HC Deb 05 October 1944 vol 403 cc1257-62
Mr. Ross Taylor (Woodbridge)

I beg to move, in page 23, line 30, after "servitude," to insert: (not being an easement or servitude held for the purpose of the carrying on of a statutory undertaking). This is really only a drafting Amendment. It may be necessary to extinguish the servitude and easements earned by statutory undertakings; but, as I understand it, Clause 21 lays down complete machinery for dealing with extinction of that kind. It, therefore, seems unnecessary that statutory undertakers should be included in this Clause. The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that their rights in this respect will not be interfered with, and that any extinction of the servitude and easement will be dealt with under Clause 21, and not under this Clause.

Mr. Silkin

I hope that the Minister will not accept this Amendment. If I heard my hon. Friend correctly, he said that it is a drafting Amendment; but I understand it to be something very much more than a drafting Amendment. In fact, most land that the local authorities will want to develop, upon will be the subject of easements. This Clause is intended to authorise local authorities to develop on land which is acquired for reconstruction purposes, and to interfere in spite of any easements which exist on [...]he land. Most of the easements will be easements of which statutory undertakers will have the benefit. If statutory undertakers are excluded, there will be very little left.

Mr. Ross Taylor

I said that provision is made in Clause 21 for extinguishing these easements, if necessary. If there is complete machinery in Clause 21, the rights of statutory undertakers should be retained under this Clause. They may want access to sub-surface working, although there is a development scheme in operation.

Mr. Silkin

Clause 21 deals with quite a different subject. Clause 18 is the Clause which enables local authorities to build on land which may be the subject of easements. Clause 21 deals with the extinction of easements, which is quite a different question. I submit that if this Amendment were accepted, it would make the whole Measure inoperative, because statutory undertakings are mostly the bodies which enjoy these easements. If they were exempt under Clause 18, there would be very little land of which local authorities came into possession which they could develop. Moreover, this Clause provides for compensation for statutory undertakers and others, and, therefore, they are not injured in any way.

Sir H. Williams

We ought to be careful about this matter. Statutory undertakers are not limited to private enterprise. Both the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and I happen to be members of the London County Council. That council may be getting very busy under Clause 18, and may do something about which the Poplar Borough Council, which owns an electricity undertaking, may be quite cross. Buried under the streets of our towns are many thousands of pounds' worth of very important capital, including mains carrying gas, electricity and water, and the mains of the Postmaster-General, who is quite exempt from this. The Crown seems always to be exempt in these cases. We must be careful that, in re-planning, we do not cause the greatest possible disturbance to the continuous carrying on of public utilities, whoever owns them. This is not an issue between a public interest and a private interest: it may be an issue between one public interest and another. I am not a lawyer, and I am always doubtful what the word "easement" means: it is, so far as I can make out, something that I have not got. But it is something of the greatest possible significance, and you cannot just ride roughshod over these rights. There are easements which supply this House with electricity. I remember that one day a gentleman with a pickaxe drove it into a main somewhere near the Embankment, and for a time we had candles on the Table; until we thought that that was not good enough, and adjourned. Somebody cut an easement in half with a pickaxe. We really have to be careful about these things.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe)

I do not think that the difference between my two hon. Friends the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and the Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Ross Taylor) is as great as it appears to be. As I understand the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge, he wants to be quite clear about the ground covered by Clause 18 and the ground covered by Clause 21. The position, at the moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham said, is that Clause 18 enables development to be carried out even if it interferes with the easements on the land on which the development is carried out, and provides for compensation for injurious affection. I think that what my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge had in mind is that, in Clause 21, we are dealing with rights of way and maintenance of apparatus of statutory undertakers, for which a special code of compensation is provided. I think it would meet the point of my hon. Friend if we looked into the matter to see that the rights of way and maintenance of apparatus are protected, wherever they are; and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge has brought this point up and my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham has shown the limitation which he wants, I will certainly look into the matter, to find words to meet both points of view, having made clear the difference which we all want to maintain. In that case, I ask my hon. Friend not to press the point at the moment, and I will look into the exact words to see if the point can be covered.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Ross Taylor

I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 23, line 32, to leave out from "compensation," to end of Sub-section, and insert: under Section sixty-three or sixty-eight of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, to be assessed in the same manner and subject to the same rules as in the case of other compensation under those Sections in respect of injurious affection where the compensation is to be estimated in connection with a purchase by such an authority or the injury arises from the execution of works on land acquired by such an authority. This is a drafting Amendment. The words on which the Amendment operates are words dealing with compensation for injurious affection. The roots of that compensation are in Section 63 or Section 68 of the Lands Clauses Act, and the later words of the Amendment make it clear that compensation under that Act will be subject to any special compensation provisions of this Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, in page 24, line 5, to leave out from "that," to end of line 25, and to insert: for the purpose of this Sub-section anything done by an interim development authority or by the authority responsible for the enforcement of any provisions of a planning scheme shall, if done in accordance with consent granted under the provisions of this Act relating to the control of development by such authorities, or, in a case where such consent is dispensed with under those provisions, without such consent, be treated as done in accordance with the terms of permission granted under the interim development order or, as the case may be, as done in conformity with the provisions of the scheme. This is a drafting Amendment, preparing the way for a new Clause which appears on the Order Paper. Clause 18, as drafted, assumes that there is no planning control over the operations of interim development authorities, and a new Clause will provide that that control shall be established.

Sir H. Williams

What is the meaning of the words "interim development authority"? The expression seems to arise from the Act passed two years ago. Would my right hon. Friend tell us what it means?

Mr. Morrison

It does not arise from the Act passed last year, but from the Act of 1932, and my hon. Friend will find a definition on page 51, line 7.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Earl Winterton

May I ask if the point of an Amendment—which was called when there was no one here to move it—is covered? Is a Government Department subject to the consent of the Minister? One feels there is considerable importance in this matter, because if a Government Department got outside the scheme, they might do very grave mischief.

Sir H. Williams

I was not here yesterday when the Minister made what seems to me a very strange statement. There was an Amendment proposing that the Minister should consult with the Minister of Agriculture, and my right hon. Friend said it would be quite unconstitutional to impose on him the duty of consulting a colleague. That, frankly, surprised me. I took my mind back to the Import Duties Committee, when it was laid down that, if the Import Duties Advisory Committee presented a report, the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister of Agriculture, according to whether it was an industrial article or item of agricultural produce, had to consult or agree with the Treasury before they laid a confirming order. Therefore, it is established procedure—which Parliament may have to lay down—that one Minister may have to consult another before he takes certain action. When my right hon. Friend said it was unconstitutional to do so, I was rather surprised. I was a little shocked when I read the report in "The Times."

Mr. Morrison

The constitutional difficulty is not that there is anything derogatory to the Minister of Town and Country Planning in being asked to consult his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. The constitutional difficulty is that the theory is, and I hope always will be, that the Government speak with one voice and as one man in all Departments, and that, therefore, the consultation is presumed to have taken place.

Sir H. Williams

No, frequently it is the case that a Minister cannot do something without the approval of the Lords of the Treasury.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Douglas Thomson)

I do not think that this is related to the Clause. It arises on an Amendment which was not moved.

Sir H. Williams

But it might have been, if it had been called.

Earl Winterton

May I ask a question? Is the effect of Sub-section (4) that a Government Department could carry out works without reference to the proper planning authority, or has the approval of the Minister of Town and Country Planning to be given?

Mr. Morrison

Yes, the position is that, in all these cases, there is consultation between the Departments and my consent has to be obtained.