§
Lords Amendment: In page 74, line 33, at end insert new Clause "B":
(1) Where, after the commencement of this Act, an application is made to a local planning authority for permission to develop land by the erection thereon of an industrial building, being an application which would, apart
922
from this section, be of no effect by virtue of subsection (4) of section fourteen of the principal Act (which provides that certain applications for such permission shall be of no effect unless it is certified by the Board of Trade that the development in question can be carried out consistently with the proper distribution of industry), the local planning authority shall consider whether, if the requirements of the said subsection (4) had been satisfied, they would nevertheless have refused the permission sought by the application either as respects the whole or as respects part of the land to which the application relates; and if they are of opinion that they would so have refused that permission they shall serve on the applicant a notice in writing to that effect.
(2) Where a notice has been served under the preceding subsection as respects the whole or part of any land, the provisions of this Act and of sections nineteen and twenty of the principal Act, and, where by virtue of the preceding provisions of this subsection a direction has been given under subsection (3) of section twenty-six of this Act, the other provisions of the principal Act, shall have effect as respects that land or that part thereof as if the application had been of effect and permission had been refused.
§ Mr. SandysI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The purpose of this new Clause is to prevent the unfairness which would arise from possible conflict between Clause 19 of the Bill and Section 14 (4) of the 1947 Act. This new Clause, while leaving Section 14 (4) of that Act untouched, makes it possible for the owner of the land to obtain from the planning authority a notice to the effect that even if a Board of Trade certificate had been granted planning permission would have been refused. Such a notice will rank as a refusal for purposes of obtaining compensation.
§ Sir L. Ungoed-ThomasThis is an important new Clause and it seems to be quite unjustifiable as we understand it, but if we have misunderstood it I shall be very glad to have an explanation. It is getting late and I shall merely put the difficulty to the Minister without developing it at length, and then hope that we shall be able to take our decisions on it one way or the other.
The present position is that the Board of Trade has to give an industrial development certificate before an application for planning permission is valid if permission is required for industrial development. Therefore, if the application to the Board of Trade is refused the owner cannot get compensation. The whole principle underlying this is that the Board of Trade 923 is dealing with the distribution of industry and if on economic grounds it comes to the conclusion that there should be no industrial development on this owner's property, then industrial development is not to take place, and it is to be treated in the same way as any other property, for instance, agricultural land in North of Scotland, or something of that kind, which obviously has no industrial value at all and is not in accordance with public requirements and economic needs of the country, and is not to be treated as land with industrial potentialities.
The Amendment enables the local planning authority to say that if the industrial development certificate had been granted—whereas, of course, it has not been granted—it would have refused permission, and, therefore, compensation would become payable. Quite clearly, that undermines the whole principle, as I understand it, of the Board of Trade industrial development certificate. In addition, the Amendment requires from the local planning authority a decision in hypothetical circumstances which have not, in fact, taken place.
Obviously, that is a most undesirable kind of exercise for the local planning authority to perform. It becomes some form of guesswork, in which the local authority might incline one way or another according to circumstances, and one simply does not know what the position is. We are no longer in the realm of facts but are in the realm of guesswork as to what would have been done in circumstances which would not, in fact have taken place.
As far as I understand from the Clause, the result of all this appears to be that if the Board of Trade refuses planning permission, or is taken to have refused planning permission, and the planning authority, having gone through this hypothetical exercise, would also have come to the conclusion that it too would have refused planning permission, compensation then becomes payable. That is to say, there is a refusal on the part of the Board of Trade and on the part of the planning authority, and compensation then becomes payable.
Let us consider the other set of facts. If the Board of Trade has refused, or is taken to have refused, planning permission, and the planning authority comes to 924 the conclusion, not that it would have refused to grant planning permission, but that it would have granted it, as I understand the Clause no compensation would be payable. If that is right, it means that if a development is doubly objectionable, subject to objection from the Board of Trade and from the planning authority, compensation would be paid. If, however, it is not doubly objectionable, but is only singly objectionable, because the local planning authority would not have refused permission, no compensation becomes payable.
If this analysis of the new Clause is correct, and if that is its result, it is ludicrous and would be quite unacceptable. It is contrary to all common sense. It is again, perhaps, an instance of the bad jumbled concoction that we have here in the form of this Bill. It is another instance of the fact that we should have had more opportunity of considering all this at greater leisure than we have had, both since these Amendments came to this House from another place and in the time which it has been possible to devote to these matters towards the end of this Session.
§ Mr. SandysThe hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has put an amusing but none the less not altogether fair complexion on the new Clause. The Clause was necessary to avoid what otherwise would have been a clear injustice and unfairness. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps I might be allowed to explain.
Under the 1947 Act, an owner would have received his claim, whatever it might have been, for the development value of the land. Had it been in the more remote parts of the Highlands of Scotland, as the hon. and learned Member mentioned, the claim probably would not have amounted to very much; but that would have been taken into account. Under the Bill, compensation is payable still on the basis of the 1947 Act claim; the basis, therefore, remains the same. But the question of compensation arises only when planning permission is refused and that is the issue here. The owner who would have received an amount of compensation under his claim if the 1947 Act had continued would, because of this unexpected, perhaps unforeseen conflict between the two Acts, finds himself in a position where he cannot get any.
925 10.15 p.m.
The basis remains the same as regards the unexpended balance and the development value, but he cannot get the compensation if he is debarred from making his application to the planning authority because the planning authority cannot refuse unless it receives an application. Under the 1947 Act he is debarred from making his application for planning permission unless he can accompany it with a certificate from the Board of Trade saying that this is desirable from the point of view of the distribution of industry.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made a point which, at first sight, gives the impression that this makes nonsense when he say that if the local authority and the Board of Trade refue, then the man would get his compensation but if only the Board of Trade refuse then he would not get his compensation. I think the short answer to that is that the reasons which may cause the Board of Trade to refuse its certificate are very wide and varied, and some of the grounds on which it may be refused are of a purely temporary character.
For instance, there may be a temporary shortage of labour in a particular area or for one reason or another there may be conditions which will not necessarily continue. Therefore, it is possible for the owner of the land to renew his application at a later stage, obtain a certificate from the Board of Trade and after planning permission is refused he will get his compensation. If planning permission is granted he will be able to go ahead and develop his land.
§ Mr. MacCollI do not want to detain the House, particularly as we want to
§ get to the end of the Lords Amendments, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to have failed completely to grasp the real significance of our opposition to this Amendment. Take my constituency, Widnes, as an example. Suppose there were to be some heavy industrial development and an application were made for a factory and it was refused by the Board of Trade on the grounds that it was desirable to attract light industry to the area. There would be no objection on planning grounds to the industrial development in the constituency and, therefore, in that case there would be no compensation.
§ But if the applicant decided to build the factory in the middle of a residential area or in an area of high amenity value, not only would that be iniquitous from the economic point of view, but it would also be iniquitous from the amenity point of view. That is a double iniquity, but he will get compensation. Therefore, the position is just as ludicrous as my hon. and learned Friend suggested.
§ The example which the right hon. Gentleman gave answers itself, because if the industrial certificate ultimately is waived then the views of the planning authority can he tested. At that stage when the views are tested either the factory is building or the pinch of planning is effected. The whole basis of the Bill is that it is at that stage that compensation should be paid, and the Clause in introducing a new principle in making a confused position more confusing is thoroughly unjust and unfair.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 142.
929| Division No. 237.] | AYES | [10.20 p.m. |
| Aitken, W. T. | Carr, Robert | Finlay, Graeme |
| Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) | Cary, Sir Robert | Fisher, Nigel |
| Aiport, C. J. M. | Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) | Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. | Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L. | Ford, Mrs. Patricia |
| Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) | Cole, Norman | Foster, John |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Conant, Maj. Sir Roger | Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley | Cooper-Key, E. M. | Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) |
| Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) | Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) |
| Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) | Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) |
| Bennett, William (Woodside) | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Garner-Evans, E. H. |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) | Glover, D. |
| Birch, Nigel | Deedes, W. F. | Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. |
| Bishop, F. P. | Digby, S. Wingfield | Gough, C. F. H. |
| Bowen, E. R. | Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Gower, H. R. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. | Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA | Gridley, Sir Arnold |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Doughty, C. J. A. | Grimond, J. |
| Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) | Drewe, Sir C. | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) |
| Braithwaite, Sir Gurney | Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M. | Hall, John (Wycombe) |
| Browne, Jack (Govan) | Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) | Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel |
| Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. | Erroll, F. J. | Heath, Edward |
| Bullard, D. G. | Fell, A. | Higgs, J. M. C. |
| Hirst, Geoffrey | Nabarro, G. D. N. | Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas |
| Holland-Martin, C. J. | Neave, Airey | Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. |
| Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. | Nicholls, Harmar | Sharples, Maj. R. C. |
| Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence | Nield, Basil (Chester) | Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood) |
| Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) | Oakshott, H. D. | Soames, Capt. C. |
| Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. | O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) | Speir, R. M. |
| Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. | Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.) |
| Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H. | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.) |
| Iremonger, T. L. | Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) | Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.) |
| Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Osborne, C. | Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) |
| Kaberry, D. | Page, R. G. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. |
| Kerby, Capt. H. B. | Partridge, E. | Sutcliffe, Sir Harold |
| Kerr, H. W. | Peake, Rt. Hon. O. | Teeling, W. |
| Lambert, Hon. G. | Perkins, Sir Robert | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Lampton, Viscount | Peto, Brig. C. H. M. | Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway) |
| Leather, E. H. C. | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Pitman, I. J. | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.) |
| Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) | Pitt, Miss E. M. | Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. |
| Linstead, Sir H. N. | Powell, J. Enoch | Touche, Sir Gordon |
| Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. | Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) | Turton, R. H. |
| Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. | Profumo, J. D. | Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. |
| Longden, Gilbert | Raikes, Sir Victor | Vosper, D. F. |
| Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) | Ramsden, J. E. | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) | Rayner, Brig. R. | Wall, Major Patrick |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Redmayne, M. | Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) |
| Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Rees-Davies, W, R. | Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster) |
| Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Renton, D. L. M. | Wellwood, W. |
| Manningham-Buller, Rt.Hn. Sir Reginald | Ridsdale, J. E. | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Markham, Major Sir Frank | Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Marlowe, A. A. H. | Robson-Brown, W. | Wills, G. |
| Marples, A. E. | Roper, Sir Harold | Woollam, John Victor |
| Maude, Angus | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard | |
| Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C | Russell, R. S. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Medlicott, Brig. F. | Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. | Mr. Studholme and |
| Mellor, Sir John | Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. | Colonel J. H. Harrison. |
| NOES | ||
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W) | Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Hamilton, W. W. | Mort, D. L. |
| Balfour, A. | Hannan, W. | Moyle, A. |
| Bartley, P. | Hardy, E. A. | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. |
| Bence, C. R. | Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) | Oliver, G. H. |
| Benn, Hon. Wedgwood | Hayman, F. H. | Oswald, T. |
| Benson, G. | Herbison, Miss M | Owen, W. J. |
| Bing, G. H. C. | Hobson, C. R. | Padley, W. E. |
| Blyton, W. R. | Holman, p. | Paling, Rt. Hon W. (Dearne Valley) |
| Boardman, H. | Holmes, Horace | Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. | Houghton, Douglas | Palmer, A. M. F. |
| Bowden, H. W. | Hoy, J. H. | Pannell, Charles |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) | Parker, J. |
| Brockway, A. F. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Paton, J. |
| Brook, Dryden (Halifax) | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Peart, T. F. |
| Burke, W. A. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Callaghan, L. J. | Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) |
| Champion, A, J. | Jeger, George (Goole) | Probert, A. R. |
| Chapman, W. D. | Jeger, Mrs. Lena | Proctor, W. T. |
| Chetwynd, G. R. | Johnson, James (Rugby) | Reeves, J. |
| Clunie, J. | Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) | Reid, Thomas (Swindon) |
| Coldrick, W. | Jones, David (Hartlepool) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Collick, P. H. | ||
| Collins, V. J. | Keenan, W. | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | King, Dr. H. M. | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Culled, Mrs. A. | Lawson, G. M. | Ross, William |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Shackleton, E. A. A. |
| Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) | Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) | Shurmer, P. L. E. |
| Deer, G | Lindgren, G. S. | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) |
| Delargy, H. J. | Logan, D. G. | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Dodds, N. N. | MacColl, J. E. | Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield) |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) | McInnes, J. | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Sparks, J. A. |
| Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) | McLeavy, F. | Steele, T. |
| Fernybough, E. | MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) | Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) |
| Fienburgh, W. | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Sylvester, G. O |
| Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) | Manuel, A. C. | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. | Mason, Roy | Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrefkin) |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Mellish, R. J. | Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) |
| Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. | Mikardo, Ian | Thornton, E. |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Mitchison, G. R. | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Griffiths, William (Exchange) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Morley, R. | Warbey, W. M. |
| West, D. G. | Wilkins, W. A. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Wheeldon, W. E. | Willey, F. T. | Yates, V. F. |
| White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) | |
| White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Williams, W. R. (Droylsden) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W | Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside) | Mr. Pearson and Mr. Popplewell |
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)I have reason to believe that it will be for the convenience of the House if I put the rest of the Lords Amendments page by page.
§ Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]