HC Deb 23 February 1962 vol 654 cc882-97

Order for Second Reading read.

3.10 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is only a few days since the circulation of the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place went up tremendously, and will go up still more, as a result of the withdrawal of the Manchester Corporation Bill. I hope that the thousands of people who read that report will read the report of our proceedings, with this fundamental difference, that the speakers here are their elected representatives.

In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I have in mind the song which is sung in school about "England's green and pleasant land". Counties like Derbyshire, Cornwall, Sussex and Devon are admired by visitors because they are predominantly green and pleasant. This description does not, however, apply to our industrial cities and towns, which are completely out of harmony with the picture of a green and pleasant land. My hon. Friends and I have spent our lives in these dark, drab, industrial areas. We are proud of having lived there, and we look with pride on our association with the people in those areas, but they deserve a better environment in which to live than has been the case for centuries. Unless action is taken by the Government, our industrial areas will soon be the darkest, drabbest and dirtiest in the world, and this Bill is a modest contribution towards changing the present situation.

I am sorry for not having said this earlier. What someone else does or thinks does not matter; it is what we do that counts. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has worked hard on the Local Government (Records) Bill, and I hope, therefore, that the House will afford him the opportunity of at least saying a few words in support of it.

I thank the Association of Municipal Corporations for its co-operation in the preparation of this Bill. The main principles of it are all our own and nobody else's. I thank Sir Harold Banwell, Mr. Hodgson, and the Parliamentary Secretary for their co-operation in helping us to decide what to include in the Bill.

I have seen a great change in one of the greatest industrial areas in the country. Our people are cleaner and better-dressed than ever before. Most of the houses in the area are a credit to the occupants. Most of them are kept spotlessly clean. By comparison, our towns and cities have not made the same kind of progress. They are out of tune with modern ideas and culture. They are out of tune with modern ideas of dress and standards of cleanliness. Most people who have visited countries abroad come back feel-feeling discouraged about some of our towns and cities, and I share their discouragement, but I refuse to acquiesce in it, and I hope that sooner or later public opinion will force the Government of the day, whatever its political complexion, to deal with the problem we are discussing today.

I am the first to give credit where it is due. I admit that there have been great improvements. Much has been done, but much still remains to be done. Compared with our industrial towns and cities, our new towns are places of beauty, but voluntary arrangements have had but very limited results. Voluntary methods are too slow and too haphazard, and they are very unsatisfactory. If anybody doubts that, let him look at what they have so far achieved. I hope that the House will today agree that the failure of voluntary methods stresses the urgent need for the speedy acceptance of this Measure.

On 16th February last, the Guardian published an article on the Bill and its objects. The Guardian is one of the most responsible newspapers published in the heart of industrial Britain, and the article should be read by all who are interested in this subject, and wish to know what can be done. Because of the limited time at my disposal I shall not quote the whole of the article, but will quote several extracts. It states that this Bill … will be lucky if it survives the hazards of private member's bill procedure, We know that only too well, and I want to place on record my thanks to those who have co-operated to afford even this limited amount of time for the Bill's Second Reading. The article continues: This would be a pity, for it is so admirable in intent that it deserves to go forward to the committee stage for examination in detail. It says of the proposals in the Bill: All this very much needs to be done. Some of it local authorities can do already, but their hand needs strengthening. That is the purpose of the Bill. It ought to be possible to call the owner or occupier to account if he lets his property become an unsightly mess. It stresses the need to engage landscape architects and other professional people.

I have had some experience in a Ministry, and I know the difficulties, but I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary—and this is too often forgotten—that his position is a Prime Minister's appointment, not a Minister's appointment. If, acting on his experience and vision, a Parliamentary Secretary has the courage to assert himself when things are not going right and further action should be taken, he is acting properly. The test of us all is to assert our manhood at any given time. That applies equally to dealing with complacent bureaucrats, no matter where they may be found.

We urgently need a new start in Britain in respect of our amenities—and a new drive. If that cannot be promised today, I hope we may be told that the Ministry will consider it. In our modern large-scale industry, men and women are now promoted only on merit and not because they are members of this or that society, and we are in competition with the rest of the world in the development of science and technology. There still remains the need to provide to a greater extent than ever before for the people's leisure in a suitable environment.

I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to think of the large industrial establishments which are spending thousands of pounds on scientific development and the beauty and cleanliness of these places. Let him then think of our towns and cities. Can he honestly say that they are in harmony with those industrial establishments and the conditions prevailing in them? Are our people living in surroundings of beauty and cleanliness?

We owe it to future generations to take action now, because the matter is one of extreme urgency. We must ruthlessly eradicate the black legacy which we inherited from 18th and 19th century capitalism. I quote from a letter I have received from the Institute of Park Administration (Inc.). Unfortunately, because of the time factor, I cannot quote it in full, but a part of it states: I read with great interest in The Times yesterday of your Local Authorities (Amenities) Bill, and which I know will meet with the complete support of the Institute and its many Chief Officer members of Local Authorities…. I trust that your Bill will receive full support. … In another letter from that body it is stated—and an article on this subject will appear in its publication—that full support from that body will be given to the Bill. Unfortunately, I do not have time in which to deal with this other document in full.

A few years ago a new organisation was established in London and its inauguration was attended by some of my hon. Friends and by some of the most influential industrialists, including Sir George Nelson, who is now Lord Nelson. I should point out that, unlike other men similarly placed, Lord Nelson attained his present position on his own merits. Anyone doing that obviously deserves the good will of all hon. Members. I remember Lord Nelson saying to me, "You cannot expect workmen to give of their best unless they have good and decent homes in which to live." That remark about good and decent homes applies equally to the environment in which they live.

Therefore, I support the Civic Trust to the maximum extent because of the good work it is doing. But we must now take further steps forward by having greater responsibility accepted by the Ministry. While we may differ between ourselves because of our political opinions, we should not deviate from what I consider to be a most fundamental necessity; that we should co-operate, within limits, to get the best results from a Bill of this kind.

If the Government are unable to accept the Bill, I hope that they will give reasonable consideration to it. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he will allow this Measure to pass its Second Reading and go into Committee. If that is done my hon. Friends and I give an undertaking to co-operate to the maximum so that the best results emanate from our discussion of the matter.

Clause 1 creates new law. I admit that there is no precedent for what it proposes to do, but surely that makes it all the more correct, for it is about time that we laid down special standards of cleanliness in this country. After all, we do this for our personal appearance, in our homes and in factories. It also applies to food, and I believe that the time has arrived when it should be extended to our cities and towns. I have made a study of the existing legislation dealing with this matter and have decided that the Clause is urgently required, that it is reasonable and that it should be accepted.

If it is not correctly drafted—and I have received the utmost co-operation from competent draftsmen, from whom I could not have received better treatment—or if the Bill's provisions should be put in more suitable phraseology to make it legislatively correct, we should co-operate together so that, in 1962, we may set out to obtain, by legislation, the standards of cleanliness the Bill has in mind.

Clause 2 empowers the Minister to request local authorities to take certain action in the improvement of towns and cities. I believe that to a limited extent there is already legislation which provides for this, but in the main it only gives discretion to the highway authorities, which has proved inadequate and unsatisfactory. Hence the need for this Clause which places an obligation upon the authorities. We ask for a survey to be carried out in each area in order that schemes may be made for improving our roads, towns and cities by planting trees, shrubs and grass. This would create a policy of beautification and cleanliness in our industrial areas.

We are building more flats in large cities. I should like to know whether it would be possible to construct park gardens as near as possible to these flats. I should also like to see flat dwellers' chalets and garden allotments provided. All this would stimulate pride among residents in their own localities. It would have a beneficial psychological effect upon them and would be in complete harmony with modern ideas.

By Clause 3 we propose to set up local amenity committees. The best example of the success of this idea is to be found in Pittsburg, U.S.A. What Pittsburg can do we can do if only we have the necessary legislation such as is found in this Bill.

I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I do not speak in detail because of the limited time. I should have liked to go into the matter in greater detail. I am concerned mostly with people outside this House who take an interest in this matter, and I hope they, too, will make allowances if my remarks are shorter than they otherwise would be.

I admit that the Ministry has already taken certain action within limits. For example, the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations once sent out a circular, about which I was very pleased. It had a good effect. Also several manuals have been published for the guidance of local authorities. All these are steps in the right direction. But now we want to take further logical steps to make our towns and cities as pleasant as they should be. The local authorities require encouragement and assistance. What is wanted now is action, not talk. Co-operation is required, and I believe that this should be a local authority responsibility acting on the proposals contained in this Clause.

We therefore say that it is reasonable to suggest a standard of cleanliness for the guidance of all. We also say that we should adopt a policy of beautification in our towns and cities, in harmony with 1962 ideas, involving the planting of trees, shrubs and grass. A Measure of this kind would make it possible to change the face of our cities and towns within five years.

I belong to a generation millions of whom lost their lives. I have always looked upon myself as a very lucky man. Here I stand, strong, having had experience to equip me to play my part in life. It behoves me and all men of my kind to use our energies in order to be worthy of those who died to save our country. All kinds of promises have been made, but twice in my lifetime those promises were broken at the end of war. Today, I plead almost on my knees for limited action such as I suggest and for agreement upon this modest Bill so that we may bring a little more beauty to our towns and cities where people have to live and work.

In the Bill we make only the minimum constructive suggestions. We had it in mind to include three or four more Clauses but we out them out because we wanted to avoid all controversy today so that no hon. or right hon. Member could have any excuse for objecting to a Second Reading being given.

The natives of Africa have adopted a new saying, that the colonialists are leaving in order to stay. That may seem a contradiction, but, when one analyses what it means and knows the facts, one realises how true it is. A similar saying can apply to the Conservatives in this country. Therefore, I plead for acceptance of the Bill today in order that we may avoid accusations of that kind being made. Let us use our democratic rights to introduce more cleanliness and brightness in our towns. If we do, it will be some justification for our saying, when we finish our time here and lay down our tools, that we have used our democratic rights so that those who come after will not inherit the dark legacy which we inherited in our industrial areas.

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills (Belfast, North)

I had intended to speak on the previous Bill about advertising. However, it was apparent that the bone had already been picked clean. I am glad to take the opportunity now of speaking on the Bill which has been introduced by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). As is the usual custom, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his success in the Ballot. I congratulate him also, if I may say so with deep respect, on his very moving speech. He made his points excellently.

The hon. Gentleman reminded us that many of our cities in these islands are both drab and sad, and particularly is this so in the industrial areas which grew up within three or four decades. I realise that the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, but Belfast, part of which I represent, expanded by about 500 per cent. in thirty years. The problems created by this kind of growth have been well dealt with by the hon. Gentleman.

It can be said that, if one excludes the very great improvement in houses which has taken place, many of our industrial towns and cities are sadder and more dismal than they were at the end of the first part of the Industrial Revolution, seventy-five years ago.

The hon. Gentleman made the point that imagination, very often without enormous cost, could transform our cities. Paint, plants and gardens could make a great difference. However, I am not by any means satisfied that his Bill adequately deals with the problem that he has presented to us. I am particularly concerned about Clause 1. As the hon. Gentleman told us, there is no precedent for Clause 1, but that is no argument against it. I accept that, but, as I understand it, it would enable a local authority to require an owner of any land or building to take remedial steps if in the opinion of the local authority—I emphasise that—the property needed tidying up or redecorating. Those are very wide powers which could be placed in the hands of a local authority, and I suggest that they are so wide that they are virtually intolerable. The exercise of the arbitrary discretion of a local authority would place very great penalties on the landlord, on the owner-occupier and on the owner of industrial property. I suggest that the powers in the Bill are too wide.

My second objection to the Bill relates to Clause 1 (2), which deals with the question of appeal. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) are too narrow, and one cannot argue with a local authority if it is thought that the steps which it suggests should be taken are entirely unnecessary. This is a fundamental objection to the Bill.

My third objection is that Clause 2 seems to be mainly a repetition of Section 82 of the Highways Act, 1959. I am told that some of the distinctions between the Bill and that Act are somewhat curious. Under the 1959 Act, one is able to put shrubs in certain areas. Clause 2 merely extends that so that shrubs can be placed in tubs. Again, while a local authority under the 1959 Act can provide flowers in certain areas, the Clause merely extends that provision so that the flowers can be placed in baskets hanging on poles. I cannot believe that our legislation should be used in such a way, or that these are the principles for which Pym and Hampden fought nearly four centuries ago.

I wish to let other hon. Members speak and I therefore conclude with this point. The objects of the proposer of the Bill are highly desirable and I sympathise with them as an analysis of the problem which we are facing. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) always says, "We accept that a problem does exist", and then goes on to add a reservation. My reservation on this Bill is that it is an unsuitable method to deal with this problem.

3.38 p.m.

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

I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) will forgive me if I do not follow his observations, which essentially concerned Committee points. Because we have so little time, I wish to make a few observations to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. He knows as well as I do that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has agitated for at least twenty years to my knowledge on this subject. In pursuing it, he has left no stone unturned in his constituency, in the industrial areas of Lancashire, where he lives, or in the House of Commons. He has begged for wider powers to be given, which the Bill attempts to give, to local authorities.

The Parliamentary Secretary will have noticed that the Bill is mandatory only in one part of it, namely, in Clause 2 (7). Only on that part of the Bill has the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which the Parliamentary Secretary was a vice-president until he became a Minister, any reservations.

The Parliamentary Secretary has had vast local authority experience. He has had other experience also. He used to serve on the advisory committee of the Civic Trust, as I did. I still have the honour to do so, but he had to leave when he became a Minister. He knows that when we come to Clause 3, which seeks to establish local amenity committees, we shall be dealing with a power Which already exists if local authorities would take action. Local authorities can bring in outside people to assist elected representatives. They do so on education committees, but there the elected representatives have to have at least a two-thirds majority. On road safety committees, which have been formed since then, a simple majority of elected representatives is allowed instead of a two-thirds majority.

The whole of the Bill essentially is merely asking local authorities sometimes to take rather wider powers than they have now and to use the powers they already have and have not been using fully, or sometimes not at all. This is how the Ministry can help us enormously even if it cannot accept the Bill as it stands today. It can do its very best—not from time to time, but steadily and regularly—by advice and persuasion to get local authorities to make full use of the powers they have available.

Many local authorities cannot afford a planning officer or planning department, or even an architectural department. Yet there are living in those areas very often young or retired architects and sometimes planners who would gladly give their time freely to serve on such a committee with the elected representatives to whom they could give advice. If we can only do this, and do it on a wider scale, the efforts of my hon. Friend will not have been wasted. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be as forthcoming in his answers as is possible.

3.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon)

I am sure we all appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) introduced his Bill. As his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) said, we in this House all know that he has been a tireless worker for many years in trying to increase the beauty and amenities of our towns and cities. I do not doubt that the objectives he is pursuing are appreciated, but while I appreciate his compliments to the status of Parliamentary Secretaries, I think his Bill raises certain difficulties.

The objectives are in no way in dispute. The most effective way in which we can do this work, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said, is by the fullest use of local authorities' powers. Although their existing powers in this respect are permissive, they are wide, especially if combined with voluntary action by such bodies as the Civic Trust—of which we all naturally approve—other civic societies and private citizens. As Disraeli said: It is easy to adopt compulsory legislation when you have to deal only with those who exist to obey; but in a free country like England you must trust to persuasion and example as the two great elements if you wish to effect any considerable changes in the manner of the people. … It is only by persuasion in action that you can influence and modify and mitigate habits which you disapprove. We must have public support on the broadest basis if we are to improve the state of our towns and countryside. As the hon. Member who introduced the Bill said, much has been done in the past few years. At the same time, much of the dreariness of which D. H. Lawrence wrote so movingly still remains in many parts of the country. He referred to: The blackened brick dwellings, the black slate roofs glistening their sharp edges, the mud black with coal dust, the pavements wet and black. It was as if dismalness had soaked through and through everything. Perhaps some hon. Members present heard the speech on Wednesday of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). I am sure, although I much regret it, that it was a speech that needed to be made. There are many people who live in the suburban South who do not always appreciate just what conditions are like in the Midlands and the North of England, to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South has referred, and where he is trying to do his best to put things right by asking Parliamentary Questions and in many other ways. Indeed, in his own city the Civic Trust scheme there represented a great move forward. I myself share the view of George Orwell, if I may quote another member of the Establishment: I do not believe that there is anything inherently ugly about industrialisation. A factory or even a gasworks is not obliged of its own nature to be ugly, any more than a palace, a dog kennel or a cathedral. In the industrial towns of England as a whole, given modern techniques of industry and the full use of the Clean Air Act and given the use of the present permissive powers, much can be done to make them clean and decent, and if we have the same spirit as underlies this Bill, I think that we can do even better.

I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot give quite such a warmhearted approval to the Bill as it stands. As the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) said, our main objections of substance to Clause 1 are that it makes new law; there is no precedent for it; it is extremely widely drawn. It must, I think, involve interference with individual liberties in a way which might not be acceptable to the public; and it would create administrative difficulties in practice.

We all feel that there is room for facelifting operations in our towns. I think that this is a field for voluntary action such as we have seen by the Civic Trust in my own city of Norwich, South and in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, at Burslem and many other places. As the hon. Member for Belfast, North said, Clause 2 extends to a very slight extent the powers under Section 82 of the Highways Act, 1959, which is itself extended by Section 5 of the Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1961. Except for subsection (6), which is mandatory and which, I think, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) agreed would not be acceptable, it follows the model Clause which appears in a number of private Acts. The Devon County Council, for example, in its own Bill in 1960. withdrew it because it was so close to the powers that already exist.

There are certain difficulties in regard to Clause 4. We feel that this is something for the planning Acts to deal with as a public matter.

I think that we get into difficulty over definitions. What is meant by a weed? I am told that dandelions and docks are easy enough to define but that there would be difficulty about hazel scrub or seeding cabbages. I believe that a weed has been described as "any plant growing in the wrong place", but there are apt to be differences of opinion.

I should briefly like to say something more about Clause 3 which deals with the appointment of local amenity committees. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has indicated the general powers which exist for local authorities in forming committees under Section 85 of the Local Government Act, 1933. A two-thirds majority is required. These are statutory committees. Under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, county councils and the councils of county boroughs, boroughs and urban districts are given fairly wide powers to disseminate information and to give help for road safety. That has been held to include the power to set up a road safety committee of local people who need not include a single member of the authority, and who may incur any necessary expenditure.

It might be that if there were power specifically to preserve amenity there might by implication be power for the local authority to set up amenities committees. That is not really necessary. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central referred to Pittsburg. Undoubtedly, what was achieved by the Allegheny Conference in tidying up and cleaning up Pittsburg ought to be an example to the world of what can be done by voluntary effort, because there was co-operation between the local citizens and the local city authorities. There is no specific power needed for local authorities to take the initiative in forming an independent committee, if they think that necessary for dealing with amenity matters. It is true they would not have power to contribute towards the cost of such a committee, but it would certainly fall within their general powers under Section 136 of the Local Government Act, 1948, to contribute towards the expenses of local bodies subject to the Minister's consent.

I should like to make it clear here and now—and I think that this may go some way to fulfilling the objectives of the hon. Member—that there is no reason why the Minister's consent should be withheld. Indeed, we might be likely to regard such an application with great sympathy. We have indeed used those powers in relation to contributions by local authorities for specific schemes such as the one in Magdalen Street, Norwich. We would wish to see those powers used.

So I can give the House and the local authorities the assurance that if they take the initiative in forming local amenity committees, which are useful, and wish to stimulate them in using permissive powers which they already possess, my right hon. Friend will be very ready to give consents under Section 136 of the Local Government Act, 1933.

I hope that in the light of that assurance the hon. Member may feel it is not quite as necessary as he thought to press forward with the detailed provisions of this Bill.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes (Anglesey)

I am sure that my hon. Friends will feel that we have listened to a very disappointing reply by the Parliamentary Secretary. He thought we ought to be satisfied with existing powers, but the fact is that existing powers have not so far proved adequate to achieve the improvement which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) seeks through his Bill. Had we adopted the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary during this century we should have seen none of the great developments which have taken place. We should not have seen any town and country planning, we should not have seen any new towns, and we should have seen none of the general raising of standards which we have seen.

Let me in the few moments which remain congratulate my hon. Friend on his Bill and upon the manner in which he presented it. His Bill, I feel, has got something which most Bills lack. It has got warmth and imagination behind it. I do honestly feel that it does deserve a better reception. As my hon. Friend said, he is not rigidly tied to the words of the Bill, and I do feel that the House should allow the Bill to go into Committee. In Committee it can be changed. My hon. Friend has no objection to the Bill's being changed provided its central objective remains intact.

What the Parliamentary Secretary does not seem to have recognised, I gather from his speech, is that there is a considerable disparity between some towns and cities and others in this country. Some towns and cities are extremely fortunate. They are set in beautiful places. They are untouched by the Industrial Revolution. By and large these towns and cities which are more fortunate in that sense are also the wealthier towns. They are the towns which can afford to look after their amenities, and the people who live in them are extremely fortunate, and the local authorities there are fortunate because when they started on their jobs about eighty years or so ago they started with great advantages by comparison with other local authorities. In recent times the vision of men like Cadbury and Ebenezer Howard produced Bourneville and Letchworth, and immediately after the war we had the new towns which are generally recognised as among the most magnificent achievements of the post-war period in this country.

There are, however, towns and cities in between the old and the new, built, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, for industry at a time when dirt, grime and smoke meant money. In these towns and cities there live men and women who for decency and courage are the equal of any in the world. I am as jealous of the liberties of the individual as any hon. Member, but we have a duty, as far as we are able, to create conditions and surroundings for these people which match their quality. In these areas the local authorities have done a good job within the limits of the powers and resources at their hand. I do not for a moment think that my hon. Friend's Bill was intended to be an implied criticism of most of these local authorities who have done so well.

I may perhaps be permitted to refer to what is happening in the largest town in my constituency, in Holyhead, where I was born and now live. There the council has drafted a scheme to beautify the town by painting the entire shopping centre in attractive colours. There has been co-operation between the council and the chamber of trade and commerce, and I understand that most of the shopkeepers are co-operating. I hope that hon. Members will visit Holyhead to see the transformation and enjoy the incomparable beauties of Anglesey.

I hope, notwithstanding what the Parliamentary Secretary said, that the Bill will be given a Second Reading. I have a feeling that the Bill is being introduced at the right time when the people of this country are looking beyond the mundane and the prosaic and more people than ever before are going out into the countryside at every available opportunity. Let us try to bring a little more of the countryside into the lives of those who live in towns.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley (Keighley)

In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) did a useful task in drawing the attention of the House to the great problem of the revitalisation and beautification of the cities of the industrial North and the Midlands. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said, it is important that in this House we should not become London-concentrated and should look further out. I am not so convinced that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South made his case for the Bill. The value of his remarks were of a general character.

The hon. Member talked about England's green and pleasant land, and in my county of Yorkshire we have some of the most beautiful of the green and pleasant land of England. We also have some of the dirtiest and worst areas of the sort to which the hon. Member referred. The hon. Member gave his case away in the very examples he chose of the way in which improvements in these places are brought about. He cited the Civic Trust. It is essentially a voluntary body. This is the essence of it, and it seems to me to be the wrong end of the stick in this business to start from the point of view of compulsion by local authorities. The hon. Member spoke about personal appearance and cleanliness in that respect. We do not have inspectors going round to see whether we are clean. We keep clean by self-respect and I have the impression that were we to—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.