§ Mr. MacCollI beg to move, in page 55, line 10, to leave out "section" and to insert "sections."
It might be convenient if, with this Amendment, we discussed the following Amendment in the same line.
This point was raised rather hurriedly in Committee because we were getting towards the end of the proceedings, but it is one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) attaches great importance. I hope that I can explain it on his behalf, although I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters.
This Clause imports certain parts of the 1947 Act into the Bill, but one of the Sections of that Act which is not imported is Section 106, hence the mystic figure in the Amendment. That Section gives power to require information about ownership of land to the Minister, the Central Land Board, or a local authority. Experienced authorities, such as the London County Council, regard this as a 1272 valuable power which it would help them to have.
When the matter was discussed in Committee the Parliamentary Secretary was unable to meet us, and we are raising it again in the hope that the hon. Gentleman will have been able to give more consideration to it and be in a position to help local authorities in this rather complicated matter by meeting their genuine wish to have these facilities contained in the Bill. I should have thought that Section 106 of the 1947 Act could be imported into this Bill without any serious complication arising.
§ Mr. MitchisonI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. BevinsI am obliged to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for his short explanation of these two Amendments which, as he said, we considered in Standing Committee. We undertook at that time to look again at this proposal and that we have done, but I must say to the House that the two cases we were considering in Standing Committee, and are still considering in the House, are quite different.
The proposal in the Amendment which has been moved is that Section 106 of the 1947 Act should be applied within the context of this Bill, but the two cases which the House is considering are quite different. In the first case, the local authority, where it enjoys the powers of Section 106, is carrying out functions as a local planning authority. Admittedly, those powers are very valuable to it as a local planning authority, but here we are dealing with the obligation which rests, not on local planning authorities, but on all applicants for planning permission, whether they be local authorities or private persons.
Under the terms of the Bill as it stands, all parties are in the same position and we feel there is no adequate reason for singling out one type of applicant for a more favourable and advantageous procedure. In those circumstances, I am sorry to say that we cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. MacCollI am very disappointed with the Parliamentary Secretary. I have now to break the news to my hon. Friend that he has been turned down in this way and he will know that it is through 1273 the inadequacy of my advocacy. I had hoped that at the end of this long and weary Bill I should at least be able to say to my hon. Friend with a happy smile that at last reason had triumphed and that the Parliamentary Secretary had seen reason, but, now I can only report back to him that we are no further forward than we were.
§ Mr. MitchisonWith the leave of the House, may I add another plea to the hon. Gentleman? Section 106 has a penalty attached to it and I agree that it would be inappropriate in relation to this Bill, but it enables a local authority to get information about owners of land which might be required for the purposes of this Measure, in particular, for serving some of the notices required to be given, which we have been discussing earlier today.
I suggest this is not a case of putting one person on one side of a bargain in a better position, but merely removing the type of disparity from which a local authority is bound to suffer. I do not ask either the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend to give us any undertaking at this stage, but I wonder whether they would consider the Section minus the penal clause, simply in the light of facilitating the work of the Measure. Local authorities will find the discovering of some of the people they have to discover rather difficult and they should not be deprived of this power for that purpose. I do not ask for an answer now.
§ Amendment negatived.