HC Deb 22 May 1968 vol 765 cc803-29

ADAPTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF ENACTMENTS, ETC.

Amendments made: No. 209, in page 85, line 32, after 'Minister', insert 'shall serve a notice'.

No. 210, in line 35, at end insert: 'shall serve a notice in the prescribed form'. —[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move Amendment No. 211, in page 85, leave out lines 40 to 43.

This Amendment would leave out paragraph 17, which deals with the power of the local planning authority to make agreements with landowners restricting or regulating the development or use of their land. As the law stands, when a local planning authority makes such an agreement with the owner of the land for developing that land it is essential that the agreement should have the approval of the Minister. Otherwise it is invalid. Paragraph 17 seeks to remove that condition and provides that no longer shall it be necessary to have the Minister's approval to agreements of this sort between the local planning authority and developing owners.

These agreements which restrict or regulate the development of the land, may contain financial provisions. That is clearly stated in Section 37 of the principal Act. They take the place of planning permission and the developer may on occasion be under pressure to get on with the development he wishes to undertake. No doubt an agreement of this sort may seem to him to be quicker and easier than putting in a planning application, having it refused and going to appeal against that refusal. If he can negotiate it with the local planning authority and have it by agreement, that may seem the course of least resistance to him.

There is in that set-up a risk that the agreement is unfair to the developer, or it may be too generous to him. A local planning authority may wish to get an agreement of that sort through and may permit development which would not have been permitted had it been done in the ordinary way by application for planning permission. I am in favour of giving the local authority wide powers to manage its own affairs, but before doing so we should have the facts on which to judge. I do not know what facts there are behind the amendment of the law contained in paragraph 17.

How frequently has approval been withheld for such agreements when local authorities have applied for the Minister's approval? Does the Minister turn them down frequently? How long does it take to approve such agreements? Are local authorities and developers held up for any length of time while agreements are being approved by the Minister? What size of staff is maintained at the Ministry to deal with this? Is it overburdening the Ministry to undertake this work? For what reasons are these agreements thrown out? Before agreeing to the amendment of the law, we should be given some facts.

Mr. MacDermot

I do not know if I can make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman. This is the first of a series of Amendments dealing with a number of questions which were raised by the hon. Gentleman in a speech which lasted for more than an hour which he made at our last sitting in Standing Committee. I did not have time to answer them all then. I agreed to write to the hon. Gentleman. I have written to him and answered all his questions. If we are to have these debates all over again and put all these matters on the record, it will carry us very late indeed. It is already late. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to put only those questions which are essential to put on the record. Then if he will refer to his speech in Committee, perhaps that is the way in which, without duplicating the record, I can answer the questions shortly.

The reason why we want to abolish this procedure of requiring the consent of the Minister to these agreements is that it is well known and understood now by authorities what are the proper kinds of agreements to make. Our control is not resulting in our disapproving of agreements because they are objectionable. Our departmental lawyers have to spend a lot of time going into detail over agreements which have already been drawn up by local authorities' own lawyers, and we do not believe that this is the type of supervision that we ought to be exercising. It is wasteful of time. It is not necessary. This is a matter which can be left to the local authorities.

An argument was raised previously that there might be abuse of this procedure and some element of duress by local authorities towards the planning applicant. If such a mischief exists, the existing procedure is not apt in any way to deal with it, because, by the time that it reaches us, it is an agreement. We have no reason to think that it is anything other than one freely arrived at. The remedy for such a mischief, if it exists—we have no evidence that it does —lies in the hands of the applicant: he can refuse to submit to the duress and insist on his application and, if he does not get permission, to appeal against the refusal.

Mr. Graham Page

I thought that I had introtduced the Amendment very briefly, and then I was reprimanded. It is too bad of the Minister to deprive the Sleeper of the House of the soporific effect of our voices. He is sound asleep now. How he leads the House when he is sound asleep, I do not know. They should call him the Duke of Plaza Toro in future.

I am grateful for the letter the Minister wrote me, but it was only a letter to me, and these points are important and should go on the record. It may well be that some Amendments will need to be made, but in view of the assurance he has given me on this one I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move Amendment 212, in page 85, line 43, at end add: 18. For section 43(1) there shall be substituted the following:— 'If any person who proposes to carry out or has carried out any operations on land or who proposes to make or has made any change in the use of land wishes to have it determined whether the carrying out of these operations or the making of that change would or did as the case may be constitute or involve development of the land and if so whether an application for planning permission in respect thereof is required under this part of this Act, having regard to the provisions of any existing planning permission or permissions and to the provisions of the development order, he may, either as part of an application for planning permission, or without any such application, apply to the local planning authority to determine that question.'. This matter was discussed in Committee, but not on the Schedule. The Amendment deals with Section 43 of the 1962 Act, which has been very useful for testing the legality of proposed developments—that is, whether they need planning permission—both operations and change of use. But it could be made far more useful by using it to test the legality of past development, whether of an operational type or of change of use. By redrafting the Section it could be used for that purpose.

I do not mean that it should whitewash deliberate flouting of town planning law in the past. It should be used after a breach of planning law. But it becomes even more important, now that a limitation period for change of use is being removed, that one should have some method of testing the validity of a development without inviting an enforcement notice.

The Amendment will be found to be satisfactorily drafted if the principle is accepted that Section 43 procedure should apply to proposed development in the future and not merely to past development.

Mr. MacDermot

As I indicated in one of our earlier debates, I fully accept that it is necessary for us to bring forward a satisfactory certification procedure to accompany the abolition of the four-year rule in the more narrow field in which we now propose that abolition. The Amendment seeks to deal with that situation. But, based as it is on Section 43 of the 1962 Act, we think that it is framed on too broad a front, and that it does not really deal with the right question. It is too wide because it does far more than is necessary to fill the gap created by the now partial abolition of the four-year rule.

For example, even in cases where one is dealing with a change in the use of land or buildings, there is no justification for opening such a determination system to verify changes of use made before 21st December, 1963. These changes are immune from enforcement action under the terms of the Bill.

The Amendment asks the wrong question because the thing which it is appropriate to establish is not whether development was involved at some time in the past. The right question is whether whatever development took place and now exists, or what use is current is immune from enforcement action or not. That is the right question, first, because only if existing development is not immune from enforcement action can it be said to require planning permission in any practical sense. Second, it is the question which the planning authority is likely to be competent to answer. The question posed in the Amendment is very sophisticated. It would involve the planning authority in an investigation into the validity of past planning permission such as takes place on an investigation of title.

With the abolition of the four-year rule the process of establishing immunity from enforcement action may turn upon a variety of factors, and all these should be catered for. There are other less fundamental difficulties about the Amendment which I need not elaborate.

I hope that what I have said is sufficient to indicate that we are seized of this problem. Perhaps hon. Members will understand why the draftsman is not yet in a position to let us have an Amendment to consider now.

Mr. Graham Page

I am grateful for that. Do I understand that it is intended to put this into the Bill later and not merely to deal with it by regulation? Secondly, if it is to be done by means of an application for a certificate to the local authority, if the local authority refuses that certificate, what form of appeal will follow? I assume that there will be some form of appeal and it will not be merely a question of inviting an enforcement notice. Perhaps the Minister has not yet thought out the matter. I would ask that some form of appeal is provided rather than that it should be necessary to go through the enforcement notice procedure.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.45 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move Amendment No. 215, in page 86, line 25, after 'and' to insert '(c)'.

I mentioned in Committee that on one occasion in the House I was teased by the Speaker for making a speech about a missing comma. I was gratified that the Government had to bring in an amending Statutory Instrument to insert the comma. But the Government never learn. They have lost a comma again, and to make sure that they would not lose it again I thought it better to divide the paragraph into two, and then it would not need the comma; we could put a letter in instead. The intention behind the Amendment is to put the matter right.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move Amendment No. 216, in page 86, line 37, to leave out '(c)' and insert '(d)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

We can take at the same time Amendment No. 217— page 86, line 39, leave out first 'in' and insert 'for'—and Amendment No. 220 —page 86, line 43, at end insert: 'the local authority and the Minister shall secure, so far as may be practicable, to persons who were owners or occupiers of property which the authority have acquired as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, an opportunity to obtain their previous respective interests in that property on terms settled with due regard to the price at which such interests were acquired from them'.

Mr. Page

Amendment No. 216 is a paving Amendment. We seek to amend Section 78(7) of the principal Act so as to provide a system of pre-emptions for those who have been deprived of their property for a certain purpose and that purpose is not to be carried out and the acquiring authority intends to dispose of the property. The meat of these Amendments is in Amendment No. 220. The intention is that there should be an obligation to offer back the property to the owners or occupiers from whom it was taken if the opportunity is present and they require the property back and if the terms are right.

I am aware that Section 78(7) of the 1962 Act dealt with a very much narrower situation. I have used that Section in order to propose we introduce into the Bill a matter of relief to owners who have been deprived of their property, who have had it taken from them under compulsory powers for a certain purpose for the benefit of the community, and then it is no longer wanted for that purpose. There should be, recognised not only in circulars from the Ministry, but embodied in the law, an obligation on the part of an acquiring authority to return the property to the owners.

Where property has been taken for a certain purpose for the benefit of the public, the acquiring authority should not seek to make a gain out of inflation during the period for which it has held the property, but should endeavour to restore the property to its owners as if it had not been taken from them. It was taken from them under compulsory powers for the benefit of the community, and, if the community do not want it, it should be restored as if it had never been taken away.

Mr. MacDermot

The essence of this matter is that it is important to recognise the distinction between land which is bought with the object of re-disposal in order to help a redevelopment or other planning purpose, and land which has been compulsorily acquired for a purpose and is then found to be surplus to requirement and re-disposed of.

The first class was covered by the old Section 68(l)(a), and will be covered by Clause 24(l)(a), (b) and (c). There is statutory protection for the person whose land is taken to give him the chance to have a property within the redevelopment area. This protection will remain in the Statute and is written into the Statute. Paragraph (d) does not deal with the redevelopment situation which paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) deal with. Land acquired under paragraph (d) and not afterwards required would be the surplus disposal type of case, and this is covered and protected by the well recognised post Crichel Down procedures. Paragraph (d) replaces the provisions under Section 68(1)(b), and that paragraph did not provide for offering the previous owner a chance to acquire the land, or part of it. We are following the previous pattern, and it is founded on the same principle.

Mr. Allason

The Minister of State tells us that the Government follow the post Crichel Down procedures as if they were entirely satisfactory. He ought to remind the House that the post Crichel Down procedures relate only to agricultural land. Industrial land in my constituency was taken from an owner because it was new town land and thought to be required. It was not required, and the Minister considered the case and refused to offer it back to the owner. I have submitted the case to the Parliamentary Commissioner, who is now considering it. The post-Crichel Down procedure is at the discretion of the Minister. The discretion of the Minister is improperly applied here. The Crichel Down procedure is not a wonderful be-all and end-all and entirely satisfactory. The Minister's discretion is limited to agricultural property, which is to my mind entirely unsatisfactory.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move Amendment No. 221, in page 87, leave out lines 4 to 8.

This paragraph seeks to amend the law in this way. As it stands under the 1962 Act, if an outdoor advertiser is told to remove his site and he can show that it was erected and has been standing since a date prior to 2nd May, 1960, he is entitled to compensation. Paragraph 28 seeks to change that date to 1st August, 1948; in other words, he is entitled to compensation only if he can show that it was standing prior to 1st August, 1948.

I will not go into the details of how those dates are arrived at, and I know that the reason for trying to amend the law in this way is that it is thought not to have been the intention to alter it in 1962. But we are depriving certain owners of outdoor advertising sites of the right to compensation. It is not certain that the intention in 1962 was not to make the date 2nd May, 1960.

Mr. MacDermot

When advertising control was introduced in the 1947 Act, it was provided that, if people were required to remove an advertisement or discontinue the use of a site which was used for the display of advertisements on the date when the regulations came into force, they should be entitled to compensation. That was in accordance with the general pattern and meant that, if people were to be prevented from doing that which they had previously been able to do, they should be entitled to compensation.

It was never intended that, if subsequent and later regulations were made, the qualifying date should be advanced every time. This is the accidental result of the fact that the wording used in the 1947 Act was swept up unamended in the 1962 Act, that being a consolidating Measure.

The effect of the 1962 Act is that, every time regulations are made, the qualifying date is advanced. There is no reason why it should be. Accordingly, the Amendment corrects the position and restores the 1948 date. There is one minor compensating benefit, because it removes the other qualifying date of 7th January, 1947.

Mr. Graham Page

With that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 222, in page 87, line 8 [Schedule 5], at end insert: 29. In section 127 (general provisions as to compensation for depreciation under Part VIII), in subsection (2), after the word ' thereof ' there shall be inserted the words ' or under Part V or section 75 of the Act of 1968'.

No. 224, in line 11 [Schedule 5], after 'V', insert 'or section 75'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. Rossi

I beg to move Amendment No. 226, in page 87, line 24, at end insert: 31. The following subsection shall be added to section 146 of the principal Act: — '(3) For the purpose of sections 138 to 152 inclusive of this Act the personal representatives of a deceased person, who had not at the time of his death served a notice under section 139 of this Act and who at the time of his death was entitled to an interest qualifying for protection in accordance with section 138 of this Act, shall be deemed to be that person if a member of the family of the deceased is an owner-occupier of the hereditament in respect of which the deceased had an interest qualifying for protection'. This new subsection is concerned with planning blight. Under the principal Act, if a person who has served a notice seeking to demand that the local authority acquires his interest because his property has been blighted by planning proposals dies, his personal representatives can step into his shoes and require the authority to carry on with the purchase of the property. There is a small area where a person dies before serving a notice and hardship could be suffered by members of his family.

6.0 a.m.

The matter was discussed in the Standing Committee and I think the Minister raised the objection that if one was to limit the option merely to allowing the personal representatives in every case to serve such a notice, the situation would be too wide and possibly open to abuse.

For that reason we have incorporated an additional qualification that this right can be exercised only by personal representatives where there is a member of the family resident in the family home for at least six months and where he is therefore an owner-occupier under Section 147 of the principal Act. I hope the Minister will now see his way to meet the Amendment.

Mr. MacDennot

I speak with some diffidence on this subject because I know that the hon. Member has a lot more practical knowledge of this problem than I have. But I see he has written into his Amendment the requirement that the member of the family of the deceased who continues to live in the House is an owner-ocsupier of the hereditament.

Am I right in thinking that that means he is the person who, under the will or intestacy of the deceased, is the person who has become the owner and would be entitled to have the property conveyed to him or her? If this is so, is not the practical answer that by the time in which in the ordinary way that property would vest in that person, and with the vesting operating as I understand it back to the date of the death, the qualifying period of six months would normally be satisfied, or very shortly thereafter be satisfied, and they would be able to exercise the right on their own account?

I hope I have understood the facts correctly, and if I have it would seem that the Amendment is unnecessary. If when the hon. Gentleman has considered the matter further he still feels there is a mischief which has not been dealt with, then perhaps he will write to me and I will look at it further.

Mr. Graham Page

I think there is a difficulty here. The Bill as it stands at present gives personal representatives the right to take over the purchase notice if the deceased has served a notice before his death and has become fully qualified. Then it is all right; the personal representatives take over.

But if he has died before serving the notice, although otherwise qualified, then there are two instances to consider. First, he dies leaving a will and someone is entitled to the property under the will, and the will is eventually proved. Then, as the Minister said, the matter dates back to the date of death. But if he dies intestate there is no continuance of ownership because ownership, until letters of administration are granted, rests with the President of the Probate Division. So I think there is some difficulty on intestacy.

What we want to cover here are members of the family who are living in the house with him—and I think the use of the owner-occupier phrase at the end of the Amendment was in error—and to give them the benefit of his qualifying months of residence in the house, so that they do not lose the advantage which he nearly lost by not serving notice before he died.

Mr. MacDermot

I will look at this further.

Mr. Rossi

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rossi

I beg to move Amendment No. 227, in page 87, line 24, at end to insert: 31 To section 149 of the principal Act (Meaning of 'owner-occupier' and 'resident owner-occupier') there shall be added the following subsection: — '(5) A mortgagee in possession of the interest of an owner-occupier or a resident owner-occupier shall have the same rights under this Part of this Act as his mortgagor would have had had he remained in occupation'. This Amendment is intended to assist the mortgagee who has had to enter into possession in order to protect his security. We hope to assist him to realise his security when it has become subject to planning blight. Otherwise he may be left with that property on his hands.

Mr. MacDermot

We discussed this matter in Committee and I agreed to try to meet the point. That is a complicated matter for drafting and our Amendment is not yet ready. It is our intention to put down an Amendment in another place.

Mr. Rossi

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 228, in page 87, line 33, at end insert: (a) for subsection (1)(a) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:— '(a) a structure plan, a local plan or any alteration, repeal or replacement of any such plan, whether before or after the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement has been approved or adopted, or '.

No. 229, in page 88, line 5, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 230, in line 10, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 231, in line 39, leave out 'a' and insert ' an enforcement'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. MacDermot

I beg to move Amendment No. 232, in page 89, line 1. to leave out paragraph 34 and to insert: 34. For section 178 (proceedings for questioning validity of development plans and certain orders) there shall be substituted the following section:—

'178.—(1) If any person aggrieved by a structure plan or local plan or by any alteration, repeal or replacement of any such plan, desires to question the validity of the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement on the ground that it is not within the powers conferred by Part I of the Act of 1968, or that any requirement of the said Part I or of any regulations made thereunder has not been complied with in relation to the approval or adoption of the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement, he may, within six weeks from the date of the publication of the first notice of the approval or adoption of the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement required by regulations under section 11(1) of that Act, make an application to the High Court under this section.

(2) On any application under this section the High Court:—

  1. (a) may by interim order wholly or in part suspend the operation of the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement, either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant, until the final determination of the proceedings;
  2. (b) if satisfied that the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement is wholly or to any extent outside the powers conferred by Part I of the Act of 1968, or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by the failure to comply with any requirement of the said Part I or of any regulations made thereunder, may wholly or in part quash the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement, as the case may be, either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant.

(3) The preceding provisions of this section shall apply to an order under section 153 of this Act or under section 75 of the Act of 1968 as they apply to a structure plan, as if, in subsection (1) of this section, for the reference to the notice therein mentioned, there were substituted a reference to the notice section 154(6) of this Act.

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall apply, subject to any necessary modifications, to an order under section 168 of this Act as they apply to a structure plan.'.

This is largely a redrafting Amendment to remove possible ambiguities. I can explain further if the House requires.

Mr. Graham Page

Even at this hour I think this requires a little further explanation. Reference is made to … the first notice of the approval or adoption of the plan … I have found no reference elsewhere in the Bill to a first or second or any other numbered notice. The approval, of course, would be the case of the Minister approving a structure plan and adoption would be the case of the local planning authority adopting a local plan.

As certain very important matters have to be dated from that—the Amendment refers also to a period of six weeks from the date of publication of the first notice —for certain action to be taken, it is important to understand what is meant by … the date … of the first notice of the approval or adoption of the plan … It is a little puzzling.

Mr. MacDermot

There is now a power to approve any part of the plan. Consequently, one can get the first notice of approval which would only approve part of the plan and subsequent notices approving subsequent parts. This Amendment makes it clear that the first notice is the operative one.

Mr. Graham Page

This is giving the person aggrieved the right to do something about that feeling. The first notice relating to the structure plan may not relate to his area. If the right of appeal is to be dated from then, he will be in difficulty.

Mr. MacDermot

I will look into that point and see whether any rewording is necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 233, in page 89, line 17, leave out ' a' and insert 'an enforcement'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move, Amendment No. 234, in page 90, line 13, leave out paragraph (c).

Paragraph 42(c) substitutes a new subsection in Section 199 of the 1962 Act. It deals with the position of the Crown under the Bill. The Crown is free, as I understand it, from any enforcement notices, although partially subject to planning control. When I speak of the Crown, I am not merely talking about what one might call the "Buckingham Palace Crown". This term covers Crown Estates, and the Commissioners for the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster, but it is also any Government Department or any trustee for a Government Department. I do not think that covers nationalised industries, but the House ought to be told to what extent the Crown becomes subject to this Act, or to what extent the Crown in the form of Government Departments, will accept the discipline of the Act.

Government Departments are undoubtedly subject to purchase notices if they are the appropriate authority. They are also subject, earlier in the Bill, to planning inquiry commissions. Why should they not also be subject to the ordinary process of enforcement notices? It seems that they should no longer be in this privileged position with regard to town planning.

Mr. Skeffington

The hon. Gentleman will realise that in subsection (3) of Section 199 of the 1962 Act, there are certain provisions which do not bind the Crown in relation to enforcement notices, because the Crown is not normally bound by general planning legislation. In this Bill paragraph 13 of the Schedule has a similar provision. Paragraph 42(c) of the Schedule puts the Crown not in any preferential position, but in the same position as any other developer who has lawfully carried out development. If at the time when the development was carried out, it was developed on Crown lands, then should the land subsequently change hands, which is the point of the provision here, it would be quite wrong to try to use an enforcement notice. It would be quite wrong to treat the Crown worse than any other developer.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 235, in page 90, line 20, after 'No', insert 'enforcement'.

No. 236, in line 4, leave out 'a' and insert' an enforcement'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move Amendment No. 237, in page 91, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).

This Amendment deals with paragraph 46(b) and makes some new provisions with regard to rights of entry. Sub-paragraph 1A authorises persons appointed by the Minister to enter any building. This did not exist in the 1962 Act. This is restricted to occasions only connected with a proposal, but I do not know how the person whose property is entered knows that there is a proposal, or what right the person has to enter. The Bill makes no provision for formal proposals. Sub-paragraph 1A is too vague for testing at any time the validity of the entry.

Sub-paragraph 1B gives a similar power to that existing in the 1962 Act when a building preservation order has been made. I suppose that it is reasonable, now that the building preservation order procedure has been abolished, that it should apply to listed buildings, but I rather doubt whether 1B is necessary. There is undoubtedly an extension of powere here to enter buildings and it is not extended in a definite way, but left rather vague. This is a probing Amendment to get a better explanation from the Minister as to why the provision is necessary.

6.15 a.m.

Mr. Skeffington

The hon. Gentleman's first point is how, normally, a person would know whether there is a question when listing or de-listing might be relevant. In the normal way, letters are sent, or the owner is seen. One relies on the co-operation of the owner when any function is to be carried out on listing or de-listing. Now, the Minister has increased responsibility under the Bill and it will be necessary in rare cases of non-co-operation to have the right of entry on to surrounding ground. This is restricted to the Minister because this is the Minister's function, and not that of the local authority—

Mr. Graham Page

That is dependent on a proposal existing. I was complaining that nowhere in the Act is "proposal" defined. The person entering land might say "The Minister proposed it to me", or "I proposed it to the Minister. I know we have not proposed it to the owner of the land." Surely there will be some definition of "proposal".

Mr. Skeffington

Normally, communication is by writing or interview. Sub-paragraph 1B deals with offences under Part 5 and is more concerned with the planning authority, who decide whether there should be a prosecution for contravention of Clause 33. As the Minister has reserve powers, it is necessary to cover his position and that is what 1B does.

Mr. Page

On that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 238 in page 92, line 29, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move, Amendment No. 239, in page 94, leave out lines 20 to 28.

This paragraph deals with the Land Commission and gives it extra power. The Minister started a little debate on the Commission earlier and now he can enlarge on it if he wishes. We had to amend the paragraph in Committee because it made nonsense. We shall have to amend it again because it still makes nonsense. We would have amended it if it had made sense. It is still wrong. There is a reference to Section 5(9) of the Bill, but this is not now in the Bill, so the Clause is still a nonsense. Paragraph 58 of the Schedule is not only objectionable because it is nonsense, but because of its contents. But then everything connected with the Land Commission is nonsense and objectionable, so this is not surprising.

The point is that Section 6(3) of the Land Commission Act, 1967, gave certain conditions precedent for compulsory purchase of land by the Land Commission. Section 6(3)(b) states that in the current development plan, or in any proposals submitted to the planning Minister by a local planning authority for altering or adding to that plan, the land is defined or otherwise indicated in any such manner, or is allocated for purposes of any such description, as may be prescribed for the purposes of this subsection. First, the Land Commission makes a compulsory purchase order—this is important when considering the further powers given to it—without approval by the Minister, unless objection is made to it; secondly, it makes a compulsory purchase order, if objection is received, with the approval of the Minister; and, thirdly, it can make a compulsory purchase order under the expediting procedure under Section 8 of the 1967 Act when the owner, to put it vulgarly, has not got a cat in hell's chance of resisting it.

If we alter Section 6(3)(b) of the 1967 Act, as is desired under paragraph 58, we are giving the Land Commission power to exercise compulsory purchase powers on the basis of a draft local plan which has not received approval or been adopted by the local authority and which is still not a complete plan. We have been denied the right to use that plan for purchase notice purposes, and I see no reason why the Land Commission should be given this privileged position. I hope that paragraph 58 will be removed from the Bill. The Land Commission will have the very extensive powers which it already has without increasing those powers any further.

Mr. MacDermot

I will resist the temptation to widen the scope of the debate. I will answer the point of the Amendment by saying that it is misconceived. It is incorrect to say that this paragraph widens the scope or powers of the Land Commission to acquire land. All that it does is to apply the existing provisions to the new local plan procedure. Under existing provisions the Land Commission has the power to acquire land in the current development plan, or in any proposals submitted to the planning Minister by a local planning authority for altering or adding to the plan … It already has the power to acquire at the deposit stage; that is, at the time when the formal proposal is submitted to the Minister and before it has been approved. That is all that we are doing under the local plan procedure.

At present we can get a proposal to amend the plan from the existing development plan. From the time that the proposals are submitted there is power. This is comparable to the stage when the local plan is submitted.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Allason

I beg to move Amendment No. 240, in line 34, after 'is', insert: 'the subject of a building presentation notice as defined by section 41 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 or is'. Apart from pointing out that the word "presentation" should read "preservation", I can move the Amendment formally.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 241, in page 95, line 4, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Skeffington

I beg to move Amendment No. 243, in line 21, at end insert: except paragraph (b) of subsection (4) and so much of subsection (5) as empowers the Minister to grant planning permission, discharge any condition or limitation or determine any purpose for which land may be used'. The Amendment corrects the Schedule which, as originally presented, applied in Clause 14(2) to (5) the provisions of Section 46(2) to (5) of the 1962 Act, in relation to the enforcement procedures which are necessary in connection with the Civic Amenities Act. This is too wide and the Amendment limits the provision to a certain extent.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 244, in page 98, line 12, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Order for Third Reading read.— [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

6.28 a.m.

Mr. Rippon

I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: this House: declines to give a Third Reading to a Bill, ostensibly for the introduction of satisfactory reforms in the town and country planning procedures of local councils, which, unrelated to those procedures, gives dictatorial power to a Government department, greater than has ever been given previously, even in times of war, to seize property. Even at this late hour it is appropriate that I should comment on our proceedings. As I said when we began the Report stage, this is a non-controversial Measure in the party political sense. On the other hand, it is of considerable importance. In a normal Session under a normal Government it would be regarded as perhaps the major Bill to come before Parliament in the Session, for although it is non-controversial in one sense, it affects a large number of people and a great many interests. I regret, therefore, that in its later stages we have had to discuss the Measure in rather less depth than we might have wished.

I must, at the outset, explain one matter lest it be misunderstood why my hon. Friends and I have, in the light of what I have said, tabled Amendments suggesting either "That the Question be not put forthwith" or: That this House declines to give a Third Reading to a Bill, ostensibly for the introduction of satisfactory reforms in the town and country planning procedures of local councils, which, unrelated to those procedures, gives dictatorial power to a Government department, greater than has ever been given previously, even in times of war, to seize property. It is a matter of some regret to us, though we make no complaint of the Chair in this regard—to do so would be improper and unfair—that we did not have an opportunity on Report to comment on the provisions of Clause 25(1). As the Bill now stands, that gives to the Ministry of Public Building and Works a power to acquire compulsorily any land necessary for the public service. This is a quite extraordinary provision to include in a Measure of this kind. We would certainly wish that in another place action should be taken to ensure that that power is strictly limited.

I cannot, from my own experience in the Ministry of Public Building and Works, see any reason why that Ministry should be given any power at all in this regard. Certainly it should not be more than the power which any other Government Department already possesses. I can see that there may be cases in which it would be a matter of convenience that the Ministry of Public Building and Works should in effect act as agent of a Government Department which already has compulsory purchase powers.

As Minister myself, I found it of enormous benefit that the Ministry did not have any compulsory purchase powers at all. That Ministry has to deal with a great number of property acquisitions of one kind and another in the course of a year, not only in civil matters, but also because it has a great deal of work to do for the Defence Department. It really does not need any compulsory purchase powers.

One of the reasons why it has done so well is that the public can regard it as the one Government Department which does not wield the big stick; it is looked upon as the one Department of the Government which can deal across the table in a free market. Therefore, there is in negotiations none of the feeling that there is a threat of compulsory purchase behind the activities of that Ministry. So people deal freely with it, and the great strength of the Ministry at the moment in the market is that it has the advantage which comes from being someone who is good for the money—that is, of course, as long as our money remains good for anything. However, as things stand, people know that when they deal with the Ministry of Public Building and Works they deal in a free market, without the threat of compulsory acquisition, and that they will get a fair deal and will get a fair price in the ordinary course of negotiations.

In my view, it would be far better to leave it like that, but certainly it cannot be right to give any Government Department the power which is given by Clause 25(1)—power to acquire compulsorily any land necessary for the public service. There may be questions, in practice, how far that will be interpreted, but as the words stand they are far too wide, and I hope we shall have an assurance from the Minister of State that this will be dealt with in another place.

We have had to move our Amendment in order to raise this issue. We of course do not wish to give the impression that we are totally opposed to this Bill. As I said on Second Reading, and as I said at the beginning of the Report proceedings, we think there is much that is good in the Bill, and from its general principles we do not dissent. We all know there has to be some amendment of the law of town and country planning to improve our development plan procedures and to provide rights to the public to express their views on these matters. With all that we are in agreement.

What worries us is that a major Bill of this kind has had to be so squeezed into the Government's already overcrowded legislative programme. I think everyone who has attended the debates which we have had on Report will agree that although we are still sitting at a fairly late hour—or fairly early hour, whichever way one likes to look at it— not a moment has been wasted. My hon. Friends, as expeditiously as they could, have moved a large number of Amendments, and have also discussed, as expeditiously as humanly possible, the very large number of Government Amendments. We found ourselves faced with 62 pages of new Clauses and Amendments, and we were asked to deal with them in one day and a little period of time after 10 o'clock at night. It is not sufficient but we have done our best.

The Government have introduced a great number of Amendments, many of which we have accepted, and we have introduced a great number, many of which they have accepted, and we have improved the Bill, but there remains a real danger that we have not examined it with all the necessary care. We must accept that we send it to another place with a great deal to be done by a number of legislators, who, judging from Press reports of their proceedings, feel somewhat resentful about the enormous burden now being cast upon them to tidy up legislation.

However, I congratulate the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which they have conducted our proceedings. We have nothing but praise for the way in which they have carried the heavy burden which falls upon Ministers who have to deal with all the details of a major Bill of this kind, which is not only important to the subject but raises immense and complicated legal, administrative and other difficulties.

6.37 a.m.

Mr. Lubbock

May I congratulate hon. Members opposite on their tour de force in replying so capably to the Amendments moved during the night? I too do not consider it satisfactory to have dealt with these Amendments during the night. I think the extra time on Report would have been better. But that is all past now and I wish the Bill every success.

6.38 a.m.

Mr. MacDermot

I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for their kind remarks about me and the Parliamentary Secretary, and I add my own thanks for the great assistance which I have had from the Parliamentary Secretary. We have had some very interesting debates, and I thank hon. Members opposite for their serious and helpful contributions. I have no doubt that they have greatly improved the Bill. I must mention in particular the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who has an unparalleled knowledge of the details of this law. He has gone through the Bill with the greatest care and has never wasted time but has always had something valuable to say. I am certain that he has helped considerably to improve the Bill.

I hope that we can end on a friendly note and that hon. Members will not pursue their somewhat violently worded Amendment. I would have been glad to discuss the Amendment by which they proposed to deal with what they thought were the excessive powers of compulsory purchase to be given to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's former Ministry, the Ministry of Public Building and Works. If we had accepted it, as, in a Machiavellian spirit, we might have done, we should have enlarged the powers beyond those already in the Bill, and would, among other things, have given the Ministry the power to acquire land for motorways—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot discuss Amendments now.

Mr. MacDennot

That is a further reason why I cannot go into these matters, but we can discuss what is in the Bill. I reject the allegation that this gives dictatorial powers to a Government Department. I know what has given rise to this. First, I suppose it is a wish in what has been such a friendly and non-controversial debate to try to extract some party political point to make at the end of the day. Secondly, there is the fact that the wording that has been used and is in the Bill, is taken from an ancient Statute, Section 2 of the Commissioners of Works Act, 1852. This is the phrase which defines the existing power of that Minister to acquire land by agreement. He may acquire land necessary for the public service.

All that is being done is to equate his powers of compulsory purchase with his powers of agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Hon. Members ooh and ah, but they know that if they followed what was said in Committee these words, which to us may sound surprisingly wide, are not the kind of words a modern draftsman would use in a modern Statute. They have in fact been construed extremely narrowly and on a number of occasions, as no doubt the right hon. and learned Member knows from experience in the Department, advice has been taken, including the advice of the Law Officers, on the construction of these words. As a result, construction and practice in relation to them has been built up which is far narrower than the words would imply, and I think far narrower than any other general wording which would be likely to be devised and used today.

If we are to reject this wording as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, I fear that what would be needed would be an extremely lengthy definition of the different purposes and different bodies for which the Ministry of Public Building and Works acquires land. It would also be a provision which would constantly need to be amended as new organisations come into existence and existing ones are renamed. Simply because of the sheer complication of trying to draft a substituted provision we have followed the existing wording of the 1852 Act. It is a wording which is narrowly confined to the purposes for which the Ministry of Public Building and Works acquires land for other bodies.

Mr. Rippon

I would not want the hon. and learned Gentleman to be under any misunderstanding. This is not an attempt at the last minute to inject a party political point. We are very much concerned that powers to acquire land compulsorily should be given to a Government Department which has managed powers to acquire by agreement for over a century. If what the Minister of State says is true, and I do not dissent from it—that it will require a lengthy Clause to define precisely what this Ministry is to be given—I hope that in another place either that will be insisted upon or this Clause will be rejected. Unless the Minister of State can give a more definite assurance than he seems able to give at the moment that the Government will spell out very strictly the reasons why the Ministry of Public Building and Works needs compulsory powers, we shall certainly divide on this issue.

Mr. MacDermot

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, of course, entitled to his view. He thinks the Ministry of Public Building and Works would be better off without powers of compulsory purchase. Why confine that to the Ministry of Public Building and Works? Perhaps he would like all public authorities to have to acquire by agreement, in which case they would require a bottomless purse, which I have no doubt he might think cynically that they have because they have the taxpayers behind them. Precisely because of this it is found necessary and right that public bodies and departments should have powers of compulsory purchase so that they cannot be held to ransom in the way that can happen where someone knows something is required for a Ministry or a public body and the owner of the land can hold out for an extortionate price.

The right hon. Gentleman must know from his own experience that in recent years the Ministry of Public Building and Works has been acquiring large office buildings in the centre of London. They had remained empty for a long time and the negotiations, for the Ministry to acquire them, were long when it did not have powers of compulsory purchase and was acquiring by agreement. From that, it is an obvious inference that it was necessary to hold out for a very long time so that a reasonable agreement could be reached on price.

The right hon. Gentleman will also know that, when an acquiring authority has powers of compulsory purchase, it is possible to bring the property owner to the point where he is prepared to sell at the true market price at a much earlier

stage. These powers need to be used seldom, but they bring a much healthier atmosphere to the negotiations.

The right hon. Gentleman says that people welcome the absence of compulsory powers when they are dealing with that Ministry because they have a completely free market. In his sense of the completely free market, I agree that they have it; and I can well understand that they welcome it. However, I cannot agree that it is a situation which should be perpetuated or continued. We take the view that clearly that Ministry should have powers of compulsory purchase.

What is important is that we do not, in giving the powers of compulsory purchase, extend its powers of acquisition beyond the sphere in which at the moment it can acquire by agreement. It is thought that any attempt to redraft these powers with some other formula would be found in practice to lead to that extension, and this is confirmed by the Amendment tabled by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to look, to examine, and to see whether it is possible to find any other form of words which would not give rise to such powers. I do not give any undertaking that we will table an Amendment, because we must see whether it is possible to find a suitable formula.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 115.

Division No. 163.] AYES [6.48 a.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Grant, Anthony Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Allason, James (Hemel Hempttead) Hall, John (Wycombe) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Higgine, Terence L. Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Hordem, Peter Silvester, Frederick
Clegg, Walter Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Cooke, Robert Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Temple, John M.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Murton, Oscar
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Page, Graham (Crosby) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Eden, Sir John Peyton, John Mr. Bernard Weatherill and
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Pink, R. Bonner Mr. Reginald Eyre.
Goodhew, Victor Quennell, Miss J. M.
NOES
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Archer, Peter Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Armstrong, Ernest Blackburn, F. Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Blenkinsop, Arthur Buchan, Norman
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Booth, Albert Chapman, Donald
Beaney, Alan Bray, Dr. Jeremy Coe, Denis
Bence, Cyril Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Coleman, Donald
Concannon, J. D. Hoy, James Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Dalyell, Tam Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Palmer, Arthur
Davidson, Arthur (Accrlngton) Hunter, Adam Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Dempcey, James Janner, Sir Barnett Pavitt, Laurence
Dewar, Donald Johnson, James (K'ston-on-HuH, W.) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Lee, John (Reading) pentland, Norman
Dickens, James Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Dolg, Peter Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Price, William (Rugby)
Dunnett, Jack Lubbock, Eric Reynolds, G. W.
Dun woody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) McBride, Neil Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow.E.)
Dun woody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) MacColl, James Rose, Paul
Eadie, Alex MacDermot, Niall Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Macdonald, A. H. Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Ellis, John McGuire, Michael Skefflngton, Arthur
English, Michael Mackenzie, Gregor (RuthergMn) Slater, Joseph
Enttals, David Mackintosh, John P. Small, William
Evans, loan L. (Birmrh'm, Yardley) McNamara, J. Kevin Spriggs, Leslie
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Taverne, Dick
Fletcher, Raymond (likeston) Marks, Kenneth Tinn, James
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Marquand, David Urwin, T. W.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mendetson, J. J. Vartey, Eric G.
Forrester, John Miltan, Bruce Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Freeson, Reginald Miller, Dr. M. S. Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Garrett, W. E. Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Grey, Charles (Durham) Moyle, Roland Wallace, George
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Murray, Albert Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Newens, Stan Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Hamling, William Ogden, Eric Woof, Robert
Hannan, William O'Malley, Brian
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Orbach, Maurice TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Haseldine, Norman Orme, Stanley
Helter, Eric S. Oswald, Thomas Mr. Harry Gourlay and Mr. Joseph Harper.
Homer, John Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on second or third reading) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.