Lords Sitting of 17 July 1946

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  NEW TOWNS BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  (The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.)
  Clause 1:
  Designation of sites of new towns.
  1.—(1) If the Minister is satisfied, after consultation with any local authorities who appear to him to be concerned, that it is expedient in the national interest that any area of land should be developed as a new town by a corporation established under this Act, he may make an order designating that area as the site of the proposed new town.
  (2) The provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the procedure to be followed in connection with the making of orders under this section; and sections sixteen and seventeen of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944 (which relate respectively to the validity and date of operation of orders under section one of that Act, and to the registration of such orders in the register of local land charges) shall apply to an order made under this section as they apply to an order made under section one of that Act.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
  "The Minister will on the completion of the enquiry lay before Parliament a White Paper explaining his proposals."
  The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the fullest and widest investigation takes place when any scheme is advanced under this Bill. This Bill gives very extensive powers to the Government. It is, as it were, a scaffold, and my Amendment asks that the building to be placed inside the scaffolding should be examined as fully as possible from all points of view. It is very easy to say that the last century has been one of
  524
  chaotic development, and easy to say now how we should prefer that development to have taken place. But it is extremely difficult to say what development we would like to see taking place in the twentieth century, when we cannot foretell what will happen. It therefore behoves us to make the fullest possible investigation, not merely from the local angle, of the nature of the development to take place.
  I will give an example of what I mean so far as the Scottish area is concerned, the proposals for which have been generally outlined by the Secretary of State for Scotland. A preliminary print of the Abercrombie plan for the Clyde Valley was issued in March this year, but it has not yet been made public, and it has been seen by very few people. I have been fortunate enough to see it. It is only a provisional report, and it cannot be considered complete. It recommends among other things that four towns should be built in the vicinity of Glasgow. I do not want to discuss the merits of this plan, but at a superficial glance it appears that the positioning and structure of those towns violate the principles of this Bill. They are satellites and not new towns, in the sense which has been so forcibly emphasized by the noble Lord, Lord Reith, in the Report of his Committee. These towns will inevitably be dormitory towns, but already dormitory towns exist outside the four places which have been selected. It is virtually inevitable that these proposed new towns will be no more than dormitories of an existing large and congested area. I would like to submit that the Abercrombie plan, important as it is, is in fact a plan of the Clyde Valley, and not a broad national plan. There are other areas which, in the interests of their own population and of development, require to go ahead more quickly than those in the immediate vicinity of Glasgow. What I am pressing for is that the fullest and broadest investigations should be made before a decision is taken and before the Secretary of State for Scotland finally lays down what is to be carried out. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 19, at end insert—
  ("The Minister will on the completion of the enquiry lay before Parliament a White Paper explaining his proposals.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD HENDERSON: The substance of the Amendment is that on the completion of an inquiry, the Minister shall lay before Parliament a White Paper explaining his schemes. I submit that the proposal of the noble Earl is really unnecessary. The First Schedule of the Bill lays down the procedure to be adopted for the designation of an area. First of all, there is to be a draft Order to which the fullest publicity is to be given in the ways indicated in the second paragraph of the Schedule. The Order is to appear in the London Gazette, in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality of the proposed town, and in such other newspapers as the Minister considers appropriate to the circumstances. Then there is to be a local public inquiry at which any point and any objection may be raised. A report on the results of the inquiry is to be sent to the Minister. It is only at that point that the corporation will be formed, and when the corporation is set up it will then proceed to work out its detailed plans. Its detailed plans have to be submitted to the Minister. I suggest that in view of the very wide publicity and the opportunities which are provided by this procedure there will be full scope to consider the proposal, to investigate it and to criticize it. I am not sure that the Minister would be able to give any more information at the end of the inquiry than would be available at the inquiry itself.
  Moreover, it must be remembered that the corporation is obligated to make annual reports to the Minister. It is very unlikely that any report by the Minister before the first annual report would contain much more than would be available at the inquiry itself. There is no objection in principle to a report being made by the Minister and indeed, as the noble Earl has suggested, there may be some advantages. But it is a question of the time at which such a report should be made. I suggest that no report would be of any real value that carried in it no more than was available at the public inquiry. I am, however, able to say that the Minister would be willing to make available a report after the setting up of the corporation and before the presentation of the first annual report if sufficient progress had been made to enable a reasonable report to be made. I hope that, having said that, the noble Earl will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask the noble Lord two questions? First, he says that objections may be raised: Can he state who can raise objections? The second question relates to the position when the inquiry is complete. The noble Lord says the Minister will have no further information, but presumably he will give instructions to the corporation which may or may not be varied from the original instruction. How will that be made public?
  LORD HENDERSON: With regard to the first point, anybody can make an objection—any of the local authorities in the area concerned with the new site, the local authority in whose area the new site is to be situated or any individual person. There is no bar to objections or to points being raised.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Any individual person?
  LORD HENDERSON: Any individual person, yes.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Then the second point, with regard to the nature of the instructions to be issued?
  LORD HENDERSON: The report will come to the Minister. He will be able to issue a designation order, either with amendment or without amendment, and that will go to all the authorities concerned. Publicity will be given to it and the corporation when appointed will be able to proceed on that basis.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Establishment and general powers of development corporations.
  2.—(1) For the purposes of the development of each new town the site of which is designated under section one of this Act, the Minister shall by order establish a corporation (hereinafter called a development corporation) consisting of a chairman, a deputy chairman and such number of other members, not exceeding seven, as may be prescribed by the Order; and every such corporation shall be a body corporate by such name as may be prescribed by the order, with perpetual succession and a common seal and power to hold land without licence in mortmain.
  (2) The objects of a development corporation established for the purposes of a now town shall

  527
  be to secure the laying out and development of the new town in accordance with proposals approved in that behalf under the following provisions of this Act, and for that purpose every such corporation shall have power to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of land and other property, to carry out building and other operations, to provide water, electricity, gas, sewerage and other services, to carry on any business or undertaking in or for the purposes of the new town, and generally to do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of the new town or for purposes incidental thereto:
  Provided that, subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to the making of advances to development corporations, a development corporation shall not have power to borrow money.
  2.46 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved after subsection (1) to insert—
  ("(2)—

  (a) With the consent of the Minister a local authority or County Council or two or more such authorities jointly may establish a corporation for the same purposes and having the same powers as a corporation established under subsection (1) of this section and such a corporation shall be a development corporation for the purposes of this Act;

  (b) a local authority establishing or joining in establishing a development corporation may make advances to the corporation for the purposes of development, repayable over such periods and on such terms as may be approved by the Minister, and shall have power to borrow for that purpose from the Public Works Loan Board with security of its rate fund.")

  The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to give effect to a recommendation contained in Lord Reith's Interim Report. The actual recommendation is at the bottom of page 9 of the Report, where it states:
  "Provision should be made for local authorities to initiate the creation of new towns if they desire to do so, particularly in the following cases:—…."
  The cases are then set out. I do not want unnecessarily to detain your Lordships. I think it is fair to say that since putting down this Amendment I have had the opportunity of very carefully reading the whole discussion which took place in another place. I was greatly impressed by the argument which was put forward by the Minister in answer to a similar Amendment. Consequently, I am receptive to the explanation which I think the noble Earl will give, but I think the House ought to hear the reasons why I am sure the Government do not wish to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 5, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  2.48 p.m.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): As I said on Second Reading, I was looking forward to the opportunity, if any noble Lord so desired, of stating the difficulties that the Government saw in the way of making provision for a local authority sponsored corporation. That I understand is the object of the first part of the noble Lord's Amendment. There are two difficulties. In the first place, a new town should be a national and not a local responsibility. It will derive from a national policy of decongestion and dispersal of the population of our great industrial cities. Such a policy is clearly not a local or in any sense a local authority policy, but a policy which should be carried out by a body appointed by the Minister and responsible for its actions to the Minister and through the Minister to Parliament. Another point is that the new town cannot be adequately financed in the early stages save out of central funds. It is, therefore, essential that the expenditure of the moneys borrowed for development purposes should be decided by a body appointed by the Minister and responsible to the Minister and through him to Parliament. The second difficulty to which my right honourable friend alluded in another place is the difficulty of getting agreement between the different local authorities concerned in a designated area, save on conditions that would run counter to the whole conception of a new town.
  Failure of the different local authorities to achieve agreement would in itself mean delay, as noble Lords are well aware, and time is the essence of the contract in these new towns. If agreement were obtained on the condition—and it is an extremely probable condition—that the local authority, wishing to find accommodation for its surplus population, would expand its boundaries and take in the whole designated area, the result would simply be another satellite town of a great industrial neighbour, and not a self-governing and self-contained new town such as we have in mind. Those were the two main objections mentioned by my right honourable friend in another place, and they weighed so heavily with Members there that they

  529
  were convinced and accepted the view that there should be one single agency.
  If I may proceed to the second part of the noble Lord's Amendment, which deals with finance, I should like to point out the following difficulties. In the first place, if some of the money for the work of a development agency were borrowed from the Public Works Loan Board on the security of the rates, which is, what the noble Lord is suggesting, the general body of ratepayers in that area would be paying interest on a venture outside that area from which they would derive no benefit. In the second place, it would be extremely difficult to borrow partly from central funds and partly from the Public Works Loan Board, which I imagine is what the noble Lord has in mind, because the security for the latter might prejudice the Treasury Loan.
  In conclusion I would say that the local authorities themselves do not want the power for which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is asking. The Minister saw representatives of the local authorities before the Bill was introduced, and they showed no desire to be entrusted with the power to set up a development agency. I think I should draw your Lordships' attention to this fact. The noble Lord, Lord Reith, who was chairman of the committee from the report of whose proceedings the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has just quoted, took the view when this Bill was being debated last week on Second Reading that the Minister was right, and that only one type of agency was desirable. The noble Lord said that he accepted the Minister's reasons for turning down both alternatives to the Government's proposals which featured in the recommendations of the Reith Committee, the two alternatives being the local authority corporation, which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, desires, and the authorized association. I have tried to give, as briefly as possible, the objections to having an alternative to the Government sponsored agency, and I hope they will be as convincing to your Lordships and to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, as they were to Members in another place.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In view of what the noble Lord has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to leave out the proviso to subsection (2) and insert
  "Subject to the consent of the Ministry a development corporation shall have power to borrow on the security of its capital assets and revenues, and the Public Works Loan Board shall have power to make advances to a corporation on such conditions as the Treasury may impose."
  The noble Lord said: This is not quite the same point about borrowing; it is different so far as the local authorities are concerned. It seeks to allow the development corporation to borrow on the security of its assets and the Public Works Loan Board to make advances. It is an endeavour to allow the development corporation to escape from the thraldom, rather than the supervision, of the Treasury. The day may well come when these development corporations can stand on their own legs, and I am very apprehensive about the deadening nature of Treasury control, if it is to be strictly imposed. The same principle which underlies this Amendment underlies one in the name of my noble friend, Lord Reith, a little later on, and I have not very much hope, after what the noble Earl has said, that he will be able to accept it. However I would ask him to give the reasons for not accepting it.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, leave out lines 17 to 19, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD HENDERSON: The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, said that the purpose of this. Amendment was to liberate the corporations from the thraldom of the Treasury. There seems to be undue suspicion that the corporations are to be fettered. The fact that the Minister is responsible for the operations of the corporations is being overlooked. The Minister remains convinced that the corporations should not have powers to borrow from outside bodies. The suggestion in the noble Lord's Amendment is that they should have this power, and the assets and revenue of the corporations should be used as security. I would point out that in the early years of the corporations there will be no surplus revenue; indeed, provision is made in the Bill for the Minister to provide what is required to meet the difference between income and expenditure. Therefore, one can rule out revenue as security for the loan.

  531
  On the other hand, whatever capital assets are built up will derive from capital resources provided by the State. It seems a rather curious suggestion that the corporation should have power to use State assets in order to borrow from outside sources. The real purpose I take it, as the noble Lord said, is to give the corporation greater freedom; but if it is suggested that power to borrow privately would give greater freedom, I would point out that the Amendment itself concedes that any outside loan should be subject to the consent of the Minister. Presumably the noble Lord thinks that the corporation may want to borrow from outside for some project for which it would not be able to get Treasury sanction. If the Minister approved of the project, it can be accepted, I think, that the Minister himself would fight the Treasury, should the Treasury show any reluctance or opposition. On the other hand, if the Minister did not regard the project as a satisfactory one, he would not sanction borrowing from outside sources. I would only remind the noble Lord that the Minister made it clear, during the progress of the Bill through another place, that he was anxious that the corporations should have the largest measure of freedom, having regard only to his own public responsibilities. There will be no whittling down of the freedom of the corporations in their operations.
  We think that the scheme provided in the Bill has the merit of simplicity. In view of the very great interest which rests upon the Minister to see that the corporations operate properly, and in view of the responsibility which would rest upon him before Parliament in the event of their failure, I think it may be accepted that the Minister will see that the corporations are allowed to have the largest measure of freedom. In the light of those observations, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, will withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD REITH: What underlies this Amendment, and what underlay the remarks I made on the Second Reading about the corporations and the Treasury, is not merely a desire to get greater independence, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said, but a desire to make the corporations more self-supporting and self-respecting. I said on the Second Reading that I was not at all happy about the extent to which the corporations were
  532
  to depend upon the Treasury, and I ventured to interject a remark in the noble Lord's winding-up speech. His reply more or less satisfied me, although I would wish the whole financial arrangements were on the basis of the corporations paying their own way sooner rather than later. As I said then, they should, before very long, be able to do so. I was, however, content to let things go, because of Lord Henderson's reply to my interjection. He was referring to the freedom in management that the Minister would surely give, and I said, "Does that also cover the Treasury?" The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, then said:
  "I will only say this, that it is the Minister who is responsible for the success of the corporations. If the corporations were to fail in their undertakings, it would be the Minister who would be answerable to Parliament. That is his official responsibility. On the other hand, the Minister, as every member of the House recognizes, has a very deep and a very sincere feeling for the success of this great experiment."
  Then came the point that was good enough for me, but which I was very anxious to have from the noble Lord:
  "I think on both grounds we may rely upon the Minister to, shall I say, keep his end up with the Treasury."
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: If those obiter dicta of my noble friend could be put into the Act of Parliament, we should all be satisfied, but when he stands at the Despatch Box and says: "We can be quite certain, and I give you my word, "or words to that effect," that there will be no whittling down of the freedom of the corporations in their operations, and that the Minister will fight the Treasury," I cannot help remembering past history. What did the Treasury do under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, when local authorities wanted to borrow money to buy land to prevent it being developed? The Treasury insisted that those local authorities should put up a plan for development before they would let them borrow the money. That is precisely the thing which I am afraid will happen under this system of close control. I realize that it is very difficult to give the corporation freedom and yet give the Treasury control. Of course, the Treasury must have control, and if only we could put into the Act of Parliament that it will not be stultifying control, it

  533
  would be all right. In view of what my noble friend has said, and in view of the categoric assurance he has given, I feel I have no alternative but to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  Planning and control of development in new towns.
  (4) Where a planning scheme is in force with respect to any land within the area designated by an order under section one of this Act as the site of a new town, then, without prejudice to the provisions of section thirty-three of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, the order may revoke that scheme so far as it relates to that land; and where a scheme is so revoked—

  (a) the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1932 and 1943, with respect to the control of interim development shall, as from the date on which the order is registered under section seventeen of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, as applied by this Act, apply to the development of the land as if a resolution to prepare a new planning scheme had taken effect on that date; and

  (b) for the purposes of any such new scheme the material date shall be the date aforesaid or such later date as may be specified in that scheme:

  Provided that the proviso to the definition of "the material date" contained in section fifty-three of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932 (which specifies the material date in relation to any provisions of a scheme which is revoked by a scheme containing the same or a similar provision) shall have effect in relation to any such new scheme as if the original scheme were revoked by that scheme.
  VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Viscount said: In this subsection the Minister is, as I understand it, seeking power to set aside an operative town-planning scheme by administrative order when he thinks it may be necessary to do so for the establishment of a new town, and to substitute what is known as interim development procedure. An operative town-planning scheme is a scheme which has been prepared after very great trouble by a local authority, approved by the Minister himself after a local inquiry, and finally approved by both Houses of Parliament. My submission is that power to set aside a scheme of that sort by administrative order is a very drastic power which should only be granted for very compelling reasons, and I think at least we ought to be told what those
  534
  reasons are. I am sure we all appreciate that the setting up of new towns will obviously necessitate a great deal of new planning, but there is a recognized procedure for modifying town-planning schemes—that is, by submitting to Parliament a varying scheme—and I would like to know why this procedure cannot be followed.
  If you set out to put up a new town, you probably have a fairly concrete plan in your mind, and it seems to me that it is not demanding a great deal to ask that the plan should be submitted as a varying scheme. Why should this somewhat unsatisfactory procedure of the interim development control be substituted? I am quite aware, of course, that the immediate programme of new town building is an urgent matter, in that it is designed to relieve very serious overcrowding, and I would quite agree that if the Minister was likely to be delayed very greatly by having to submit a large number of varying schemes there would be a case for some emergency procedure of the sort now asked for. From the practical point of view, however, difficulties of that sort are very unlikely to arise, because in point of fact less than five per cent. of all the land of England and Wales is at present governed by operative schemes. In regard to the more distant future, when we can hope, perhaps, that there will be more operative schemes in being, is there any real reason why the normal procedure should not be followed? Have we to look forward to the continuance of emergency conditions?
  It seems to me that by asking for permanent powers to override Acts of Parliament, for reasons which I believe to be largely hypothetical, the Minister is setting a somewhat doubtful precedent. I think it is quite likely that when any of his colleagues feel they may be somewhat inconvenienced by the existence of an operative town-planning scheme, a clause similar to this will be slipped into new legislation. The Service Ministers will wish complete freedom to establish training grounds and aerodromes, the Minister of Transport will want to drive new roads where he wishes, and perhaps the Minister of Fuel and Power will not wish to be troubled by anything so sordid or morbid as a town-planning scheme. I am not arguing this case on abstract constitutional grounds, although there might be something to be said on

  535
  those grounds. I am only anxious that a town-planning scheme, after it has received Parliamentary approval, should have a certain sanctity and permanence about it. I feel that it should be looked upon not only as a preventive of bad private enterprise, but as a charter for good private enterprise. If the Minister himself is going to open the door to upsetting them by summary means they may eventually have very little significance. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 30, leave out subsection (4).—(Viscount Gage.)
  LORD HENDERSON: This subsection was put in the Bill in Committee in another place as a Government Amendment. At the time the Minister said that all that the Amendment did was to provide for a case where there is an operative scheme in existence in a new town area. He added that the number of cases would be small, but obviously an operative scheme would be in appropriate and should be revoked. Powers to revoke already existed under the 1944 Act, but the procedure is cumbersome and long and the Amendment would simplify the procedure. I am instructed that Clause 3 (4) does not affect the provisions of the Act of 1932 under which a planning scheme, including a scheme amending a previous scheme, has to be laid before Parliament. Clause 3 (4) enables the existing scheme to be revoked by Order, but the effect of the revocation is to set in motion the procedure under the Planning Acts by which a new scheme would be made for the district in question. If and when such a new scheme is made it will in due course come before Parliament in the ordinary way. I think in view of that position the noble Viscount may feel himself free not to press his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT GAGE: I do not profess to feel entirely satisfied with what the noble Lord has said, but I have great confidence in the Minister of Town and Country Planning and I hope that he will protect the interests of neighbouring authorities and the validity of the town-planning schemes satisfactorily. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4:
  Acquisition of land by development corporations.
  (3) Section two of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946 (which confers temporary powers for the speedy acquisition of land by local authorities having power to purchase land in accordance with section one of that Act or the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944) shall have effect as if references therein to a local authority included references to a development corporation:
  Provided that without prejudice to the provisions of the said section two restricting the period within which an authorisation may be given there under for the compulsory acquisition of land, no such authorisation shall be given for the compulsory acquisition of land by the development corporation established for the purposes of a new town at any time after two years from the date on which the order under section one of this Act designating the site of the new town became operative.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: By the Amendment which stands in my name I am asking the Government to omit subsection (3) from this clause. Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946—which incidentally lasts for a period of only five years—will enable a development corporation to acquire land under a very speedy procedure. It is true that in another place a proviso was added to this subsection which restricted the operation of the procedure under Section 2 of that Act to the first two years of the corporation's life. I do not want to weary your Lordships by reciting all that Section 2 of the 1946 Act does. It will be sufficient for me to say that under that section the acquiring authority—in this case it will be the development corporation—can take possession of land seven days after the Minister has given his authorization. In fact the powers are such that a man can be dispossessed of his business and his land by a most summary method which, it seems to me, in the case of new towns is really quite uncalled for. When the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, was being discussed in your Lordships' House the Second Reading was moved by the Lord Chancellor who, having explained how the procedure would work, said this:
  "Therefore it is essential that you should have these drastic powers which, in the event of an emergency, you can put into force. …

  537
  I concede this readily, that the less we have to resort to Clause 2 the greater the tribute to the efficiency of our planning. I hope that we shall not have to use Clause 2 very much."
  Later in his speech the noble and learned Lord said:
  "Your Lordships will notice the conditions precedent to operating this clause. The clause says that:
  '… any authority … having power to authorize the compulsory purchase of land by a local authority for any purpose is satisfied—

  (a) That it is expedient that the local authority … should purchase any land for the said purpose, and

  (b) That it is urgently necessary in the pubic interest that the acquiring authority should be enabled to obtain possession of the land without delay.'"

  The noble and learned Lord then went on to say:
  "Unless the Minister is able to certify that these two conditions are complied with, then the Clause 2 procedure does not apply at all."
  In view of that statement by the noble and learned Lord it may well be that the Amendment which I have on the Paper falls automatically to the ground, because the Minister will still have to give his authorization and a certificate before allowing the development Corporation to purchase land compulsorily by the method which I have just described under Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. This, however, still leaves one question unanswered. Why is it necessary in building a new town to have these tremendous powers to take land from the owners, as I have already said, as soon as seven days after the Minister has given his authorization? It is on that point that I would like the Government spokesman to give us some explanation. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 1, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Munster.)
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think your Lordships will agree that the noble Earl opposite has done justice to an interesting and strong case. What I should like to explain to your Lordships is exactly what powers the Minister would have under this subsection, in order that your Lordships may be satisfied that those powers will not be exercised in a way to encroach upon the rights of private individuals. This subsection which the noble Earl is moving to omit would enable
  538
  the Minister to authorize a development corporation to acquire land under the exceptional and speedy procedure provided for in Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. May I explain to your Lordships by reference to what my right honourable friend said in another place exactly what he has in mind? In the first place he made it quite clear that in the normal case of the acquisition of land by a development authority, procedure under Section 2 of the 1946 Act would be unnecessary and inapplicable, and indeed could not be used because of the limited provisions of the Act itself. The noble Earl referred to the two limiting conditions in Clause 2 (1) of the 1946 Act, and I will not repeat them. I would only like to emphasize the second of these two conditions because it seems to me it is essential that one should bear it in mind. It is that the Minister has to be satisfied—and here I quote from the Act—
  "That it is urgently necessary in the public interest that the acquiring authority should be enabled to obtain possession of the land without delay."
  My right honourable friend went on to say that he had in mind the fact that it was extremely unlikely that this procedure would ever be used at all, but that there might be some exceptional cases of special urgency in which land would have to be acquired under this procedure to prevent the holding up of some important project of a development corporation. To give your Lordships an instance of what I mean, there might be a case where, in the early stages of development, it would be necessary to get land for providing water, sewerage or electricity for the purposes of a housing estate. In order to get the land, the steps that would be taken might affect a number of landowners. It should be remembered that even if one of those individuals were to be a little difficult, the fact of that one difficulty might result in holding up the whole scheme for a long period of time.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: How long?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I cannot answer that offhand; I can only say it would be very long as compared with the procedure which is authorized under the 1946 Act. In such a case it would be useful to have this provision—again I am not expressing my own personal opinion, I am merely associating myself with what my

  539
  right honourable friend has said—to be used in the last resort, but only in the last resort, in order not to hold up the development scheme. My right honourable friend went a step further than this. He said that he was prepared to accept a further limitation above and beyond the limitations laid down in the 1946 Act. During the Report stage in another place he accepted an Amendment which had the effect of limiting the period during which this special procedure for the acquisition of land could be applied to two years from the date of the order designating the area of the new town in respect of which the acquisition is required. So there is a two-year limitation, after which this power could not be exercised. I think it will be evident, from what I have said, that my right honourable friend regards this power as only to be exercised—if it is exercised at all—in very exceptional circumstances, and that he has in mind the desirability of reviewing the position in a fairly short period of time.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: The position seems to be that this is the kind of subsection that really ought never to be used in respect of one of these new towns. I appreciate what the noble Earl has said about the powers being very seldom used, but I should have thought that plans should be made so much in advance that there would not be need to use this kind of power in this kind of case. Where are these new towns going to be? They are all going to be in what are now agricultural districts, and it should be made very certain that, when the Government take over this land, they will not unnecessarily disturb the existing tenants and deprive them of the crops they are about to garner. It is within my memory how some Government Departments tend to act when they have powers of this sort. In the early days of the war, I was at the Ministry of Supply when sites were being acquired for factories. We were acquiring one in the North of Wales under a quick procedure which, in fact, gave no compensation whatever to the tenants. It merely gave to the tenants what they had to pay to the landlord. The prospect was that those tenants would have forced sales of their stocks. I should explain that they were small milk farmers. Had I not intervened,
  540
  these wretched people would have been turned out from the whole of this area very quickly.
  One wants so see this kind of thing done in a reasonable way. In the case of which I have spoken, we were going to build on only a part of the site within the succeeding few months. The proposal was a long-term one. Indeed, as it was for the erection of an explosives factory, a great part of the area was not going to be built on at all, and there was not the slightest reason, therefore, why the people should not go on farming on the part which was to remain unoccupied until the factory came into operation. Thus they would have ample time to make arrangements to take new farms, dispose of their stocks or garner their crops. What one wants to see is that the Department does act reasonably, so unless it is completely necessary I do not like to see it given any powers which may possibly be regarded as an encouragement not to act in the reasonable way we should wish it to act.
  I should hope that plans will be made so well in advance for these towns, that the ordinary procedure could be followed without adopting this quick method, which I suggest was only justified when we had the Acquisition of Land Bill before us, by the urgent need to get on with the immediate housing programme on sites where roads and services were in existence, and where the circumstances generally were such that the areas were ripe for quick development. These new towns are a long-term proposition, and I should very much doubt whether these powers are needed in connexion with them. I should like very much to get from the noble Earl an expression of opinion to the effect that these powers will be very carefully watched, and that all cases of taking over land will also be very carefully watched in order to see that people are not unreasonably disturbed, and are given sufficient time to garner crops, and to dispose of livestock, without the substantial financial loss which might follow from quick sales. Some assurance of that sort would, I am certain, make this clause very much more acceptable.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I say at once that I can without a moment's hesitation give the noble Lord the assurance that my right honourable friend will

  541
  consider very carefully the rights of property holders before resort is had to these very exceptional powers. I have no hesitation at all in giving that undertaking without any further consultation.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I cannot say that I am particularly pleased with the reply of the noble Earl, but it does take off some of the hard edges. He told us, for instance, that powers contained in Section 2 of the 1946 Act are very unlikely to be used, except in cases of exceptional urgency. Naturally I accept that, but under the procedure which can be adopted for acquiring land, under Clause 1 of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, the period of time for acquiring that land is only something between six and twelve weeks. I recall that in discussions on that Bill there were some considerable arguments about this matter. There may be exceptional cases where the period of time allowed is far longer, but normally I believe that it is only between six and twelve weeks. In his reply, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that the Minister intended to review the position in a short time. I am not quite clear what position was referred to, whether it was the position of this subsection which enables land to be acquired by this summary measure. Perhaps he would make that more clear before I continue.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: When I mentioned the intention of my right honourable friend to review the position, what I intended to convey was that he did not consider this power to be permanent. That is the consideration which I think all your Lordships had uppermost in mind.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  3.32 p.m.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Before your Lordships part with this clause, there is a question I want to ask. Are the Government quite satisfied with the drafting of the Bill in this respect? It is a matter which could easily be put right at a later stage. Reading this Bill, the singular thing is that, from first to last, one finds in it no clause dealing with the compensation to be given for properties which have to be bought in large numbers by, or on behalf of, the development corporations. On
  542
  making inquiries of those who ought to know, I am told it is intended that the matter should be covered by Clause 4 (7), which says:
  "For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that a development corporation established under this Act is a public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919."
  You will no doubt find in that Act that public authorities have certain powers; but that measure was followed by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, in which there is a section dealing expressly with compensation in connexion with the acquisition of land, and covering lands acquired by public authorities. The sections to which I refer are Section 57, and some subsequent sections. Whether they would be incorporated by subsection (7) of this clause seems to be a nice subject for argument, having regard to the fact that Clause 4 specifically mentions Sections 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and does not mention—deliberately does not mention, it would be said in argument—Section 57 and the subsequent sections. Whatever the result of that argument might be, I do crave for this, as I have craved for it in other cases, with all the vehemence at my command. I do not see why the Bill should not say what it means, and nothing would be easier than to add to subsection (7), if we want to make it clear to the ordinary, educated man where compensation clauses are to be found, some such words as "and Sections 57, 58 and 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, shall accordingly apply to this Act."
  As it is, I confess that I, as a lawyer, am not prepared to say that the compensation clauses are not incorporated in this Bill, but I am prepared to say that I do not believe that one educated person in ten reading the Bill would come to the conclusion that that is so. I think it is a difficult case, and I do not quite see why the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, who is anxious to make it clear to intellects of the meanest capacity, should not make it clear to mine.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his views on the drafting of Clause 4 (7) of the Bill. Anyone speaking with his authority is bound to command a great deal of respect. I can assure the

  543
  noble and learned Lord that we share his anxiety that this subsection should be crystal clear to anyone who studies the Bill seriously and carefully. I will gladly consult my advisers between now and the Report stage as to whether the subsection shall be amended on the lines which he has suggested. I will let him know later whether his suggestion is acceptable, or not.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I only wish to emphasize that it is the specific reference to some half-dozen sections in an early part of this clause which throws doubt as to whether any other sections are intended to be incorporated by the last subsection.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  (2) The powers of a development corporation with respect to the disposal of land acquired by them under this Act shall be so exercised as to secure, so far as practicable, that persons who were living or carrying on business or other activities on land so acquired shall, if they desire to obtain accommodation on land belonging to the corporation, and are willing to comply with any requirements of the corporation as to its development and use, have an opportunity to obtain thereon accommodation suitable to their reasonable requirements on terms settled with due regard to the price at which any such land has been acquired from them.
  3.35 p.m.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (2), at the end to insert:
  "Provided that where it is not practicable to secure that such person shall have an opportunity to obtain on land belonging to the corporation, accommodation suitable to his reasonable requirements or for any reason such person does not desire to obtain accommodation on land belonging to the corporation, and notice to treat for the acquisition of such person's land has been served during the period ending on the seventeenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, there shall be paid by way of compensation to such person such sums as will enable him to obtain other accommodation similar in character and extent."
  The noble Earl said: This Amendment raises a very important question, and I hope it will receive the sympathy and support of His Majesty's Government. As the Bill is at present drafted, those persons whose land and buildings are taken and for whom alternative accommodation can be provided in the new
  544
  towns, are already covered. I am concerned for two other classes of people who do not appear to come within the scope of this clause. First, there are those persons who may desire to continue to live in the area, but whose business is such as to make continuance there quite impossible if a new and large town is created. I am thinking, for instance, of a farmer or market gardener. Secondly, I am concerned with those people who do not desire to remain in the town owing to the fact that the character of the whole area in which they formerly lived has been changed.
  It can be argued, no doubt, that each of these classes is a small minority; but it raises a very important principle. Liberty of choice, in my opinion, should not be affected by the conditions of purchase. The sort of persons I have just mentioned will have their property acquired under Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and it will be acquired at 1939 prices, plus in some cases a certain supplement, and irrespective of the market value of that or similar property. When the property of these people is taken under the Town and Country Planning Act, they will have to reaccommodate themselves elsewhere. They will find themselves faced with the necessity of paying current market prices for any property which they may acquire, and will thus suffer a more or less severe pecuniary loss. There can be no noble Lord in this House, on whatever side he may sit, who does not believe that the whole problem of 1939 prices for public acquisition of property must be raised sooner or later, and solved by new legislation. It cannot be dealt with under this Bill, which affects only one of the many Acts under which public authorities can acquire land compulsorily.
  I realize that my Amendment will assist persons who are unwilling or unable to continue to live in the new towns, but there will be equally a burden on any one else, in any part of the country, whose property is acquired by some local authority not connected with the new towns. Nevertheless, the Amendment can be looked upon as a stop-gap, and I trust that His Majesty's Government will consider very carefully whether something can be done to assist the two classes of persons I have mentioned and, at the same time, give us some information as to whether the principle of paying 1939

  545
  prices, with a certain supplement, is to be maintained indefinitely.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 21, at end insert the said new proviso.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  3.40 p.m.
  LORD HENDERSON: The noble Earl has moved his Amendment with such skill and appeal that I find myself in somewhat of a difficulty in not being able to accept it. The Amendment deals with two points: first, where it is not practicable to secure that a person whose property has been taken shall be offered accommodation comparable with that acquired from him; secondly, in respect of a person who, for any reason, does not desire to obtain accommodation on the land belonging to the corporation. This Amendment was considered in another place. The Minister then made it clear that he was unable to accept it. I find myself in the position of having to stand by that decision because no new argument has been adduced in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
  The position is that compensation for land acquired for public purposes was laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. As we all know, that Act was brought in by a Minister belonging to my noble friend's Party and by the war Coalition Government. It was brought in only two years ago, and the basis of compensation was laid down. It is true that the Act provided an escalator clause which is in process of being used. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, I think, in June, and as I re-stated on the Second Reading of this Bill, hitherto the compensation basis has been the 1939 value, plus 30 per cent. Necessary instruments have been prepared, and, as I said on Second Reading, it is hoped to bring them before Parliament in the course of a few days. That order will increase the supplement from 30 to 60 per cent. The noble Earl raised a very definite point, namely, that the time had arrived when we ought to consider the whole question of compensation for land. That may be true. The noble Earl, however, was good enough to say that he quite realized it could not be dealt with by this Bill. Therefore, it is not within my province to express any view as to what may, or may not, be done, or when it may be done. I do not know.
  546
  I can, however, say this: that so far as land acquired under this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament is concerned, it will all be acquired on the new basis, namely, the 1939 value plus 60 per cent. To some extent, therefore, that meets the point that the noble Earl has made, although it does not go all the way that he suggests; because while it is true that there may be a case here and there where the outgoing tenant cannot find accommodation that he regards, in the words of the Bill, as "suitable to his reasonable requirements," it is nevertheless obligatory upon the corporation to find such alternative accommodation. Here and there there may be a very exceptional case where, for one reason or another, it is not found practicable. It is certainly not the intention of the Government to accept the burden of paying compensation based not on the value of the land that has been acquired but on the value of the land that the tenant may wish to obtain. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
  3.45 p.m.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Would the noble Lord explain something which he said just now? I may have caught it incorrectly, but I thought I heard him say that all land acquired for the purposes of the New Towns Bill will be acquired at the 1939 ceiling plus 60 per cent. If my noble friend said that, it is a slip, is it not?
  LORD HENDERSON: Yes.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: That applies only to owner-occupiers, as I understand it.
  LORD HENDERSON: That is so.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: If it applies only to owner-occupiers, may I ask him to consider this point before the next stage? Because I think it is a matter of very great general importance. The House will perhaps remember that, besides owner-occupiers, who are persons in actual occupation, Section 58 (5) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944—I am sorry to have to refer to it, but this is all legislation by reference—states that there are certain other persons entitled to compensation as if they were owner-occupiers. Paragraph (d) includes some

  547
  of these people by adding, as a condition of being an owner-occupier,
  "… the title under which the building or property is held at that time …."
  that is at the time of its being acquired—
  "… is such that he then has the right to enter into occupation thereof or will be in a position to obtain that right within five years from that time. …"
  That is a very good paragraph. Then it goes on—
  "… and
  (ii) it was at that time his intention, subject to its being possible for him so to do, to enter into occupation of the building or property within the said five years. …"
  I want to call the attention of the noble Lord to what I think is the hardest case of all in the cases of expropriation under this Bill, namely, those of people who have acquired a house, probably as a result of a lifetime of saving, and who are then, by evil circumstances, by illness, by death of the husband or some such cause, compelled to give up the house and to let it, and to live on the proceeds of the rent. That is a common case. A man who has spent a lifetime acquiring a house, with the assistance of a building society, dies. His wife can no longer get enough money to continue to live there. She gets out, and lives on the rent. This clause, I think by inadvertence, prevents her getting the benefit of being an owner-occupier and receiving the 60 per cent., because she cannot say at that time that it is her intention to enter into occupation of the building. Her circumstances may be such that she will never be able to afford to live there again. There are also the people who have no intentions at all, when they let property, of returning to it. I am very strongly of the opinion that the draftsmen, or the Government who consented to this clause, have not sufficiently worked out its implications and its result. If they do so, they might, if possible, strike out those words of Section 58 (5) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, in so far as they affect the present measure.
  3.49 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I should like to appeal to the Government to consider this matter a little further before we come to the next stage of the Bill. The House is not being unreasonable about this measure and there is an obvious
  548
  desire on both sides to reach a satisfactory settlement and to be fair to everybody. That is the only reason why I make this request. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, pointed out, the basis for compensation under this Bill is the 1939 ceiling, which was generally accepted, I think, by all Parties in the days of the Coalition Government as the basis under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. There was no difference of opinion about that. The assumption, of course, was that the war and postwar values are abnormal and therefore it would be right to go back to what is regarded as the last normal year. I do not think, as Lord Balfour of Burleigh pointed out in the debate on the Second Reading, that that argument is quite so valid now as it was in 1944, because everybody knows the value of money has changed, and it has probably changed for good. I think that will be accepted on all sides of the House.
  But I do not mean to argue this question of the 1939 ceiling because, as I say, that has, for better or for worse, been generally accepted. I think it is recognized by the Government themselves that that is not quite so watertight as it was a year ago, because they suggested in the case of owner-occupiers that compensation may be increased by as much as 60 per cent., and they recognised that a 1939 ceiling would not give the chance of restarting on a similar basis to that which they had before. I do not want to deal with the question of urban holders, as the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, has already spoken about that. Even there I feel that a man who has got 60 per cent. above the pre-war value of his house in compensation would be very unlikely to find another available house at that price. I do not know if noble Lords opposite have tried, but if they did succeed in that direction they would indeed be fortunate. At any rate, it can be said about that man that he has probably not invested a great deal of further capital in the property since 1939; in fact, he has probably been prevented from doing so by a number of regulations passed during the war.
  The man I am particularly sorry for is the farmer. He is in a completely different situation to the urban holder. So far from his being prevented from investing more capital and spending more money on

  549
  his holding, he has been almost forced to do it by successive Governments during the war; and there is no doubt that the capital and labour he has put into that property have greatly increased the value of it, quite apart from the alteration in the value of money. He has improved the property by his efforts, which have been made in the national interests. That is true of the vast majority of agricultural holders in this country. Suppose you turn a man out of his existing holding under this Bill and you say to him: "I will give you 1939 value plus 60 per cent.," which is the most he can get, as I understand it. That will not go anywhere near providing him with a new farm of a similar type. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, will certainly bear me out on that. I cannot believe it is the intention of the Government that this class of the community who have been praised in Parliament and throughout the world for their patriotism during the national emergency, should be especially penalised. I think it is extremely unfair, and I would ask the Government to consider the matter a little further. I do not know how far it is possible to make any differentiation between various properties, but I believe there is a special case for the farmer, and I think it is one that ought to be faced.
  LORD HENDERSON: I find it difficult to resist the very reasonable appeals made by both the noble Viscounts, Lord Maugham and Lord Cranborne. Special points have been raised for which consideration is being asked, and I have no hesitation in saying—without making any commitment, because that is not within my power—that I will certainly see that these matters are brought to the attention of the Minister. Consideration will be given to them between now and the next stage and, if necessary, consultations can take place with the noble Viscounts opposite. With that assurance, I hope my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am obliged to the noble Lord and will certainly fall in with his suggestion that I should withdraw the Amendment, in view of the consultation which he will have with his right honourable friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Perhaps at the same time the noble Lord will convey to the Minister our feeling that this is not a political question but is really an endeavour to do what is
  550
  right. I hope the noble Lord will have some success in his consultations with the Minister, and that he will be able to accept an Amendment of a similar nature at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8:
  Housing.
  (2) For the purposes of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, the Minister of Health may approve any house provided by a development corporation otherwise than in pursuance of such arrangements as aforesaid as if it were a house provided by a local authority, and in respect of any house so approved the Minister of Health may, if he thinks fit, pay to the corporation, out of moneys provided by Parliament, sums not exceeding the annual Exchequer contributions which would be payable under that Act if the house had been provided by such an authority.
  3.55 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
  "(3) Where houses are provided in a county district or non-county borough, or in connection with the establishment of a new town and the Minister of Health is satisfied that the payment of contributions out of the rate fund would place an undue burden on the local rates, the standard amount of the annual Exchequer contribution shall be increased by an amount equivalent to that of the normal rate fund contribution, and no contribution shall be payable by the local authority."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment is couched in very technical language and I will try to explain to your Lordships quite simply what it is intended to do. As all your Lordships know, when a local authority builds a house there are two subsidies, the Exchequer subsidy and the subsidy paid out of the rates. Under the Bill as drafted, if a development corporation builds a house and that house has nothing to do with the local authority—that is, it is not built to the order of the local authority—it will attract the Exchequer subsidy but it will not attract the subsidy from the rates. It is true that the development corporation will be able to make an appeal as it were ad misericordiam to tie Treasury and get a deficiency payment, but I say that it is not right that it should have to do that. Consequently this is another

  551
  attempt to liberate the development corporation from the thraldom of the Treasury. I think the deficiency which the development corporation may very well incur on general grounds should be quite separate from this housing deficiency. The development corporation ought to get as a matter of right the rate subsidy quite apart from its general deficiency. I am advised the language of this Amendment covers this, but if it is not right it can easily be put right. What I want to achieve is that housing finance should be kept separate from the deficiency finance of the development corporation. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 30, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I really think that this clause is constructed in a perfectly clear and sensible way. The noble Lord will find that it gives him exactly what he wants. Provision has been made in the Bill to meet the position where a development corporation does not receive the equivalent of a rate fund contribution. May I explain to your Lordships exactly how this arises. When a development corporation builds houses on behalf of an exporting local authority—the local authority with a surplus population that it wants to house outside—it is expected the authority will pay to the corporation the rate fund contribution at least for the period during which the local authority wishes to use the accommodation. But when the corporation builds houses that are not covered by an arrangement with a local authority—which is the case the noble Lord has in mind—they will not receive a rate fund contribution. The financial position of the corporation is, however, amply covered. Under Clause 12 (2) the Minister will be able to make grants to the corporation in respect of defraying any other expenditure. When deciding the amount payable the Minister will take into account the extent to which the corporation is not receiving a rate fund contribution.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Is that in the Bill?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes, under Clause 12 (2).
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The first part of what my noble friend read is in the Bill, but I do not see the second part.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: In other words—if I may just finish the point—the corporation will receive the financial assistance it requires to pay its way, but it will be in the form of a general grant from the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I think it is really a question of book-keeping which divides the noble Lord from the Government on this matter. I do not think it is a question of substance at all. I will willingly go into it further, but I do feel that there is no issue of substance between us, and I hope that the noble Lord, if he examines the wording of the Bill, will arrive at the same conclusion. The noble Lord referred to the wording of this Amendment. I agree that it could easily be re-drafted, but as it stands it goes beyond the four corners of this Bill and would affect any house built by a local authority in any part of the country which attracted a subsidy. It would not merely affect the houses that are going to be built on behalf of development corporations in developing the sites of the new towns. The noble Lord will agree, I think, that it throws the net too wide.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I agree that it looks like that standing on the Amendment Paper by itself, but I thought that if put into the place into which I want it put, it would fall under the heading of the clause. I think my noble friend really conceded my whole case in making the point that the corporations would have to go to the Treasury and ask for a grant. If he will tell me that because they have built these houses they will automatically get the rate contribution, that will be an answer to my question, but he does not say that. He says it is all a matter of book-keeping; they will have to apply for a grant anyway, and this will have to be included. That covers my point. In my opinion they ought not to have to go, hat in hand, and ask for this as part of the general contribution; they ought to get it as a matter of right. If my noble friend will assure me that the corporations will get from the Treasury, as a matter of right, the equivalent of that rate contribution, without any argument about the general deficiency, then he will meet my point, but I do not think he has said that.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I can assure the noble Lord that it is the intention of my right honourable friend that the corporation shall be able to recover, through the instrumentality of the Minister, the full amount of the rate contribution from the Exchequer. I will willingly examine the wording of the Bill on this point, and if it is not satisfactory, I will suggest an Amendment at the Report stage.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am much obliged to my noble friend. If it could be made clear in this Bill that the rate contribution will accrue to the development corporations in respect of the houses which they have built and on which they do not get the rate subsidy, then he has met my point. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clauses 9 to 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13:
  Accounts, audit, annual report, etc.
  (2) The accounts of a development corporation shall be audited by an auditor to be appointed annually by the Minister:
  Provided that the Minister may by order direct that the accounts of any such corporation shall be subject to audit by a district auditor; and any such order may provide that the enactments relating to the audit of accounts by a district auditor and to the matters incidental to such audit and consequential thereon shall have effect in relation to the accounts of the corporation subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed by the order.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved, in subsection (2), at the end, to insert:
  "and being a member of one or more of the following bodies:

  The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales,

  The Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors,

  The Society of Accountants in Edinburgh, The Institute of Accountants and Actuaries in Glasgow,

  The Society of Accountants in Aberdeen and

  The Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants."

  The noble Lord said: It occurs to me tat it might be more convenient if my Amendment and that standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Reith, were discussed together, if the noble Lord and the
  554
  Committee would agree. My Amendment seeks to specify in the Bill the qualifications of the auditor to be appointed annually by the Minister. If the noble Earl who is in charge of this Bill does not see fit to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Reith, then mine does not really stand, but on the assumption that the noble Lord's Amendment will be accepted I should like to submit to your Lordships that there should be laid down in this Bill the qualifications of the auditor to be appointed by the Minister. I raised this point on the Committee stage of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, while not accepting my Amendment, expressed sympathy with it.
  There is a precedent for this in the Local Government Act, 1933, and there is a very recent precedent, if I may draw your Lordships' attention to it, in a special Order to be published, the Margate, Broadstairs and District Electricity Order, 1946, in which the Minister of Fuel and Power has conceded—unwillingly, I admit—that there should be a qualified auditor and not a district auditor. Having conceded that point, he says that the Order shall provide that no person shall be qualified to be so appointed "unless he is a member of one or more of the following bodies, namely", and then he lists the bodies which I have enumerated in my Amendment. We may hear from the noble Lord that the Government would not think of appointing anybody but a qualified auditor, and in that case I can see no reason at all why members of the bodies which in fact represent the accountancy profession should not De specified as the oily properly qualified persons. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 36, at end insert the said words.—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)
  LORD REITH: In the first and second Interim Reports of the new Towns Committee, in the part dealing with the accounts and audit, the Committee expressed themselves as follows:
  "We have considered the alternatives of audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, by the District Auditor and by professional accountants. To apply the special methods and criteria of government audit to the operations of a public corporation entrusted with the responsibility of creating a new town would almost inevitably tend to subject the corporation to the kind and degree of central

  555
  departmental control which it has been our set purpose, bearing the nature of that responsibility in mind, to avoid. We therefore strongly recommend that the audit should be conducted by a firm of professional accountants approved by the appropriate Minister."
  I should like to make it clear that there is no reflection on the district auditor implicit in the Amendment which I am submitting; there is no reflection on his experience, his capacity or his independence. We feel however that his methods are not appropriate. I ventured to suggest on the Second Reading that the methods which these corporations must adopt, if they are to do their work properly and quickly, are not the sort of which the district auditor has experience. His regulations are not in line with them, and perhaps not even in sympathy with them. But in any event let me make it clear that there is no reflection whatever on the district auditor.
  I ventured to remark on the Second Reading that I did not myself think that the Minister would ever appoint a district auditor. This Minister will not, but another Minister, seeing this clause, might. Anyhow, because of the very strong recommendation of the Committee, because of the different sort of activities of these corporations, I should be glad if that proviso could be withdrawn. There is just one argument that I feel is relevant to the other point of view, and that is that in due course these corporations, their assets and so on, are to be taken over by the local authorities. There obviously has to be a reconciliation at some stage between the style of accounts of the corporation and that of the local authority which is taking over, but I do not think the necessity to have the accounts in local authority form at that stage need bring the district auditor into the audit throughout. It would be a gracious act, I submit, and one which I personally would appreciate, if His Majesty's Government would eliminate that proviso.
  LORD HENDERSON: I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, and the noble Lord, Lord Reith, for the very courteous way in which they submitted their appeals. Perhaps it might be convenient, as we are discussing the two Amendments together, if I dealt first with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Reith, because the answer to them has a bearing also on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and
  556
  Dudley. I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Reith, in urging acceptance of his Amendment, made it quite clear that there was no reflection at all upon the district auditors. In fact, there was very little difference between the position taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Reith, this afternoon and the position taken up by my right honourable friend the Minister in another place. My right honourable friend said that in the ordinary way and in the majority of cases it would be the ordinary professional accountant who would be brought in, and that the employment of the district auditor would be exceptional. In view of the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Reith, and the very small difference between his position and that of my right honourable friend, I do not feel at all disposed to resist his appeal that the proviso should be deleted.
  Having said that, I come to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley. He referred to the fact that he had raised a somewhat similar Amendment on the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill. He will remember that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor dealt very sympathetically with the plea that the list of organizations should not be excluded from the Bill. He gave his reasons and I do not think I need repeat them because I am sure the noble Lord is quite familiar with them. He did say, of course, that the accountants would be properly qualified persons. The position of my right honourable friend the Minister in connexion with this Bill is identical with the position taken up by the Lord Chancellor in regard to the Amendment on the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill. I hope, in view of the fact that one doubt has been removed by the Amendment which I have already accepted, that the noble Lord will feel disposed to accept an assurance that it is the Minister's intention that auditors shall be properly qualified persons. On that basis I hope the noble Lord will feel disposed not to press his Amendment.
  LORD SALTOUN: This Bill, of course, applies to Scotland. I think in Scotland it is a rule that the accounts of the local authority must be audited by a public accountant. These are appointed by the Secretary of State himself, and I think it would very much limit his powers unless something of this sort were permitted. I do not know if there are any qualifications

  557
  for appointment as a public accountant, but perhaps my noble friend can tell me.
  LORD HENDERSON: I am not quite sure of my position on this matter but I am dealing now with the powers of the Minister of Town and. Country Planning. I do not know whether it would affect the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the Minister responsible for Scotland, but between now and the Report stage I will certainly have the matter checked up to find out if what I have said is right.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I certainly will not press this Amendment, but I would ask the Government to study it. It appears to me that if the Government think a certain qualification is necessary for an accountant in the case of a joint Electricity Board, there is no reason why they should not incorporate that same list of qualifications in this Bill. If the noble Lord will look into the Margate, Broadstairs and District Electricity Order I shall be very grateful, because he may think, on reflection, that my Amendment can be accepted on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD REITH: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. I understand His Majesty's Government are prepared to accept it and I am most grateful.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, leave out lines 37 to 44.—(Lord Reith.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:
  The Minister of Town and Country Planning or the Secretary of State for Scotland may establish a Central Advisory Commission—

  (i) to provide a central pool of information and experience;

  (ii) to advise the appropriate Minister on any points referred by him, or on its own initiative to offer advice;

  (iii) to deal with matters referred to it by the several development corporations, and generally to advise the development corporations;

  (iv) to receive an annual report from each development corporation dealing with its work to date, to make such suggestions and representations to the development corporation concerned as the Commission may think fit and to report thereon to the appropriate Minister.

  558
  The noble Lord said: I must apologise to the House for moving a manuscript Amendment, but it is due to the fact that unfortunately this Amendment was omitted from the batch I sent in. It does refer to a point which was mentioned on Second Reading, namely, the desirability of establishing a Central Advisory Commission on the lines recommended in the Interim Report of my noble friend. A similar Amendment, although not precisely the same, was moved in another place, and that Amendment imposed upon the Minister a statutory obligation to set up this Commission—I think that statutory obligation was the principal objection which was taken to it. I believe the Minister felt that he might very well derive considerable assistance from a commission such as is here proposed. My suggestion is that the Government may care to hold out some sort of hope that they will favourably consider this and themselves put down a suitable wording on the Report stage. I am quite sure that an Advisory Commission would perform extremely useful work. The reasons for which it is recommended are filly set out in the Interim Report, and I will not delay the House further with that. I will only say to my noble friend in charge of the Bill that he has set an example of how to give way graciously, and I think he ought to exercise further that noble capacity. I therefore give him the opportunity of doing so, and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 13, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD HENDERSON: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, will not be too distressed that it is I who am replying to his appeal and not my noble friend who has such a friendly disposition. The noble Lord has put the case perfectly clearly. It is true there was an Amendment to a similar effect in another place, using the word "shall" where my noble friend uses the word "may." The fact remains that if it is made permissive and not obligatory, the Minister will not require a clause of this sort in the Bill. He already has power under Section 8 of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning Act, 1943, to set up such a committee, if he thinks fit. The Amendment, therefore, is not necessary. I have a recollection that the Minister did indicate, in another place, some sympathy with the

  559
  idea of such an advisory committee. While he made no commitment that he would, in fact, set up such a committee, I think he indicated that his attitude was not unfriendly. I hope, in view of the explanation which I have now given, that the noble Lord may be inclined not to press his Amendment.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: As the noble Lord says that power to do this is already contained in another measure, quite clearly it would be a work of supererogation to put it into this Bill. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 14:
  Transfer of undertakings of development corporations.
  14.—(1) Any development corporation may, by an agreement made with any local authority or statutory undertakers and approved by the Minister with the concurrence of the Treasury, transfer to that authority any part of the undertaking of the corporation or transfer to those undertakers any part of that undertaking consisting of a statutory undertaking, upon such terms as may be prescribed by the agreement:
  Provided that before approving an agreement under this subsection for the transfer of a statutory undertaking the Minister shall publish in the London Gazette, and in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which the new town is situated, a notice stating that the agreement has been submitted for approval, and describing the general effect of the agreement; and if within twenty-eight days from the publication of the notice in the London Gazette any objection to the agreement is made by any statutory undertakers who, within the said area or any area adjacent thereto, are carrying on or authorised to carry on a statutory undertaking of a character similar to the statutory undertaking proposed to be transferred by the agreement, the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall apply in relation to the agreement as if for the reference to the Minister there were substituted a reference to the Minister and the appropriate Minister.
  4.22 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Any development" and to insert:
  "Without prejudice to the powers of development corporations under this Act to dispose of any of their property, including any trade or business carried on by them, any such".
  The noble Earl said: I hope that this Amendment will show your Lordships that we have no bias against private enterprise. Indeed we are most anxious that
  560
  private enterprise should play its full part in the development of these new towns, both in the period when the development corporations are functioning and also when they have faded out of the picture. The object of this Amendment is to clarify the position of development corporations who dispose of their assets under Clause 2 (2). Clause 14, as printed, refers to transfers, by agreement, of any part of the undertaking of a development corporation to a local authority or statutory undertakers. Whilst a general power of disposal is granted to a development corporation in Clause 2 (2), the Amendment to Clause 14 makes it clear that a corporation can dispose of any of their property, including any trade or business carried on by them, to bodies other than a local authority or statutory undertakers. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 38, leave out ("Any development") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.24 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved at the end of subsection (1) to insert
  ("and
  (b) before approving any agreement under this subsection the Minister shall consult with the council of the county and of the county district in which the new town or any part thereof is situated, except where the agreement is made with that council.")
  The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to fulfil an undertaking given to the local authorities. It is really to secure that their position should be the same where a transfer to a local authority or a statutory undertaker is made by agreement as it is already under the Bill where the transfer is effected during the winding up process. Under Proviso (a) to Clause 15 (2), the Minister is under a statutory obligation to consult with the council of a county or county district, before he makes an order transferring any part of the undertaking either to a local authority or to statutory undertakers. No such provision was included in Clause 14 (1), and this Amendment remedies what is obviously an omission in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 13, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15:
  Winding up of development corporations.
  15.—(1) Where the Minister is satisfied that the purposes for which a development corporation was established under this Act have been substantially achieved, and is further satisfied, with the concurrence of the Treasury, that the circumstances are not such as to render it expedient on financial grounds to defer the disposal of the undertaking of the corporation under this section, he shall by order provide for the winding up and dissolution of the corporation.
  (2) At any time after an order has been made under the last foregoing subsection, the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, by order provide for the transfer of the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of the corporation to such local authority (being an authority within whose area the new town is situated) as may be specified in the order or, in so far as that undertaking consists of a statutory undertaking, to such statutory undertakers as may be so specified:
  Provided that—

  (a) before making any such order the Minister shall consult with the council of the county and of the county district in which the new town is situated, with any other local authority and any, statutory undertakers to whom the undertaking or part of the undertaking of the corporation will be transferred by virtue of the order and with any statutory undertakers (not being such undertakers as aforesaid) who, immediately before the date on which the order under section one of this Act designating the site of the new town became operative, were authorised to carry on within the are a designated by that order an undertaking similar to the undertaking or part of the undertaking which will be so transferred as aforesaid; and

  (b) an order under this subsection shall be of no effect until an order defining the terms on which the transfer is to be made has become operative under the subsequent provisions of this section.

  (5) An order under subsection (2) of this section may make such provision as the Minister considers expedient for extending the powers and duties of any local authority or statutory undertakers to whom the undertaking or part of the undertaking of the corporation is transferred by virtue of the order; and the payment of any sums required by the order to be paid by any such local authority shall be a purpose for which that authority may borrow money:
  Provided that no such order shall confer or impose upon any such local authority any powers or duties which are exercisable within the area of that authority by any other local authority.
  4.26 p.m.
  LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved to leave out from the beginning of subsection (5) to "no" and to insert:
  562
  "(5) An order under this section which provides for the transfer of the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of a development corporation to any local authority or statutory undertakers may contain such incidental consequential and supplementary provisions as the Minister thinks necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, may extend or modify the powers and duties of that authority or those undertakers so far as appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the transfer:
  Provided that—

  (a) in relation to an order which provides for extending or modifying the powers and duties of any statutory undertakers, subsection (2) of this section shall have effect as if for the first reference therein to the Minister there were substituted a reference to the Minister and the appropriate Minister; and

  (b)"

  The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really a recasting of subsection (5) of the clause as brought from another place. The recasting achieves two points. First, it makes it quite plain that if the Minister, in his order of transfer of part of the undertaking either to a local authority or statutory undertaker, extends the powers or duties of the recipients, the extension must be limited solely to such powers as are necessary to enable the recipients to operate the undertaking that has been transferred. It was objected at the Report stage in another place that, as drafted, the Bill appeared to enable the Minister to grant the local authority or statutory undertaker any powers, whether needed to operate the subject of the transfer or otherwise. The Amendment puts that right.
  The second point is this. Proviso (a) is inserted at the request of statutory undertaker interests, and secures that an order of transfer which includes any modification or extension of powers of statutory undertakers shall only be made if the appropriate Minister—for example, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Fuel and Power or the Minister of Transport, as the case may be—concurs in the order. This, in effect, means that unless the recipient statutory undertaker already possessed powers to operate the particular undertaking in the particular area, the appropriate Minster's concurrence being necessary he would have to be in agreement with the transfer to the particular undertaker concerned, as opposed to some other undertaker. The explana-

  563
  tion may sound a little involved, I am afraid, but I think it is quite straight forward, and I hope, now that I have given it, the Amendment will be accepted.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 40, leave out from beginning to ("no") in line 1 on page 17 and insert the said new subsection—(Lord Henderson.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 2, leave out ("such").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.29 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (5), at the end of the proviso, to insert:
  "(6) An order under subsection (1) of this section may provide for the appointment and functions of a liquidator of the development corporation, and may authorise the disposal, in such manner as may be determined by or under the order, of any assets of the corporation which are not transferred to a local authority or statutory undertakers under the foregoing provisions of this section."
  The noble Earl said: I hope that noble Lords opposite will be pleased that the Government are sufficiently far-sighted to foresee a process of liquidation. This Amendment provides that in an order made by the Minister under Clause 15 (1) for the winding up of a development corporation, provision may be made for the appointment and functions of a liquidator where such a course appears suitable. No provision for the appointment of a liquidator was included in the Bill as it reached us from another place, and my right honourable friend is of the opinion that this would be a distinct improvement.
  Clause 15—if I may explain its function for a moment—relates to the transfer at the winding-up stage of any part of the undertaking of a development corporation to a local authority or to statutory undertakers. Whilst general power of disposal is given to a corporation in Clause 2 (2), the Amendment makes it clear that an order made under Clause 15 (1) may provide for the disposal by the liquidator of any assets of the corporation not transferred to a local authority or to statutory undertakers. I understand that this procedure would be very similar to the ordinary procedure involved in winding
  564
  up a private company or other business firm. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 3, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  4.31 p.m.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I would like to thank the Government for having met a certain number of the points raised by members of another place in the course of a discussion on the Bill. There are two matters in this clause which I would like to raise, and which I would ask the noble Earl to consider very carefully, in view of the undertaking which the Minister gave during the passage of the Bill. My first point relates to the wording of Clause 15. At present this empowers the Treasury to delay the winding up of a corporation for an indefinite period after its function has been completed, in order to recoup themselves for any financial losses. That point was raised in another place and the Minister said that he would consider it carefully and if necessary would put down some Amendment.
  My second point is that as drafted the clause involves making four orders for winding up a development corporation. The orders are: first, the order for winding up; secondly, an order for the transfer of the undertaking to the local authority or to the statutory undertakers; thirdly, the terms of the transfer, especially for the financial part; and, fourthly, the reduction of the corporation's liability in respect of advances made by the Exchequer. These orders are somewhat Gilbertian. The third is subject to special Parliamentary procedure, and the fourth is subject to approval by resolution of the House of Commons. The point made in another place is that Parliamentary procedure in the case of the Bill should apply to the first and second orders, as well as to the third. I would ask the noble Earl to consider these two points before the next stages of the Bill, to see if he can obtain the Minister's concurrence to move an Amendment in this House or, if not, to give us some indication why an Amendment cannot be made.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will gladly examine the two points made by the noble Earl, and I will give him the Government reply on the next stage of the Bill.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 16 to 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25:
  Provisions as to Scotland
  (13) In section thirteen, the proviso to subsection (2) shall be omitted.
  (14) In section fourteen for any reference to the London Gazette there shall be substituted a reference to the Edinburgh Gazette.
  (22) In the First Schedule—
  (c) for references to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and to the First Schedule thereto, and to sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 of that Schedule, there shall be substituted respectively references to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, and to the First Schedule thereto, and to sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 of that Schedule.
  LORD WESTWOOD: I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name. It is purely a verbal and drafting Amendment, and needs no further explanation.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 28, leave out ("consulting") and insert ("consultation")—(Lord Westwood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD WESTWOOD: The next Amendment which I beg to move is also a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 46, after ("in") insert ("subsection (1) of").—(Lord Westwood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved in subsection (14), at the end to insert "and for the words 'and of the county district' there shall be substituted the words 'or the town council of the burgh'". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential to a Government Amendment to Clause 14 (1) which has already been agreed to. It provides that in Scotland the council of the burgh in winch the new town or any part of the new town is situated shall be consulted in the same circumstances as those in which the Minister of Town and Country Planning in England has to consult the corresponding local authority, namely the council of the county district. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 48, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Westwood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD WESTWOOD: This is another drafting Amendment the purpose of which is to delete certain references to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, which are not now applicable, in view of the Amendment made in the First Schedule of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 29, leave out lines 29 to 35.—(Lord Westwood.)
  4.38 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Before we agree to this Amendment I wish to raise again a point which was raised by three noble Lords from Scotland on the Second Reading Stage. We entered a protest against the Government bringing Scotland under this Act by a clause which extends to seven pages and which nobody can understand. The noble Lord, Lord Westwood, unfortunately had to be away that afternoon. I understand that it was not his fault, but no reply was given to the representations made by the Scottish Peers on this point. I wish to ask him this afternoon haw it is that a Bill of this importance and of this magnitude for Scotland, should be placed at the fag-end of a Bill for England. This clause is perfectly incomprehensible. Nobody can understand it. As I said in the Second Reading debate this clause will give every town council clerk, every county council clerk, a headache—a bad headache. They will tear their hair over it. They will never make it out. How do the Government explain what all this means? They issued as a White Paper a memorandum explaining the application to Scotland of the Bill as it was introduced in another place. That memorandum was virtually another Bill. In reference to Clause 25 of the Bill it said that subsections 1 to 23 were omitted from the memorandum, effect having been given to them in reproducing the provisions of the Bill as applied to Scotland. Which is the Bill; this one we have before us today printed on green paper, or this White Paper? It is not fair to Scotland. The only reason I can suggest for this action is that the Government want to rush this Bill through. With all the other work

  567
  which has to be done, with all the building that has still to take place in the towns and in the countryside, it would not have made the slightest difference if this Bill had been held up until the autumn and passed through both Houses during the autumn and the early spring. If that had been done we as Scotsmen could have really considered this Bill from a Scottish point of view.
  I have listened for two days in your Lordships' House to the debates on the Second Reading and the Committee stage of this Bill. This measure has been considered entirely from the English point of view. The reason for that is that it is mainly an English Bill. Even as an English Bill it is hardly comprehensible, because, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, said, it is a Bill by reference. To the English references you have added references in respect of a number of Scottish Acts, such as the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, and other Acts applicable to Scotland. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, will give us an answer as to why that has been done. We feel it very strongly. We consider it to have been unnecessary. It is resented in Scotland, and it will be further resented when efforts are made to apply this Bill through the various authorities who have to deal with it. I hope that this pernicious procedure, if I may so call it, will not be taken as an example for the future, and that we are not going to have Bills of this kind for Scotland thrust upon us in this way again. I have not put down an Amendment to delete this clause, because it might have been said that I was against the Bill. I am not against the Bill. No sensible man is against the Bill. We all know that new towns are required in this country. But I am against the procedure and the system under which it has been introduced, and I hope that, so far as Scotland is concerned, this sort of thing is not going to happen again.
  4.42 p.m.
  LORD WESTWOOD: I think it is quite easy to reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. I would point out, as he says that everybody in Scotland has resented it, that it is strange that no Scottish member in your Lordships' House has put down any Amendment with regard to the way in which
  568
  Scotland is dealt with in the Bill. I do not see how everybody can have resented it when there are no Amendments.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I have explained that.
  LORD WESTWOOD: May I also say that it is not another injustice to Scotland. If Scotland had not been included in the Bill, they probably would have said—to use a Scottish term—"Puir auld Scotland." If there had been delay and they had come in possibly six months later, then there would have been an outcry in Scotland. Time being precious, there was no alternative but to deal with Scotland in this way in this Bill. The local authorities who have been consulted have agreed. The Secretary of State has very definitely said that the measure is precious for Scotland, that time is an important factor, and that there should be no further delay. I feel quite confident, after the amendments which have been approved, that when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament Scotland will have very little reason for further complaint.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I must say that I did not expect that the noble Lord who has just spoken for Scotland—in that brogue which he uses—would have dealt with the matter quite in the way he has. I think that Scotland has been dealt with very shabbily in the drafting, but in nothing else. One finds tagged on under Section 25, after English and Welsh provisions, six pages of provisions relating to Scotland. That is rather a shabby way of dealing with that part of Great Britain, which has always had a law and peculiar terms of its own in which it expresses its law; indeed, I have never seen anything very much worse. I hope that the noble Lord will, at least, give my noble friend satisfaction by saying that the Government will bring in a consolidation measure for the Scottish part of this Bill. After all, it will be purely a Consolidation Bill. It will merely mean a reprinting of the enactments as applicable to Scotland. There need not be any controversy with regard to it in either House. It will be a Bill which Scotsmen can look at and read without having all the time to refer backward and forward as they will have to do with this Bill. I think it is only right for somebody who lives and has always lived in the South of England to

  569
  make this plea that things may be made more intelligible and easier for our friends across the border.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: In answer to the noble Lord, I can say that we entirely agree with him. It is extremely desirable that there should be a Consolidation Bill to cover all these references to Scotland. At the same time he will realize that the main difficulty about Consolidation Bills—which, of course, do not apply only to Scotland—is lack of Parliamentary time. That is the limiting factor in this matter.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: If I may say so, I do not think that it need take very much Parliamentary time to bring in a Consolidation Bill. If it is declared by the appropriate committee to be a Consolidation Bill it should take very little time in the House.
  4.48 p.m.
  LORD CALVERLEY: I should like to sympathize with the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank—and I speak as first cousin to a Scotsman—but I think he has had a most adequate explanation from Lord Westwood and also from Lord Llewellin. The Bill consists of twenty-eight pages, and I understood Lord Llewellin to say that six pages applied to Scotland. Having had some experience in another place, I can say that on previous occasions when Scotland has been omitted from some measure the cat has been put amongst the pigeons. On this occasion, with great foresight, His Majesty's Government have included Scotland in order that Scotland can have its share in the goods things which will emanate from this Bill, which the noble Viscount himself admits is a good Bill. Instead of the noble Viscount rising in your Lordships' House this afternoon and reproaching His Majesty's Government, I think he should have risen and said; "Thank you," in very hearty terms. Moreover, the noble Viscount underestimates the capabilities of the average Scotsman, especially a town clerk, because besides being legal he is also metaphysical; therefore, the average town clerk in Scotland, even more so than in this poor, benighted land, will be able to understand every syllable and will be grateful to His Majesty's Government for what they are doing.
  4.49 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: That is all the more reason why Scotland objects to being included in England. If anything, it ought to be England included in Scotland, because, as I said yesterday, the Scots have done much more for the benefit of the Empire in proportion to their numbers, than England has in proportion to its numbers.
  LORD CALVERLEY: Exploited it more!
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: The Scots do not wish to be put under England. They do not mind England coming under chem. If you were to study the views of the number of Scots who are responsible for the welfare of England, and who live in England, this House would be unanimous.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved to leave out subsection (13). The noble Lord said: I beg to crave the indulgence of your Lordships to introduce a manuscript Amendment which is consequential upon Lord Reith's Amendment to Clause 13. That is the matter dealing with the proviso relating to district auditor.
  Amendment moved—
  (Page 24, line 44, delete subsection (13)).—(Lord Westwood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  First Schedule agreed to
  Second Schedule:
  Constitution of Development Corporations.
  Remuneration.
  7. The corporation shall pay to their members, in respect of their office as such, such remuneration or allowances as may be determined by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury, and shall pay to the chairman and deputy chairman, in respect of their office as such, such additional remuneration as may be so determined.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This is an Amendment to the paragraph relating to remuneration to make quite clear that the members of the development corporations are not to receive tax-free additions to their salary disguised as an allowance. That would be contrary to the intentions of another place and the intentions of my right honourable friend. We

  571
  want to get the position quite clear in the wording of the schedule. The Amendment does, I think, make it clear that the word "allowances" means such reasonable allowances in respect of expenses properly incurred by the members of a development corporation in the performance of their duties. This would cover any suitable case of travelling expenses and subsistence allowance. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 31, line 7, leave out ("or allowances") and insert ("and such reasonable allowances in respect of expenses properly incurred in the performance of their duties").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, at the end of paragraph 8, to insert:
  "The Corporation shall co-opt in an advisory capacity—

  (a) one person representative of each local authority whose area or part of whose area is situated within the area of the New Town;

  (b) one person representative of each such other local authority as appears to the Minister to be concerned:

  Provided that such co-opted persons shall not be members of the Corporation for the purposes of this Act."
  The noble Earl said: This is the last amendment which stands in my name and it is really of some importance. Under the Second Schedule as it is drafted at the moment the members of the corporation are to be appointed by the Minister after he has had consultation with as many of the local authorities as appear to him to be concerned with the development of the new town, and he will appoint on the corporation the services of one or more persons who are resident in or have special knowledge of the locality in which the new towns are going to be situated. Your Lordships will observe that the Minister will have discussions with the local authorities, in the first place, and when the development corporation is appointed it will include one or more persons who have knowledge of the locality. What I am anxious to achieve is that the corporation shall have power to co-opt in an advisory capacity those persons who are mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of my Amendment. This Amendment may be drafted too widely, but I hope the Government will accept the spirit and the intention
  572
  of it. It will no doubt have the support of my noble friend Lord Reith, who in the First Interim Report of his New Towns Committee suggested that it should be obligatory on a corporation to develop and maintain co-operative relations with the local authority and the residents of the area, and to create the machinery necessary for that purpose. I feel that this Amendment will provide the machinery to secure that co-operation with the local authorities. I will not say more at this stage, because your Lordships have discussed this Bill during most of the afternoon, but I hope it has the sympathy of the Minister himself and that the noble Lord will be able to accept this or some other Amendment similar to it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 31, line 14, at end insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  LORD HENDERSON: The noble Earl submitted his Amendment with great reason and very persuasively but, as I indicated on the Second Reading, I am unable to accept it. The noble Earl explained the position as it is under the Bill, in the sense that the Minister will consult local authorities before appointing members of the corporation, and the corporation will have the services of one or more persons resident in the area. But the noble Earl will remember that the composition of the board is set out in the Bill. There will be a chairman, vice-chairman, and I think it is from five to seven members.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Not exceeding seven.
  LORD HENDERSON: Not exceeding seven. That is to be the board. It is at that point that the noble Earl suggests that members of local authorities should be co-opted. I want to say at once that with the underlying motive of consultation with the local authorities there is complete sympathy; but I have had a good deal of experience of committees myself over a long period, and if there is one committee that it is awkward to run it is an executive committee with a number—and maybe an unlimited number—of co-opted members who have all the rights of a responsible member but none of the responsibilities. I am sure that on reflection the noble Earl will not wish to impose a statutory obligation on the corporation of a rather rigid nature.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I do not, if you read the proviso.
  LORD HENDERSON: I am coming to that point. It would mean that during the whole of the existence of a corporation there would be attending all meetings of the board persons whose sole function was advisory, who would be free to express opinions on all matters relating to the policy of the corporation without responsibility for its decisions. Moreover, the exporting authorities—of which there might be half a dozen in a particular case—who under this Amendment would provide co-opted members are interested only in problems connected with the housing of their population, a problem connected with the initial activities of the board, but such members would attend board meetings to deal with all topics. I think the noble Earl will recall that on the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out that there is nothing to prevent the corporation itself setting up an advisory committee representative of the local authorities affected. There is nothing to prevent the local authorities affected themselves setting up an advisory committee, and also there is nothing to prevent the Minister setting up such an advisory committee. I think within those permissive powers the object the noble Earl has in mind could be reasonably achieved, and I hope in the light of what I have said the noble Earl will be disinclined to press the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I regret that the Minister does not hold out any hope whatever of securing that some members of the local authorities immediately concerned should be co-opted on to the development corporation. I can see no harm whatever in co-opting members who will give the corporation some knowledge and information upon the area in which they are in charge of development. At the moment the corporation need only have one or more members resident in the neighbourhood; they need not be members of local authorities at all. Only one individual who lives within the area need be called in and consulted. The corporation need have no further discussion during the whole course of their lifetime with the normally elected local authority at the present time. I still think it is possible to find words to insert in the Bill whereby the development
  574
  corporation can have the assistance, if they wish it, of members of local authorities in the areas of the new town. That is all I am asking. Although as the noble Lord says there is nothing to prevent the local authorities setting up a committee of their own, and there is nothing to prevent the Minister setting up a committee of his own, at the same time there is nothing that will compel the corporation to listen to the committees. They are absolutely all-powerful: the local authority may set up an advisory committee, but the development corporation can completely and absolutely disregard it.
  LORD HENDERSON: If the noble Earl will forgive me, a local authority advisory council of that sort would have complete freedom in communicating with the Minister and in making representations to him if it found that the corporation was not paying attention to its recommendations.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I should have thought it would have saved the local authority a lot of trouble if its representatives were co-opted on to the corporation. It seems to me that would achieve the desirable object which I have in mind. Nevertheless, I will withdraw my Amendment now, but I must tell the noble Lord quite frankly that I shall, between now and the next stage, see if I can find words—I may not be able to do so—which will meet the purpose I have in view. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Before we pass from the Second Schedule, I wonder if I might ask the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, if he could tell me why, as I understand it, paragraph II of the Schedule does not refer to Scotland?
  LORD WESTWOOD: I cannot give the noble Earl a reply at the moment, but I think I should be able to do so at the next stage.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: It will be a favourable one, I hope.
  LORD WESTWOOD: We must wait and see.
  Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Schedules agreed to.

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOUR IN HOUSING.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether in connection with the national housing programme the Government are satisfied that the productivity of labour is equal to what it was before the war, when housing was mainly undertaken by private enterprise.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, in the absence of adequate pre-war records it is not possible to make a reliable comparison between pre-war and present day productivity. Labour output was adversely affected by war conditions, but the industry has undertaken to restore productivity to the 1938 level as soon as possible. I would remind the noble Lord that the great majority of housing work is now, as it was before the war, carried out by private firms, whether under contract to local authorities or otherwise.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: Arising out of the question, I wonder if the noble Lord could tell me what estimate he has of the number of men it now takes to build a house in a month. He will remember it was estimated pre-war that on an annual average of all trades twelve men built a house in a month, or one man in a year. I wonder if he has any information as to how that compares with present day conditions.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I am not able to give any information about that. I think it is covered generally by the reference I have made to the inability to get comparable data. I will, however, certainly raise the matter with my right honourable friend the Minister of Works and Buildings, and see whether it is possible to get any information on the particular point which the noble Lord has raised in his supplementary question.

REVENUE FROM WIRELESS LICENCES.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the estimated increase to the Revenue of £4,700,000 by reason of the recent increase in the charge for wireless licences will form part of the
576
ordinary national revenue, or whether it will be earmarked for any particular purpose.]
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the whole of the receipts from the sale of wireless licences are paid into the Exchequer and form part of the ordinary national revenue. The arrangements under which a grant to be voted to the B.B.C. will, after the end of this year, be based upon the licence receipts, are explained in paragraphs 69 to 73 of the White Paper on Broadcasting Policy.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: Do I understand that the national revenue has been increased by the sum of £4,700,000 by reason of this increase in the price of wireless licences? Do I understand that that sum of £4,700,000 goes into the general national revenue?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think the noble Lord is labouring under a misapprehension. The net revenue accruing to the B.B.C. will be used to cover the costs of the B.B.C. The noble Lord will find that, if he cares to look at the White Paper.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask why it is placed to the account of the national revenue and not to the account of the B.B.C.?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Viscount realises that this is purely a book-keeping arrangement. The receipts are collected by the Post Office, which is a department of His Majesty's Government, and paid into the Treasury. They are then paid out again to cover the costs of the B.B.C.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: This is a very important point. Do I understand that the national revenue has been increased by £4,700,000, and that that sum is available for any national grants? If not, is the revenue of the B.B.C. now double that amount—over £9,000,000? It is very difficult to understand.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will gladly give the noble Lord any further information he wants, either in reply to a question or in writing, if he cares to communicate with me.
LORD REITH: My Lords, is not the answer to the question about national revenue being increased: "De jure, yes; de facto, no?
LORD BROUGHSHANE: Well, my Lords, I hope you will think that the position is now clear.
LONG EATON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
HIGH WYCOMBE CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with Amendments.

RAILWAYS (VALUATION FOR RATING) BILL.
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELEC- TRICITY AUTHORITY PROVI- SIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported with Amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WALLASEY) BILL.
Reported without amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at five minutes past five o'clock.