HC Deb 19 May 1952 vol 501 cc227-34

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Oakshott. ]

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Edwin Leather (Somerset, North)

The subject which I wish to raise for the attention of the House is something which, at first sight, may appear to be just a small constituency matter; just a small specific issue. But I would respectfully suggest that it is something which affects a general principle and which I would ask my hon. Friend to reconsider. It is the possibility of granting a licence for anyone to build when that person has all the materials available.

This specific case concerns a football stand in a mining village in my consituency and where no such facility exists at all. The argument which the local people wish to put forward for this stand to be erected, and which action I very strongly support, is that the stand, or shelter, or whatever one cares to call it, will in no way use scarce materials. Therefore, it is quite unjustifiable to turn down the application on that ground. The extent of that is so tiny that it could not in any way interfere with the housing programme, or the building of anything else of any kind; and it is quite unreasonable, if I may say so with respect, for the Ministry to be so "sticky" in refusing a licence.

The cost is a mere £650; that is all. All materials are available, and have been for two years. Indeed, they have been lying around and getting rusty. The labour would be entirely voluntary, and drawn from the village football team, so that there would be no demand whatever on resources for things which the country might consider as more important than the provision of a football stand at Clandown.

But this is not merely a football stand; in that village, it would be an institution, for it would be in the only available field for miles around. Not only is it used for football, but for fetes, and the children's outing, and every social affair on which the leisure life of the village hinges. There is no shelter available for these people at all, and I would hope that the kind hearts of the Civil Service might remember that fact.

I have written to my right hon. Friend on this subject, and he replied to me on 18th February; the important paragraph of his letter was that: in present circumstances, he could not allow steel to be used on work which, although desirable, was not of first importance. Now that reply, if I may respectfully say so, is neither valid nor even relevant. The steel is there; I have already said that it has lain there for the last two years after it was bought at Air Ministry disposal sales. The Air Ministry put up this material, and my constituents, with a fund they had organised, bought the stuff; and they have still got it. It could not be used for anything else. The Government sold it because it had no further use for it, so that there is no question at all of wanting to use vital steel.

That is something which my hon. Friend cannot put before the House for one moment. Of course, he may say that asbestos sheet is being used, but, far from there being a shortage of that at present production is being cut down because the producers just cannot sell that which they have already got. These are the only two raw materials concerned, so that there cannot be any question of shortage.

I wrote back to my hon. Friend, and, on 27th March, he replied stating that this could not be done because of the need "to limit capital investment." Again, I say, with great respect, that the goods have been paid for, so that, if there is any capital investment in this £650, most of it has already been spent some time ago, and the Minister cannot get it back. Therefore, to say now that to put the stand up by voluntary labour will cut into the country's capital investment programme is stretching things a bit too far.

I appreciate the Minister's difficulties. As I understand, his position is that if he once allows people to put up these buildings he will be in an impossible position in trying to differentiate between absolutely genuine cases and cases that are, shall I say, a "fiddle." It is the difficulty of differentiating between cases like this, which is patently and obviously genuine, and the case of the chap who does a black market deal, picks up materials under the counter and uses that as an excuse to jump the queue.

Surely that is not insoluble. Surely the wit and experience of the Ministry is such that it is possible for its regional officers to give an opinion and say, "That is obviously a genuine case". The Ministry's regional officers have great experience in judging these things. Knowing the people in the local areas, they know in most cases who are the people likely to try to pull a fast one on them and the people who will not.

Therefore, I put this case, generally and specifically, to my hon. Friend. Will he not look at this matter again to see if his Ministry, with all the experience, wisdom and skill available to it, cannot find a way of judging between the perfectly obvious and genuine case and those that are not, and, secondly, will he look again at this specific case, which is so obviously genuine that neither he nor any of his officials would deny that it was genuine, to see if it should not be granted a licence?

We really have reached an extraordinary position in which a group of decent, honest citizens are in need of this facility for the social life of the community, in which everybody acknowledges that they want to have it, and in which it is patently clear that their having it will make no charge on the capital investment programme, use no vital raw materials or interfere with anything else. I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider the matter, because I think the Ministry is very much in the position of a "killjoy" for no purpose whatever.

1.24 a.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Devonport)

I intervene to support the case put by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), because I received today a telegram from the Chairman of the Labour Party in the area in which he appealed to me to support this plea and make it clear that there is certainly no party issue involved in it, as everyone in the area is agreed in supporting this case.

The hon. Member has made a powerful case, and I will wait with interest to hear the Minister's reply. All hon. Members who have dealt with similar cases must have felt that, under both Governments, there have been cases in which the rule about capital investment has sometimes been applied without any real understanding of the issues at stake.

Many hon. Members, after going into the details of these cases, have believed that there is strong ground for a greater spirit of relaxation and humanity in applying these rules, which we know have to be applied in the general case, for reasons which are well understood. Therefore, I support the case put by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and I hope that the Minister will relax his present rule

1.25 a.m.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) for bringing before the House the case which he raised, because he has given me an opportunity to support a similar application which has been made for the Yeovil Football Club. I should like to adapt to this case the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend. Yeovil, it is true, is a larger town. It is an industrial constituency in which there is an extremely popular, and sometimes very successful, football club. It enjoys widespread support. The ground, which accommodates some 14,000 people, at the moment has only inadequate shelter.

Perfectly legally, and within its rights, the club obtained a second-hand prefabricated shelter for the terracing on the top-side of the ground. The materials of this shelter are on the site. Only a permit for erection of the shelter is needed, and that is being withheld. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether this case is being looked at on its merits, individually, or is it being judged according to the ever-growing dogma of physical control. If it is being judged on its merits surely the hon. Gentleman must conclude that under the present decision there is no gain to the nation, and that there is loss to the club and the greatest inconvenience to its supporters. If the case is being judged merely in the light of the dogma of physical control, I think the decision is to be deplored.

I do not want to take up the time of the House at this late hour by speaking at great length, but I want to put to the hon. Gentleman, with all the force that I can, that there ought not to be an unreasonable withholding of a permit in such a case as this. A permit which, in this case, is not a very great matter, would make a considerable difference, not only to the club, on whose behalf I am putting this case to the House, but to the very large numbers of regular supporters of the club who so often have to endure the miseries of wet West Country afternoons, or, alternatively, have to stay away from a match and miss what may be a very essential part of their week-end recreation.

I ask my hon. Friend to answer the question which I put to him. Is he judging this case, and that which was brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North, on merits, or is he being forced to say "No" merely to support the unreasonable and tyrannical dogma which has become largely out-moded over the years?

1.30 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson)

No one, I think, likes the system of licensing which has been applied in this country ever since the war, least of all those who are responsible for administering it and who constantly find themselves obliged to reject applications which many considerations of humanity and reasonable sympathy would make them wish to concede. At the same time, it is necessary that the licensing administration in building and in all other matters should be conducted according to certain principles and certain rules.

I can think of nothing more tyrannical or abitrary than that the Minister or the civil servants responsible for these matters should just consider each case according to the appeal that has been made, its attractiveness, the powers of persuasion of the applicant, or the eloquence of the Member for that particular constituency. Therefore, these matters which have been raised tonight have been decided in accordance with the rules laid down.

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) began by saying that this was such a very small matter that it could not affect the general policy of the Government. He did, however, admit that he was seeking to raise a general principle that affected us all, and the fact that when he had raised this matter my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) found that his constituency also has a similar application for a rather larger sum of money merely illustrates what is very well known to the Ministry of Works that once the principle is conceded it is very difficult to know where it will stop.

There would be applications from a very large number of football clubs throughout the country, and how would it be possible to draw a distinction between football clubs and any other kind of athletic recreation? Once we arrived at the point of athletic recreation, how could we draw a line between football and horse-racing? We should then find ourselves involved in the whole of the recreations, pastimes and amenities of the people of this country.

The purpose of licensing is to keep the amount of building which is undertaken within the scope of what can be completed with the labour force available and the materials which are to hand. Under this licensing system we give priority to exports and to housing and defence, and each sector of the national life has accorded to it a certain proportion of the national resources which are available, and this we find most simply expressed in money. Money is the readiest way in which to estimate the amount of the national wealth, whether of materials or labour, which is to he used for any particular purpose. We have, therefore, allocated to these different activities, to the different Departments of State, to the different regions in the country, a certain financial allocation or ceiling, and we leave it to them to decide how much of their allocation is to be accorded to some particular purpose.

I see the right hon. Gentleman for South Shields (Mr. Ede) opposite. He was the Home Secretary in the last Parliament. The Home Office, for example, has its allocation and the Home Secretary makes an allocation as between prisons and fire stations and all the other things for which he is responsible. It is for the Ministry of Works to consider the applications which are made and which deal with matters like cinemas, theatres, race-courses, and recreations of different kinds. We can only carry out these principles if we work in accordance with the general rules which have been laid down.

There are, at present, more than 470 cinemas which are out of action in this country, some of them only requiring a comparatively small expenditure of money to bring them back into action. At present, acting under the general policy laid down by the last Chancellor of the Exchequer, no cinema is being brought back into action which involves any large expenditure of money.

These are the general principles which apply. It is not possible for us to say that, because there is some particular small village, with a need for a football stand to be erected, that we can depart from the general principles of according priorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North, suggested that, in effect, this was so small a matter that we could afford to make concessions. I hope he will realise that is an argument which cannot be allowed to apply.

He then suggested that because the building materials were already available in that case, a licence should be granted. If once we admitted that the availability upon the spot of building materials should be an argument in favour of granting a licence, it would very soon come about that all the materials necessary for particular buildings, which had a great deal of money behind them, would be very readily available upon the spot.

There are only two building materials which, at present, are subject to control. Therefore, it would be possible for people willing to pay the necessary price to obtain the building materials, if that was a reason for granting the licence when it was available. Steel is at present subject to an allocation system and it would still be imposing a strain upon the working of this system if it meant that were steel made available by the black-market a licence could afterwards be obtained.

My right hon. Friend will have to introduce an Order, within the next six weeks, dealing with the whole question of licensing. The whole matter is, therefore, under review and it may be the Government will find it possible to make some relaxations, which will make the general licensing system in the future less onerous than it has been. But it would not, I am sure, be right for me tonight to hold out any expectation of concessions being made in the case of these particular football grounds, because it would be a concession which is not in accordance with the general principles upon which licensing has been applied under the last Government and is still administered under the present Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes to Two o'Clock a.m., Tuesday, 20th May.