HC Deb 12 June 1952 vol 502 cc590-622
Mr. Speaker

The next Amendment is that in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) in page 15, line 36.

Mr. Hale

I understood that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Enoch Powell) was being called, Sir.

Mr. Speaker

I did not select that.

Mr. Hale

I am much obliged. I must apologise. I was under a misapprehen- sion. I therefore beg to move, in page 15, line 36, to leave from "draft" to "if," in line 37.

This was the Clause put down on recommittal stage in respect of which, Mr. Speaker, you said you would accept a manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Speaker

This is the Amendment in respect of which I gave a promise that I would call on Report stage.

Mr. Hale

That is what I was saying Mr. Speaker. You said you would accept a manuscript Amendment on Tuesday, but we have been able to avoid that by putting it down in due form. The words I wish to leave out are or with such modifications only as appear to the Minister to be immaterial. This, again is almost the same point I raised in connection with Clause 9, when, quite frankly, I was disappointed by the answer the Minister gave to that discussion. These words have the same sort of connotation as those I sought to delete earlier. Once again the Parliamentary draftsman, for reasons which are perhaps clear to him but which are obscure to me, has inserted this curious limitation. The Clause deals with the power of the Minister to make orders by Statutory Instruments. It reads: Where the Minister is of opinion that such an order as is mentioned in subsection (4) of section 13 of this Act or in section (2) of section fifteen thereof that is, the Section which gives power to make Orders under Section 6 of the Public Health Act, 1936 he shall give notice that he is of that opinion to all authorities appearing to him to be concerned, setting out a provisional draft of an order and stating a period, not less than twenty-eight days, within which objections may be made, and the said subsection (4) or the said subsection (2), as the case may be, shall not apply to an order made in the terms of the provisional draft, or with such modifications only as appear to the Minister to be immaterial, if either no objection is made by any such authority within the time stated in the noice or all objections so made are withdrawn. In that there are the curious words: or with such modifications only as appear to the Minister to be immaterial. We have agreed that the Minister should have wide discretion in his powers, but here it appears he is to be judge in his own court. He is given wide powers to avoid the one provision absolutely vital in this matter—that Parliament should continue to exercise control. How can one challenge the exercise of that power? If modifications are immaterial they are not worth making. If they are material they would not be in the Bill. The House is being asked to give him something not normally given.

I realise that some hon. Member may get up and say that in 1870 a Bill was passed with the same words, in it. I was not a Member then: had I been it would not have been so passed. If the words are omitted it means that the Minister takes one of two courses. Either he agrees with counsel and need not bring the matter before the House, or he does not agree, in which case it does not. That is the intention of the Clause and of the Minister.

I suggest that these words do give a Minister—not necessarily the present Minister—a power which he should not have. Next October, something may happen, and we have to bear in mind that there may be changes. I do not know what party is likely to succeed the present Government, and it would be improper to speculate on who will be the next Minister, but our duty, as watchdogs and as people concerned with democracy and liberty, is to see that no prospective Minister, whoever he may be, is given power which he should not have, and that Parliament preserves inviolable the duty of superintending the activities of Ministers and its right of having submitted to it by Statutory Instrument the details of matters of this sort.

All I suggest is that the Minister should gracefully say that he is prepared to abandon this purely negative thing of doing what he considers to be immaterial, because, if it is immaterial, it is not worth doing, and, if it is not immaterial, it may be vital.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Bing

I beg to second the Amendment.

This is one Amendment which we should have been able to discuss had the matter come up at an earlier stage, and it was our hope to be able to deal with it in Committee. We were wrong about that, but it is a matter on which we are entitled to expect some explanation from the Minister.

Mr. Mitchison

There may have been other wedges like this before, but I regard this as a rather dangerous thin end. Clauses 13 and 15 refer, first, to re-transfers of land and then to matters about sewerage, and, without going into them in detail, it is clear that the Minister and those responsible for promoting this Bill regard them as of considerable importance. Under both these Clauses, the draft order has to be placed before this House and approved, and that, of course, is put in in recognition of the importance of the matters contained in them.

So far as I understand this Clause— and I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong, and the reasons for my error explained to me—it seems to me that, after the draft Order has been placed before this House and approved, it rests with the Minister to decide what alterations he considers immaterial, and, if he does decide that they are immaterial, he is empowered by the terms of this Clause to make these alterations, notwithstanding that the matter was the subject of the approval of this House, and notwithstanding the fact that this House will not be in a position to say whether the alterations made were or were not immaterial.

One assumes that a power of that kind will be exercised carefully and by responsible Ministers, but, none the less, if the Orders in question are to be placed before the House for approval at all, I submit that it is a thoroughly dangerous procedure that they should be subjected to alteration afterwards by the Minister, and at the Minister's discretion and on his judgment of what is and what is not material.

I hope, therefore, that as the point does not seem to have been discussed upstairs the Minister will not think it necessary to include in the Bill the words which it is sought to leave out by this Amendment.

Mr. H. Macmillan

This does not deal at all with those Orders which require and receive the affirmation of the House of Commons and of Parliament. This deals with the case where everything is agreed, where the draft Order is made and either no objections are put up by the local authorities concerned within a specified time or they are withdrawn. This deals with the cases of complete agreement. All these words do is to allow the Minister to make minor corrections to improve the actual form, but not to affect the substance of the matter.

Mr. Mitchison

I am very puzzled by this explanation. Take, for instance Clause 15 and the Orders which are to be made under subsection 2 of that Clause. As I read it, it means: …no order shall be made under section six of the Public Health Act, 1936, by virtue of paragraph (a)of the preceding subsection, no order amending or revoking an order so made shall be made under section nine of that Act, and no order shall be made under paragraph (b)of the preceding subsection, unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. It seems to follow that a draft Order of this sort may have been approved by Parliament and may then be the subject of alteration in respects in which the Minister considers to be immaterial.

Mr. H. Macmillan

I take note of what the hon. and learned Member has said and I will certainly look at it again. But it says, at the end of subsection (2) of Clause 19: …the said subsection (2)"— of Clause 15— shall not apply to an order made in the terms of the provisional draft, or with such modifications only as appear to the Minister to be immaterial, if either no objection is made by any such authority within the time stated in the notice or all objections so made are withdrawn. Therefore, we are dealing with the case of an Order to which either no objections have been made within the time stated or, having been made, are withdrawn. This is simply a case of power to make verbal alterations to improve the substance. It applies only to cases of agreement. But if there is any flaw in this I will look at this again; though I think my reading of it is correct. If it is necessary to introduce a correction in another place I would be most happy to give that undertaking.

Mr. Mitchison

May I ask the Minister to look again at Clause 15. So far as I can see the making of Orders under subsection 1 (a) or 1 (b)of that Clause does not depend on agreement at all.

Mr. Macmillan

The hon. and learned Member should read the words I have quoted from the second half of subsection (2) of Clause 19, which says: This shall not apply to an order made in the terms of the provisional draft, or with such modifications only as appear to the Minister to be immaterial, if either no objection is made by any such authority within the time stated in the notice or all objections so made are withdrawn. The only thing we are discussing is whether the words "provisional draft" shall or shall not include those words; we are now discussing the draft as it stands or with immaterial changes in it.

Mr. Mitchison

Let us assume that no objection is made and that there is the consent of all sides: none the less, the position is that an Order cannot be made under Clause 15 (1, b)except by the Minister and except after a draft has been laid here and approved by resolution here.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and learned Gentleman is now making a second speech.

Mr. Paget

This is, as we have observed on a number of occasions, not an easy Act to follow. The interpretations which the Minister has put on this are, I think, a little difficult to comply with. Section 19 directly brings in subsection 2 of Section 15. It says: Where the Minister is of opinion that such an order as is mentioned in subsection (4) of section thirteen of this Act or in subsection (2) of section fifteen thereof ought to be made, he shall give notice that he is of that opinion to all authorities appearing to him to be concerned, setting out a provisional draft of an order and stating a period, not less than twenty-eight days, within which objections may be made, and the said subsection (4) or the said subsection (2), as the case may be, shall not apply to an order made in the terms of the provisional draft, or with such modifications only as appear to the Minister to be immaterial, if either no objection is made by any such authority within the time stated in the notice or all objections so made are withdrawn. Therefore, the position is that where we have a Clause 15 Order, which would require the consent of Parliament, we need not get the consent of Parliament if people consent to a draft, even if one makes an Order which is very different from the draft. It is making an Order which is different from the draft to which objection is taken in this Amendment. Either the alteration is immaterial—that is to say, it does not have any effect and need not be made—or it is not immaterial, and it does have effect.

The Minister may point out that it is not a question of its not being material; that it is a question of its not appearing material to the Minister. So the virtue of these words which we wish to omit is that they can only be effective in a case where the Minister is wrong, because the Amendment which he makes really does make a difference, but he does not think that it does. Therefore, although it is material, and ex hypothesieffective, it is still legal because he did not think it was material.

Those are the only circumstances in which I can imagine these words being of any value. It seems rather odd for a Minister to take special provision to profit from any occasion on which he may be mistaken. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at these words again, because I do not think I have ever seen them in a statute before. They seem loose and dangerous words to insert, and I feel that we would be rather inclined to divide on this Amendment.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Hale

Once again, at what may be the concluding part of this stage of the Bill, I must say a word about the incomprehensible nature of its drafting. I lean to the view on this occasion that the right hon. Gentleman is right in his interpretation that this provision does apply only to Orders in respect of which there has been an assent by the council or a withdrawal. I accept that, but we are still discussing matters which were thought would fall to be dealt with by Statutory Instrument.

We are dealing with matters which the Act envisaged would need affirmative resolutions of both Houses, but here the Minister is taking the power to modify an assent by saying he does not think it matters much. We may be discussing later the Fats, Cheese and Tea (Rationing) Order. I can understand the Minister saying that one ounce of cheese does not matter much. But one cannot base these things on quantitative arguments. The widow's mite is important to the widow, however little it means to the millionaire, and it is a serious matter to say that the Minister shall be complete judge in his own case, responsible to no one, and with no appellate body exercising any supervision over him so that he can alter something and say that it is immaterial.

The proposition damns itself. If it is immaterial he could get agreement with the council straight away by return of post. Why should he not? Why should he demand from the House this right to alter a thing without further consulta- tion, if it has been agreed? If it is immaterial it is not worth making. If it is worth making it must be material and it should be a matter on which he should consult the councils concerned. I think it would be a serious matter if the Clause went forward in this way.

The Clause itself is a monumental example of how not to say a thing. Words seem to have been inserted purely to prolong it and make it incomprehensible. I do not want to use any discourteous words to the Minister tonight. He has been most courteous and accommodating, and I am glad we have made such rapid progress with the Bill. We have done much better tonight than I had hoped. [Interruption.]The right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. Hale

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but there was an intervention imputing something and I wanted to know what was being imputed. I have paid tribute to the accommodating replies we have been receiving in the last hour or two and I was trying to make a recognition of that in my remarks. I am sorry I cannot apply it to this Clause. I think it is discourteous to the House for the Minister not to give a single example of what he has in mind in asking the House to give him this special power. The House has not had a word said to it as to the sort of thing which the Minister might think immaterial which might not have been the subject of full consultation with the councils. He ought to tell us.

Personally, the decision as to whether we force a Division on this matter I shall leave to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench. So far as I am concerned, I am profoundly dissatisfied with the answer which has been given to this Amendment.

Mr. Walker-Smith

There is a point here, though perhaps one would not have thought so from the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), and it is of some importance from a constitutional point of view. It is, at any rate, theoretically possible under this Clause that, where there has been a provisional draft to which no objection has been taken by a local authority, a Minister might then use the powers of this Clause to make a modification which, if it had been incorporated in the original draft, would have induced an objection; and, therefore, the right to a resolution of this House which would be lost.

That is the sole point. It is unlikely to occur in practice but it is theoretically possible, and, therefore, the words are not very happy. It would, in my submission, be a convenient thing if, before the Bill comes up in another place, the Minister would see what pedigree, if any, there is for this form of words, and if so, whether it be a respectable pedigree.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon (Middlesbrough, West)

I should like to reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). It seems to me that this Clause is plain in its meaning. It only applies where there is no objection or all objections are withdrawn. In all other cases the Order must be laid before Parliament. But it seems to me to be dangerous to leave it to the Minister to decide whether or not the change he then makes is immaterial or material.

I think the word "immaterial" is quite clear. It means that it is such an alteration as would not weigh with a local authority in deciding whether or not to object. Nevertheless, I cannot see any reason why that should be left to the decision of the Minister alone, who may well be mistaken in his interpretation. I suggest that my right hon. Friend might reconsider the matter in another place.

Amendment negatived.

1.55 a.m.

Mr. H. Macmillan

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I think at this stage the House will not expect me to do more than be very brief on the Third Reading of this Bill, which is of considerable importance and one in respect of which I hope much valuable work may be done. It has been described as a non-controversial Bill. I have had the pleasure of conducting it both upstairs and downstairs, and I can only say that I hope that any of the controversial Bills which I may have to conduct will not take up any more time or be any more difficult.

As I said before, I would like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed in dealing with the many important points of the Bill. There are still one or two to be looked at, and we will do our best with them.

1.56 a.m.

Mr. Lindgren

We on this side of the House welcome the Third Reading of this Bill and congratulate the Minister on having got it to this stage. I am afraid that the Report stage has been rather what one might term, in the disrespectful language of the layman, the lawyers' delight. I always thought I knew something about the practice and perhaps even the theory of town and country planning, but much of the discussion this evening has been much above my head.

So that the Minister may be excused from too much blame, I must admit that by far the greater portion of the draft of the Bill which he presented was already in the Department before my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) and myself left it.

There are only two points I wish to raise. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in the Committee stage there was a short discussion on Clause 20, which is a sort of declaratory Clause which deals with the planning permission, the deemed planning permission, and, of course, with the normal planning permission. It says, in fact, that the procedure of the 1947 Act shall be applied. Personally, I agree that the deemed Planning Commission is fundamental, and I further agree that one must rely on the Minister sensibly to administer the Acts of Parliament for which he is responsible.

From personal experience, I have reason to be grateful for the advice given me in the right hon. Gentleman's Department and to know about the excellence of the staff responsible particularly for this side of planning. Therefore, I am satisfied, as I think is everyone else associated with planning, that the Bill when it becomes an Act will be properly administered. One must assume that in any case the Minister will act sensibly, though there are some who would be delighted if he did not so that they could deal with him on the Floor of the House of Commons.

The Minister will remember, as I mentioned earlier, that we had this dis- cussion in Committee upstairs, and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman's reply which he gave on the Committee stage on 2nd April, column 293 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, was sufficient to give local authorities the assurance that there would not be the granting of a deemed planning permission in circumstances which would deprive local authorities of a right to state their objections to a fundamental interference in their affairs.

But representations have been made to me by the Urban District Councils' Association, and I believe that they have also been made through the official channels to the Minister's own Department. They would prefer that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary when he comes to reply should give an assurance that where there is an objection by the receiving authority during the planning stage there will be a public inquiry so that all voices may be heard.

The only other point I would raise is the one about which we did engender a little heat during the Committee stage. So far as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland is concerned, when he was thinking of this Bill and its application in the country, the limitation of financial resources was only that of the ability of the local authorities in the areas to provide houses and the necessary work. But, from time to time, we rather gathered that the Minister had the impression—or that he was trying to give us the impression—that the Treasury had put a limiting figure on what was to be available each year. There is a limit, and it is the limit of the physical resources to provide the houses and shops in the areas developed.

It would be well if the local authorities —some of whom had exaggerated hopes of this Bill, and who still have considerable hopes—could be told that there is really no restriction on the financial resources available, provided the necessary works can be carried out by the local authorities within the national investment programme of whatever Government is in power.

From my own point of view, I committed the Department, when my right hon. Friend was Minister of Local Government and Planning, at one or two local government conferences. I said it at the Urban Councils' Association Con- ference, so there is, from the point of view of the Department, some indication already given to local authorities as to what is likely to be the trend of administration when this Bill reaches the Statute Book.

I do not think that there is any intention to depart from what was then the policy, but it would be useful if we could clear the air. Having said that, it remains only for me to congratulate the Minister in having brought this Bill to its Third Reading, and I join with him in hoping that it will be effective in building up the smaller towns, and the urban and rural areas who are to cooperate in taking the excess populations from our overcrowded areas to places of which we shall be proud and which will make good areas to live in.

2.4 a.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I welcome this Bill in so far as it seeks to provide a stimulus to our housing on the basis of agreement, and in so far as it will assist in providing houses in the right places. Therefore, my few observations, at this hour of the morning, are confined to that part of the Bill which is concerned with compulsory powers, namely, Clause 9.

I appreciate that the Minister says that this is a Clause which he does not apprehend will be used extensively; but, once powers are on the Statute Book, it is generally asking too much of human nature, and almost also too much of official nature, to expect that the powers will not be used rather more generally than was hoped at the time when the assent of Parliament for them was being sought. If my memory serves me rightly, on Second Reading, stress was laid on the point that there were certain planning safeguards in this matter; but, in substance, that is not true. I think the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) addressed himself, in the earlier part of the speech he has just made, to this same point.

Clause 20 says: Nothing in this Act…shall be taken to authorise the carrying out of development not authorised by planning permission granted… Then there follow the apposite words: …or deemed to have been granted under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. If I understand it aright, the great majority of this development will have deemed planning permission direct from the Minister in his capacity of Minister of Housing under Clause 35 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.

That means that a reluctant or a compelled receiving authority under Clause 9 of the Bill will not have any planning safeguards because they will have had no planning jurisdiction as the local planning authority of the receiving district. That causes me a good deal of apprehension. I would support what I understood the hon. Member for Wellingborough to say, that there should be a public local inquiry.

There is no provision for that in the Bill as it stands, and the inquiry can only be held under the general powers of the Minister. I am not very happy with this situation, especially as it will be possible, in any event, for there to be a good deal more compulsory acquisition of land in any local planning authority's area than is contemplated by the provisions of the development plan.

In these circumstances, I think it right to put on record what I consider to be the principles that must be specified before an Order is made under Clause 9 of this Bill. They are: first, that the land set aside to be taken is land zoned for residential development under the relevant development plan. In regard to that principle consideration should be had for the satisfaction of the needs of the people in the locality before land is taken compulsorily for an exporting authority.

The next principle, in my view, is that the proposed development should not create a mere dormitory estate, contrary to the accepted principles of town and country planning and place undue burden on the available transport services. The last principle is that they should not normally be sited in the vicinity of new towns because the competition for labour and materials would be thereby aggravated. In any event things are difficult for industry and agriculture in the neighbourhood of these new towns even without this aggravating influence.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have these considerations in mind. I welcome the fact that in the Committee stage Parliamentary control has been given to the making of compulsory Orders in the form of an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that, if there must be compulsory Orders, these principles will be followed, and I join with my right hon. Friend in expressing the hope that they will not be normally used. I also join with him and the hon. Member for Wellingborough in hoping that those provisions of the Bill which operate on a basis of agreement will bring results to the benefit of the community as a whole.

2.10 a.m.

Mr. Donnelly

I shall not join issue with the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) on the few points on which I disagree with him about the limit of the powers of Clause 9, but instead, at this late hour, as we part in harmony, I shall agree with him on some of the conditions which are laid down as to which he thought the powers should be exercised. We are all agreed with him on the vital necessity of seeing that dormitory estates should not grow up again and that there should not be any more Becontrees and that kind of thing.

It seems to me that there are considerations other than those of greater industrial efficiency which arise from industry and good living conditions being near to each other, and the lines of communication between productive industry and the distributive sources of goods and the actual marketing facilities that are provided at the end of such a distribution line. That can all be brought about by good and effective town planning, and we all agree on that. I do not want to go into the virtues of more healthy living conditions which accrue from people living in open places where they have gardens, where families can be brought up with greater opportunities for fresh air, sunlight, exercise, and so on.

I should like to say a word or two about one point which has not been discussed in the course of our deliberations and which seems to me to be very relevant at this moment. That is the urgent need for decentralisation because of defence considerations. This country has embarked upon a great rearmament programme. The international situation, by no stretch of imagination could be described as placid, and we are in a very vulnerable position in this crowded, small island at the junction between East and West.

It is very important that the right hon. Gentleman's Department should consider the urgent need for decentralisation for purposes of defence, because if we are going to have industry crowded out into the conurbations and into the metropolises it makes our defensive capacity during a war extremely limited, and it means that much of the other defensive preparations that we have been making are nullified because of this lack of decentralisation.

I have in my hand a copy of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of the United States of America, and they have appreciated this point quite clearly. They have devoted a whole issue to this urgent need for urban dispersal. It seems to me that this Bill is one vehicle by which this urban dispersal can be undertaken rapidly without the more comprehensive machinery of new town development and with all the attendant ramifications and difficulties which follow.

There are one or two things in this Bulletin which strike me as being relevant illustrations of the kind of thing I have in mind. They give an example of the German ball-bearing production factory in Schweinfurt during the Second World War. These anti-friction bearings were an essential part of their aircraft production, and their production was concentrated in one town. It was thought that it was too remote and that it would not be possible to bomb it effectively because fighter protection for the bombers was not possible. In 1943 bombing raids started, and the whole of the industrial capacity——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)

The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to what is in the Bill. He is going beyond it.

Mr. Donnelly

I wish to secure the implementation of this Bill for this particular purpose, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

The whole of the productive capacity of this vitally essential war-making material was destroyed in one air raid in August, 1943. As a result, the whole of the war productive capacity of Germany was prejudiced. Using that as an illustration, I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman's Department that now that we have got to the atomic age, when the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs are quite small toys considered in terms of present day destruction, it is vitally important that his Department should give the same consideration to the way in which this Bill can be used for decentralising the big cities in order to safeguard the people of this country and its industrial production from any future attack. I will not pursue that point any more now except to say that having made it I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will take cognisance of it and see to it that his Department bears it in mind.

There are three points which we really ought to consider when dealing with the Third Reading of this Bill. First of all, it has been said time and time again during the Report stage and upstairs in Committee that its provisions are dependent on how much money the right hon. Gentleman is able to extract from the Treasury. We wish him well in every sense. In saying that I would add that it may not just be purely a monetary-balancing kind of transaction which should be the final criterion whether money should be granted to the Ministry to assist in the implementation of the Bill.

It may well be that a large-scale investment programme may have to be undertaken for the extension of the London suburban transport which would not show itself in the Treasury account but which may be a drain on the national economy. The first danger, and one on which every hon. Member on all sides of the House must give support to the Minister, is to see that the Treasury does not restrict the Minister, or his Department, in extending the decentralisation programme on a large scale because of immediate financial gain or loss.

Secondly, it seems to me, there is something of a danger arising from the fact that there has been a lot of talk about a few country towns being extended when a Bill such as this came along—towns like Basingstoke, Ashford, St. Albans, and so on. This kind of story was whispered in the corridors of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) was there, and even before, when the noble lord, Lord Silkin, was there. These stories percolated through the doors of the Ministry to the outer world.

The Minister should consider the great importance of the minimum of secrecy about proposed development. While there is secrecy the fellow who gets the first news is able to cash in, or there is some misunderstanding or difficulty or there is some speculation by property owners or others. I think that in all proposed town planning development there should be the maximum of publicity and information available and the absolute minimum of confidential talk about particular proposals. Everyone is affected by them and should have an idea of what is going on, and if they have not then they ought to have it, and I am sure that the Minister will agree with me about that.

Thirdly, and in conclusion, I think there is a real danger, and it was expressed on the benches opposite during the discussion on Second Reading—I think it was by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Legh) in a maiden speech, though I profoundly disagreed with his argument, and other hon. Gentlemen—in the fears of many agriculturists about taking good agricultural land. Of course, we are all anxious to preserve every acre of agricultural land, but it is vitally important that there have to be priorities and a sense of balance and proportion.

When we are considering taking people away from big cities and overcrowded living conditions, and taking them away from their works and factories, to country towns, it is very important that we should not place them in tenements which will become the slums of the future. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take a very careful note of the density standards proposed in any town development that is to take place, because that is the ultimate yardstick by which planning must be judged.

Very frequently, people who advocate a density of 100 or 200 houses to the acre are people who have large houses in the country or live on farms, who occasionally come to London, or, it may be, who work in London for a few days a week, but are always able to go back to the green fields, the open air and the broad pastures. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is important that the people who have to live and work in the same place should have some open spaces and some opportunities for gardens in which their children can grow up to lead healthy lives. One should strike a balance in this matter, and see that decentralisation, where it does take place, is for permanent benefit, and not for a temporary improvement in living conditions while the buildings themselves are still new and spick and span.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on getting his Bill to this stage, and I wish him great success in its administration. He has earned the gratitude of a great many people who have taken an interest in this matter for helping to pilot the Bill to this stage, and I would add to that what is far more important—the gratitude of all those people who will benefit when this Bill becomes a reality, and when towns and cities begin to be changed as a result of what we are now discussing, which is the bare bones of a framework which may, in years to come, be a living reality, offering better opportunities for life in healthy conditions for all our people.

2.22 a.m.

Mr. Paget

Before leaving this Bill, I wish to enter my final protest against the draftsmanship to which we have to submit. It is not only the layman who, in recent years, has been protesting about the progressively incomprehensible draftsmanship adopted in modern legislation. Judges have time and again protested at the unnecessary prolixity and fogginess of language which has been used in Statutes.

From a drafting point of view, this Bill is the worst I have ever seen. For instance, let us look at Clause 1 (1), where there are 11 lines of highly complicated matter. What does it all mean other than that, under this Act, town development means development in which building and ancillary work takes place in one district to relieve the congestion and overcrowding in another district? That is a perfectly simple statement of the same thing in one-third of the words, and if either the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) or the hon. and learned Gentleman behind him can find that that shortened version does not say exactly the same thing as the longer version, I shall be obliged if they will say so.

To take Clause 2, why not say simply that a receiving district means any district in which building and ancillary work takes place? That says exactly the same in about one-tenth of the words used in the Clause. Then we come to subsection (2). Having taken the trouble to define town development in Clause (1), why not start straight away by saying, "This applies to town development to be carried out—"and so on? Is that town development or is it not? We have defined town development just before. Does town development there mean something else, and, if so, what is it? If it means town development as we have already defined it, why not use the words with which we have already provided ourselves?

Then we come to the phrase carried out after the passing of this Act and in subsection 4 (a)an important paragraph which describes it as after July, 1951. When we go on to subsection 1 (a) we learn that it refers to town development within the meaning of this Act on a substantial scale. Para, (b)says that the provision of the accommodation will relieve congestion or over-population in (i)…(ii)…and (iii)… and I think we have added, by an Amendment, something to (iii).

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what (i), (ii) and (iii) exclude. If (i), (ii) and (iii) are comprehensive of all congestion and overpopulation, why insert (i), (ii) and (iii); and if they are not comprehensive of all congestion and over-population, will he tell us what is excluded, and why? I hear the right hon. Gentleman say that all this has been asked before: these questions have been asked, but they have never been answered.

Then we come to subsection (2) with paragraphs (a), (b,) (c), (d)and (e). These describe the kinds of expenses incurred by the receiving districts towards which the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury make a contribution. These expenses are incurred by them in relation to development of which this section applies. Are these inclusive of all the expenses and, if so, why should they be there at all? Or does he wish not to contribute to some expenses? If so, what are they and why are they excluded?

Then we come to subsection (3). What is the point of it at all? If we omit it, we authorise the Minister to make pay- ments and—the greater excluding the less —it authorises him to make payments in any form he chooses. What is the point of that special definition?

Then there is Clause 6 of the Bill, dealing with the power compulsorily to acquire land not zoned for compulsory acquisition. What land does the right hon. Gentleman not want to have power to acquire under this? It seems to me that the effect of Clause 6 is to give you authority over land for this purpose. If so, why not say so?

We have already seen the complexities of Clause 19 and we have had arguments with a whole series of people taking different views with regard to every Clause we have looked at. I hope that in future a real effort will be made to get Parliamentary draftsmanship into some intelligible form, and that at some point this drift from unintelligibility to greater unintelligibility will be stopped.

Mr. Hale

While my hon. and learned Friend has been speaking I have turned up the Minister's answer. He said: All I can say is that this Bill was drafted in the way it is because I was advised by those whose advice I must take that it is the proper way to draft it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 109.]

Mr. Paget

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that at some point we will be told, with regard to subsection 2 (1, b) whether (1) is excluded, and if so, why it is excluded; and, with regard to subsection 2 (2), what expenditure is excluded and why; and, if the answer to both points is as I suspect, why it is necessary to fill a couple of pages of the statute for this purpose.

2.31 a.m.

Mr. Mikardo

Earlier, in considering the same Amendment, I made some observations upon the language of one or two of these Clauses. When the Parliamentary Secretary is considering what reply he will make to the direct question put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and how he will justify the language of this Bill, I beg him to meet the charge in full.

The hon. and learned Member for Northampton objected to the prolixity of the language. In my examination of this Bill I sought for other errors in its style, and I found that in various Clauses the Bill suffers not merely from prolixity, but from verbosity, redundancy and tautology. I shall be delighted if the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us why we have to suffer these badly drafted Bills, because what is unintelligible must be the result of bad drafting.

2.32 a.m.

Mr. Bing

What has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) has underlined the importance of the work which some hon. Members on this side of the House are trying to do. If this Bill is badly drafted, some of us on this side must take some of the responsibility for that. It shows that we have not been active enough in putting down Amendments; that we have not made sufficient attempts to deal with, and re-draft, the Bill on a large scale.

If there is any lesson in what has happened today it is that we should attempt to redraft future Bills completely and secure full Parliamentary discussion of the wording of Measures of this sort. Such a suggestion might persuade Ministers to look at the content and form of the words in which Bills are expressed.

Like everyone else, I welcome the Bill. I think it is a valuable Measure, but in welcoming it we would be doing a grave disservice to our constituents if we were to exaggerate its importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) suggested that it would be some solution for the war, and that it would provide us with a first-class defence. With the greatest respect, I do not think that this Bill will really achieve that.

There are about 16 large centres of population in this country. They form one of the reasons why we are particularly vulnerable in any war, and another reason why we should be foremost in seeking opportunities to avoid war. But, looking at the matter on grounds of national defence, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman, much as he might wish to use the Bill for this purpose, has the finance, materials or anything else to effect these great transformations which are envisaged in the defenec plans of the hon. Member for Pembroke.

The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) also expressed the hope that the towns created would not be mere dormitory towns. I hope so, too. I hope that there will be factories and opportunities for recreation, and it is because these things do not exist in dormitory areas that people have to travel outside. But how, under a Bill of this sort, can these things exist when the right hon. Gentleman has to administer a policy which prevents that sort of building? It is ridiculous to say we are introducing a Measure which is going to cure the dormitory areas, and yet, at the same time, put a ban on all those sort of things which make all the difference between dormitory and non-dormitory towns.

We must, therefore, look at the Bill in the general framework of the situation as it exists at the moment, and it is no use building factories in the air because that, under the regime of the right hon. Gentleman, is all that factories can be built with at the moment. If we attempt to use any other material there is some ban of his Ministry.

I am particularly interested in the Bill, because I represent what I suppose is possibly a typical receiving area. Horn-church is an area which received people from all over the world in the inter-war years. They were brought there by private enterprise, and in a completely unplanned way. Anyone wanting to see the evils of approaching a building project on an unplanned basis has only to visit my constituency, with its very many unmade roads, large areas without public halls—and there is no public hall in the whole area that holds more than 200 people—and no provision of any sort for cinemas or anything else.

This unplanned type of development was a typical example of the approach to the problem of town planning adopted by private enterprise in the inter-war years, and that the Minister should have abandoned the whole conception of the private enterprise type of satelite town is, I feel, an excellent beginning upon which we can congratulate him. Therefore, I think there is every argument in favour of all of us doing what we can to popularise the ideas contained in this Bill, and taking the utmost action to show authorities that they both gain if they make use of this machinery.

I myself—and I hope I speak for everybody in Hornchurch—would welcome the opportunity of enriching our own com- munity by bringing in people from other areas. I think the community gains by the very diversity of the people who are in it, and I hope that in that spirit this Measure will be operated.

But this Measure will be quite useless unless it is accompanied by a policy from the Treasury which will make sense of it. When we are discussing the Financial Resolution it was odd how little information was available about what the Treasury would do to implement the Bill; and unless the Treasury are prepared to come in it will not really be very helpful when local authorities are now being asked to borrow the money they require to carry out these schemes at such greatly enhanced rates. We simply cannot pursue the policy suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in this Bill and, at the same time, pursue the kind of financial policy which is being pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

For those reasons I think it only proper that we on this side of the House ought to warn everyone against having too exaggerated hopes as to what will happen in the immediate future as a result of this Bill. I do think, though, that when a change of Government occurs we shall have, thanks to the hard work put in by the Minister, a reasonably satisfactory Measure on the Statute Book of which it will be possible for a progressive administration to make use to give people really decent and proper living conditions. Nothing more important than that could be done by this House.

2.42 a.m.

Mr. Benn

Like everybody else I welcome the Bill, but perhaps I may pick out three queries which have arisen at various stages and touch on them briefly before we give the Bill its Third Reading.

The first one has been referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). It is the question of getting industry into the towns that are being developed. I believe that will be a far more difficult job than the Minister seemed to suggest in the speeches he has made in the course of this Bill. The economic reasons which have led industry to go to the places where they have ground will not operate towards helping the new towns to develop their own industry, and it will largely have to be an artificial process.

The Minister and this Government have drastic powers given by previous Governments which they could easily use if they wanted to do so. They have powers of the control of steel and raw materials. Even the powers of the Capital Issues Committee, powers which would compel industries to move to a new town. But no Government would like to use those powers for those purposes, certainly not the present Government. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will interpret his power to make conditions as sympathetically and understandingly as he suggested he would in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) earlier in the debate. I think it will be necessary to bring home to the local authorities by means of his conditions that they are expected to make it attractive for industries to move to the new towns.

My second point is the question of the duration of the Bill. At one point during the Committee stage it seemed that the Government were not particularly keen on this Bill lasting indefinitely. But we on this side of the House want to see this as a permanent piece of planning mechanism. A great deal has been made by various speakers about the amount of money that will be available. My hon. and learned Friend has just touched on it and other hon. Members have spoken about it.

In the present circumstances we cannot expect a great deal of money to be made available. It is only fair to say that from this side of the House. We cannot expect as much as we would like to see made available, but if this is to be a permanent mechanism that does not matter as much as it otherwise might. If this Bill is to be used continuously over the years ahead and is to be taken seriously by this Government for as long as it lasts, which will not be very long, even a slow start will not be so bad as having a short Measure.

This Bill gives the Minister immense power. Although he commented unfavourably in moving the Third Reading on the way it has been treated by this side of the House, I think he has done less than justice to what we have been trying to do. We have tried to encourage the Minister by means of the Amendments we have put down to take a personal interest in stimulating the pro- cess of getting the local authorities to work well together and in keeping an eye on them when they might be in dispute, and in intervening early to prevent disputes becoming serious.

Everyone has stressed the fact that it depends on good will, and I think that good will would be preserved by the Minister taking an interest in every stage of the developments of the local authorities. When we give this Bill its Third Reading we also want to remember that it is upon the Minister himself and the way in which he implements its provisions that its power for good or ill so largely depends. I hope that just as this Bill has been well received, the Minister will feel able to use it fully for the purpose for which it is intended.

2.47 a.m.

Mr. Hale

We have made very rapid progress with the Third Reading of this Bill, and that the right hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that fact. No one has spoken for more than a few minutes. I am sure that no one on either side of the House would feel that the few extra minutes spent on the Report stage and on Third Reading have not been usefully spent. The Bill has not been delayed. It could only have been hoped to finish it before midnight when it would have had an earlier date, but it will go to another place next week with the good will of both sides.

I think that the most stimulating suggestion came from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) who frequently makes most stimulating suggestions. It was that we should devote some of our time to really trying to produce Bills which were reasonably intelligible to ordinary people and which stood a chance of being understood by them. I hope that we shall do that.

I am rather happily placed in this matter because during the 18 months when we had a majority of four, and the House was sitting night after night, it was impossible for me to take part in my professional work and I had to leave it. I am now free to help Ministers in any way I can, and, having no professional income, I cannot afford to spend much on holidays and so can devote myself very fully to the sort of constructive work which will help them.

Those of us who spent our lives in the courts when we were active professionally know precisely how deep is this problem. It is fantastic that in case after case counsel say it might mean this or that and it rather depends on which judge we get. In the end the only thing to do is to spend a lot of money and take a 50–50 chance of the judge saying one thing or another.

If we can have statutes which are clear and easily interpreted, then I think we shall be doing a considerable service to the people at large and particularly to the commercial community who depend so much on the interpretation of the statutes. The point has been made—and really the Minister has not helped us very much here—that the Bill is purely permissive and that when it is passed nothing will happen. No brick has been made and no house has been built, and unless the Minister is prepared to take the country into his confidence and say what he is prepared to do we have not a clue as to what value we can put on this particular effort while the present Government remain in power.

It was suggested in some quarters, although perhaps not with authority nor accuracy, that H.M. Government was contemplating a substantial reduction in the size of houses to be erected. I hope that the Minister is not going on with that. In Oldham, the roofs have already come down a foot, from 8ft. 6 ins. to 7 ft. 6 ins. That is a substantial diminution, and houses are in this Bill, although not in the country. I will not pursue that point, but I would like to hear an assurance from the Minister.

What sort of town development is envisaged? It must be substantial development, on lines which are adequate, with proper accommodation, and on lines which adequately provide the necessary ancillary and public services needed. I have expressed very grave doubts about industrial development, and about how far the wording of the Bill allows it to go on. We have the assurance of the Minister that it is so, and he has told us that he would not rule out industrial development as part of the scheme. But, I do hope that, at once, after this Bill has passed through another place, and has received Her Majesty's assent, he will see that there is a public and clear statement of intentions.

I hope that there will be a very clear pamphlet telling councils just what they can do. All the councils concerned should be given the fullest information, what amount of money can be allocated, and information about the type of schemes which are to be encouraged. I have said, and will repeat, that one of the really important matters is the expansion of the type referred to earlier at Worsley, where Salford and Manchester are concerned in a joint scheme.

It is an excellent scheme, and nothing would be better for industrial Lancashire than that two or three adjacent towns should pull together to develop a new and virgin area, where there could be adequate public services, and industrial premises, and towns developed on the really good basis we have always sought. Not little towns, from which people are thrown on to buses every morning, and travelling back 15 miles at night; but places where everything is comprehended in a single plan, amounting to what is virtually a new town, erected by adjoining boroughs, all of which, in Lancashire, are suffering from overspill.

Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)

May I interrupt my hon. Friend to say that everybody seems very enthusiastic about pushing out into virgin areas. Will he tell me, from what seems to be his very comprehensive knowledge of this Bill, and of the protection provided by it, what is to happen to rural areas and farmers and others when local authorities want to come out and take the harvest because they are anxious to cut the sod in order to build?

Clause 17 seems to give greater powers than ever; greater power seems to be given to local authorities to acquire land willy-nilly. By the time my hon. Friend has played off the local authorities, and by the time the military authorities and the town and country planners have come in, there will be no land on which to grow any food with which to protect this country.

Mr. Hale

I recognise that there are two points of view; I recognise all these difficulties. We have to consider the policy of the economic use of agricultural land, but as I read the Bill there is practically no compulsory power at all. If a receiving area is not prepared to receive houses, they do not have to do it. The Minister has limited compulsory powers to which reference has been made, but the main intention is that everything should be done by agreement. My hon. Friend, who has a natural interest in agriculture, should realise that at the moment land is about the only thing upon which we can build houses. Politicians have built numerous scaffolds in the air, but they have not provided accommodation for the overflow from Oldham.

Mountain tops are not much use for building. In these circumstances, it is almost inevitable that some flat land which might be available for agriculture, will have to be used for building. We are out to develop our agricultural productivity, but this is one of the problems we have to face. If I try to answer my hon. Friend fully, I am certain I should be told I am getting a little off the Bill. I suggest that he waits for the next Highland development debate for a suggestion as to how to make more agricultural or productive land available.

We have had a useful and helpful discussion. I think the position is much clearer than it was, and I have the feeling that even the Minister was getting fully to understand the Bill as the debate proceeded and we were getting more and more to a general line of agreement. Those of us who are concerned with the over-populated areas most sincerely hope that these powers will be used, widely used, and used as speedily as possible, having regard to the great difficulty of negotiation between councils, the difficulty of planning beforehand and the laying out of sewers, roads, and so on, before we can get on with the actual building of houses. It is a very useful Measure—but useful only to the extent to which it is used. I can give the Minister the assurance that we on this side of the House will be most happy to see its powers exercised.

Mr. Marples

I must hasten to thank the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) for the help he has given to the consideration of this Bill in Committee and the speedy examination on Report stage. I must, also, commiserate with the public for having to dispense with his services when we had the advantage of having them tonight.

The most important point raised was the question of deemed consent. It was raised by the hon. Member for Welling- borough (Mr. Lindgren) and the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). Perhaps I can deal with that rather fully. From a strictly legal point of view Clause 20, which is the Clause referred to by the hon. Gentleman, is not necessary. That was made clear on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend and in the course of the Committee stage. It does not alter the law, but merely declares what the law is. It makes it clear beyond a peradventure. The expression deemed to be granted was introduced in the Town and Country Planning Act, Section 35, for this reason.

It often happens that something which ought to be done, and which everybody agrees ought to be done, or has been decided by the appropriate authority after due inquiry ought to be done, requires the authorisation of more than one Department of State. The device of a deemed planning permission was introduced so that two or more necessary approvals could be given in one instance. For example, in a large-scale development the most important thing to decide is, first of all, whether it should be done at all. That rests primarily with the planning authority in any area, as all hon. Members know. That is the county borough or the county council. That authority is the responsible authority.

If the planning authority refuses permission, or imposes conditions which are thought to be unreasonable, there is a right of appeal to the Minister on the general plan. In most cases an inquiry is held and the Minister makes his decision. Nothing in the Town Development Bill alters that procedure, but it may happen that if a broad scheme is approved, the particular developments which are essential to be done require special authorisation from different Government Departments.

For example, the building of a fire station or a school can be authorised by the Minister primarily concerned without specific planning permission first being given. The planning authority and, if necessary, the planning Minister are consulted by the authorising Minister who may then give a deemed permission. This should be given at one and the same time as he gives his own authorisation. In a word, "deemed to be granted" deals with the smaller individual project within the large scheme.

My right hon. Friend quite admits that the number of cases in which this deeming plays an important role is strictly limited. It is, nevertheless, a very convenient piece of machinery. My right hon. Friend wants me to assure the House that neither he nor his predecessors nor, he thinks, his successors will use this piece of time-saving machinery to get round or stultify the main planning procedure to be used to give planning approval to a town development scheme in general. It will be used merely for the purpose which has been described—that is, small, individual projects within the large planning scheme.

But there is some anxiety about the real effectiveness of the planning system in regard to the kind of schemes contemplated under this Bill. So my right hon. Friend has asked me to make a further declaration. It may well be that while the planning authority—that is to say, the county council—may approve and give planning approval to a town development which is to be undertaken for the benefit of an exporting county borough, the receiving district of that county might have objections; but the county district is not the planning authority, and it is a natural anxiety of the planning authority. Where do they stand, and how are they able to express their point of view?

The answer is this. My right hon. Friend does not believe that the county planning authority would lightly override strongly expressed views of one of its own districts. They would probably weigh most carefully all that is said, for, after all, the plans contemplated under this Bill are likely to fall to the ground unless they are really made by willing agreement between all the parties concerned. They cannot be approved in any other way. Nevertheless, should such a situation occur, if there is an objection to the project as a whole on planning grounds by the receiving authority and that authority wants a public inquiry, there will be a public local inquiry. My right hon. Friend emphasises this. He says, "on planning grounds." It must not be misunderstood; it is on planning grounds, and planning grounds only.

There may be arguments on other points regarding this scheme—for example, who is to do it, what is the pro- portion of the burden placed on a particular district, what is the amount of Treasury assistance, and so on. But that is not the same thing. It is on planning grounds, and if the authority want a public inquiry, then there will be an inquiry.

The question of the amount of the Treasury assistance and who is to do it will be settled by methods within this Bill by agreement, with the final overriding power of the Minister to decide; but on the planning issue—that is to say, whether the thing should happen at all—there will be a public local inquiry. My right hon. Friend, when he refers to objection, means objection of substance when all the methods of conciliation and negotiation have been exhausted. I hope that that meets the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford.

At this late, or early, hour I do not think the House would like me to answer in detail some of the excellent legal points put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), except one. That one he mentioned during the Committee stage, on Report stage and has referred to it now on Third Reading. He asked why Clause 2 (4) should have the words "thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-one" inserted.

On that date the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough made a statement, as a result of which many local authorities started negotiations in good faith, anticipating that the Bill would eventually become law. Those local authorities who began the negotiations in good faith, and whose schemes come within the ambit of this Bill as it now is, and which we hope will become an Act, are themselves eligible for benefit. Because they are that is the reason the date was inserted in the Clause.

Mr. Paget

Instead of having a long subsection why not make the Clause read "after the passing of this Act" instead of "thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-one"?

Mr. Marples

That would not meet the points we had in mind. It would meet cases other than those coming within the ambit of this Act.

There is only one other point I might deal with. It is one which was raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), who often interests us. He said that his party must take some blame because they had not put down Amendments to improve the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) claimed that this Bill was his, and that the Bill as originally drafted was a Socialist Measure, but the redrafting is something for which the hon. and learned Gentleman claims all the credit. He ought to have a word with his right hon. Friend because of this claim. It is obvious that the gap between the Front and back benches of the Opposition has widened, and not narrowed, recently.

This Bill has been welcomed by all parties. It will make a contribution to the housing problem and will give relief to overcrowded and congested areas and help decentralisation from the congested areas.

Mr. Bing

I think the hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me, is doing an injustice to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) who said this on Second Reading—making it clear that he was not responsible for the drafting: I am the father of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman discovered a lively infant on his arrival in his Department and he has completed the clothing of it. I am not committed to all the details of the clothing, as embodied in this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 741.] It is the clothing to which we object, and it is only fair to say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that he was not responsible for the form in which the Bill now comes forward.

Mr. Marples

If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough he would have heard that his hon. Friend contradicted that speech of his right hon. Friend. The hon. and learned Gentleman must pay attention to what his Front Bench say and do.

Mr. Mikardo

What shocking advice.

Mr. Marples

We have been saying that for six years and that greatly confirms how right we were in that period.

This is a good Bill. It will enable building to take place in the right place. Above all, I must emphasise that unless local authorities do get together in agreement there is no hope of the Bill succeed- ing. If every hon. Member will do his best, not to set one local authority against another—a receiving authority against an exporting authority, or the reverse—but to make sure that they work harmoniously together, whether it be Oldham or Chadderton, we shall succeed.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.