gave his undertaking. I am proposing that we should withhold a sum proportionate to the extent of the default.
    The Parliamentary Secretary suggested—I hope he is right and I was rather glad that he did say this—that in general in the only breach of undertaking envisaged is the refusal of the receiving authority to carry out its obligations to the exporting authority in regard to the use of houses. There might be breaches in regard to the size of houses, but they may be covered by the normal machinery and they would not arise here. We are only dealing with a failure to utilise houses properly and in conformity with terms properly laid down by the Minister. I should have thought that this Amendment could be accepted.
    My second Amendment to the Government Amendment is to leave out "or degree," and perhaps I might deal with it now. I am not trying to obstruct the proceedings. The word "degree" is not necessary, because the words "extent" and "degree" impute something like the same thing and are a mere waste of words. "Degree" seems to imply some reference to the degree of criminality or of blatancy of the breach of obligation, but I am sure that is not intended. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that he will accept this Amendment also.
    Mr. Marples: Will you tell me, Mr. Hopkin Morris, for our guidance, whether we are to take the two Amendments of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) together? I rather gathered that the hon. Member spoke to the two Amendments.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The two Amendments can be discussed together, for the convenience of the Committee, but they will be put separately.
    Mr. Marples: The first Amendment proposes to insert the words "sum so withheld" instead of "penalty so imposed." The words are more courteous, I quite agree, but certainly not as
    112
    generous. My right hon. Friend has in mind not only withholding sums but, it may be, postponing them. When the local authority behaves itself by allotting houses to the right people my right hon. Friend will then continue to give money to the local authority. My impression is that the words in the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be more harsh on the local authority, because lump sum payments might be withheld altogether.
    Mr. Hale: If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that the words "sum total" would be better in my Amendment, that alteration might be made. This is a verbal question, and it is not worth wasting much time about.
    Mr. Marples: We will look again at the actual words. I think the Committee all agree in principle on my right hon. Friend's Amendment so perhaps we can make progress with the Bill. I believe that "penalty" is better, because it would enable my right hon. Friend to continue a payment to a local authority when it had observed the conditions which my right hon. Friend had prescribed.
    7.15 p.m.
    The second Amendment is a question of omitting the words "or degree." It could be argued that a particular matter was not a question of extent but of degree. This is purely a drafting point and a lawyer's point. Other lawyers tell me that, from the case book angle, it is necessary to put in the word "degree" to cover every contingency. It is not very probable that the bill will have to be interpreted in the courts, because my right hon. Friend has permissive power to make grants. Where he thought a local authority was misbehaving itself he might say, "We will give you 10s. towards it, although you may come within the definition." I think we ought to leave the words as they are in this case, but we will look again at the first Amendment.
    Mr. Hale: I have no desire to press the Amendment, in either case. I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps he will look at the matter once again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4.—(LOCAL AUTHORITIES' CONTRIBUTIONS TO COUNCIL OF RECEIVING DISTRICT.)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, after "incurred" to insert "or to be incurred."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to bring the Clause into line with Clause 2. as we have just amended it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Hale: Clause 4 is important, and I want to raise one or two questions on which we should like the help of the Minister. No one objects to the generality of the provisions of the Clause, which gives power for the county borough and the exporting authority to negotiate with the receiving authority and to enter into agreements which may be financial in their implication; and it enables the county borough to pay out of the rate fund of the borough contributions to the receiving district. It will make these payments subject to the approval of the Minister. It is eminently reasonable that the Minister, who has to consider all these matters and has to make contributions, should have some consideration, but I am not quite sure for what purpose the approval of the Minister is necessary.
    What is expected? Is it that the county borough will pay too much out of the rates, or too little, or that the receiving districts will be led into unprofitable agreements? I do not know. I rise to ask the Minister to tell us, and through telling us tell the county boroughs, the general principle along which he wishes to operate the Clause. What type of contribution is envisaged? Is it within the power of the county borough, as I apprehend it may well be, to agree with the receiving district that they will make such payments as they will have to incur in respect of building houses in their own areas? What proportion of the burden is it contemplated should be borne by the receiving district?
    The matter is obviously exceedingly complicated, because the rate income will go to the receiving district and will be lost to the county borough. Therefore, any computation will have to allow for that loss in taking a general view. In the
    114
    consideration of these schemes the corporation is entitled to have a chance of saying in these discussions, "To try to negotiate with an area outside would involve us in this obligation. The kind of thing we have to submit to the Minister to get his report, we understand from his statement, is so-and-so. These are the lines on which we are told it will happen."
    The Minister will be able to balance the advantages of trying to replace condemned houses, of building outside on land allocated for housing purposes, of embarking on the schemes envisaged under this Measure. I say that the exporting area should have some clear information as to the type of obligation they will be expected to embark upon if they are to participate in such a scheme. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some information as to what is envisaged shall be done.
    Mr. Benn: I should like clarification on one point. The Clause lays down that the exporting authority may be paying money to the receiving authority towards expenses incurred by them in relation to development. Are they themselves allowed to impose any penalties in the event of a breakdown in the good relations between themselves and the receiving district? The previous Amendment we were discussing dealt with the powers of the Minister to withhold payment if the receiving district was not behaving properly.
    I can conceive of circumstances in which a county borough which is exporting population to a receiving district might have a dispute with them about whether the arrangements are being made properly—if, for instance, the main services are being provided. One of the first things the councillors would think of would be whether they could prevent money from going to the receiving district. I presume that the permission of the Minister would be necessary to enable them to make payments to the receiving district; otherwise, the whole scheme might break up perhaps for no more reason than that there was a fractious majority on the council. I should be grateful if the Minister can clarify that point.
    Mr. Donnelly: I want to reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). There is a good deal in this point, which is

    115
    similar to the one I tried to press on Clause 2.
    The local authorities want to know where they stand and we want to know what is the general policy of the Government. A number of local authorities have been far-sighted in their pioneering of town planning schemes beyond the boundaries of their own local authorities, and have been ready to make contributions. For instance, Tottenham pioneered the idea of a new town at Harlow. West Ham was another. A Question was asked in this House which led to the announcement of the introduction of this Bill this Session.
    These local authorities are anxious to know whether or not they can do something about housing their people. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to get these schemes under way. In fairness to those local authorities, and to facilitate the working of his own Department, the right hon. Gentleman should make a pronouncement of policy so that the local authorities can know what is acceptable to the Macmillan regime and what is not.
    I agree that the Minister may not want to tie himself too much, and we would accept that, but he ought to look at this not as a partisan point raised in a debate in this Committee but as an effort to facilitate the administration of the Bill. It is raised in an attempt to bring better living conditions to the people, to facilitate the administration of the local authorities, to enable their architects, planning officers and engineers to prepare their plans, to be able to submit them to their committees with some knowledge of what financial provisions will be necessary, and for the councillors themselves to know what they are discussing, so that they will not be doing it in the dark as we have been this afternoon on Clause 2.
    Mr. Paget: My hon. Friend asked what would happen when two local authorities working an agreement of this kind failed to agree. I gather that something in addition is to be provided on the Report stage, but the Amendment which we may see on the Report stage will provide only for conditions being laid down—I see that you are getting nervous, Mr. Hopkin
    116
    Morris, so I will not go into that. I was only observing, to anticipate what may be an answer, that neither the Clause, nor any addition which we yet wot of, makes any provision as to the enforcement by the exporting council upon the receiving council if the former should not make the agreed use of the houses.
    On the previous Clause the right hon. Gentleman observed that he did not anticipate that it would lead to litigation because he had powers and control—I am sorry, it was the Parliamentary Secretary who said that. The hon. Gentleman said that it would therefore be difficult for the local authority to go to law with him. I think that is so, but it certainly is not so when one is dealing with two local authorities. In our experience local authorities are the most persistent litigators. My profession does very well out of inter-local authority litigation. They never seem willing to stop anywhere short of the House of Lords, and I feel that to provide rather vague provisions of this kind to govern litigable relations between local authorities is somewhat rash.
    Surely the Minister requires under this Clause better control of these negotiations. After all, we have recognised that housing is a national problem. It is not a local problem. It is not the problem of a number of districts and towns. It is a problem of the nation, which is dealt with by the local authorities as agents.
    7.30 p.m.
    Surely, when the Minister is dealing with the local authorities, whose instrumentality he is using in a national policy—that is what it really amounts to—he should have more control over this sort of arrangement than is given him by the Clause. If a town—it may be Northampton, practically the whole of whose area is now either built up or planned—wishes to develop a reception area in the adjoining county, and if it cannot come to terms with the adjoining county about it, surely the matter should go to the arbitration of the right hon. Gentleman, who should impose agreement if agrement cannot be come to openly.
    Sir G. Hutchinson: Surely, in those circumstances the council can make a compulsory purchase in the usual way, as has been done by many local authorities when confronted with that difficulty.
    Mr. Paget: Yes. But what the hon. and learned Member does not seem to realise is that a compulsory purchase carried out in that manner retains every objection which the Bill is designed to obviate. The rates of the new area are collected by the receiving authority; the services are provided by the receiving authority. The very evil which the Bill is designed to obviate is retained in those circumstances.
    Sir G. Hutchinson: And the Minister can make a contribution to the receiving district under the terms of the Bill.
    Mr. Paget: If that is the view taken by the hon. and learned Member, what is the object of the Clause? The Clause is to provide for the case of arrangement being made between two local authorities; but if they fail to come to agreement, I should have thought that it would have been highly desirable for the Minister to have power to arbitrate between them and to impose, by arbitration, the agreement contemplated by the Clause.
    In a problem which is dealt with nationally, as this problem is being dealt with, perhaps the Minister will tell us how it is contemplated to deal with that sort of situation. He may feel that his good offices and his general powers are sufficient to obtain the position of arbitrator, even if it is not given to him expressly by the Bill. But can he, and will he, and is it his intention to, exercise his influence, if we may put it that way, to bring about these agreements and to get them working under the Clause if there are difficulties in negotiations between two authorities?
    Certainly it has been my experience, as, probably, it has been the experience of the hon. and learned Member, that local authorities do not find it easy to work out agreements between themselves. They are always the most troublesome things. I hope that it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to have some form of good offices commission, if one may so call it, to facilitate the operation of the Clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 10.—(CONTRIBUTIONS TO AUTHORITIES PARTICIPATING FROM THE EXCHEQUER AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES BENEFITED.)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 9, line 39, after "may," to insert:
    "in pursuance of undertakings in that behalf given by him."
    I think that it would be convenient, Mr. Hopkin Morris, to take at the same time the next and the last Amendments of the group. These Amendments are really consequential to the series of Amendments which we have made in Clause 2. Their effect with regard to these undertakings is to bring them into line with what we have already done in Clause 2.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 40, leave out "undertake to."
    In page 9, line 42, after "incurred," insert "or to be incurred."—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 10, line 2, to leave out "and (e),"and to insert "(e)and (f)."
    This Amendment is slightly different from the other group and is consequential to one which we had earlier. In Clause 2, we have enabled the importing authorities, where appropriate, to be eligible for the Exchequer grants in respect of payments made towards the cost of drainage. Now, it is necessary to make the same power for the participating authorities to be eligible for grants, just as the importing authorities were eligible under Clause 2.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 10, leave out lines 7 and 8.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Sparks: I want to raise a point in connection with the Clause. It, too, has some connection with the provisions of Clause 2 (2), which gives a list of the kind of expenses which the Minister will make by way of Treasury grant to a receiving district.
    Does the Minister propose to differentiate in the basis of making an Exchequer grant to a receiving authority, as distinct from a county district? The

    119
    basis for making the financial contribution is not the same. In so far as there are two very important items of expenditure which the right hon. Gentleman takes into consideration for a receiving authority, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to omit county districts who undertake development in a receiving authority's area.
    I am told that this is a matter of some consequence to an exporting county district, and there does not appear to be any reason why the Minister should make this differentiation between the two. It would be of some assistance if, before we part with the Clause, the Minister could say why he proposes to make this differentiation.
    Mr. Donnelly: I do not know whether this is in order, but I think it is. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what powers this Clause gives to his Ministry to make grants to local authorities for the purpose of industrial development, as opposed to housing development, in receiving areas to which people are being sent from areas of overcrowding or overspill. I want to impress upon him the extreme importance of some powers being taken for this purpose and to ask whether they exist in the Clause.
    It is important that we should not have houses transplanted and populations shifted without provision being made for industrial development side by side with housing development. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, and as we have all agreed, both on this Bill and on the New Towns Bill, housing and industry must go side by side. I ask the right hon. Gentleman how far an Exchequer contribution can be made under Clause 10 to meet this point.
    I do not wish to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman by suggesting that he has nothing to offer, but I want to know what he is going to do about it. I say this in all sincerity: we keep asking him questions but we never get an answer. We have been extremely kind to the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friends have not divided the Committee so far.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member began his speech with a correct observation.
    Mr. Donnelly: I am grateful to you. Mr. Hopkin Morris, but I was only asking the right hon. Gentleman how far these powers exist and was seeking to impress upon him the urgency of giving an answer, because we have not divided the Committee so far and we have been extremely tolerant of the fact that nothing has come from the sphinx opposite. We want some answers. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would at least give an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) and myself on this point so that, after considerable trying, we can at least extract some information from him.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: Two points have been raised. As hon. Gentlemen know, this is primarily a housing Bill and does not deal with industrial development. It would be a little complicated to go again through the whole structure of Clause 10, which we have debated at some length, and perhaps I may put it in this way. The exporting authority has laid upon it the statutory duty to house its people. The receiving authority has not the statutory duty to house somebody else's people. The whole plan of the Bill is to get them to take on that duty, and the Treasury grant or the contributions of county councils or exporting authorities provides a sweetener to get them to do something which is not really their job. Their job is to house their own people but not to house people from a great city 10 or 15 miles away.
    Mr. Donnelly: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—and I did not interrupt him at the beginning, because he was dealing with a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks)—may I point this out to him? I appreciate that this is a housing Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, as I think he said on Second Reading—and I hope I am not wrong in my recollection—that it is important to use the Bill as a means of decentralisation in the same way as the New Towns Bill is used to decentralise, although in a slightly different form. The aim and object are the same, for, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the aim and object of the New Towns Bill is also to take industry and housing together.
    Do any powers exist under this Clause to enable grants to be made to local

    121
    authorities to facilitate industrial development? I do not mean that they should necessarily build factories, but what about the provision of roads, sewerage, and so on—all the things which are necessary for industrial development?
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: Facilitation in that sense is different. The building of the houses, the moving of the people, the providing of the water supplies and sewerage—these are all powers which they have. But what one might call industrial development in its narrow sense is certainly not included in Clause 10.
    Mr. Donnelly: I am sorry to keep pressing the point, but the question of the provision of water supplies for industries which need large supplies of water, or of other services, is the sort of question I am trying to put.
    The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that chemical industries and other industries of the same nature need special provision of this kind. If one wanted to take a big chemical factory, to a town such as Basingstoke or Ashford or St. Albans, or any of the other places which the right hon. Gentleman's Department have in mind, one would need large supplies of water. Could the local authority make special provision under the terms of this Clause, with a grant to help to provide those services—and, of course, other things such as services to deal with effluents and sewage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) reminds me.
    Mr. Macmillan: As I have said, it would deal with the water which would be required—but we must not deal with the water too much or press the matter too much at this stage.
    Mr. Hale: I have returned to the Chamber, after having left it for only ten minutes to take a small amount of refreshment in the Dining Room. I hurried back to hear the right hon. Gentleman reply to questions put by us on Clause 10. We are now dealing with Clause 10. This is the final Clause dealing, in the main, with the contribution from the Exchequer and with the approval of the Treasury. Are we not to have an answer?
    The right hon. Gentleman complains that time is being consumed. But time would not be consumed if we were given
    122
    an answer. No one wants to delay a non-controversial Bill or to use up time unnecessarily, but surely the Corporations and the Committee are entitled to some information. There is no point whatever in going through the motions of passing a Bill for the mere purpose of passing a Bill, of creating powers for the mere purpose of having powers if, at some future moment, the Minister decides to exercise them.
    The Minister owes to the Committee a specific answer upon this Clause. I admit that on Second Reading debate the right hon. Gentleman said the Bill was somewhat obscure and the phraseology a little difficult—and I am quoting him from memory. He went on to say that that was becoming the modern practice, although why that should be I do not know. Clause 10 is a frightful Clause and it is so frightful that we ought to have a little elucidation and explanation of it.
    Let us take subsection (2)—and I will read it as carefully as I can and in a manner which will try to make it clear where the pauses are, because if I did not read it in that way it would be incomprehensible. It says:
    "Section three of this Act shall have effect in relation to contributions under the preceeding subsection with the substitution of references to the preceding subsection for references in the said section three to section two of this Act and of references to an authority participating for references in the said section three to such a council as is therein mentioned."
    The right hon. Gentleman is in the fortunate position of having Parliamentary draftsmen available to tell him what he thought that Clause was intended to mean when it was drafted and also to tell him what he thinks it means now, but I doubt whether anybody on either side of the Committee could get any reasonable meaning inside half an hour from that concatenation of words. This is all in one Bill—it goes through other Clauses, and the Clauses get more and more incomprehensible, until it is almost impossible to know for what purpose they were ever devised. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow it, I might undertake to draft the Bill in the course of some 50 words. Indeed, if someone were to offer a very small prize I would undertake to do it.
    The powers which have previously been exercisable only by authorities in

    123
    respect of building operations in their own area can now be exercised in respect of building in other areas, and agreement can be made to facilitate and give effect to this. As a result, we have had this long and I think, personally, rather dull debate. It has been made dull by the right hon. Gentleman's determination not to give away the secrets of the Treasury and not to make promises he cannot fulfil. I appreciate that; I appreciate that the lips of the noble Lord who coordinates the Ministries of Food and Agriculture are sealed, and it may be in the public interest that they are. But the lips of the right hon. Gentleman should not be sealed in respect of the Bill which is before the Committee.
    It is the duty of the Committee to press him a little to say what he intends to do in this matter. All we have asked for time after time is a clear intimation to the Committee of the magnitude of the operations which the Government intend to try to see initiated, and intend to cooperate in effecting by the comprehensive provisions of this Bill.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I am sorry if the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) thinks me guilty of any discourtesy in replying. I reserved my reply on the minor point because I thought it would be much better given when we come to the Report stage. We had a full discussion in Committee, and this Bill has only been re-committed today to meet the technical requirements of the Amendments which I undertook to make, mainly at the request of hon. Members opposite. The Bill has been re-committed because those Amendments might increase the charge.
    I thought, therefore, that the Committee would acquit me of discourtesy, the full Committee stage having already been taken, and the Bill only being back in Committee on re-committal because of this technicality connected with the Amendments which I was asked to move, and that I might perhaps be permitted not to go into the details into which one would enter in the ordinary Committee stage.
    I will answer the points put by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) and Oldham, West. I can only say again that under Clause 10 contributions
    124
    can be made by the Minister to expenses to meet all the kind of things mentioned in Clause 2. Therefore, all that Clause 10 does is to say that all those matters which are set out in great detail in Clause 2 much to the annoyance of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), can be met.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West, read out subsection (2). I am bound to say that when one reads aloud like that provisions of Bills they always strike a rather queer note. What that subsection does is to apply the provisions of Clause 3, which is the Clause which empowers the Minister to make payments of Exchequer contributions subject to conditions, to contributions made under subsection (1) of this Clause.
    Mr. Paget: The Minister has referred to me. There could be no better illustration than the whole of this Clause of the sort of evils against which I warned him in respect of Clause 2. When there is a vast surplusage in one Clause, one finds that surplusage spreading all over the rest of the Bill. That is what has happened here. If Clause 2 were simplified by cutting out what was unnecessary we should have a perfectly simple Clause 10. Clause 10 has become totally incomprehensible only because it has meandered after a totally incomprehensible Clause 2.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 22.—(SHORT TITLE, CONSTRUCTION AND EXTENT.)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 16, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    "and the expressions 'river board' and 'drainage authority' have the meanings assigned to them respectively in the River Boards Act, 1948, and the Land Drainage Act, 1930."
    This Amendment defines the terms "river board" and "drainage authority," and is consequential on the introduction into the Bill of an Amendment with which we dealt which is now extending the range; and it is linked up with the new Clause which I shall move in a few moments. Therefore, I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment because it is really merely part of the machinery for extending the power to

    125
    make Exchequer contributions to the river Board, as I explained at an earlier stage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause.—(CONTRIBUTIONS TO EXPENSES OF LAND DRAINAGE WORKS.)
    The council of a receiving district or an authority eligible to participate may contribute towards expenses incurred by a river board or drainage authority in the execution of works rendered necessary by the carrying out of development which, in the opinion of the authority making the contribution, is town development within the meaning of this Act.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause results from an undertaking I gave in Committee to put down a new Clause dealing with contributions to expenses of land drainage works. The Clause allows contributions to be made towards the expenses of the river boards and the other drainage authorities, either by the council of the receiving district or by a participating authority.
    Local authorities benefited by development in relation to which contributions towards these drainage expenses are made by the councils of receiving districts or by participating authorities will be able to contribute towards them under Clause 4 or Clause 10 (3). I think that Members who may recollect the discussion which we had in the Committee will see that the new Clause, taken with Amendments which we have just passed, fully meets the undertaking which I gave.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal) considered.

    New Clause.—(DURATION OF ACT.)
    Unless Parliament shall otherwise determine this Act shall not apply to a town development unless before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight, the Minister has undertaken to make contributions in relation thereto under section two of this Act or has approved the making of contributions in relation thereto under section four thereof.—[Sir G. Hutchinson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir G. Hutchinson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    Its purpose is to limit the period in which the Minister may agree to make contributions or approve of schemes of arrangement between local authorities to a little more than five years. In the case of those schemes in respect of which the Minister has already agreed to make contributions, or where arrangements have already been reached between local authorities, such contributions will go on and such agreements will be carried out.
    The new Clause will have the effect of preventing the Minister from agreeing to make further contributions or approving further schemes after the lapse of a little more than five years. This Bill really aims at meeting what is a temporary difficulty which has arisen out of the emergency of the war and the conditions which have followed upon that. It was never part of our scheme of local government that local authorities should be encouraged to become landlords of housing estates in the areas of other local authorities.
    Mr. Hale: I hope the hon. and learned Member will deal quite clearly with this point. The whole question of whether the Clause has any point or not depends on the information about the speed at which the schemes with which this Bill deals can be carried out. Has the hon. and learned Member the information that these schemes will be carried out in five years, that enough money is available for that to be done, and that its use for that purpose will be approved by the Treasury?
    Sir G. Hutchinson: The hon. Member ought to try to exercise a little patience about these matters. Of course I have not got information, nor has anybody else, about the speed with which these contributions can be promised and these agreements made. If at the end of the period which I suggest—little more than five years—it is still found that the need for this Bill exists Parliament can extend it for whatever further period is thought to be necessary.
    8.0 p.m.
    The point I was about to make was that it has never intended that one local authority should be encouraged to become the landlord of a housing estate in the

    127
    area of some other local authority. If land is available adjacent to the boundaries of a local authority which may be used to accommodate the overspill which cannot be accommodated within its boundaries, the proper course is to extend the boundaries of the local authority to include the area which would enable it to accommodate the natural increase in its population.
    In the case of those local authorities—and there are many of them, my own borough of Ilford is one—where no land is available for the accommodation of their overspill the overspill ought to be accommodated in the new towns when those new towns are ready to receive them. This Bill has been produced to meet what is an emergency which arose at the end of the war, when new towns were not available. There was no alternative but for local authorities to go out into the areas of other local authorities and there to create new housing estates of their own.
    That has been an effective and convenient means of relieving the congestion in congested and over-populated areas. But it ought not to be treated as a permanent means of relief. The proper course is the normal method of adjusting the boundaries of local authorities so that they can accommodate their own population.
    Mr. Gibson: In London?
    Sir G. Hutchinson: The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) knows very well that London presents a special problem. The overspill population of London ought to go into the new towns or the permanent "out county" estates which the London County Council have created since the war. I make no complaint about that, it was a necessity. As Sir Patrick Abercrombie said in the County of London Plan it was a necessity of the moment. But the point I am making is that it ought not to be accepted as permanent.
    Mr. Paget: What about Manchester, and Lancashire?
    Sir G. Hutchinson: If the hon. and learned Member would have a little patience I will endeavour to come to those points. He is anticipating my argument.
    128
    The overspill from London ought to go to the new towns. That was the proposal in the County of London Plan and in the Greater London Plan. It is the solution which was accepted by the London County Council, and, as far as I know, by the former Government and by this Government.
    Mr. Sparks: The hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) is telling only half of the story. If he reads the Greater London Plan he will find that it proposes the accommodation of London's overspill not merely in a limited number of new towns, but in a large number of expanded towns which this Bill is designed to supplement.
    Sir G. Hutchinson: I am, of course, perfectly aware of that fact. But the towns to which the surplus population can go have been defined, as the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) knows. Their capacity to absorb population has been fixed, and I anticipate that it is those towns which will receive relief under this Bill within the next few years. At the end of a period of five years, which I suggest is a reasonable duration for this Bill, the Minister will have already considered the position of those expanded towns, to which the hon. Member for Acton has referred, and in suitable cases will have agreed to make suitable grants. The London problem in so far as it consists of exporting surplus population to extended towns ought at the end of five years to have been dealt with.
    It would be very undesirable, in my opinion, that this Bill should remain permanently on the Statute Book. Today, as we all know, local authorities are badly in need of a readjustment of boundaries. If this Bill came to be used as a means of defeating the legitimate expansion of towns it would defeat the purpose of the reorganisation of local government which eventually will have to be undertaken.
    Local authorities are very apprehensive that that may be the result of this Bill. They welcome the Bill in its present form as a means of meeting the existing emergency. But they are apprehensive that if it became a permanent part of our law, it might be used to prevent the legitimate expansion of those towns which otherwise could look forward to an extension of their boundaries to enable them to accommodate their surplus population within their own areas.

    129
    We had a brief discussion about this on Committee stage. For various reasons we did not reach a conclusion, but so far as it went it roused no opposition. I hope that it will not rouse any serious opposition tonight. My right hon. Friend was good enough to invite me to put down this Clause again at this stage and I hope he will be able to give us an indication that the Clause will be favourably received.
    Colonel Ralph Clarke: I beg to second the Motion. I hope that the Minister will consider this new Clause favourably. On a number of occasions during the progress of the Bill through the House the Minister has said that it was rather a stop-gap Measure. He said it was an emergency Bill to deal with special difficulties. He also said:
    "It is intended to fill a gap before any such large measure of reform can be introduced and passed through Parliament,"
    and
    "It is providing for the exception and not for the rule."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C; 25th March, 1952, c. 96.]
    I hope, therefore, that he will consider sympathetically what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson).
    We agreed on Committee stage that it was largely as a result of the failure of the Boundary Commission, a few years ago, that this Bill was brought in at all, and that a new arrangement of boundaries might make its provisions unnecessary. I have listened to a great deal of criticism of the Bill which does not appear to be very popular among hon. Members opposite. I hope, therefore, that we shall have their support in our efforts to limit its application.
    As my hon. and learned Friend has said, it is bound to cause some friction and impose a strain on those local authorities who suddenly are called upon to work together in operating this scheme. As the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has reminded the House, such local authorities are not averse to litigation. This may cause friction between local authorities, and that is undesirable.
    If this Bill is allowed to continue in force as an Act for too long it may militate against better provision being taken to solve the great problem of how relief
    130
    can be given to the great towns with congested populations in amicable conjunction with smaller towns in the rural areas. These smaller towns would be willing to help, but they would like to see a plan worked out, based perhaps on a better arrangement of boundaries, to allow the exporting areas to do more for themselves in these matters without so much help from others.
    Mr. Lindgren: I rise early in this debate so that perhaps I can facilitate the progress of our discussion. I hope that the Minister will emphatically reject this new Clause. It would be unfair to attribute to the right hon. Gentleman the views of those who sit behind him. We are not always responsible for what our colleagues say from time to time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Parliamentary Secretary can cheer. It is true that that remark is not applicable only to one side of the House.
    When hon. Gentlemen opposite say that this is a temporary stop-gap Measure brought about as a result of the war, one wonders whether they understand the conception of this Bill. This is not a temporary problem. It is one which will continue. Towns will continue to grow. There will always come a time when a town ought to grow no more and some of the people ought to go somewhere else.
    The hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson), has a great knowledge of local government, but his is very much the townsman's view of local government. To have bigger and better county boroughs is not the solution. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman says that it is a part solution, but let us look at our towns. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) mentioned Luton——
    Sir G. Hutchinson: I said that it is part of the solution.
    Mr. Lindgren: Look at Watford. Everywhere we can see that towns are getting as large as they ought to be if they are not to become places of ugliness and sordidness. We ought to have smaller towns with a relationship between a person's home and his work. We should do away with all this burrowing through the ground like worms, coming up for air from time to time, as we do in the tubes. Then we should not get all this trouble about the finances of the transport system

    131
    which we get because workmen get annoyed when fares go up. The real way to overcome the transport problem is to make the town a unit in which work and home are within a reasonable distance of each other.
    This problem has not arisen as a result of the war. For years before then it was apparent. Those associated with planning in the old Ministry of Health were considering this problem before the war. Propaganda organisations outside the Ministry, and even outside political parties, were considering it. The Coalition Government set up the Ministry of Town and Country Planning during the war, and since then we have had the Town and Country Planning Act.
    8.15 p.m.
    That Act required a survey to be taken showing the anticipated development and other details so that the trend could be plotted. That Act was not a temporary Measure. The Ministry are now receiving the plans of planning authorities, county boroughs and county councils, for the next 20 years, split up in stages of five, 10 and 15 years.
    It is possible to handle the major problem of the decentralisation of population in two ways. There is the natural development of a town within a county district where there is sufficient space for development. There is the small town of 20,000 or 30,000 population which, though it is a community, does not enable the local authority to provide all the social services necessary. The local authority cannot provide open air and indoor swimming baths, a small theatre as well as a picture house and decent recreation facilities such as parks and open spaces.
    There are those towns which could develop from their own natural resources, because they had the local government skill and the space; but they were to develop, as the Minister said on another occasion, not on the basis of their own natural growth but on the basis of taking over a responsibility from some other authority. If those areas are to develop, there should be some resources available to them. A contribution should be made, both from the national Exchequer and from the local exchequer of the exporting authority, to assist them to take on a responsibility which is not naturally theirs and which would force upon them
    132
    a faster rate of development than would normally have been the case.
    I suggest that that type of development is better, saner and much more proper than the A.M.C. attitude of developing the fringes of existing county boroughs, applying for borough extensions, and going into the areas of rural and urban districts and gradually swallowing them up.
    Sir G. Hutchinson: If the overspill population is to be accommodated in an area which adjoins the built-up area, then the right solution is an extension of boundaries. If it is to be right outside the urban community, surely the right solution is a new town.
    Mr. Lindgren: That is the point. The hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that the right solution is the development of an area on the immediate periphery of a county borough and then the absorption of that rural or urban authority within the county borough. That is what has happened in London and in Birmingham, and what do we see? Nothing but streets of houses for miles and miles.
    We are not very proud of London and its development, because London ought to have stopped building years and years ago. In fact, one of the things done by the London County Council, in whose work the hon. and learned Gentleman has played a notable part as a member, to its very great credit, was the execution of the conception of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) by the L.C.C. of that time in the purchase of the Green Belt round London in order to prevent this gradual sprawl of town all the way. I can remember the time when, having reached Golders Green, we were in the country, but, now, of course——
    Sir G. Hutchinson: I was not suggesting that that was always the right solution, but it is the right solution in many cases. In the case of London, the surplus population should go to the new towns.
    Mr. Lindgren: The hon. and learned Gentleman has interrupted me, and I do not object to that, because he was subject to a certain amount of interruption in his speech, and he is always courteous and always gives way, but these interruptions do take the point out of one's mind.

    133
    Now the hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the new towns. The conception of the new towns came into existence because the resources of certain local authorities were not sufficient to enable them to develop as they should do. I myself, and the majority of my colleagues, do not like the idea of an independent corporation, not responsible to the local electorate, developing a town. I would much prefer that the local authority, which is there to respond to the will of the electorate from time to time, should be the body responsible for town development, but there were places in Essex and Hertfordshire where the resources of the local authority were not such as would enable that authority to develop the area, and so we had to bring in these corporations to do the job.
    In the old days it was private enterprise. From this side of the House we say much about private enterprise, but we have never denied it the credit which is due to it in that the initial experiments in planning garden cities like Letchworth and Welwyn were undertaken by philanthropic people and private enterprise, who did a first-class job. By their ingenuity and enthusiasm they showed the way, and by the risks they took they showed what could be done, while they also showed the impossibility of this being done by private enterprise in the future.
    I have said before that Letchworth was really saved by the 1914–18 war. It was developed by Ebenezer Howard and the Quakers associated with him in the early 1900s, and they did a very good job, but later on they never knew from day to day whether the whole thing was going to collapse around their ears. Then came the 1914–18 war, and factories were required, and so both the population and the industries of Letchworth were saved.
    Likewise, Welwyn Garden City met with tremendous difficulties after the initial stage, and in meeting that problem Sir Theodore Chambers and those associated with him deserve all the credit one can give them for the fact that they hung on grimly and saved the project, though mainly by public finance through the Public Works Loans Board and the Ministry of Health, because the Ministry had lent so much money to the scheme that they had to lend still more in order to save what they had lent in the first place.
    134
    So we come to the position in which it is accepted that we have to have some sort of body to deal with the development of an area where the local authority resources are not capable of permitting it, and we come to the subject of the new towns. The new towns themselves are not in dispute; they are going along, and we have already passed a Measure extending by £50 million the money available to be spent upon them. This is the alternative. It is the one in which one expects the existing local authority to do the developing, and I should much prefer that that development should take place through an existing local authority, whether a rural or urban authority or even a small borough, than by some county borough adding to the problems of transport and all the other considerations which are raised in this question of development.
    I want to make it quite clear that we on this side of the House will oppose this new Clause tooth and nail. In our view, if it were passed, it would wreck the intentions of the Bill, and, that being so, we ask the Minister not to accept the proposal of his colleagues behind him.
    Mr. Donnelly: Normally I should have thought that any new Clause moved by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) and the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) would have been non-controversial. Certainly, they put it forward in a non-controversial manner, but I think it is a perfectly monstrous Clause.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman said that an emergency arose at the end of the war and that this proposal was made to meet it. He asked questions about the new towns and the more permanent method of de-centralisation, and then he went on to say that this was preventing the legitimate expansion of many local authority areas which, in the normal course, would have been allowed to take place. Of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman also said, it would prejudice local government reform. Finally, he said that it ought not to be treated as a permanent method of relief.
    In the course of his argument in slow motion, he was asked about Manchester, but the hon. and learned Gentleman did not get that far. I did not hear him say any more about Manchester. He told us

    135
    that we were impatient, but our patience was not rewarded, and I express my disappointment, though it does not in any way affect the argument which he put forward.
    The hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead said that this was a stop-gap Measure, and that, if it were made permanent, it would cause friction between local authorities. What a fantastic argument for any hon. Member to put forward. I suggest that hon. Members opposite, in putting forward this new Clause, are undermining the whole purpose of the Bill, that they will hamstring any possible permanent developments under it, and that they will destroy the whole social values of all that we have been talking about both in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House.
    This is not an emergency Measure. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that this Bill was not introduced as a stop-gap Measure in an emergency. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well there have always been two possible vehicles for decentralisation from great cities—the new towns and the development of country towns. The whole purpose of the development of the country towns and of the town developments in the terms of this Bill is to use many of the existing facilities, such as roads, sewers, electricity supplies, and so on, so that it will not be necessary to undertake any major measure of capital expenditure to de-centralise a few thousands of people. Obviously, this Measure is as important as, if not more important than, the New Towns Act, and it is important that this Measure should be permanent, so as to bring permanent benefits.
    8.30 p.m.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to look to the 1943 conference of the Town Planning Association. I was secretary of the Country Town Committee of that Association after it was set up. I do not take any particular credit for this, but it was as a result of the pressure of that body, and of bodies like it, that this Bill was first accepted as a Measure by the late Government—and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) was a member of that Administration—and it
    136
    has been inherited by the present Minister. We in no way intended that it should be a temporary Measure. We attach great importance to it.
    Of course, hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like the idea of planning. If the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North does not want to make any success of this Bill, if he does not want it to succeed in any way, that is another matter; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want any success for the Bill, any success in its administration, he had better tell his constituents once again. If he tells that to the homeless and to those in bad living and working conditions in Ilford, he will find a nasty day of reckoning coming to him. He will not be the hon. Member for Ilford, North: he will be merely the member for the A.M.C., and he will find that his constituents will know what to do with him.
    I think this is a scandalous new Clause to bring forward. It is preposterous that it should come from the hon. and learned Gentleman representing that great, overcrowded borough and representing those people longing for an opportunity of decent living conditions. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman, having attempted to work his passage with the Amendments which he had to vote against earlier on, now stands completely exposed as an opponent of planning, and an opponent of any decent living conditions for his own constituents, and an opponent of all that we have been talking about.
    Mr. Marples: I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not think me discourteous if I rise now, but I think it may be of convenience to the House if I do now make a, few observations on this new Clause. I think that the real fear that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) had when he moved this new Clause was twofold; first, that the Bill would be used to delay local government reform, and second, that the county councils would be allowed to use the Bill to try to prevent legitimate housing expansion in the normal way—by extension of boundaries in legitimate circumstances and proper conditions. If I understood his speech aright, those were the two major points he had in mind. They were certainly the two major points he developed. He did not develop some of the arguments

    137
    the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) spent so long in demolishing. The hon. Member for Pembroke erected those arguments himself prior to demolishing them again.
    My hon. and learned Friend is not the only one who has expressed these fears. I think they are apprehensions that have been felt by local authorities. However, my right hon. Friend is not sure that this new Clause would dissipate those fears, anyhow. I should like to prove to the House that my hon. and learned Friend's points were quite good ones, because these fears have been expressed since the very first speech made from the benches opposite on this Bill, on the Second Reading in February.
    It is of no use the hon. Member for Pembroke saying that these fears are not real ones, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) on Second Reading made three points. He asked three questions. He said:
    "First, there is the doubt whether what I may call the normal housing operations of the normal local authority will be interfered with. … They"—
    that is, the local authorities—
    "want to be assured—and this is the second doubt—that, if they come along in the future with a reasonable case for the extension of their boundaries so as to include some of the housing estates which they have already established outside their boundaries, that case will not be prejudiced in any way by anything contained in this Bill."
    So the right hon. Gentleman did share that fear of my hon. and learned Friend. The third point the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland made was that the local authorities—
    "want to be assured that, when the right hon. Gentleman has taken his decision regarding the large matter of local government reform—I do not know how near he is to doing that—it shall not be altered in any way by reason of the provisions of this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 742…3.]
    Therefore, the fear of the local authority associations and the local authorities is that this Bill might delay local government reform and might prevent the legitimate expansion of boundaries in proper cases.
    The three points made by the right hon. Gentleman were powerfully reinforced from an unusual quarter when the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) again voiced the fear that
    138
    this Bill might be used to prevent local government reform. He said:
    "A large number of problems with which the Bill deals arise out of the existing structure of local government.
    Very many of these problems would fall to the ground at once if there were a radical re-organisation of the local government structure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 758.]
    It is clear that those two points are legitimate ones, and at that time my right hon. Friend was so impressed by the fear of the House on them that he asked me when winding up the debate to give specific assurances on his behalf, which I did by saying:
    "there is nothing in the Bill which would delay local government reform. In my opinion this Bill may even accelerate local government reform, which would be a very good thing."
    The second assurance that I gave on behalf of my right hon. Friend was this:
    "Nothing is further from my right hon. Friend's intention. Housing authorities have (heir responsibilities, and where it is appropriate—I emphasise the word appropriate—that houses should be built as a physical extension, it ought to be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 881.]
    Therefore, on Second Reading we gave the assurances for which my hon. and learned Friend has asked.
    Then in Committee upstairs we had those apprehensions brought forward again. It was quite clear that the local authorities were still not satisfied with those categorical assurances, and the assurances were repeated in Committee. As my hon. and learned Friend has introduced this new Clause, it is clear that they are not satisfied even yet with the assurances that have been given, and, as I understand it, they want specific assurances on those two points. It is also clear that if local government reform were carried through there would inevitably have to be many adjustments to this Bill, the extent of which would depend upon the scope and scale of local government reform.
    Local government reform is not easy—and I remember some very wise words on this point from the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), which impressed me greatly when we were discussing the Second Reading of a Private Member's Bill. It is not easy, and when local government reform comes it may be necessary to amend and alter this Bill. But

    139
    my right hon. Friend agrees with the sentiment that nothing should delay local government reform; he agrees that nothing should delay legitimate expansion in proper cases, and he gives the categorical assurance that, as far as he is concerned, his intention is that this Bill should not do either of those things. Even if we decided to implement the categorical assurances which have been given on many occasions by means of a Clause, I do not think that this new Clause would do because, as drafted, it would do too much. It would, for example, stop my right hon. Friend acting under Clause 17, which is not my hon. and learned Friend's intention.
    My right hon. Friend hoped that the categorical assurances he had given would be sufficient to cover those two points—because they are the only two points my hon. and learned Friend has in mind. On the other hand, if they are not sufficient he would like to look at it to see whether he can go further to meet the legitimate fears on these two specific points—because they are legitimate fears.
    I would, however, ask my hon. and learned Friend to withdraw this new Clause, because we have tried to meet him on the points he raised by giving categorical assurances. We want to look at it again to see whether we can reinforce it in some way, although I do not know whether that is possible. In any case, this new Clause as it stands could not be accepted because it goes much wider than the intention expressed by my right hon. Friend. With that explanation, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw his new Clause.
    Mr. Hale: Before the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) seeks leave to withdraw this Clause, there are one or two matters which have been raised in this discussion which should be dealt with. I do not dissent from what has been said. I think that both sides of the House realise that they are facing one of the real difficulties in connection with this Bill. I accept what the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the county boroughs genuinely fear that the Bill will delay or frustrate their legitimate ambitions for extension of their county boroughs.
    I do not challenge the sincerity of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but if the
    140
    Parliamentary Secretary gives undertakings like that, and gives them, with determination to implement them as soon as possible, we at once frustrate the cooperation of the rural districts, who will then be alarmed by the possibility of embarking upon these housing developments in co-operation with the county boroughs and be frightened that the whole lot will be taken over as part of the normal expansion. That is a serious problem.
    Mr. Paget: One point is worrying me. Supposing a receiving area builds for an exporting area, and then the built up area is transferred to the exporting area, what happens to the subscription of payment then?
    Mr. Hale: That is a matter for detail under the Act which gives the power and introduces the measures of local government reform. I should have thought that there would have been no question that the receiving area would have been compensated for the expenditure they had incurred, and that would be taken into account. I do not think that anyone would dispute the propriety of that, and it would be a tragedy if the receiving areas thought there was any possibility that they would not get proper compensation.
    It seems to me that there are two points of real importance that arise on this new Clause. That is why I rise to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give the most categorical reply, that he will not merely consider this or try to do something about it, but that he will say that this is quite impracticable.
    The second point was largely covered by the speech of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) who spoke with ability, eloquence and sincerity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say that with very real sincerity. I think that the hon. Member for Wellingborough made by far the best speech of the afternoon. He spoke with great knowledge and I am sorry that some hon. Members were not present to hear his speech. If they had been, they would not have doubted the sincerity of what I am saying. I am paying a legitimate and genuine tribute to someone who spoke with great knowledge on a subject in which he is profoundly interested and on which he feels very deeply indeed.
    I interrupted the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North quite early in

    141
    his speech, and I thank him for giving way, because I felt that I could have dispensed with this speech altogether by making a simple point. He first urged me to have patience and then he did not reply to me at all. What he did say was, "Very well, if the situation is different in five years' time, we can pass another Bill." A whole lot of Parliamentary mechanism, the advice of counsel, the studies of the Department, and consultations with the Association of Municipal Corporations, with the county councils, and the local authorities themselves have all gone on.
    We have been upstairs in Committee for six or seven days, and we have discussed this for the best part of this afternoon. Now it is said that to gratify his desire we should not let it last too long, that we should cancel the Bill before we know whether it is to become effective, and, if necessary, pass another. That is not facing up to the problem I put. Is it seriously suggested that we can deal with this problem in five years? Has any Minister ever suggested that there is a hope that in five years we can deal with the problems of overspill in the over-populated conurbations? No one suggests it. I am certain the Minister would not like to give even the slightest indication that he had hopes of any such possibilities.
    8.45 p.m.
    I now come to the second point about the Clause, and it seems to be a serious one. Let us face the problem in Oldham again. Let us imagine that Oldham was about to embark upon a large housing scheme under the provisions of the Bill. I believe it could be done in co-operation with other adjoining boroughs. I believe a comprehensive housing scheme is very much better than a whole series of small schemes because of the importance of the ancillary services. Where we have had small housing schemes, unlike the schemes in new towns or in dormitory areas, we have failed because of lack of full ancillary services.
    In such circumstances Oldham would have to negotiate with the Yorkshire County Council, the Lancashire County Council, and local councils and so on, and it might be necessary to apply for compulsory powers to acquire the necessary land from private interests and to go through all the procedure of inquiries.
    142
    Even if Oldham were the first in the queue, how long would it be before they could lay the first brick of the first house on the great new estate? Local government consultations often take much longer than would a couple of business men who were able to make decisions without reference to the electors, Acts of Parliament, the Ministry and so on. Even if Oldham were first in the queue it might be many months before the first brick was laid.
    I see the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Major Markham) shaking his head. If he wants to intervene I will give way. Apparently he does not wish to do so. His shaking of his head is the sole oratorical contribution which he is making in the course of the afternoon.
    When there was a Tory council in Oldham—I am not making any party comments about the Oldham council, for I never do that—it was 18 months before we had a hope of laying the first brick on the housing estate.
    The Chairman: The new Clause deals only with making contributions.
    Mr. Hale: It is designed to say that all this has to be done in five years, and I am addressing my remarks to the impossibility of its being done in five years. It might be at least two years before one even started on the scheme. I may be told that, if an undertaking has been given, the Clause covers future activities, but, as I understand the meaning of the words, that would apply only to the preliminary operation of the activities in respect of which the undertaking had been given.
    In the case of large areas, no council would commit itself for a long period in the future, certainly no council which has had to face the disasters which Oldham has had to face in the last six months, when the demand for houses has receded because over 30,000 people have been out of work and people have had to withdraw their names from the housing lists because they can no longer afford to pay the rents. Such a council would decide to build 400 or 500 houses in a year and to ask the Minister for an undertaking in respect of that scheme. Such councils could not commit themselves, certainly not under the present Government, to building the thousands of houses which are needed and to

    143
    attempting to carry out the undertakings before 1958 to comply with the new Clause.
    For these two reasons, it would be a disaster if the Parliamentary Secretary left it that he would consider the matter again and try to do something at some future stage or in another place to give the slightest indication that the proposal is a temporary and stop-gap Measure and will be administered by the Department as such a Measure and that the intention is that it should not continue. This is the most serious proposal we have had in the course of the afternoon and it should be opposed with all the strength of those of us who really want to see housing estates deal with the needs of these over-populated areas.
    Sir G. Hutchinson: The assurances which the Parliamentary Secretary was able to give will allay the apprehension felt about this Bill. I welcome the suggestion that if there is any further step which he can take and which will allay the fears that this Bill has aroused in certain quarters not only on this side of the House but on the other side as well, he will not hesitate to take them. We shall be very grateful. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.
    Mr. Gibson: When the Parliamentary Secretary was dealing with this new Clause I was inclined to say that this was the end of the Bill, and he completely spoiled what he said by promising to reconsider. To reconsider what? Assuming that the principle is accepted which will enable the Bill to end in five years, what effect will it have on the position outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)?
    Sir G. Hutchinson: What I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say was that he would consider any further steps which he could take to make it plain that this Bill will not be used as a means of preventing the legitimate expansion of towns. It was on that assurance that I have asked leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Mr. Gibson: I have no doubt that that assurance will be taken by the local authority associations and that it is the point. As I understood it, what the
    144
    Parliamentary Secretary said—and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West confirmed it—was that an undertaking was given to look at the thing again if possible to see if some steps could be taken to meet the point put by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson). The whole point of this new Clause is to limit the law for five years, and in moving it the hon. and learned Gentleman made it perfectly clear. He also made the point that there was not much use for the Bill, because the problem will be solved in five years, and if it were not it would not take long to pass another Bill.
    We are entitled to ask the Government to give us a clear answer to our challenge in view of the attempt to get the Bill limited to five years. We want these powers to continue. The problem of congestion and overcrowding in our large towns is with us for several generations at least. The more our industrial economy develops the more will the towns develop and unfortunately the rush for the higher wages to be earned in London will continue. If this Bill is abolished in five years, it will not help the overspill problem in London. Today, if a housing scheme is started, a brick cannot be laid on the site for 18 months or two years, so half of the five years will almost be gone before building begins.
    The real point is that this is a lasting problem for all our big industrial towns, and there ought to be permanent legislation on the Statute Book to provide the means whereby the receiving authority can get some financial asistance to meet the extra burden which inevitably is laid upon it by receiving these additional people. I am rather surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has a special claim to speak for one of the local authority associations, should want to limit this Bill in this way.
    I feel that that expresses the dislike of some people living in the rural areas to those who live in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, and so on. Lack of patriotism and bad citizenship exist, and we ought not to encourage them by limiting the Bill in this way. I hope that the proposed Clause will be rejected in toto.
    Mr. Ede: The difficulty in which the House is now arises in part from the nature of the reply which was given by the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not think there is any feeling on either side that where a local authority, a county borough generally, builds just on the fringe of its own area, that is a legitimate ground for thinking that the boundary should be altered so as to bring in that new housing estate. I hope that the Bill will not be used in debates on Private Bills for borough extensions as an excuse for objecting to Bills which only aim at that.
    I do not think the problem of local government reform is bound up with what I regard as the most beneficent purposes of the Bill. Over the greater part of England and Wales there exist a number of comparatively small towns of some antiquity, with a well-developed social life and an individuality, and which are surrounded by areas which might be developed to deal with populations that have to be decanted from big towns. These are not places near enough to the big towns to warrant being brought into the local government system of the big town, but they are a valuable means of receiving a population that has to move.
    One of the difficulties that confront everybody who has to deal with a new housing estate of any size is to get a sense of community and to develop social interests within that community. We know of places where there are no churches, no publichouses, no clubs, no social amenities at all, and they present a very serious social problem for the people.
    Where a small town is capable of receiving such people it can be used advantageously as a social nucleus, but it may be overwhelmed financially by the problems of providing the necessary public services for the new town. The difficulty of sewerage works in anticipation of the population, and of other small social services, are a serious problem, which will remain after reform of local government, on any scale that has been contemplated so far as I know, and will require the kind of assistance that the Bill aims to give.
    I hope that we can be assured that the Parliamentary Secretary's answer did not mean that any doubt will be put in the minds of receiving authorities of that kind that any undertaking made by the Minis-
    146
    try or by the exporting authority will be subject to any time limit like that expressed in the proposed new Clause of the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson).
    Sir G. Hutchinson: I never suggested, and I was careful at the beginning of my speech to point this out, that any undertaking within the period of five years would not be affected. Any contributions which have been begun to be made during the period of five years would continue after the period of five years had elapsed.
    Mr. Ede: I was not dealing with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said but with the unfortunate impression created in some minds by the terms of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. I hope that it may be clearly understood that the somewhat vague references he made to "further assurances" and so on will not invalidate that part of the provisions of the Measure.
    9.0 p.m.
    I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can make any further statement on the situation that has been reached with regard to local government reform. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, on a Private Bill, dealing with Ealing, I think, I made some suggestions about local government reform to which the Minister gave a friendly reply. I had hoped that by now we might have had some consultations to see whether it is not possible, even in this Parliament, to get on with an agreed project of local government reform that would enable these fears to be largely dissipated.
    If we could feel that some active steps were being taken, I am sure it would give a reassurance that would help the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North and the local government associations. I am quite certain that if they ever thought that a Minister was determined to get on with the job, they would find it far easier to reach agreement than they do when they regard the matter as something in the far-distant future. If the right hon. Gentleman can persuade the Chair to let him make a statement on Third Reading, I hope we shall be able to hear something substantial tonight.
    Sir G. Hutchinson: I asked leave to withdraw the Motion, but I am not quite sure how I stand now with regard to that situation.
    The Chairman: I did not put the Question because an hon. Member stood up to speak.
    Mr. Sparks: I have sat throughout the debate on this new Clause, Sir Charles; I have risen on most occasions, and I feel that I should say a word in regard to the principles of this Clause and support particularly the criticisms advanced by my right hon. Friend. It was disturbing on this side of the House to hear the Parliamentary Secretary assuring his hon. and learned Friend that by the withdrawal of the Motion he had not much to fear in regard to the main direction of his criticism.
    I listened attentively to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said and he was not so much concerned about local government reform. As my right hon. Friend said, any reform of local government will not dispose of the necessity for a Bill of this description. As the problem affects Greater London and the large towns and cities of our country, it is a serious matter to contemplate the limitation of this Bill to a five-year period and from thence to have nothing in its place.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it would be possible at the end of five years to renew the Bill if necessary. If that is the only argument there is no need for this Clause because the Bill could be repealed simply by any succeeding Government, which would be a short and effective way of dealing with it if the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to limit its terms and duration. I can assure the House that anybody who knows the problem, particularly of Greater London, would look with great concern at the prospect of a Bill of this description being limited to a period of five years.
    The hon. and learned Member in putting forward his case for the Clause based his argument on the fact that if there were a local authority area that was congested and over-populated and had land near to it, the solution would be to extend that authority's boundaries. Then he went on to say that where an authority had an over-population and was congested but had no land, the correct way to solve its overcrowding problem would be by developing the new towns.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman is, I am sure, aware that that is not a proper
    148
    solution of the problem, particularly as it affects the Greater London area. Under the Greater London plan, just under 700,000 people have to be de-centralised from the London area. The existing eight new towns cannot hope to take, at the very maximum, more than about 350,000 to 400,000 of them. That leaves a balance of about 300,000 persons, who, if they are to be accommodated at all, must be accommodated in expanded towns under the provisions of a Bill of this kind, for without a Bill of this kind there is no legal authority and no procedure which can be utilised and developed for the express purpose of re-housing this balance of overspill from London and the immediate Greater London area.
    Sir G. Hutchinson: The last Government reduced very substantially the number of persons who were to be accommodated in expanded towns on the ground that they ought to be dispersed into the new towns.
    Mr. Sparks: Yes, but the hon. and learned Member is misinterpreting the point. The new towns having been the first development under the principles of the Greater London plan, it was obvious that the new towns would have to get under way first and get going before the secondary step could be taken of the expansion of existing towns.
    I do not know what population limit the hon. and learned Member proposes to place upon the new towns. If he envisages new towns of the order of anything from 100,000 population upwards, there might be something in his case, but nowadays no one in his senses wants to encourage the development of great towns of that size. The best kind of development is not the creation or the multiplication of huge towns and huge populations, but rather the dispersal of the population into smaller towns. Therefore, the principles of the Bill provide for doing precisely that, rather than centring all our people in large areas and large towns and cities, and for dispersing them in smaller units, where, of course, development is far superior and the amenities and the surrounding conditions which the population may enjoy would obviously be very much better.
    There is, too, another factor which has to be considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) said that the problem of overspill in London

    149
    would not be solved in five years, as the hon. and learned Member said that it could be. The hon. and learned Gentleman shows a great ignorance of the problem of London by saying that its overspill problem would be solved in five years. London's problem is almost perpetual. So long as we have centred here the great docks, transport termini, warehouses and the other great industrial concentrations, we shall always have a vast population gathered around London. In course of time the natural increase in population maintains and perpetuates this system of overspill.
    The only way in which we can radically and effectively deal with it is to take up a part of the docks and move it to somewhere else, or take one or two of our railway termini away to some other part of the country. But that is quite fantastic; we cannot remove great industrial concentrations like that in a matter of a few years. It must be realised that this problem of congestion and overspill in Greater London—and this applies to many of our great cities—is more or less permanent, so long as we maintain the vast industrial concentrations which give rise to it. We must therefore make some permanent provision in our legislation to deal with overspill, as provision is made in this Bill.
    I know that the Minister said in Committee that there is not likely to be much money forthcoming for the development of the principles of this Bill, but I would remind him that his party may not be sitting—indeed, will not be sitting—on that side very much longer. The late Labour Government can rightly claim the authorship of this Bill, and I can assure him that it is our intention to make it an effective Bill to deal with the problem of overspill not only in London but in the other great cities, too. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that, although he may not want to use his powers as widely as possible, we, on our part, when we take over office, will be grateful and thankful to pick up the Bill from where he has left it, and make it an outstanding success.
    I hope the House will register an objection to the principles of this new Clause in an emphatic manner, and that we shall make the Bill a permanent Act on the Statute Book, because it is only through a Bill of this description that the hopes
    150
    of many hundreds of thousands of people may lie in solving their housing problems and providing their children with better conditions.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I want to respond to the appeal of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) by appealing to him and his hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman says he is keen upon this Bill. If so, perhaps he would try to help us to get the Bill. I was glad to hear a tribute to it, because that tribute has not been so apparent hitherto. The hon. Member for Acton talked of his party as the party of the future, but the great leader who will lead his party in the future has called this a niggling little thing.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked leave to withdraw the new Clause. There are Amendments, but of no considerable importance, and if we all want the Bill it would help if we tried to get it as quickly as possible. In view of the fact that no one wants to press the Clause, it may be possible to reach a decision.
    Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman could assist to get the Bill by making the statement which we all hoped he would make—that he wants to see the Bill as a piece of permanent machinery. When we asked, earlier in the debate, how much money would be available, he was not able to tell us, and although we were disappointed we well understood that, who ever was in power at present, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be likely to be sticky when appeals were made to him for money.
    But if the Bill is to be denied money which we might be able to use, and if the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry is to be denied money it might be able to use under the provisions of the Bill, and if the Bill is to last only five years or is not to be regarded as a permanent Measure, then it really becomes a niggling Bill. We on this side believe that if it were regarded as a piece of permanent legislation, with the wholehearted support of both sides of the House, it would be of considerable value in tackling a problem which will continue far beyond the period of five years. The re-adjustment of our industrial pattern of society, with the advent of atomic energy and power, will create problems which the machinery of this Bill should be able to tackle in the future.

    151
    9.15 p.m.
    It is very strange to us, when we hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) claiming paternity of the Bill, and the Minister also claiming paternity of it, that, when an hon. and learned Member asks how long it is to live, the Parliamentary Secretary says he will consider strangling it at the age of five. That is not the view we have of the future of this child, born of such remarkable parents.
    The Minister is asking us to get on with this Bill. He could dispose of that problem at once by getting up and saying that he heartily disagrees with his hon. and learned Friend who asks that it shall come to an end in about five years, and that he is willing to give the assurance for which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked about the future consideration of the extension of boundaries and also that local government reform will not be prejudiced.
    Mr. Paget: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the assurance which has been asked for? Surely he has now realised that this is the last Bill which we wish to obstruct. The right hon. Gentleman appears to murmur, but that is the sort of thing he has been saying. He seems totally unable to realise that we regard this as a Bill which is important, which we wish to see improved and which we wish to see work.
    The Minister cannot realise that. He mumbles and looks ill-tempered and says he is being obstructed. There is no obstruction here whatever, save by the Front Bench opposite, a Front Bench which adopts the attitude that it will not co-operate with the House in improving this Bill, which we wish well.
    Let him realise the alarm felt on this side of the House when the Parliamentary Secretary, speaking from the Government Front Bench, expresses sympathy for a proposal that this Bill should be terminated in five years. If that is the sort of way in which this Government look at this Bill, it is indeed a niggling little Measure. The Bill is simply an enabling Bill. It can be a great instrument in the welfare of our country or it can be nothing. It depends entirely on how it is to be administered, and we are not to be told that.
    152
    We have pressed and pressed to be told what the Government intend to do with these powers, how they intend to use them. The only answer we get, after pressing for a whole day, and while time is wasted by the Government's refusal to disclose their intentions, their continual concealment of what they intend to do, is at last an indication that the Government look sympathetically towards the idea of bringing this Bill to an end in five years. Is the right hon. Gentleman really surprised that we should be alarmed by this, because we wish this Bill well, and for no other reason?
    I come from a county which I hope will be a receiving area under this Bill. We have, in South Northants particularly, and in East Northants to some degree, towns which could do with expansion—Brackley, Daventry, towns which are too small for their countryside. Can the plans for developing that area of Britain, placed between the great towns, with good communications, and which are good for their own countryside, be worked out in a matter of five years?
    Sir G. Hutchinson: Yes.
    Mr. Paget: The hon. and learned Member says "Yes." I will give way to him immediately if he will tell us how. How does he propose to deal with Daventry and Brackley?
    Sir G. Hutchinson: When the late Government were in office, it may be that those things would have taken five years. They will take a much shorter period now.
    Mr. Paget: They are taking a very much shorter period during the time the party of the hon. and learned Member is in office because that party will be in office for such a very short period. We fully appreciate that. It is not that we are seriously contemplating that the party opposite should end this Bill in five years' time. They will not be in a position to do so. What we are afraid of, and what is causing us such anxiety, is that they are thinking about it and are proposing to administer it, while they are in a position to do mischief, as if it were the sort of Bill to be brought to an end in five years. That is why we are concerned about the cavalier attitude displayed by the Parliamentary Secretary.

    153
    This is a permanent planning instrument for the development of this country, a development made more difficult by the scarred and injured countryside, so much of which has been destroyed by private enterprise development. Now we have gone into the era where the country is of value because it is regarded as belonging to the community and not to the individual who wishes to exploit it. This is an instrument within that legislation for the development of a planned society and a planned countryside in an England which needs to be preserved. I pray the right hon. Gentleman not to treat it as a mere transitory thing. This is something to be taken seriously and to be made real use of. The right hon. Gentleman apparently does not realise how fortunate he is to be the inheritor of such a valuable Measure.
    Question put, and negatived.

    Clause 3.—(CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT OF EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS.)
    Mr. Hale: I beg to move, in page 3, line 27, to leave out from "as," to the end of lice 29, and to insert:
    "may be reasonably necessary for securing the intended relief from congestion or over population in the area to be relieved and the making of any necessary provision for accommodation for carrying on any industrial or other activities and the provision of any necessary additional public services in the receiving district."
    This matter was raised briefly on the Committee stage on a Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), and it was also raised in discussion on Clause 1 when I recollect that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) made a powerful appeal which went unanswered.
    As I understand, the view of the Minister is that as some words in Clause 1 refer to "with or without industrial activities," that gives sufficient power to raise this exceedingly important matter. With respect, I would venture to cross swords with him and to doubt the accuracy of the advice which he has been given. I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is present. This is a legal matter and it is a general principle of legal contracts that if there is a series of general words followed by a series of limitations, the limitations themselves
    154
    will, of course, overrule the generalities of the preceding Clause and we should be bound by the limitations.
    I consider it by no means certain that phrases in Clause 1 can have any meaning in relation to Clauses 2 or 3 unless they are specifically inserted, particularly after the details in Clause 2, to which reference has been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). This is a very serious matter. It may indeed prove to be the most important Amendment—if I may say so of an Amendment in my own name—which we shall discuss. The whole principle and nature of housing development in connection with overspill population is bound up with this particular proposition. Are we to be limited to housing or are we to be able to evolve a scheme for the provision of accommodation with the necessary amenities? This is vital.
    In Lancashire it might suit one or two areas to combine in planning the accommodation of their overspill in one area, so that there would be a bigger and more effective scheme. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, to provide houses without any amenities, without clubs, churches and chapels, is to destroy the value of the scheme. But the Minister, in answer to the intervention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) talked, it may be jokingly, about Black Country overspill being accommodated in Montgomery.
    That may be a pleasant exaggeration, but the right hon. Gentleman has always talked of this as a Bill in which one can hop from one area to another, whether they be separated by a green belt or by a range of mountains or moors unsuitable for development. In the latter cases the population will be sent a long way from the parent town.
    It is a tragedy that Parliamentary draftsmen in Whitehall are apt to consider the problems of London and not those of Oldham. But let us remember that if the Oldham population is to have a housing scheme for overspill in an area of Yorkshire over the hills, there will be no railway service at all and that today the provision of a railway service is virtually impracticable. Will these people have to rely on road transport for all

    155
    their needs or will occupation be provided in the new town?
    All those interested in the future of Lancashire will know that one of the tragedies so far as employment is concerned is what used to be called the "black, satanic mills" of three and four storeys which have long since ceased to be suitable for modern productive effort. I had the opportunity in Australia some years ago of seeing a modern mill where there was ample ground available and where every process was done under a series of adjoining roofs. There was ample space and facilities for the recreation and the feeding of the staff, and so on. It is with that sort of factory that Lancashire will have to compete in future in the old upright mills carrying out one process on one floor and another up above.
    I am told that in Lancashire mills which made huge profits last year are sacking their men and selling looms and machines for export abroad. We have to face the needs of the Lancashire of the future. We really cannot do it on this basis unless we are serious about the question of employment. We cannot be serious about the question of employment unless we are serious about the provision of modern facilities for employment, modern factories and places of work.
    This is not merely the problem of the textile industry. I am glad to see present my hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams). He will know of these facts. For the last three years there has been the dreadful threat of a move by Platts, Bros, and Co., Ltd. who employ thousands of engineers. There has been the threat not because there is not sufficient work or because relations are not good between management and men, but because the factory is old and derelict, and involves so much extra labour due to its lack of communications and planning, that the company want to move to Barton on the other side of Manchester where there is a big modern factory at their disposal. These are vital matters.
    I have the greatest admiration for the Minister, but I do not think that he is talking seriously this afternoon at a time when we are dealing with the whole future of our people. I am dealing with a town that is particularly stricken. He
    156
    must face up to this problem. A few minutes ago we had an appeal that we should be brief. That appeal was supported from the opposite side of the House by long speeches. Every speech made from this side has been interrupted by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson). I counted seven or eight interventions on his part during that discussion. Why blame us if the discussion took some time? Certainly, it was prolonged by the wholly inadequate and very unfortunate answer which the Parliamentary Secretary purported to give.
    9.30 p.m.
    In dealing with this Bill, we have to reconsider to some extent a good deal of our housing policy. We planned, in a period of full employment, to build decent houses and ample accommodation—three-bedroom houses in which a family's needs would be met—and I have always supported that.
    I am now facing the tragedy—and it is a tragedy—that people cannot pay their rents and that rents are going up. People who have waited for years, living with large families in overcrowded conditions, are now withdrawing their names from the housing lists because they cannot face the financial burden. We ought seriously to consider either the provision of full employment again or some modification which will try to meet these conditions in the areas affected.
    If we are planning to build a large number of houses, we ought to think of a central block of buildings which will include guest rooms in cases where houses are fully occupied and which are available for use at short notice and at a low rent, and we must also think of providing canteen facilities. These things are much more vital to a housewife in areas where housewives themselves frequently work than the provision of other amenities to which we have given consideration. We certainly ought to have a library in the centre of a big estate.
    The first and most vital consideration, however, is that, where we are taking people a long way, we have to provide employment for them and must provide opportunities and space for industries of the type to which they are accustomed. This has more than one implication, because, of course, this is the vital prelude to the town planning of the old towns,

    157
    which will, at some time, have to shed some of these bad and broken-down mills and factories and let them go. Before we embark on the town planning of our old towns, let us be sure that we have the alternative provisions ready.
    Mr. Gibson: I beg to second the Amendment.
    This really raises a first-class issue. We have had a discussion today on the possibility of this Bill becoming an effective Act, on large areas of houses being built and on a large number of families being transferred to these new estates, but, time and again, it has been complained that housing authorities like my own have built large estates without finding employment for the tenants who went to live on those estates. That never was completely true of the L.C.C., but it is a criticism which could have been made at one time, and which can be made even now of many local housing authorities.
    I suggest to the House that it really is vital that if, in the development of an existing town, large numbers of people are brought from other towns, we should make sure as far as we reasonably can that there are opportunities for employment for the men and women, the boys and girls, who may be brought into that town. If they do not do that we shall fail in one of the essential objects of town planning, and create a problem that will raise fresh difficulties both for the receiving and the exporting authorities.
    I have had experience of the way this is working out. I have myself been concerned with a number of large housing estates outside London. I have in mind one at Woking, which is now being developed. Before a final decision to purchase the land was made, inquiries were made about the possibility of industrial development there to provide employment.
    There turned out to be some industrial development. We were able to make additional arrangements for further industrial development, and when that estate is created there will be a fair amount of employment for the boys, girls, and women, and a good deal for the men, who will be transferred there from London. The only trouble is that the Board of Trade take such a long time to make up their mind about the permits for firms willing to transfer establishments to such districts. I have
    158
    strong feelings on that, but it would be out of order to discuss them now.
    I mention all this to show how important is this Amendment, which provides that one of the conditions to be laid down shall be, that with the land for building houses there must be also provided land upon which industrial and other developments can take place, so that employment may be provided—and not only employment, but public services such as swimming baths or tennis courts or libraries, about which there has always been great difficulty in getting sites.
    I should have thought that this was one of those Amendments the Minister would have been very glad to accept. It seems to me in no way to detract from the Bill—or from the money to be provided under the Bill, although, so far, we have not been able to discover how much money is to be provided, or, indeed, whether any at all will be provided. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: There is. I think, very little difference of purpose between the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and myself. As he said at the beginning of his speech, when he was more concerned with the Amendment, and before he got on to the more rhetorical part, it is really rather a legal question as to the meaning of these words or of other words. The hon. Gentleman doubted whether I had been well advised by those whose duty it is to advise me. I shall refer mainly to that point, because I have absolute sympathy with what he wants to do. Industrial development is one of the main purposes which can be assisted by the town developments here contemplated.
    However, I think that in this Clause what we really have in mind is conditions which the Minister may make. They are not conditions about the objectives of the development. That is all laid down in Clauses 1 and 2. What we have in mind here is the laying down of conditions about how houses should be dispersed, what payments should be made, how accounts should be kept, and, generally, the working condition of the scheme, not the objectives of the scheme but the working arrangements for the scheme, which are something quite different. I think it would be quite inappropriate here to say that when he is making

    159
    these payments he can make conditions, and then bring in all this, which is simply another way of drafting what we have tried, perhaps wrongly, to do in Clauses 1 and 2, which concern the main purpose and objective of the whole development.
    In Committee we spent a good deal of time on Clauses I and 2 in trying to draft what was really the purpose of the thing. We did not altogether agree, but I think that we ended up by agreeing that Clauses 1 and 2 set out what we were trying to do. Clause 3 has in mind conditions of a quite different kind which the Minister would make; what I would call the operating conditions in order to see that any scheme was properly carried out by the authorities. All the things the hon. Gentleman wants done are fully covered in Clauses 1 and 2—industrial development, and all the rest—and I think it would be foolish to tie the Minister to making conditions for securing the implementation of the objectives laid down in Clauses 1 and 2.
    Mr. Hale: What is in Clause 2?
    Mr. Macmillan: All the things that can be done.
    Mr. Hale: That is the whole point I am making.
    Mr. Macmillan: Clause 1 is for the purpose of
    "providing accommodation for residential purposes (with or without accommodation for the carrying on of industrial or other activities …)."
    Clause 2 lays down all the various things for which contributions can be made. Then we come to Clause 3, which concerns the conditions for operating the scheme. That is what we had in mind, and, although I agree the Amendment is another way of trying to describe what we would like to do, I think it would not come properly within Clause 3.
    Mr. Hale: Clause 3 specifically says that
    "the Minister may lay down, as conditions to which payment of the contributions undertaken to be made is to be subject, such conditions as it may appear to him to be expedient to impose for securing the intended relief from congestion or overpopulation."
    If that is the type of condition, why not relief from unemployment, and so on? Surely this is the only place where it can go.
    Mr. Macmillan: The conditions would be the laying down of how the scheme is to be carried out. I cannot make a scheme for doing something quite different, for providing something not for the purpose of that relief. It is merely limited to that. The purposes we have in mind, are, I think, laid down in Clause I. Those words are put in to refer back to that; in other words saying, "I could not make conditions about a scheme to do something entirely remote from this purpose of moving population."
    I think we agreed in Committee that this was not the Clause where the definition of the objectives should be put. Whether we define them rightly or wrongly is another thing; we have passed that. This is not the Clause which would be suitable for this purpose, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that, in my view, that is the proper reading of the Clause.
    Mr. Donnelly: I am a little confused. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Of course I am confused if I have to look at hon. Gentlemen opposite for most of the day. Who would not be? I am a bit confused by the Minister, because an hour or two ago he was telling me that this was primarily a housing Bill when I pressed him on the question of industrial development, and after a lot of persuasion and coaxing I managed to draw him to the Dispatch Box to give me some elucidation of, I think. Clause 10 in Committee.
    Now he comes along quite blandly, having read another page of his brief, to find that the Bill contains industrial development proposals, as a result of having to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale).
    Mr. Macmillan Mr. Macmillan indicated dissent.
    Mr. Donnelly: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. He complained earlier on about my being discourteous. He must be very discourteous if he has not read his brief all through before he started on these proceedings today.
    9.45 p.m.
    The question which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West has so rightly raised is very important and it is doubly important after the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) and the hon.

    161
    and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), both of whom, I imagine, are now licking their wounds after the remarks made about them from this side of the House.
    They, and one or two other hon. Gentlemen, during the Committee stage upstairs, have all tried to whittle down the powers of the Bill, restrict the effects of the Bill, or restrict the duration during which the benefits of the Bill can actually be received by the local authorities. With these doubts created in the minds of myself and my hon. Friends on this side of the House, we want to tie the Minister up a good deal more.
    I have always felt that the right hon. Gentleman was a very good Minister. He is extremely well-intentioned and quite sincere in his advocacy of many of the proposals we are discussing. I hope that he does not think that I am presumptuous in saying that, because I do not mean to be when I am speaking about him. I feel that to some extent the right hon. Gentleman is the prisoner of the gombeen men behind him. I see the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) looking rather surprised and I urge him to look up the definition of gombeen men in the Oxford Dictionary, because it is a good old Irish expression.
    Mr. Speaker: There is nothing about gombeen men in this Amendment.
    Mr. Donnelly: I was protecting the Minister from the attack of the gombeen men, and all I am anxious to do is to see that the right hon. Gentleman is sufficiently strong and armoured by the powers of the Bill to ensure that industrial development goes side by side with housing development. That is all that we are anxious to do. While I accept the remarks he made in the course of his reply to the Amendment which has been put forward by my hon. Friend, I urge him to look at this matter again, because industrial development is the key to any decentralisation which may take place under this Bill.
    It is no good taking houses to a place unless we take work alongside the houses. Work is the magnet which attracts people, and which has made London, Birmingham and Manchester too big, and it is the transplanting of this magnet to the receiving areas which will determine the
    162
    success or failure of the whole of the Town Development Bill.
    It is because of that, that my hon. Friend has put forward this Amendment, and because we are absolutely determined that this Bill shall be used in that sense so far as it lies within our power so that we would like the right hon. Gentleman to look at this matter again to see if he cannot, in some way, strengthen the marriage of housing and industry, which go together, in the decentralisation which takes place, so that there may be no room for doubt, and no prospect of any future Minister of Housing and Local Government allowing housing to go without industry or vice versa.
    For instance, if the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North ever became the Minister of Housing and Local Government goodness knows what would happen, but while the Ministry is in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman I am sure that we are all satisfied about this particular point. We would, however, like it tied up so firmly that there can be no possible room for doubt of any kind.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: With the leave of the House, I want to make this matter quite clear. We discussed a good deal of this in Committee. There are some places where there are plenty of industries and where houses are wanted. If we said that there must always be an industrial move before there were houses that would not work at all. Ellesmere Port was a classic example of large-scale industry where we wanted to get homes built instead of people having to travel 20 or 30 miles a day to work. I really think it is better to give the widest powers, with or without, and then use them to the best purpose.
    Mr. Benn: I do not doubt that the Minister intends the best in this respect, and I certainly should not have risen to speak if Clause 3 had simply given him power to lay down such conditions as necessary to secure general development. But it seems that the intended relief from congestion or overspill is the only thing on which he can lay down conditions when loaning money to local authorities.
    On Second Reading the Minister spoke about sweetening the local authorities, especially in the receiving areas, to make them interested in plans of this

    163
    kind. Industry will also need some sweetening to persuade it to move to these towns. It will not be an accident that the industrial development of some towns will come as a result of an artificial Measure like the Bill instead of as a result of years of industrial development. It is no accident that the big industries have moved to the cities where they have moved; these cities have been attractive to them for well understood economic reasons.
    If, as is likely, most of the people interested in moving to the new towns are the younger people, they may not be as attractive for the industrialists as are the development areas where there are reserves of manpower, some of which is skilled, whereas in the towns which have been developing the economic attractions in terms of manpower, transport, and so on, will be far fewer than in the other areas.
    There could be no possible harm in the Minister taking powers under Clause 3 to remind local authorities when giving them their grants that it is their duty to make the development in the towns attractive to industry. Local authorities, particularly those in the receiving district, if representing an attractive country town, will be more interested in getting the housing and seeing the town flourishing with new people than in having new industries.
    The new industries will themselves face considerable problems, for they will be further from their markets and the ports where they get their raw materials. The Minister can help considerably by taking these powers—even if he finds later that he does not need to use them—so that he can remind the local authorities in the conditions he lays down that it is their duty to make the receiving district attractive to the new industries which might be brought into them. He might find it useful later on to have these powers.
    Mr. Paget: I am sure that the Minister's intentions are the best, and it might be a good and convenient thing that we should reassemble on this Amendment when next it appears on the Order Paper so that the right hon. Gentleman may have the opportunity of discussing the matter with the Law Officers and deciding whether or not these words or some such words are necessary.
    Mr. Hale: They are very good words.
    Mr. Paget: My hon. Friend remarks, in a manner which is justifiably self-congratulatory, that they are very good words. I agree with him, but the Parliamentary draftsmen do not always agree as to what are the best words. Here we have the difficulty which we really have to contemplate. If Clause 3 (1) were to read:
    "When giving an undertaking under the last preceding section, the Minister may lay down, as conditions to which payment of the contributions undertaken to be made is to be subject, such conditions as it may appear to him to be expedient …"
    and we stopped there, there would be no difficulty. But he goes on to say:
    "to impose for securing the intended relief from congestion or over-population."
    The Minister has explained what his intention is, but, unfortunately he does not interpret the Acts. The courts have to interpret them if necessary. He told us that this intention is merely to lay down the conditions as to how the accounts are to be kept and what the machinery should be.
    The right hon. Gentleman may not be fully aware of the difficulty that arises here. In Clause 1 there are the words:
    "… providing accommodation for residential purposes (with or without accommodation for carrying on of industrial or other activities, and with any public services and other incidentals needed). …"
    There we have very wide words and that is the enabling Clause. It provides for two purposes, the purpose of providing houses, which deals with congestion and over-population, and the ancillary purpose of providing for industrial activity.
    In a later Amendment the right hon. Gentleman sought to leave out certain words and insert other words which would be quite unnecessary in certain circumstances. Therefore, it seems to my hon. Friend that it was highly desirable that these words in this Amendment should be added as a matter of caution.
    We are almost at the end of our day's work, and I agree that for the moment I am rather spinning words. It would be bad for the right hon. Gentleman not to have an opportunity of discussing this with the Law Officers. If the Law Officers take the view that neither these nor any other words are necessary we shall be content and shall not press this

    165
    Amendment. The whole of this Bill would have been very greatly facilitated had the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity of having the advice of the Law Officers, because it is an extraordinarily complicated matter. But the words
    "When giving an undertaking under the last preceding section. …"
    mean that it is Clause 2 and not Clause 1 which decides between the primary housing purposes and the ancillary purpose of industrial development. "The last preceding section" is Clause 2, which deals not with the definition of an undertaking for that occurs in Clause 1 but with Exchequer contributions. Therefore, when one comes to a Clause which seeks to separate the two matters quite gratuitously and we agree——
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

    DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that on the ratification by the Finnish Government of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Draft of an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Finland) Order, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th April, an Order may be made in the form of that Draft.
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Jersey) Order, 1952, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 7th April.
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Guernsey) Order, 1952, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 7th April.
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Kenya) Order, 1952, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 7th April.
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Tanganyika) Order, 1952, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 7th April.
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Uganda) Order, 1952, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 7th April.
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Zanzibar) Order, 1952, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 7th April.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]
    To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  HOSPITAL FOR TROPICAL DISEASES
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Butcher.]
  10.3 p.m.
  Colonel J. H. Harrison: I am very glad at this comparatively early hour to have the opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to the facilities offered to the general public of this country by our Hospital for Tropical Diseases. Unfortunately, this hospital is practically unknown and is liable to be forgotten by many of our general practitioners in country villages. It is all the more important to draw attention to it at the present time as it is just a year ago that the hospital moved into its present building in St. Pancras Way.
  It is typically British that when we have a talent we hide it under a bushel. We are hiding this hospital under red tape and forms of administration. I am certain that the hospital is better known in Baghdad and Cairo than, say, in Norwich or York. The work carried out there ought to be better understood and recognised. This is particularly necessary now, when many people visit tropical countries either by their own design or as part of our military Forces overseas.
  In the counties of Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire, there are, I estimate, 10,000 men who were prisoners in the Far East, and practically all of them were brought into contact with some tropical disease. There are many men who fought all the time in those countries and contracted one of the diseases. It is for these men that I am raising this subject tonight so that they

  167
  may know that the hospital exists and that their doctors may be reminded of its existence also.
  May I recapitulate its history? It was in 1899 that Sir Patrick Manson, known in those days as the father of tropical medicine, with the full support and help of a great Colonial Secretary of State, the late Joseph Chamberlain, established a centre for the study of tropical diseases in the Seamen's Hospital Society in the Albert Docks Road—a very suitable venue because our sailors probably suffered more than anyone else from tropical diseases due to carrying our finished goods overseas and bringing back the raw materials which we needed. In addition, at this hospital there were post-graduate courses to train doctors who were going to the far parts of the world.
  After 1918 the hospital moved to Endsleigh Gardens, with 77 beds. Its progress was followed in many parts of the world. Great strides continued to be made but, unfortunately, at the beginning of the Second World War the building was considered unsuitable, because of threatened enemy action, for use as a hospital. After the war the need was realised, however, and the hospital started again at 23, Devonshire Street; an old nursing home rather cramped for room.
  Then we had the National Health Service Act and the hospital was moved out of the Seamen's Hospital Society Group into the University College Hospital Group with a new building in the grounds of St. Pancras Hospital in St. Pancras Way. I do not think anyone would dispute that it is wise to preserve the independent status of such a specialist hospital as this, having as it now has, 68 beds, an out-patients' clinic, a pathological theatre, laboratories and lecture rooms for post-graduate students.
  I am unable to find the figures of the people who attended this hospital last year. The latest figures I have are for 1950 when, it should be remembered, the hospital was still in Devonshire Street with only 48 beds. But what do we find? This hospital was used by 30 different nationalities as wide a field as Africans, Arabs, Burmese, Chinese, Goanese, Iraqians and Russians—people who follow many and varied professions as their work in parts of the world as far apart as the Andaman Islands, British
  168
  North Borneo, Costa Rica, Liberia, Pakistan and Uganda.
  However, although these people know of its existence and use it, in East Anglia it is practically unknown. I am not concerned so much with those men who suffered the most, who have received pensions and have been to Roehampton Hospital and have been dealt with there in the tropical section. I am concerned with those men who were discharged quickly on their return from the Far East, and with private citizens who come back from there, who are suffering and who today go to work.
  We meet them in every village and when they are asked, "How are you?" they still say that they either have stomach trouble or fever or a general air of lassitude which may be due to latent defects left in them as the result of a tropical disease contracted overseas. I feel that there is failure among the local doctors to deal with these men as they should, and to get them the specialist treatment which their sufferings need.
  I should like briefly to repeat to the House my own experiences, because I think they are exactly what happens to many people. I, like others, contracted one of these diseases. When I came home, I suffered from certain stomach troubles and went to my own local doctors, who was a first-rate general practitioner. He gave me the usual sort of medicines, but after four years I was no better than when I started, and so I had it out with him.
  I said, "Cannot you do anything to make me better?" My doctor replied, "To be quite honest, you are chronic and nothing can be done." I am rather inquisitive and will not always accept everybody's opinion as correct, and as a result, after coming to London and ferreting about a good deal, I discovered the existence of this hospital for the treatment of tropical diseases. I got in touch with the hospital and went, first, as an out-patient. Then, during Budget week, when I thought there might not be as many Divisions in the House, I went for three or four days as a National Health in-patient.
  I cannot speak too highly of the doctors and nurses and the whole administration of that hospital and of the kindnesses that I received at their hands. After they had done all their tricks with

  169
  me, I was fortunate enough to be found to be in the clear. But it has given me much more ease of mind in knowing that I have no traces of illnesses that I had before on the Burma road and in other places, and I feel better for knowing that. Equally, had I had any traces of illness, I had got to the right people to deal with it.
  There must be many others who are still only at the stage of going to their own doctor. I have tried, but not with very much success, to interest the British Medical Association in this side of the work; but I have no doubt that if my hon. Friend could persuade her right hon. Friend to write a letter to the B.M.A., much more attention would be paid to it than to a letter from me.
  Unfortunately, this country has not, perhaps, done as much for those who were prisoners in the Far East as many people would like to have seen done. Here, at practically no expense, is an opportunity for something to be done to improve the health of those people, which is even far more vital for them than to receive a few pounds.
  If it is difficult for these men—and I realise that it is difficult for many of them who are still working—to come up to London, would it not be possible for one of the specialists at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases periodically—once in three or four months, perhaps—to visit such centres in East Anglia as Ipswich, Norwich and Cambridge hospitals, with a certain amount of publicity beforehand to all local doctors and the associations of the B.M.A. in those counties, saying that the specialist was coming and they could send to him to be seen, first as out-patients, any men who thought that they might still have traces of these diseases? Then, if the specialist found that there was cause for further examination, they could perhaps be admitted as in-patients into the hospital in London.
  Not only should we think of those who have come back. What about those who are still in foreign parts? Can we not do something better for those who are now prisoners in Korea, some 900 men who we hope may soon be back amongst us again? Are we going to dismiss them just as abruptly out of the Army as we did the others in 1945 and 1946? If they have been in those prison camps in North Korea or China, cannot we see that for
  170
  a matter of three or four days they are properly tested to see whether they are suffering from such a disease and, if so, can be cured in this hospital?
  In addition, there are our men fighting in Malaya and Korea. Cannot we see that anyone who contracts one of these unpleasant diseases is checked up by this hospital, which has the reputation throughout the world, as shown by the number of foreigners who come to it, of being the best in the world.
  That is what I want to bring to the attention of my hon. Friend. If we do not do something for these men, then, as far as I can see, they may well be pensioners on our hands by the time they reach 50. If nothing more comes of this debate than that we are able to get some of these men into the hospital and cured; if we extend their period and expectancy of life and even, perhaps, save three or four of them from an early grave, then this debate will have been well worth while.
  10.16 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Colonel J. H. Harrison) for the motive which has prompted him to initiate this important debate, because I know that he speaks with great sincerity on this subject and from personal experience of the same disability as that from which he seeks to save others.
  I know that my hon. and gallant Friend is particularly concerned with those who, in the 18th Division, suffered great privations and hardships at the hands of the Japanese during the war. May I assure him that my Ministry are as anxious as he is that any of these men—or indeed, women, who may have served in the Far East or other places—and have succumbed to some form of tropical disease, and who may have residual symptoms of the disease, should have proper treatment. I can assure him that anything we can do to bring the facilities of the Hospital for Tropical Diseases to their attention, we are only too ready to do.
  As far as war pensioners are concerned, I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that he, too, is only too anxious and ready to see that the facilities which his Ministry have, and

  171
  which are always open to war pensioners suffering similarly, are brought to their attention.
  As far as our investigations have been able to discover, we have no evidence of an unusual prevalence of tropical diseases among people in this country. If my hon. and gallant Friend has evidence of cases where there is a possibility of residual tropical infection—and I know that it is his fear that people are being overlooked and are receiving general practitioner treatment when possibly they are cases for the hospital—then I can assure him that this debate will do only good in bringing the facilities to the notice of the public.
  We have taken special measures in connection with malaria. The Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health, shortly after the war, circulated all doctors, asking them to make a special point of dealing with any symptoms and any possibility of unrecognised relapses in the case of patients who might be liable to malaria. At the same time, anybody can be referred to a hospital by a local general practitioner who feels that possibly there may be some residual symptoms of tropical disease. That practitioner can refer the patient for preliminary examination as a patient to the local general hospital and, if the hospital are not satisfied and feel that there are symptoms or some form of disease which need some skilled investigation, then they, in turn, can refer that patient for full treatment or further investigation, in the case of the South of England to the Hospital for Tropical Diseases.
  We recognise the special value of this hospital and we are extremely proud of its world-wide reputation. I endorse what my hon. and gallant Friend has said about the many nationalities using it and about the vast number from our own territories overseas who come to be treated in this hospital. It was always intended that it should be a consultative centre for specialised types of treatment in tropical diseases. We welcome the calling of attention to its work by my hon. and gallant Friend tonight.
  Notices have also been sent to the hospital medical staffs and the senior administrative medical officers of all the regional boards drawing their attention
  172
  to the work of the hospital; and, indeed, they are well aware of its facilities and can refer to it patients from any of their local general hospitals.
  I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there is no difficulty about a general practitioner sending a patient direct to this hospital. In fact, half the cases directly referred to the out-patients' department and admitted, if necessary, for treatment, have come direct on a letter from their general practitioner so far as London and the southern part of England is concerned. I am pleased to say that in the case of this hospital there is a comparatively short waiting list for inpatient treatment. Anyone who fears he still has residual tropical disease can certainly consult his own doctor, and if his doctor feels that he requires additional investigation the patient can most certainly be referred to the London Hospital for Tropical Diseases.
  My hon. and gallant Friend made the suggestion, in view of what he quite sincerely believes to be the greater prevalence of the disease in the areas from which members of the 18th Division were drawn, that we might possibly send to the general hospitals there consulting specialists who could deal with suspected cases of this nature. It is not quite as easy as that to send out specialists on tour, but I will certainly refer to the regional hospital board concerned and see if they have any evidence of a particular need in those areas where my hon. and gallant Friend feels there may be more cases than possibly in the rest of the country.
  As my hon. and gallant Friend rightly says, the new Hospital for Tropical Diseases was opened last year, and although he referred to the old one as having been taken over, it is fair to say that the one in the old Seamen's Hospital was destroyed by enemy action and that for a time the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine had no beds available in its own particular centre. The temporary premises in Devonshire Street, where my hon. and gallant Friend stayed, were inadequate, and it was as a result of the recommendation of the Colonial Office and the Minister of Health of the day that it was proposed that the new Hospital for Tropical Diseases should be a unit of one of the great teaching hospitals.

  173
  It was, as a result of that decision, brought into operation subsequently under the National Health Scheme, and with the approval of both the Colonial Office and the Ministry of Health. The new wing, which at the moment is not so large a wing as we hope ultimately to see—the new Hospital for Tropical Diseases—became a block of the University College Hospital.
  As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, there are 68 beds there. There is room for expansion, there is an excellent out-patients' department and very ample and adequate laboratory facilities. We recognise to the full the good work of this hospital, and I know that my hon. and gallant Friend is very anxious indeed that anyone in this country who may have some recurrence or who may still
  174
  have some trace of a tropical disease shall have the full benefit of these facilities.
  My hon. and gallant Friend has done a good service this evening in choosing this subject for debate. I know he has done so with great sincerity and as a result of his own experience. If it enables a few more people to be found who would not otherwise have availed themselves of these facilities, I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will be amply repaid. Any help which we can give either in aiding cases or making known the facilities we shall be only too happy to provide.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes past Ten o'clock.