TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL

HC Deb 22 November 1954 vol 533 cc929-36

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy (Leith)

On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask whether there is any business before the House? If not, may I ask if the House intends to adjourn?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

I gather that the business is the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, and I am waiting for a Minister to move that the Lords Amendments be now considered.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

I protest against this business being taken at this hour of the night.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Commander Galbraith.]

Mr. Douglas Johnston (Paisley)

The confusion which has gone on for the last few moments and the fact that the Lords Amendments are being brought before the House at this hour are somewhat indicative of the contempt with which this Government treat Scottish business. We have had no apology or explanation from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and no apology or explanation from the Leader of the House, who is not present. I can only take his absence as meaning that he thinks nothing of Scottish business and regards it beneath his notice. I hope that Scotland will pay attention to that.

Of course, in the proceedings on this Bill we are accustomed to this treatment. We had a short discussion on Second Reading, we had a very short Committee stage—amounting if I recollect correctly to eight sittings only. We had a short Report stage and Third Reading and had to consider a mass of Amendments which were ill-digested. Now we are faced with approximately 150 Lords Amendments, including new Clauses and a new Schedule.

I want to say one kind thing to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am grateful, and I am sure my hon. Friends are, for the trouble he has taken in sending us some notes, amounting to about 300 pages, not on the Bill but on these proposed Amendments. The last of these reached me at 4.30 this afternoon. There are other difficulties; the marshalled list now before you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was only available in Scotland on Saturday. The result is that none of the persons interested in the Bill has had any opportunity whatever to make any representations about the Amendments. Not only that, but we on this side of the House have had no proper opportunity of considering these Amendments. It may well be that a number of them are merely drafting Amendments, but the mere mechanics of fitting them together and deciding if they are drafting Amendments is something which takes considerable time.

The Bill is not a simple one, and little consideration was given to it at any stage. The reasons for its complexities are twofold, as are the reasons why these numerous Amendments are necessary. The Bill arose out of the fact that the Government were determined to abolish betterment and the £300 million charge, and they did so without considering the enormous complexities which would result.

The Bill does not enunciate any general principles but attempts to deal with numerous special cases. An explanation of the form of the Bill was given at an earlier stage by the Lord Advocate, who said it was desirable to bring before the House these numerous special cases in order that the House might consider them in detail. He thought that it was better to do that than to bring in Regulations. But the House has never had an opportunity, and never will have, of considering the Bill or the numerous cases with which it is expected to deal. This is a contemptuous Parliamentary procedure.

The result is that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, can give no satisfaction to anyone. To those who have claims, or may possibly have claims, the Bill will be unintelligible. To the professional advisers of those persons who have interests, the Bill will be a constant anxiety. When the Lord Advocate returns to private practice, if and when he does, he will find that the Bill is unintelligible. It will be quite impossible, and it is now, for anyone to advise what is correct under this Bill.

I am quite sure that there is not a single person in this House, not excluding the Lord Advocate, who can truthfully say that he understands this Bill. To the courts, when cases under it ultimately come there—and they will, at great expense to the persons having an interest—the Bill will become an object of scorn. To the Scottish Office and the Lord Advocate's Department it will bring no comfort, for they will know, as the Lord Advocate knows, this Bill must be followed, in a few years, by a major amending Bill.

To the House of Commons the Bill can only bring disgrace, and in these circumstances, I cannot advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to allow these Amendments to go through.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

I do not know if we can regard it as a tribute to the keenness of our critical faculties or the quickness of our comprehension that we are asked by the Government to consider these Amendments at this time. We have only to recollect that it was on Thursday at half-past three that the business of the House was fixed and it was suggested that we should take the Lords Amendments to the Scottish Bill during the latter part of today. Presumably, I gather, somewhere around seven o'clock. It is now 20 minutes to eleven.

The point is that at the time the Leader of the House said that, those in another place were only starting the Report stage of the Bill, so at that time they did not know exactly what they were going to ask us to discuss. The fact is that there are over 150 changes to be made in a Bill that, from the start, has obviously been quite incomprehensible, even to the Lord Advocate. We are being asked to consider all these changes to a complex Bill at this late hour tonight, despite the fact that, on the Report stage, the Secretary of State for Scotland, a man of great ability, told us that the reason why he had not taken any part in that debate was because he had had considerable difficulty in mastering all the points.

We have the position that the Government completed the Report and Third Reading of the Bill in another place late on Thursday. The full changes were not available in Scotland until Saturday, and were available generally to hon. Members only when they came into the House this afternoon. Yet the Government are asking us to consider all these changes at this time of night.

The Prime Minister said that the Government were accepting the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs, but I wonder whether the Government have read them, because one of the points made in the Royal Commission's Report was that not sufficient attention had been paid to the susceptibilities of the Scots. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) laughs. It may be a joke to him, but is it not a joke to the people of Scotland that we should be asked at this time of night to deal with so many changes.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough): rose——

Mr. Ross

We Scots have waited too long already to be further put off by things like that.

It is disgraceful that so soon after the acceptance of the Royal Commission's recommendations the Government should show that, in spirit at any rate, they have made no change at all in their attitude either to Scotland or to Scottish legislation. The fact is that we have had no time to consult anyone about these Amendments, even though we may have had time to try to understand what they actually mean, although really to understand what they mean would take considerably longer than the time that has been available to us.

I know that the Scottish Office has helped. At every successive stage of the Bill in the House of Lords there has come an absolute stream of paper from the Scottish Office to Opposition Members. The people at the Scottish Office were evidently very anxious that we should understand the Bill. I do not know whether that was due to their anxiety that we should do so or to the fact that their conscience was troubling them about the tricks they were playing with the whole legislative set-up.

I think it is a contempt of Parliament that we should be asked to deal with this considerable number of changes so soon after the Bill has passed another place. More compensation is to be paid out under the Bill, and to ask us to deal with these Amendments so soon after the Bill has come before us and at this late hour is really a contempt of Parliamentary procedure.

I sincerely hope that the House will not readily accept the position. After all, we have other duties to perform, quite apart from the duty of understanding the Bill ourselves and approving it or otherwise. There is the point that many of our constituents and many of the bodies in our constituencies, such as the local authorities, are vitally affected by the Bill.

The House should realise that even though the Amendments were made availabale on Saturday, local authorities and town clerks in Scotland were not very willing to discuss these matters on Sunday. It is most unfair of the Government to expect reasonable discussion of these Amendments so late at night.

I do not know what is going to happen to the Bill. We have been told in another place that the Government are going to send teams of lecturers to lecture lawyers as to what the Bill means. What a farcical situation. The Bill is a nightmare of legal complexity and verbal obscurity. I ask the Government to reconsider the matter. The House should mark their objection to the procedure by dividing on the Motion.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes

Two points have not yet been made. This is a long and

complicated Bill of 71 Clauses and eight Schedules. It is a larger Bill than the English Bill, yet the English Bill was given three times as much time in Committee and today proceedings on the English Bill were started at 3.30 and ended about 10.30. We are now, at this late hour, asked to consider the Scottish Bill, which involves 26 pages of Lords Amendments of close print. It is a contempt of Parliament and an outrage upon our democracy to ask us to consider this long and complicated Bill at this hour of the night.

That outrage is made all the more striking by the disparity between the time given to the English Bill and that given to this Bill. I have shown that the English Bill is smaller, yet it had three times as much time in Committee and has been considered in the House today since half-past three—and it is now a quarter to eleven. Taking all that into account, it is unfair to the people of this country and an outrage upon democracy that we should now be asked to consider the Lords Amendments. It is an encouragement to those who say that Parliamentary Government has had its day and that we must have some other, and totalitarian, form of Government.

The justice of this protest is emphasised still further by the fact that when this Bill was reached at about half-past ten, the Ministers were not in their places to consider it. One Minister came in and was the sole occupant of the Front Bench. Tardily, some minutes later, came the Lord Advocate—who is an anomaly and an anachronism; he is not only the present Lord Advocate but tonight he is the late Lord Advocate.

I am sorry you were not here for the beginning of my speech, Mr. Speaker. It is for the House to judge the Government's conduct tonight. I have said that it is an outrage upon democracy and contemptuous of Parliament.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 113.

Division No. 238.]	AYES	[10.47 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Alport, C. J. M.	Bennett, William (Woodside)	Browne, Jack (Govan)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J	Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G T
Ashton, H. (Chelmford)	Birch, Nigel	Bullard, D. G.
Baldwin, A. E.	Bishop, F. P.	Carr, Robert
Banks, Col, C.	Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.	Cary, Sir Robert
Baxter, Sir Beverley	Boyle, Sir Edward	Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.	Kerr, H. W.	Ramsden, J. E.
Cole, Norman	Lambton, Viscount	Redmayne, M.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger	Leather, E. H. C.	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Renton, D. L. M.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)	Ridsdale, J. E.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C	Linstead, Sir H. N.	Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Roper, Sir Harold
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Lock wood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Deedes, W. F	Longden, Gilbert	Russell, R. S.
Dirty, S. Wingfield	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Doughty, C. J. A	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Sharpies, Maj. R. C.
Erroll, F. J.	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Soames, Capt. C.
Fell, A.	Manningham-Buller, Rt.Hn. Sir Reginald	Speir, R. M.
Finlay, Graeme	Markham, Major Sir Frank	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Fisher, Nigel	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Marples, A. E.	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Maud, Angus	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Studholme, H. G.
Garner-Evans, E. H	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Teeling, W
Glover, D.	Mellor, Sir John	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Gower, H. R.	Neave, Airey	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Nicholls, Harmar	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Nugent, G. R. H.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Oakshott, H. D.	Vane, W. M. F.
Heath, Edward	O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Higgs, J. M. C.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Hirst, Geoffrey	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Wall, Major Patrick
Holland-Martin, C. J.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Osborne, C.	Wellwood, W.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Page, R. G.	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.	Partridge, E.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Pitman, I. J.	Wills, G.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.	Pitt, Miss E. M.	Woollam, John Victor
Iremonger, T. L.	Powell, J. Enoch
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Kaberry, D.	Profumo, J. D.	Sir Cedric Drewe and
Kerby, Capt. H. B.	Raikes, Sir Victor	Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.
NOES
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Hobson, C. R.	Pearson, A.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Holman, P.	Peart, T. F.
Balfour, A.	Holmes, Horace	Popplewell, E.
Bartley, P.	Houghton, Douglas	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Bence, C. R.	Hoy, J. H.	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Probert, A. R.
Bing, G. H. C.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Blyton, W. R.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Bowden, H. W.	Jeger, George (Goole)	Ross, William
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Brockway, A. F.	Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Skeffington, A. M.
Burke, W. A.	Keenan, W.	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Callaghan, L. J.	King, Dr. H. M.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Champion, A. J.	Lawson, G. M	Sparks, J. A.
Clunie, J.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Steele, T.
Collick, P. H.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Lindgren, G. S.	Sylvester, G. O.
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Logan, D. G.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	MacColl, J. E.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Delargy, H. J.	McInnes, J	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Dodds, N. N.	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Thornton, E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Manuel, A. C.	Warbey, W. N.
Fernyhough, E.	Mellish, R. J.	West, D. G.
Fienburgh, W.	Mikardo, Ian	Wheeldon, W. E.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Mitchison, G. R.	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Moyle, A.	Wilkins, W. A.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.	Willey, F. T.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Oswald, T.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Grimond, J.	Owen, W. J.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Padley, W. E.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Yates, V. F.
Hamilton, W. W.	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Hannan, W.	Palmer, A. M. F.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hayman, F. H.	Pannell, Charles	Mr. Wallace and Mr. John Taylor.
Herbison, Miss M.	Parker, J.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.