Mr Arthur Skeffington: The staff on 1st October, 1969, was 1,050. On the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to Appendix I of the Third Report of the Public Accounts Committee 1968–69.
Mr Arthur Skeffington: If the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of looking up the information to which I have referred he may find that a good deal of the substance of his question is entirely misplaced.
Mr Arthur Skeffington: The staff is continually being reviewed and, with the coming of more sophisticated methods, may well go down.
Mr Arthur Skeffington: This matter of the negotiations between the company and the local authority about the contribution for road improvement has not been before me in an official way at all. I am just wondering what is the evidence for this. I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman has not got it, but has this appeared in council documents or in the Press, because this is obviously something I should like to...
Mr Arthur Skeffington: The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) has, almost in the last hour of this term, taken the opportunity of raising some very important constitutional and planning points. He has spoken in strong terms. All I can say is that were I in his position, fighting what I believed might lead to the desecration of one of the most beautiful tracts in this county, and, indeed, the whole...
Mr Arthur Skeffington: The Minister has wide powers. In a case like this, involving an area of outstanding natural beauty, if he felt it wise to do this, he could do so. We are sometimes accused of trying to run everything from Whitehall, but we have entrusted planning authorities with this responsibility. The Minister must take limited action in this way, because we must proceed on the assumption that local...
Mr Arthur Skeffington: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mr Arthur Skeffington: I regret that I must advise the House not to accept this Amendment to the Lords Amendment. I do so not for any doctrinal reason, but simply for the reason that it is not necessary—in fact, it cannot be done. Lords Amendment No. 13 prescribes the rules in specific cases in relation to Section 106 of the Rent Act, 1968, in the making of regulations. This is proper in regard to Clause 54,...
Mr Arthur Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment. This Amendment is designed to increase the penalty of £5, which has remained unchanged since 1930. In cases of multiple occupation certain people have been prepared repeatedly to pay a fine of £5 and not divulge the information which would enable the local authority to make the necessary order. This point was...
Mr Arthur Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mr Arthur Skeffington: On Report, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) all stressed the importance of giving further consideration to the new formula to make sure that the Government had now got it right. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)...
Mr Arthur Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment. This part of the Schedule takes out the old definition of multiple occupation. There was an omission of a reference in the 1961 Act which the Amendment puts right.
Mr Arthur Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment. This Amendment substitutes for a reference to the Acts of 1958 and 1959, under which grants are at present being paid, a reference to Part I of the Housing Act, 1969.
Mr Arthur Skeffington: I should like to begin by thanking the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for his kindly references both to myself and to my joint colleague, Lord Kennet, and, indeed, to the Scottish Minister, Lord Hughes. The hon. Member might well have been more angry with us because Part II of his Act has not been implemented. On the other hand, I am sure that he knows that the Department and the...
Mr Arthur Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 16, line 36, leave out from 'shall' to 'in' in line 37 and insert 'state to the applicant'. This Amendment is to give an automatic right where a grant has been refused so that the applicant shall know about it as a matter of course. Previously, he had to apply. There is no reason why an applicant should not know, and the Amendment would have that effect.
Mr Arthur Skeffington: I am sure that the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) realises that there is much more substance in the reason for accepting or rejecting the Amendment than the colour of certain habits of individuals, but I am glad that he takes so much interest in these matters. As he said, we had a fairly long discussion on this subject in Committee and I promised to look at the matter again to see...
Mr Arthur Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 39 in, page 17, line 14, after first 'of', insert 'glebe land or'. This Amendment allows an application for an improvement grant or a standard grant to be made in respect of a glebe house by a sequestrator when a benefice is vacant. It is being made at the request of the Church Commissioners.
Mr Arthur Skeffington: It is true that the Amendment would allow the beneficiary to apply, but it would not allow the beneficiary of the trust to do the work.
Mr Arthur Skeffington: Whether or not the Bill is too rigid is not relevant to the Amendment. We have looked at this carefully and, having taken advice, our view is that the Amendment is unnecessary. It would allow the beneficiary to apply for the grant but not to carry out the works. One difficulty of dealing with the 1925 and 1926 Acts in connection with trusts is that what the trustees, the beneficiaries, and...
Mr Arthur Skeffington: We had a long discussion about this matter upstairs. I am glad to have the chance to come back to it, because there has been this further period in which we have been able to review the whole basic principle. The issue still is that this is a Bill providing substantial grants for improvements of various kinds. Where drainage can be legitimately connected—I use this in the physical and in...