Scottish Members who served on the Committee have all the time tried to do what they could to enhance the reputation and powers of the local authorities. We deplore any attempt to take power from them. I was surprised to hear the Under-Secretary of State say that circumstances could arise in which houses could be built by the Scottish Special Housing Association in which the local authority itself could have little or no interest. How could this be so? Any development within the area of a local authority is bound to be the concern of the local authority.

There are repercussions from the development of a housing scheme by the S.S.H.A. or any other association and, inevitably, there must be close and harmonious working between the association and the local authority. The Scottish Special Housing Association is not in the same relationship with the area as the local authority is. After the houses are built, the local authority has to make arrangements for cleansing and all the other services to suit the particular scheme. In the preparatory work, the site preparation, connection with the main sewers, and so on, the local authority must inevitably be consulted. Above all, there will be an added rate-bearing asset to the local authority through Scottish Special Housing Association houses being built. In every case, the local authorities have worked in harmony with the Association.

10.30 p.m.

I cannot understand why, in subsection (1) of Clause 95, we envisage a situation in which the Scottish Special Housing Association, of its own volition, would need to take power compulsorily to acquire land within the area of a local authority because of a dispute with that authority. Subsection (1) refers to the Association being satisfied that the authority are unwilling to acquire the land for that purpose or that the footing on which they are willing to do so involves the sale or leasing of the land to the Association". If the Under-Secretary of State has proof of this situation arising, he must give the names of the local authorities and the areas wherein it has happened. I cannot see it arising. It would be bad practice to write into the Bill that an outside body could come into a local authority's area and have compulsory powers to acquire land to build houses.

The situation is governed by other circumstances. Planning powers for an area will have been exercised by the major authority, if a county council or a large burgh, in its own right. In the case of a small burgh, the county council exercises that right on behalf of the burgh. The permitted planning is already laid down for the area, comprising, say, areas for housing development, local authority development, private housing development and factory and industrial development.

If the Scottish Special Housing Association wants to build houses in the area zoned for industry and not in the area allotted to housing, does the Under-Secretary envisage that the planning authority's decision will be overturned? He must recognise that the Bill will permit something which, possibly, is quite wrong. The planning authority's recommendations for the planning of an area will have been endorsed by the Secretary of State. Certainly, there should be the greatest consultation with the local authority which has either accepted the plan for the area or has made the plan before it is overturned.

There is mother aspect concerning the need for the provision which is contained in subsection (1) of Clause 95. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) spoke of land shortage. Possibly the Government envisage a situation where the local authority in its planning has laid out a certain area for housing development, and they envisage the local authority saying to the S.S.H.A., "This is the only acreage we have for housing development and we need this because of the comprehensive development which we have agreed upon. We need it in order to rehouse our own people who are either living in unfit houses or in grossly overcrowded conditions, or in sublet houses. "The Under-Secretary is possibly envisaging a situation where the Housing Corporation devolves its powers and responsibilities, as it can do under this Bill, to the S.S.H.A. and the Association wants to set up a housing society to build houses in the area. It can only do it for two purposes: either to get a combination of people within a society, who will build houses to sell—the houses will ultimately become the property of the people moving into them; or, alternatively, for the S.S.H.A., under the aegis of the Corporation, to build houses to let at an economic rent, a rent of between £5 and £8 a week, I work it out to be.

If the local authority is convinced that the majority of its people are low-wage earners who could not pay any such rent, or pay the weekly sums to buy off the houses over 20 or 25 years, whatever the period may be, and it needs this land to rehouse its own people by building the houses itself, getting subsidy help or rate help, to provide houses for the lower income groups, does the Under-Secretary think it would not be wrong if, over the head of the local authority, against its considered views, compulsory acquisition should be allowed, because the local authority is unwilling to acquire the land itself for the S.S.H.A.? I think it would be deplorable. Much as I admire the work which has been done in nearly every local authority area by the S.S.H.A., I think it would be quite deplorable to allow a situation to exist in which what I have instanced could happen if this unlimited power is given to the S.S.H.A. in the area of any local authority.

I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary will have second thoughts about this matter and will really study it with a view to avoiding the friction would could arise between these two bodies because of this subsection.