HC Deb 31 January 1968 vol 757 cc1480-2

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Queston proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to town and country planning, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  1. (a) any sums required by any Minister for the payment of grants for assisting establishments engaged in promoting or assisting research relating to, and education with respect to, the planning and design of the physical environment;
  2. (b) any other expenses of a Minister under that Act;
  3. (c) any sums which by virtue of any Provision of that Act are payable by any Minister by way of contribution under section 2 of the Town Development Act 1952 towards expenses incurred by a local authority in pro-viding buildings and other works for social, cultural or recreational purposes in connection with development to which that section applies; and
  4. (d) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any enactment other than that Act and other than the said Act of 1952. —[Mr. Harold Lever.]

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

I would like to ask one brief question arising out of this Money Resolution. The Minister made a helpful Statement earlier in which he said that he proposed to add to the Bill a Clause to deal with development by statutory undertakers without planning permission. I want an assurance that the Money Resolution is not so tightly drawn that it will not allow the Minister to make an adequate addition to the Bill of the new Clause. The present procedure, under Circular 100 of 1951, is not entirely satisfactory, as was said during the previous debate. Not even the Ombudsman can touch the difficulties which arise.

The Minister has assured us that statutory undertakers will be brought within the scope of the Bill, but he has not defined those statutory undertakers entirely satisfactorily——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the merits of the Clause which may be added in Committee, but he may ask whether the Money Resolution will be wide enough to include a discussion of it.

Mr. Cooke

I was hoping for an assurance from the Government that the Money Resolution is not drawn so tightly that the Minister could not properly deal with the question of such bodies as the Post Office, which was not mentioned in today's debate, and particularly the development of railway land not by the railways them-selves but under Railway Sites, the holding Company. I hope that we can have further assurances on this point, because the question of this Clause being added has come up only today and it must have been thought that the Bill was all right without it. We need a little more assurance on that matter now.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

Perhaps it would be convenient if I put my questions before the Minister of State answers. Money Resolutions are always difficult to understand. I think that I understand three-quarters of this one, but not the other quarter. I understand that paragraph (a) deals with Clause 71, that paragraph (b) is the normal common form, expenses of the Minister, and that paragraph (c) relates to Clause 72. But is paragraph (d) intended to cover any extension which we may wish to make to the existing provisions of the Bill concerning blight, purchase notices and that part of the subject?

We may wish in Committee to extend the existing provisions, and I hope that the Money Resolution will cover any Amendments of that sort, not only in Amendments in Part IV but also in connection with historic buildings, Clauses 35 and 36, the former dealing with purchase notices and the latter with compensation for refusal of consent to alterations and so on. I hope that it will cover not just what is in the Bill but any reasonable Amendments or extensions which we may desire on those subjects.

10.6 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot)

The answer to both hon. Members is yes. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Robert Cooke) will find that it is paragraph (d), about which his hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) spoke, which gives the power to discuss the new Clauses which we propose to introduce. The point of paragraph (d) is that there will be some increase in expenditure by local authorities as a result of the Bill, which may lead to an increase in Government grants under other enactments than the Bill itself and the Town Development Act which are dealt with by the earlier paragraphs.

Any increases in the local authorities' general administration expenses or any compensation paid, for example, under stop notices or under the new proposals which we will bring forward dealing with the statutory undertakers cases will increase the relevant expenditure for the purposes of rate support grant under the Local Government Act of 1966 and, accordingly, are covered in this way by the Money Resolution.