TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (CONTROL OF ADVERTISEMENTS)

HC Deb 29 February 1960 vol 618 cc967-90

10.0 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Amendment Regulations, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 66), dated 20th January, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th January, be annulled. I note that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has himself come to the House to answer the debate on this Prayer. We take this, first, as a compliment to the House itself, and we are grateful to him, and, secondly, as evidence of the importance he attaches to this subject, as we do ourselves. The background of the history of these Regulations stems from Section 31 of the 1947 Act. There there are only two criteria to be considered, one being amenity and the other, public safety. I shall quote only one paragraph from Section 31 of the parent Act. It is paragraph (a) of subsection (1), which declares that the Regulations may provide for regulating the dimensions, appearance and position of the advertisements which may be displayed, the sites on which such advertisements may be displayed, and the manner in which they are to be affixed to land. It is common knowledge that the first Regulations were laid in 1948. There is not much doubt that a good start was made in that year with those Regulations. Since then, in 1949 and in 1951, we have had amending Regulations which made only small administrative changes and today we have the present Regulations, against which we are praying.

The first request I have to make to the Minister—and I have not very much doubt that he will agree with this—is, please may we have the Regulations consolidated as soon as possible? The reasons are obvious. The number of Regulations in the hands of local authorities are confusing to them. It is a nuisance to have to refer backwards and forwards. Therefore, I ask that we shall have consolidation as soon as possible. I wish to refer to what I consider to be the weakness of the Regulations as a fragment of machinery. The original ones and the present ones together make no real attempt to protect the urban scene in the way they protect rural areas and areas of special control except, I admit, in Regulation 4, which makes reference to Regulation 10 of the 1948 series. I understand that the Minister is hoping that by some relaxation of controls in special control areas he will be able to persuade local authorities to extend their application to most of the countryside, or certainly to other areas in the countryside and more places which are worthy of special protection. That relaxation is noted in Regulation 5 of the present Regulations.

The difficulty seems to lie in two things. There is the uneven approach to the general problem of amenity by different local authorities. I shall deal with that in a little more detail later. Secondly, the difficulty lies in the fact that the Minister intends to rely on a voluntary code by the advertisers in order to solve the problem of "clutter" in our towns and advertisements on business premises. About a year ago, the Minister announced that there would be a voluntary code and, on 26th January, he answered the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) as follows: My policy is to secure that outdoor advertisements are displayed in the right way and in the right places and not otherwise, and also that the machinery of planning control is as simple as possible. I have today laid amending regulations designed to further both these aims. I shall be sending to local planning authorities a circular explaining the new regulations. As to advertisements on business premises and the problem of clutter, I invited representative bodies to discuss among themselves whether they could work out a voluntary code of standards. Such a code has now been compiled by a number of advertising organisations. I have seen it and have been glad to contribute a foreword to it. I understand that the code will be ready for publication in six or seven weeks' time. I am sure that it is a step in the right direction and should be given a trial."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1960; Vol. 616, c. 7.] As the Minister has gone as far as this, I agree with him personally that we must now give it a trial. We ask him to say tonight, however, that if, after proper trial, the results are not satisfactory, he will introduce Regulations to control clutter and advertisements on business premises. We are to have a voluntary code. Let us try it. I do not know how long we should wait before making up our minds whether it is satisfactory. Perhaps the Minister could help us when he answers the debate. Does he think eighteen months would be enough or would he need two years? I would not hazard a guess.

The variation between local authorities in handling the problem is very striking. The powers of challenge are fully used by a few local authorities, in particular Northumberland and Worcester.

In Regulation 9 before us there are some minor administrative changes with reference to consent. I think that the Minister is asking that local authorities, by and large, should give five years when they give consent. In Regulation 8 he again deals with the principle of challenge, simplifies it and makes it easier. This, again, is a step in the right direction, but I must put to the Minister what is an undoubted fact—that many local authorities take little or no advantage of the Regulations and have taken little advantage of them in the past twelve years. They do not challenge unsightly and ugly advertisements, for they are unwilling to spend staff time on action of this sort and unwilling to incur what they feel is odium if they take action or to pay the compensation incurred by modification or revocation of an order.

I therefore ask the Minister to promise two things. First, if he has not the information, will he find out exactly what is happening throughout the country, collate it and classify it so that he knows how local authorities have used their powers up to date? Secondly, if he is satisfied that many, or some, of them are not using their powers, will he give them some encouragement to do so? This could be done by further circularisation, or it may be necessary for stronger action to be taken. After all, this is a simple request that he should find out, if he does not already know, what is happening throughout the country and see whether he can offer us a remedy.

To summarise what I have said so far, the direction in which we are moving in this matter is the correct direction but the pace is too slow. In the past twelve years there has not been much evidence of dynamic action. I recognise that the Minister and his predecessors have taken a deep and personal interest in the matter but I must say that as yet there is no evidence of results. I believe that the voluntary code may help—we hope that it will—but if it does not help quickly and efficiently we should not wait long before taking legislative action.

I put a very serious point to the Minister. What does he propose to do about the score of authorities, all of whom are enabled to clutter up our towns and cities with street furniture and over whom at present he has no control? The types of authorities I mean are the Ministry of Transport, the Post Office, water undertakings and so on. I gather that there are about forty-three special types of street furniture for which they are responsible—special groups of street furniture—and that they tend to compete one with another in ugliness.

If we are to move against commercial interests, surely it might be just as easy, if not easier, to give encouragement to the statutory bodies and ask them to put their house in order. As to how it should be done, we must leave that to the Minister. We have ideas, and nothing would please us more than to offer them if they are required. To deal with that now would take too much time, and I do not propose to deal with it tonight.

One thing at least might be done at once. Why not give local authorities the power to challenge those authorities which up to date can do whatever they like and which very often supply street furniture which ranks for grant and which competes only in the tawdry and the ugly?

By and large, local authorities do not dislike advertisements if they are of the right type and are in the right places. That is my considered personal view. They welcome very often the colour and the gaiety and they certainly welcome the revenue. This, I think, we should bear in mind. I am now using words used by the Minister himself in the Answer which he gave to the hon. Member for the City of Chester: My policy is to secure that outdoor advertisements are displayed in the right way and in the right places … This practice of advertising is very ancient. The earliest example which I can find is a three-thousand-year-old Theban papyrus in the Bodleian Library offering a reward for the capture of a runaway slave. Shortly after that, and certainly throughout Rome and Italy, murals were used for advertising, and advertising of that type was a method by which one could give information to the illiterate. It was a very interesting method.

The manufacture of printing gave a new lease of life and encouragement to advertising on hoardings. We have in our possession in this country a poster by Caxton, modest in size, only seven inches by five inches, dating back to 1480. I think that it advertised the sale of a book. Sometimes it is thought that advertisements on hoardings followed the creation of the railways. By and large that is true—the railways; the turnpike roads—but there are these honourable and ancient precedents which I have mentioned. Press advertising, which does not come within the scope of the legislation, is quite modern, about 1580 in France and most interesting ones in 1666, the year of the great fire. I mention them only because in part they made use of hoardings as well as the Gazette. I was fascinated to note that by 1666 the London Gazette determined that it would have a supplement and no longer allow any advertisements in its pages, the ground being that: They were not properly the business of a paper of intelligence. At that time, certainly to Shakespeare and the translators of the Authorised Version of the Bible, "advertisement" meant "information". Shortly after that it began to mean "business announcement." It is most interesting to see how it has been used as time has passed. Some of these quotations are very interesting. For example, in 1710, in an article in the Tatler it was made apparent that it was thought that they were of Great use to the vulgar and they had three purposes. The Minister will be interested in the three purposes for which they were used. The first was as An instrument of ambition whereby a man not big enough for the Gazette may easily creep into the advertisements. The second reason given was that they are of use in the management of controversy. That should appeal to us in the House. The example given is: The inventors of strops for razors have written against one another in this way for many years". That is typical of many modern methods of advertising. I need only mention things like detergents. The third reason is that they inform the world where they may be furnished with almost everything that is necessary for life: If a Man has Pains in his head, Cholic in his Bowels"— these are the exact words— or spots in his Cloathes, he may here meet with proper Cures and Remedies. If a Man would recover a Wife or a Horse that is stolen or strayed"— my researches lead me to believe that in those days more wives strayed or were stolen than was the case with horses, strangely enough— if he wants new Sermons, Electuaries, Asses' milk or anything else, either for his Body or his Mind, this is the place to look for them in". I realise that the Regulations make it quite clear that local authorities are not to have power to control the content of an advertisement. They may control the shape, the size, perhaps the position and the way it is fixed to land, but not the content. It is fascinating to see that as early as 1780 even Dr. Johnson—no speech in the House of Commons is suitable unless he is referred to—was complaining bitterly of their habit of exaggeration. He said: Their promises were magnificent promises—Large promise is the soul of an advertisement. We in the House all recognise how and why advertising can be helpful in the distribution of goods and in creating a mass demand, but we cannot accept that the price should include either loss of safety or, above all, the desecration of our countryside and the spoiling of our towns and cities.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones (West Ham, South)

I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) for yet another outstanding example of his zeal for raising civic taste and for improving and extending public amenities. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) will go the whole way with him in due course in his panegyric of the gentle art of advertising.

Dr. Stross

Not gentle.

Mr. Elwyn Jones

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central does not concede that the art is always gentle. It is because it is sometimes garish and brutal in its impact upon the public and in the public eye, and sometimes offensive to the public taste, that for many years now Governments have thought it expedient in the public interest to have control of advertisements.

I share my hon. Friend's hope that we shall quickly have consolidation of these advertisement Regulations. Those of us who have to deal with these matters from the purely legal point of view are already a little overwhelmed by the complexity of town planning legislation. The present proposed Amendments are, so to speak, a fourth edition—the original Regulations of 1948 have already been twice amended—and I was very glad to see in the Ministry's circular of 27th January last that the Minister hopes that it may be possible in the near future to consolidate the Regulations. I assure him that he will receive the support of this side of the House when he embarks upon that operation, which I will not pretend will be lacking in difficulty and complexity.

My present purpose is to ask the Minister to clarify one or two points under the amended Regulations which may become of increasing importance in view of proposals that are being made energetically in certain quarters to place, in particular, illuminated advertisements on vast advertisement panels which are to contain, in turn, several advertisements. Regulation 8 of the Amendment Regulations that we are now considering amends Regulation 17 to enable consent to be given for the display of any particular advertisement or advertisements with or without illumination. The consents to be given are for a period of five years or less.

A question of some difficulty is this. If consent is given by the local planning authority for the display of advertisements on one of these huge panels, does each advertisement on the proposed panel have to be approved? Does each advertisement have to be subjected to the tests of amenity and of public safety? Of will it suffice if consent is obtained for the use of the panel as a whole for the purposes of advertisement?

I hope—indeed, I anticipate—that the Minister will say that consent will be required for each advertisement on the panel, and that it will not be sufficient for consent to be given for the use of the panel as a whole—although I readily concede that in considering this matter it will be proper to bear in mind the effect of the panel as a whole when thinking in terms of amenity.

There is another difficult question. As we know, these vast illuminated advertisements, full of brilliant ingenuity and complexity, need elaborate mechanisms and supports. It is, therefore, not likely that they will be changed very frequently. Nevertheless, they are likely to be changed within the currency of the five-year consent period. What some local authorities want to know is: will consent by required for an advertisement that is put up in substitution for the original advertisement in respect of which consent was given, or will the initial consent cover the user of the appropriate space for advertisement purposes for the whole of the five-year period? I think that in fact and in law consent will be required for every replacement, but it is a matter which has given rise to some difficulty, and I think it would be helpful if the Minister were to indicate his view on the matter at this stage.

The amending Regulations do not amend the provision that the powers conferred by the Regulations shall be exercisable only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Those are the only factors which may properly be considered by local planning authorities when they are exercising these powers of control. I should like the Minister to clarify whether my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central is right in contending that it is proper for the local authority, in considering the amenity aspect of the matter and, in particular, in considering illuminated advertisements, to consider, for instance, the size of the advertisement or the size of the panel, the range from which it is visible, or, for instance, its height above the ground.

Again, I think that my hon. Friend is right in saying that a local planning authority may properly consider these factors, but there is a little doubt about the matter in the minds of those who have to apply the Regulations, and the Minister could render useful service by putting the matter beyond a peradventure.

We are about to enter not only the space age but, for better or for worse, the illuminated space age. Hideous though that prospect may be, I trust that the Minister will feel able to throw light upon one or two of these minor problems which are not without their importance and, as I have ventured to indicate, not without their difficulties.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker (Swindon)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) in praying that these Regulations be annulled, on the ground that they do not go nearly far enough. In common, I believe, with a large section of public opinion, I should like to see outdoor advertising, with very few exceptions, abolished altogether. I agree unreservedly with bodies such as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England which believe that, with the exception of indispensable public notices and signs on business premises, all outdoor advertising is a vulgar and impertinent intrusion upon the individual citizen and that it is inherently objectionable for several reasons, four of which I wish now to give.

Outdoor advertising by garish posters, whether illuminated or not, is always incongruous and, therefore, injurious to the surroundings in which the posters are placed. They exploit the public highway and people have no chance not to notice them, whether they want to or not. Outdoor advertising vulgarises the public environment and thereby degrades public taste; and, on other grounds, when they are displayed near main roads, they are generally a danger because they distract the attention of road users.

I say quite frankly—in this I go, perhaps, further than my hon. Friends—that I should like to see all advertising cleared out of the countryside. I am happy to note that one good side effect of commercial television, which I deplore, is that it has taken a great deal of money away from the poster advertising business, which has been declining in recent years. I very much hope that during my political lifetime I shall see its final death.

I should not be content only with seeing the poster industry and the illuminated sign industry dying in the countryside. I hope we can clear it out of our towns as well. I find it difficult to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, that there is any place outdoors which is suitable for advertising however carefully it may be devised by a local authority, a new town corporation or other public body. I also fear that one cannot separate advertising in the countryside from advertising in the towns, partly because, if the Minister or one of his successors, as I hope one day they will, were to put the squeeze effectively on the outdoor poster advertising interests in the country, what was left of them would be driven into the towns and the pressure would be increased both on urban poster sites and on business premises which even now are to a considerable extent becoming glorified advertising hoardings. I should like to say a word about that in a moment.

I also take the view that wherever outdoor advertising is to be found it tends to degrade or vulgarise public taste, and undoubtedly it has an effect on the behaviour of town dwellers which is a menace to the countryside when they leave the cities to get a little enjoyment of rural amenities. Therefore, I take an unrepentant and out-and-out position on outdoor advertising. As I have said, I hope it will disappear altogether within my political lifetime.

I do not believe that it is only a small minority of people who take this view. The Minister has been closely in touch in the past with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and bodies like the National Trust and very many other local groups of citizens who feel as strongly as I do. I recall that when the 1947 Act was introduced during the time of the Labour Government, and the 1948 Regulations followed, some people, particularly the advertising interests, alleged that only a small minority was interested in this subject. But is became clear that there was, and had been for a long time, a persistent demand by both local authorities and voluntary associations for better legislation to protect the amenities of the countryside against the efforts of the poster industry.

The 1947 Act, indeed, represented a triumph over the vested interests of the advertisers which during a period of some 100 years had killed or rendered ineffective more than 400 Parliamentary Bills introduced into the House by local authorities or others seeking to control outdoor advertising. My hon. Friends and I warmly welcomed the 1947 Act and look back with pride on the 1948 Regulations, even though we are very far behind a number of other civilised countries in Western Europe and in North America on this score.

I do not know whether the Minister has lately been in Sweden, but if he travels about the very beautiful countryside there he will find that outdoor advertising has disappeared altogether and that one can drive along main roads and highways and byways without seeing an outdoor advertisement at all. If he has not done that recently, I am sure that if he would take the opportunity to look at the Swedish countryside he would decide to introduce something very much tougher than the present meagre Regulations.

The Minister's predecessor, now the Minister of Aviation, made a statement on 19th June, 1956, when he first told us that he was proposing to introduce new Regulations. Many of us warmly welcomed part of that statement when the right hon. Gentleman said: … I am sure that much more could and should be done to secure the removal of incongruous hoardings and signs. I have particularly in mind the rural areas and country towns, as well as streets of special architectural interest or civic importance …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1956; Vol. 554, c. 1236.] He went on to indicate that he was to produce very comprehensive and effective regulations.

It is true that he was promptly taken to task by two of his hon. Friends, one of whom asserted that tasteful advertising brightened various streets, while the other described advertising control as the "utmost nonsense"—I think that I overheard the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who is always very meticulous in his attendance in the House whenever we touch on any matter connected with advertising, applaud that sentiment which I very much deplore. I hope that I may provoke him into treating us to his opinions on the subject, which we shall look forward to hearing, but not in the middle of my own speech.

After that announcement, the Minister produced a memorandum which was circulated to those interested and which was warmly welcomed by us because it urged strict control not only in the areas of special amenity, but throughout the countryside. It was welcomed because it proposed to tackle advertising on business premises, which had already then become a gross abuse of the provisions of the 1948 Regulations by turning shops and business premises into extra advertisement hoardings, as it is doing today. However, we were disappointed with the memorandum because it gave rise to considerable misgivings when it suggested that there was a case for greater freedom in areas where out-of-door advertising was not out of place. I do not know whether the Minister would be inclined to tell us what was in the Ministerial mind at that time.

At all events, the Minister produced a draft of his proposed Regulations on 22nd August, 1957, and that was circulated to interested parties for their comments. I understand that two further drafts were circulated later. There is no doubt, if one studies the original draft of the 1957 circular originally devised by the then Minister, the present Minister of Aviation, and the Regulations which have now emerged, that the Minister has been forced to make very grave concessions to the advertising interests.

Although not many of us on this side of the House applaud much of the work which the present Minister of Aviation did in his previous office as Minister of Defence, some of us regret his departure from the Ministry which the right hon. Gentleman now heads, because there was no doubt that he took a deep personal interest in all matters connected with amenity and was prepared to stand up to and fight the advertising interests to clear the countryside of some of their excesses. He has demonstrated his continuing interest in this matter by the support which he has given to the Civic Trust, whose work we on this side, and some hon. Members opposite who are interested in the subject, warmly applaud. We regret his departure from the Ministry, because it seems to us that he was prepared to take a much stronger line.

Two years and seven months have passed since those draft Regulations were circulated and there has been a series of discussions. What we now have is very much in the nature of the proverbial mouse and we are deeply disappointed with the Regulations which have just been issued.

We are even more disappointed because the Minister has decided to reverse the original decision of his predecessor and to treat the very serious problem of clutter of business premises quite separately, and to leave it to the advertising interests to devise a code.

We are still waiting to see that code, and I hope that the Minister is in a position tonight to give us a definite and final date when it will be published. Although we are heartened by the Minister's statement that if, after being given a trial, this code is not effective he will regulate, we are dubious whether the advertising interests will to any extent cut their own throats and devise an effective code to control their own excesses.

One has only to travel in the countryside along main roads, or along small roads in towns, to see the frightful abuse that advertisers are now making of business premises which have been turned into extra advertisement hoardings.

For the reasons given by my hon. Friends, and for the reasons that I have tried to adduce, we are disappointed with these Regulations. They represent a retreat from what the Minister's predecessor proposed to do in 1957, and we hope that the Minister will say that he proposes to take effective action to deal with clutter, and that such action will be taken in a short space of time if the voluntary code applied by the advertising interests is not effective.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I must declare an interest in this subject because I am a director of an advertising agency.

As I understand it, the main intention of my right hon. Friend in issuing these Regulations is to increase the special control areas. One might, therefore, expect opposition from the outdoor advertising industry since a special control area places greater restrictions on the display of outdoor advertisements. I think that I can speak for outdoor advertising interests in saying, however, that they welcome wholeheartedly these Regulations as the Minister has drawn them, especially with regard to special control areas. No good advertiser wants to defile the countryside or to harm or injure areas of historical interest or beauty. The special control areas are designed to protect those districts.

It is important to remember that the initiative for the designation of special control areas comes from the local planning authorities. These local authorities decide whether any area shall be, or shall not be, a special control area. At present I understand that there are about forty special control areas. Almost every one of these areas, the boundaries and the extent of them, has been agreed between the local planning authorities and the outdoor advertising industry.

Industry has co-operated in all respects with local planning authorities in fixing these special control areas, but up to the present time, under the 1948 Regulations, as slightly amended since 1948, there has been such rigidity in the restrictions that follow, that local authorities have been reluctant to use their powers of designation. As long ago as June, 1956, my right hon. Friend's predecessor said that local authorities were being discouraged because the restrictions were so rigid that they hesitated to apply them and thereafter to be obliged to enforce them.

Those Regulations allowed only a specified range of advertisements within the special control areas—a special range of directional signs defined very narrowly in the Regulations. There were to be no forecourt signs, practically no illuminated signs, and no signs over 12 feet above the ground. It was little wonder that local authorities were not prepared to apply these tight restrictions without having any elbow room in which to exercise their discretion.

Under the new Regulations local authorities will have a discretion to allow a limited range of advertisements if they are satisfied that such advertisements are reasonably required. I notice that in his circular my right hon. Friend urges local authorities to consider all their areas in order to see whether, with these relaxed Regulations, they can create new special control areas. He is also urging them to review the existing control areas at least every five years.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) raised two points about the Regulations. He said, first, that there was an uneven approach by local authorities to the question of outdoor advertising and, secondly, he questioned reliance upon a voluntary code. Surely there should be an uneven approach among local authorities in different areas. They each have their own problems, and it is right that they should be left with a fair amount of discretion as to the positioning, size and structure of the advertisements which they allow in their districts. I do not think any other hon. Member would go quite so far as the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) did in saying that we should do away with all outdoor advertising—a sort of root-and-branch argument. If one wished to argue that out thoroughly with him one would have to go into the whole subject of advertising and the assistance which it gives to production and distribution.

I approach the matter on the basis that one wishes to permit outdoor advertising, but to keep it within limits and—certainly in the special control areas—to give the local authorities a discretion as to what class of advertisement they shall permit. I think that there should be an uneven approach, and on that point I am at issue with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central.

On the question of reliance upon a voluntary code, I would remind the hon. Member that this was not—as he said—a code devised by advertising concerns. Many other interests were represented at the conferences which produced it. In particular, the retail trade interests, such as the National Chamber of Trade, and local authority interests, were represented. It is true that the Association of Municipal Corporations is not satisfied with the code, but the County Councils Association is happy to give it a trial, and that is what should be done. It is very satisfactory that the interests concerned have been able to produce a code with which they are undertaking to comply.

I do not think that I am disclosing any secrets when I say briefly what will be in the code, which I understand will be published some time during this month. It will limit and improve the presentation of advertisements in forecourts: that is the difficult question of clutter, which we have been trying to overcome. There will be limitations on and improvement of display of advertisements on shop premises, a general tidying up of newspaper contents posters and a limitation of the number of projecting signs. These are the sort of things which are dealt with in this voluntary code with which the outdoor advertising industry is undertaking to comply.

If the industry does not obey this code, I should certainly join with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central in saying that the Minister should enforce it by Regulation. Those good advertisers who have taken part in the conferences which led to the formation of the code have said that all along. So I am happy if the Minister holds that sanction over the industry. Let us try this code and see whether it will be obeyed.

The rest of the Regulations contain some improvements in the procedure, particularly in the challenge procedure which has been simplified to the benefit of those who want to do away with unsightliness and to deal with the problem with the least possible inconvenience and delay. We have a Regulation combining two processes which previously took a long time. The challenge procedure has been concertinaed, if I may use the expression, into the service of one form.

I think it right that the three-year period should be extended to five years because of the increased cost of the construction of elaborate advertisements. That is agreed by local authorities as well as the industry. Not only will these Regulations simplify the procedure in many ways, but they will bring a benefit to the countryside, to areas of historic interest and beauty, because they will encourage local authorities to create special control areas and to apply the Regulations with the discretion which the Regulations will allow.

10.52 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Henry Brooke)

My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has somewhat simplified my task by explaining certain features of these Regulations on which I need not now dwell. I must confess to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) that I have not been in Sweden recently, but I suspect that he has not been recently to other countries, such as Italy. If he had, I cannot think that he would be critical of our system of administrative control, but appreciative of it. I cannot accept a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman said about the advertising industry, or about the way in which these Regulations are applied and enforced. From passages in his speech it seems to me that no form of regulations would fully satisfy the hon. Gentleman except regulations to enable him to say exactly what exceptions might be made to his general negative rule.

The voice of the hon. Member for Swindon was the only discordant voice in the debate. Otherwise, it seemed to me that hon. Members on both sides of the House were seeking to probe, in a friendly and constructive way, what the Regulations contained and to put wholly legitimate questions to the Minister about what were his intentions and his approach to the system of advertising control.

Let me say at once that I do not find this an easy responsibility to discharge. For one thing, it is relatively new, and for another, it is hard to say that public opinion crystallises quickly on the general principles which should be applied, however sharp public opinion may be in some particular case or event. Therefore, we all are to an extent feeling our way.

I do not mean by those words for a moment to suggest that the Minister's handling should be tentative, but surely it is right to accept that we all have to learn by our experience in these matters. I quite agree that it is my duty to seek to frame advertising regulations and apply them in a way which will not only carry with it parliamentary approval, but which will be adjudged by the country as a whole and by those sections of it that may be specially interested in this matter from different standpoints, as generally reasonable and forward looking.

No doubt as we have more experience we shall do better. We may need to be tighter in some directions and laxer in others. The evidence which has justified these Regulations has borne that out. I do not want to speak dogmatically this evening, but I want to rebut with all the force I can the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Swindon that, whereas my predecessor took a deep personal interest in all matters of amenity, I do not. I do not believe that that view would, in fact, be held against me by many hon. Members on either side of the House.

Since I have been the Minister I have been seeking to tackle three different aspects of advertisement control. I have been anxious to see how we could get the areas of special control extended. The special control system has not been working wholly satisfactorily. It would have been easy to leave things as they were, but we seem to have come to a virtual full-stop in the making of areas of special control. Secondly, I have been concerned about clutter on business premises. I grant at once that I am trying out a new approach. I invited the advertising interests to see whether they could produce a voluntary code of conduct.

I have said throughout, and I say again tonight, that if that effort is not successful, if this code does not achieve its object, I shall certainly not hesitate to produce in due course other means, because in one way or another I am determined to get rid of undesirable clutter as—I say at once—I believe all the wisest and most far-sighted people in the advertising business themselves desire to do.

The kind of clutter we wish to get rid of is not good advertising in itself. It is something which has accumulated. The question is how we can best minimise it and give the good advertising all the better chance to stand out and make its impact on the public. Thirdly, I have been working on the question of simplifying and improving the administrative procedures. That is the other matter with which these amending Regulations deal. Taking these one by one, with special control covering only 20 per cent. of the whole of England and Wales, I could not be satisfied. Experience has shown beyond doubt that the main reason for that was that the existing Regulations were too rigid and prevented things being displayed which it would have been perfectly reasonable to have been displayed. It is absurd that, under the existing Regulations, in an area of special control one cannot put up a sign showing the way to the golf club. It is to get rid of that kind of ludicrously rigid control that the amending Regulations have been framed.

Their effect is twofold in areas of special control. They will give local authorities greater discretion to permit necessary signs and announcements of direction, such as that which I mentioned, and they will permit deviations from the very severe limitations applied at present in areas of special control. For example, if there is a strong case for it, it will be practicable for a local authority to give consent to an illuminated sign.

My hope is that the result of the amending Regulations will be to encourage a number of local authorities, which have hitherto hesitated, to come forward and apply special control to their areas. I should like to see the figure of 20 per cent. very substantially increased, and I shall watch what happens with the greatest interest.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby told the House that the advertising interests hope to publish the voluntary code next month. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) asked how long I should wait to see what happens. I must reserve my freedom of action and my discretion to take decisions at what seems to me to be the right time, but I should certainly expect to see results from the voluntary code within two years, and I do not hesitate to tell the House and the country that I have great belief that this voluntary code will achieve a more rapid clearing up of a great deal of clutter than could have been done by amended Regulations, and can do it with much more good will.

At the same time, either by this way or, if this way does not prove successful, in some other way, I am determined to tackle this question of clutter. I am most grateful to the advertising interests for the way in which they have taken up this idea of a voluntary code. I know that what they have produced is not acceptable to all the local authority associations. Nevertheless, I want to back it and to back the idea of a voluntary code unless and until it is proved that success cannot be achieved in that way. I remind the House that, whatever is in the code, local authorities will retain their right to challenge advertisements and I shall retain my right to consider appeals on their merits and to dismiss them when I think that that is the right course.

Turning to the improvement and simplification of the administrative procedures, it seemed to me that it was more reasonable to make an express consent last for five years than for three years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said, considerable expense is involved in some of these advertisements. It will to some extent reduce the amount of paper work if an express consent, once given, lasts for five years. I hope that that will be generally acceptable.

The amending Regulations also require the reasons to be stated by the local authority when it is challenging an advertisement, and I think that that is right and is in line with what I might call the Franks spirit. A local planning authority is enabled to serve a single notice for notifying refusal of consent and for requiring discontinuance of the display, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said, appears to be a convenient modification of what was hitherto a rather tiresome process.

I intend to watch the working of the Regulations very carefully, as I indicated in my early remarks when I said that this was a relatively new form of responsibility and we all had to feel our way. I should not hesitate to bring in further amending Regulations if these did not prove satisfactory, but I do not intend on that account to delay consolidation indefinitely. Provided that the Regulations are not annulled this evening, I hope that, fortified by the confidence of Parliament, we can proceed with consolidation fairly fast.

The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) asked me two questions. He asked, first, whether such matters as size and height above ground were relevant to amenity. They certainly are. He asked me, secondly, whether consent to an illuminated sign, once given, meant that the advertisers could after a period remove the sign and put up another without seeking further consent. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has been somewhat concerned lately in another capacity with illuminated signs. I know that the House will appreciate that I must say not one word about that particular scene or site, but I think that I can satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman on his particular anxiety.

There is no doubt that a local authority has power to limit its grant of consent to a particular illuminated sign. It certainly also will have power to seek for further information if it is not completely satisfied about what is proposed. It has always been my practice in appeal cases—I believe that it has also been the practice of my predecessors—to grant consent only for particular illuminated signs. Indeed, unless the authority dealing with it was fully apprised of the form, design, type and intensity of illumination of a sign, it would be almost impossible to come to a conclusion about it. I hope that my remarks on that point will satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman.

I was very grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) for the words he used about my replying to the debate myself, and, indeed, for his whole approach. I know that he, like me, is anxious, above all, to try to ensure that the system of control is as satisfying as it can be made to be. The hon. Gentleman expressed the fear that even the amended Regulations would not protect urban areas as they would protect rural areas. There is no denying that the specified class advertisements will be seen more in urban areas than in rural areas, because they apply for the most part to business premises, but it is certainly my hope that the voluntary code will make a considerable improvement in urban areas.

Speaking more generally, local authorities have widespread powers under the Regulations. I remind the hon. Gentleman that an authority has the power to challenge any advertisements displayed with deemed consent. I will come in a moment to his suggestion that the action of local authorities is very uneven. In addition, the Minister can direct under Regulation 13 that any specified class provisions should not apply to any particular area or areas. There again, I certainly should not hesitate to use those powers if I felt, after these amending Regulations had been operated for some time, that there was some abuse of them going on.

I know, for instance, that the Council for the Preservation of Rural England is anxious about one particular item. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman is familiar with that. I think that we have the Regulations right there, but there is this residuary power in my hands to take action as I have explained, if what was clearly seen to be an abuse were to take place. I do not think that it will be necessary for me to use those powers in that case. I hope that it will not.

The hon. Gentleman referred to uneven administration. Of course, to some extent, that is a necessary feature of our system of local democracy. If we accept that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best, then we can do all these things over the country with exactitude and speed, but, I fear, with a great deal of local resentment. The special virtue of our local government system is that local people have a considerable say in what happens locally.

Frankly, I find it difficult enough to discharge the relatively limited responsibilities placed upon me by Parliament in this matter, as an appellate authority. If I had to be, as it were, the judge of first instance in all this business, and deal with every application from all over the country, no doubt we could achieve evenness instead of unevenness, but I should not for one moment presume to claim that the work would be done better than it is at present.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Northumberland and Worcestershire as counties which were taking their responsibilities seriously. I assure him that they do not stand alone. There are many others which, I believe, are approaching this whole matter with a high sense of responsibility, for instance, Norfolk, Somerset, Hertfordshire, West Sussex, and others. It is not just one or two here and there. Moreover, I think that, when we have the amended Regulations as to areas of special control, several counties will evince a greater interest in this whole topic than, perhaps, they have hitherto.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would take action to collate or classify the information, meaning, I think, information about how local planning authorities are now making use of their powers under the advertisement Regulations. I am not sure that we could achieve much by any process of collating or classifying, but I can certainly tell the House that my Department and I do collect a considerable amount of knowledge about the way in which different local authorities administer the Regulations through the numbers of appeals which come to us each year. One can tell from that what the general approach of particular local authorities is.

As I expect the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a team of advertisement control officers who visit the sites of all advertisement appeals, and they are able to report back to me generally how advertisement control is being looked after throughout the country. I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. If at any time it appears that I could help by issuing a further circular of guidance, I shall not hesitate to do so. Indeed, I would like him to know that I already have it in mind within the next few months to give further guidance on the question of public safety in relation to advertisements.

One of the hon. Gentleman's final points was about the statutory advertisements, and the advertisements put up by local authorities and the various public bodies which have the power to do so. Statutory notices are statutory and necessary, and one really cannot have a power of challenging notices that someone or other is, by Statute, required to put up. The functional advertisements, if one may so call them, put up by local authorities and other bodies fall within Class 1 of the specified class. They may be displayed only if they are reasonably required to obtain the safe or efficient performance of the function concerned, and they can be challenged if they cause substantial injury to amenity, or are a danger to the public.

I have some sympathy with the criticism that sometimes notices of that character are rather too prolific. I see photographs in the architectural journals and elsewhere depicting places where this creates a mess. If I may say so, I have the greatest admiration for the lead the Civic Trust gave, exemplified by its clearing up, or cleaning up, of Magdalen Street, Norwich. I think that we would all like to see that sort of thing happening elsewhere. So far as I know, everyone who participated in that experiment feels that it has been well worth while.

I trust that I have answered the main points raised by hon. Members on both sides. I certainly cannot produce advertisements older than those mentioned to us by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. I thought that he had been most ingenious in the collection he had made. I can only conclude by telling the House of what I have always regarded as the best advertisement ever put up. It was written out, and put up by a school boy who had had some trouble at school. He had the enterprising idea of putting up a notice advertising the school for sale. Having described the buildings in somewhat pungent terms, he concluded, "And the contents include 20 old masters, suitable for private hanging."

Dr. Stross

In view of the Minister's reply, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.