HC Deb 09 July 1959 vol 608 cc1679-701

Lords Amendment: In line 7, after first "the" insert "principal".

Mr. Brooke

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The House will probably notice that this Amendment and the next Lords' Amendment to line 10 are in identical terms and are linked together. If hon. Members will look at page 38 of the Amendment Paper, they will find a number of Amendments there which are consequential and on the same point. The first one of those Amendments, which is in identical terms, is the Amendment to page 75, line 39, on page 38, and the next eight Amendments are all linked and consequential.

The point is a comparatively simple one. If an authority exercises powers, in pursuance of a notice to treat, to enter upon and take possession of land before the completion of the acquisition, it is liable to pay interest on the amount of compensation ultimately determined from the date of entry on the land until the date of payment.

9.15 p.m.

If under Clauses 17–19 additional compensation becomes payable, it would obviously be wrong for interest to become payable on the additional compensation from the original date of entry to the date when that additional compensation is paid, which, after all, may be several years later.

These Amendments, therefore, make it clear that in assessing any amount of additional compensation it is only the principal amounts which are to be taken into account and no question of interest arises.

Mr. Mitchison

The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that we have very strong objections to the Clause. I do not propose to repeat them, but, given the Clause, this is a provision which would assist acquiring authorities to avoid any injustice which might otherwise have arisen and prejudiced them. Therefore, while I must not be taken as welcoming the Clause or any part of it in any way, I should like to be Irish and welcome these Amendments

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 10, after first "the" insert "principal".—[Mr. H. Brooke]

Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 30, leave out from "plan" to "as" in line 33.

Mr. Bevins

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It would perhaps be convenient if at the same time we were also to take the Amendment in page 22, line 28, at end insert: and any reference to an area defined in a development plan is a reference to an area defined in such a plan in the form in which (whether as originally approved or made by the Minister or as subsequently amended) that plan was in force on the relevant date. These are purely drafting Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 11, after "other" insert "act or", read a Second time.

Mr. Mitchison

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after "act", to insert: (other than a disposition made by that person) This raises a not very large point but one of some interest. The general effect of the Clause is that where a change is made within a given period in the use to which the acquiring authority puts the purchased land and that change results in the land having a higher value than it would otherwise have had, the person to whom compensation was originally paid will get additional compensation because of that change of purpose by the local authority.

I will not repeat the very strong objections which we made to the whole principle of the Clause in Committee. I will merely say that the Clause introduces a principle as between the acquiring authority and the owner of the land which cannot possibly apply in a transaction between two private people. If I buy a piece of land from the right hon. Gentleman, and buy it for one purpose, the fact that some two or three years afterwards I change my mind and put the land to a more profitable use does not entitle him to any additional price. But what is introduced in the Bill, as we think most unfairly and most unfortunately, is that when exactly the same thing happens between an acquiring authority and a private owner the private owner gets the benefit of the addition. If the acquiring authority does the opposite and puts the land to a less profitable use, it does not get any refund of the compensation it had to pay on the original transaction.

What is intended now, as I understand it, is this. If a person dies or goes bankrupt and by reason of that death or bankruptcy this conditional right to additional compensation vests in someone else, his heir or trustee in bankruptcy, then the heir or trustee in bankruptcy should be entitled in his own right to take the benefit of the additional compensation. That was provided for originally by the word "event" in the Clause. Now the word "act" is added and that opens the door to another question: whether we are to have this remarkable, original and, as we think, unjust right which can be passed from one person to another.

As we read it, the effect of adding the word "act" in these circumstances would be that the person who had originally received compensation could sell the hypothetical right to additional compensation. It might go with the land, or it might not go with the land. I am very interested in that.

Therefore, we would like to exclude the introduction of this very odd right as something which could be disposed of by the person holding it during the period in question, five years. I see no particular reason why he should be able to dispose of it and I can see some speculative possibilities which I do not find at all attractive. I can see a marshalling of a number of these hypothetical rights in the hands of one person and a gamble, in effect, on whether a local authority will change its mind.

While I am not attributing any particular wickedness to anybody, it seems to me to be wrong that there should be people to whom the right could pass by a voluntary act and who will accordingly be interested in a gamble on the use to which the local authority may put the land within the next five years. I hope that I have not misunderstood the effect or possibilities. This is an intricate Clause, and there is always that possibility.

Quite clearly, if the word "act" is left by itself, we get into a rather different category through "event". "Act" might and in ordinary language does include the voluntary act of the person who was entitled to compensation in the first place and who would be entitled to this additional compensation in certain events.

I trust that the Government will accept our Amendment. If the Lords Amendment has the meaning and effect I attribute to it, there can be no harm whatever in excluding the voluntary dispositions of the person, and our Amendment might well be accepted. When I search for the reasons why it should be refused, I find nothing more specific than a certain reluctance, which I have noticed from time to time in the right hon. Gentleman, to accept Opposition Amendments, however meritorious, sensible, wise and attractive they obviously are.

Mr. MacColl

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do so with certain qualifications. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies for the Government he will deal with this difficulty. Is he not assuming that death comes to a person only unsought?

Mr. Gibson

It usually does.

Mr. MacColl

But one can kill oneself, and I think that I am right in saying that one's estate can benefit if one does kill oneself. It is not like not being able to benefit from murder. My hon. and learned Friend might be able to help on that. If death includes suicide, it might be open to the Government to argue that the Clause as at present drafted covers not only events happening to people, but also voluntary acts and that therefore the analysis of the meaning of the Clause which my hon. and learned Friend very clearly gave may not be complete. I am not sure about that, and I think it ought to be cleared up.

On the assumption that the Clause is meant to deal with the occurrence of something which is unsought, such as death or bankruptcy, I think it is introducing—

Mr. Mitchison

Bankruptcy is sometimes sought.

Mr. MacColl

My hon. and learned Friend is a man wise in the ways of the world and I am not. I am innocent in these matters. I am one of those simple-minded people who think that bankruptcy and fire are things that hit business men as an act of God, unsought, unexpected and unwanted. I should like to keep my simple faith as long as I can.

Mr. Ede

Why complicate it by being a Trinitarian?

Mr. MacColl

Although I am provoked by my right hon. Friend, I think I had better control myself because I do not want to hold up the proceedings of the House. I am anxious to push on with our discussion of the Lords Amendments.

On the assumption that this is dealing with external events happening to somebody, it is quite wrong that this change, which would introduce at this stage of the consideration of the Bill the question of somebody being able to try and gamble on what the local authority is going to do, should be made.

I can see it leading to all sorts of corruption. Somebody might try to obtain secret information from a planning department of any possible change before the change is announced so that it is possible to deal with things of this sort. The Clause in its present form is indefensible, and this only makes it a great deal worse. I do not know where the Government are going to stop. One goes on getting more and more bewildered in this headlong career into obscurity.

Mr. Bevins

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) is becoming bewildered. I am sure it is not infectious on this side of the House. All that subsection (5) of the Clause does is to provide for the transfer of any right to claim compensation where the person who is entitled to the original compensation under Clause 17 has died or some other event has taken place whereby any right to receive compensation would be vested in some other person.

My right hon. Friend is proposing to insert the words "act or" because there is some doubt whether the word "event" alone, which is already in the Bill, is wide enough to cover, for example, an assignment of this right.

If the Lords Amendment is accepted, in addition to death and bankruptcy we shall be covering such things as the assignment of the assets on the voluntary liquidation of companies. As I understand it, the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) would have the effect of preventing the person who would have the right of claiming extra compensation from assigning his right to anybody else.

9.30 p.m.

I am advised that the word "disposition", which is used in the Opposition Amendment, is a very wide one, which, amongst other things, would prevent an assignment upon the voluntary liquidation of a company and might lead to difficulties in the dissolution of a partnership or the creation of a trust. I am informed that a disposition, in law, is any disposal of property in any manner whatsoever, by sale, gift, will, declaration of trust, and so forth.

I understand that the hon. and learned Member's principal motive is to prevent speculation in these rights and, as he says, it is a relatively narrow front upon which the Amendment is being argued. But the House should be clear that all that we are dealing with here is the assignment of these rights before the planning decision to use the land for a more valuable purpose has been taken by the local authority. In those circumstances it is rather difficult to see how speculation could creep in to the picture, mainly because of the uncertainty which surrounds the whole of these transactions. I cannot see how that possibility would come about.

Mr. MacColl

Let us suppose that a land speculator has a corrupt contact in an authority and obtains secret information about a proposed change in the future, which has not been published or approved by the council, but is circulating in the Department. He can buy up the rights to compensation—the vicious thing that happened in years gone by—from people who think that they are worthless, and so be able to claim a substantial profit later on, probably tax-free.

Mr. Mitchison

Let us suppose, too, that the property was originally taken over for use as an open space, and that the council decided that it would put up a considerable municipal building there, or a block of flats. Let us suppose that it goes to a builder, or someone concerned with these matters, in order to find out what the project would cost. The builder will say to himself, "Well, if that is the position it is worth my while going round and buying the right to additional compensation in respect of this bit of land. It will become much more valuable when the block of flats is put up on it." Surely that is undesirable.

Mr. Bevins

That is undesirable, but it would not happen. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering and the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) have given away their case, for the reason that if by some process of jiggery-pokery a speculator obtained inside knowledge of the intentions of a local authority which had bought a piece of land for one purpose and within a period of five years was toying with the idea of using it for a more valuable purpose, and, if that speculator wanted to acquire the right, under the Clause he would have to go to the person possessing the right, and that person would be put on his guard at once. He would realise the possibilities and in those circumstances he would not dream of disposing of his right for a fraction of what it was worth. He would know that something was in the wind.

My right hon. Friend is merely saying that if this right to additional compensation should be paid under the Clause as a whole it is also right that these rights to extra compensation on change of intention should be transferable, whatever the circumstances.

Mr. Sparks

There is another point which requires clarification. In the main, we are dealing with cases where a local authority, having acquired a piece of land for a particular purpose, uses it for another purpose within the period of five years, and where this alternative purpose would attract a greater value. This greater value may be paid by way of compensation to the owner of the land from whom it was acquired five years previously. This is one of the difficulties of the Bill.

We considered earlier the case where a local authority, by compulsory acquisition or voluntary agreement, acquired a piece of land shown on the development plan to be designated for a particular use. In considering the compensation to be paid for it, the owner of the land could, and undoubtedly would, make a claim for compensation based upon a use different from the use designated in the development plan. We decided that in such a case the local authority should not refuse the claim just because the use was different from that designated in the development plan.

In this case that means that the local authority, which might want to acquire the land for the purpose of an open space, would have to pay compensation to the owner based on a different use, for example, an industrial use. In the meantime, the local authority decides to use the piece of land not as an open space but for another purpose, perhaps for a sewage farm or for housing. How do we tie up the compensation in such a case?

In the first place, the owner of the land will have received a rate of compensation upon a claim for a use which would attract a higher value than that attracted were the land used for the purpose for which the local authority originally acquired it. Now the local authority proposes to use it not as an open space, shall we say, but as the site of a sewage farm, or a store, or a warehouse. What additional compensation will be payable to the owner of the land because the local authority has changed the proposed use and because the alternative use to which the land will be put will have a higher value than the original use? Is the owner of the land to get that also?

Mr. Bevins

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not the subject of the Amendment that has been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. It has nothing whatever to do with it.

Mr. Sparks

That may not be, but it has a very distinct connection with this problem.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not think that the Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment deals with that subject.

Mr. Sparks

My remarks have a very close connection with it, although they may not be directly connected. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) wants to include other words which have some connection with the point that we are considering.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Possibly it has some connection, but it is a good bit away from it.

Mr. Sparks

I am referring to the use to which land may be put and am looking at it from the local authority point of view. The local authority has the land, but wants to use it for another purpose. We are concerned here with who is to receive the higher value created by the change of use.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

All that is not in the Amendment that we are discussing.

Mr. Sparks

All right, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This emphasises once again the complexities of the whole matter. I think it has some connection, but I will leave it there.

Mr. Gibson

I would call the attention of the House to the Amendment which we are moving to remove the cause of all the trouble. We have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary what may happen if we put these words "act or" into the Clause, as the Lords Amendment proposes. Some legal advisers have told us that they are quite unnecessary. Is there any special reason why we should put them in? We have not been told of it. Why should we, so to speak, break our necks to benefit people who have certain forms of property? We dislike the whole Clause. Judging from what the Parliamentary Secretary said, adding the words "act or" would widen the effect of the Clause and give a few more people another little dip into the pockets of local authorities for compensation.

Mr. Bevins

The effect of the Amendment would not be to enable any more people to have another little dip into anybody's pockets. All it would do is to extend the possibility of the transfer of these rights not only to cases of death and bankruptcy but to assignment of the assets on voluntary liquidation.

Mr. Ross

On a point of order. I know we are discussing a Lords Amendment which is related to the question of—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

We are discussing an Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).

Mr. Ross

I am safeguarding my right to refer to certain Amendments that I believe are being taken along with the original one. I am satisfied.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 22, line 12, after "that", insert "act or".

In line 16, after "that" insert "act or".

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 28, at end insert: and any reference to an area defined in a development plan is a reference to an area defined in such a plan in the form in which (whether as originally approved or made by the Minister or as subsequently amended) that plan was in force on the relevant date".

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Sparks

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask the Minister why he proposes to add these words at the end of line 28? I think that they appear in another part of the Bill and it is proposed to delete them. What is the reason for putting the additional words here at the end of line 28?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

These are all consequential Amendments.

Mr. Mitchison

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. With respect, I doubt whether this is quite a consequential Amendment. I think it is a drafting Amendment and nothing more. I do not wish to interfere with anything anyone wants to say, but, so far as I can see, all the Amendments down to and including the Amendment in page 23, line 27, are either drafting or consequential. If I may make a special reference to one of them, because it really deserves it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, they include the Amendment in page 22, line 41, where another place inserted the momentous words, "the following, that is to say".

Mr. Sparks

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If this is consequential, I do not know whether it is consequential on the second one or—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. This one is drafting. The next one is consequential.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 37.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

This one is consequential.

Mr. Sparks

Consequential on what?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

On the Amendment in page 21, line 10.

Mr. H. Brooke

I am not quite sure where we are. If we have reached the Amendment in page 22, line 29, I should like to say a word on that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

We have reached it now.

Mr. Brooke

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment is linked with a number of subsequent Amendments. Perhaps I could mention them now and then explain the whole matter. It is linked with the following Amendments: In page 22, line 38, in page 25, line 6, the new Clause "B", the Amendments in page 27, line 2, in page 27, line 6, in page 27, line 15, in page 27, line 26, and in page 64, line 32.

Mr. Ross

Purely drafting!

Mr. Brooke

I am informed that in line 61 of the new Clause "B", on page 7 of the Notice Paper, there is a misprint. The word "eighteen" should read "seventeen".

Very briefly, as the House knows, the right to claim additional compensation—I am aware that the Opposition oppose it—arises where a planning decision which gives permission for additional development is taken within five years from the acquisition of the land. Clause 17 (7) does not cover all the relevant ways in which planning permission might be granted. It fails also to put beyond doubt the date of the planning decision in all these circumstances. It does not, for instance, specifically cover a planning permission which is given by a development order.

As I said, there may in some cases be doubt about the date of a planning permission where that permission is a permission deemed to be granted. This group of Amendments, therefore, is intended to delete the part of subsection (7) which deals with deemed planning permissions and to insert the new Clause "B". The new Clause extends the provision of Clauses 17 or 18 to all the relevant special types of planning permission and it specifies in each case the date which is to be taken as the date of the planning permission. In other words, this is purely a tidying-up group of Amendments to make the provision comprehensive and also to prevent the doubts which might otherwise arise when the Bill reaches the Statute Book as to the date which is relevant for the purposes of these provisions.

Mr. Sparks

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask whether you will allow a debate on the new Clause "B", on page 6, in connection with the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman is now moving, in line 29, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 37?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Yes, I think it goes with this set of Amendments.

Mr. Sparks

It will be frightfully difficult to connect up about twenty other consequential Amendments to which the Minister has referred. He spoke so fast that we could not make a note of them. Are we discussing all those consequential Amendments now on this Motion?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

At the moment we are discussing only the Amendment, in line 29, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 37.

Mr. Mitchison

I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friends. There are very many real points that we object to in this Amendment, but personally I think that this one has to be accepted. I disagree entirely, as all of us do on this side of the House, with the general principle to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and to which he knows quite well our objection.

If the principle is to be applied to actual planning permissions it seems to me quite illogical not to apply it also to deemed planning permissions and to cases where planning permission is given, for instance, by a development order. As I read this Clause, it really is a tidying up Clause, which does no more than apply what we regard as a wrong principle to these cases. That is to say—I hope that I am not going to be shot from behind—we on this side of the House think that it is a thoroughly bad principle, but if it is to apply to the cases in the Bill, this Amendment seems to be necessary, otherwise we should have a quite untenable distinction between one kind of planning permission and another.

Mr. Ross

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Minister drew attention to what he called a misprint, but what I would prefer to call a mistake, in page 7, line 61, and he said that the word "eighteen" should be "seventeen". I have noticed one or two things like this, and I asked Mr. Speaker, when he was in the Chair, whether it would be in order for me to move a manuscript Amendment to put these things right. He said that it would be out of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The point is that these Amendments came correctly from another place. Our printer made an error and this is rectifying his mistake. I understand that the original draft was correct.

Mr. Ross

Can the Government tell us if they know of any other errors or misprints of that kind, and whether or not the ones that I have in mind are real errors or misprints?

Mr. H. Brooke

May I ask the leave of the House to speak again? The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the printing of Lords Amendments is not a responsibility of the Government. It is a responsibility of the authorities of the House. It was brought to my attention that there was a misprint and I thought that it was my duty in dealing with this Clause to mention it to the House. I have not had any others notified to me.

Mr. Mitchison

With the leave of the House, may I say that what this illustrates with regard to the Government is the sort of trouble we get into when we try to hustle Bills through the machinery of Parliament too fast. Then this kind of thing happens. To do it when there is a notorious shortage of printers' ink is just asking for trouble.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

If it is a mistake by the authorities of the House I take the responsibility. I apologise and regret it very much.

Mr. Ross

If it was brought to the attention of the Minister, he should have put down an Amendment. Many of us have lost quite a lot of time as a result of misleading information, in trying to follow the Amendments in relation to the original Bill. I have more than a feeling that this error or misprint was probably pointed out to the Minister only about twenty minutes ago, and I am wondering whether, as we proceed with these Amendments, and they will occupy us until quite late, the right hon. Gentleman will spot any more, or be told of any more.

Mr. Ede

The Minister read out a list of Amendments, which, he said, were linked with the one he moved. Can you tell me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether, if we accept the Amendment that he has actually moved, we shall then be told that all the others that he mentioned are merely consequential on that one—particularly the new Clause B, which runs to 61 lines?

I do not say anything other than to accept the word of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—who, I know, has given a very great deal of time to a detailed study of this huge volume of Amendments—but I did not gather that we had from the Minister any explanation of the new Clause B—certainly nothing like the explanation that would have had to be given, even on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" had this been in the original Bill.

We are now being asked to deal with a number of other small Amendments to which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has said, the right hon. Gentleman alluded so quickly that although I had marked all the Amendments from 1 to 222 that appear in the volume I really was not able to spot those that he was mentioning. He had by then begun to jump over three or four in a kind of kangaroo movement of his own which made it quite impossible to find out what we are being asked to accept as being involved in the discussion on the compartively small Amendment to move out comparatively few words of the Bill. What will be the position when we pass from this Amendment—on the assumption that it is accepted—and then come, at odd stages in the proceedings during the next three of four hours, to the various other Amendments to which the Minister also alluded?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I gathered that after the Amendment in line 29, the Amendment in line 38 is consequential, and that those in lines 41 and 27 are drafting, and then we come on to the Amendment in page 24, line 29.

Mr. H. Brooke

If I may have permission to speak again, I certainly did not want to take these Amendments too quickly, nor was I suggesting that the first was consequential on others that followed. The main Amendment is, of course, the new Clause, and I am perfectly willing to give the House a detailed analysis of that new Clause if it should be desired.

What I was doing—and I hoped that I had satisfied at any rate the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—was to indicate the general purpose of this group of linked Amendments—the new Clause being the main Amendment, and the others being minor ones that are essential to it. The meat of this group, however, comes in the new Clause, and, as I explained—and as, I think, the hon. and learned Gentleman has accepted—the purpose of the new Clause is to make the list complete. It would otherwise be incomplete, and it would be anomalous for Parliament to leave it so.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Sparks

The Minister said that the meat of all the various consequential Amendments is contained in new Clause "B". I do not know whether we can discuss that now or must wait until we come to it.

Mr. Speaker

We had better wait until we reach it.

Mr. Sparks

We are confused as to the purport of this Amendment to leave out certain words, together with all the other consequential Amendments. The Explanatory Memorandum states as follows in relation to Clause 17, which we are now amending: Clauses 17–19 and the Third Schedule provide that where, within five years after the acquisition of land, planning permission is granted for additional development, or, where no planning permission is required, additional development is commenced, and the compensation payable would have been greater had planning permission for the additional development been in existence at the date of notice to treat, the original owner will be entitled to claim additional compensation corresponding to the amount of the increase. We can understand that—at least, I hope we can. The title of the Clause is Additional compensation for new planning permission in respect of land acquired. The Lords Amendment, in page 22, line 29, would leave out all the words from the beginning of that line to the end of line 37.

The Minister said that he was making this deletion because there were certain cases in which planning permission had not been given. It passes my comprehension how a local authority can acquire a piece of land for a use for which it has no planning permission. A local authority must get planning permission to use a piece of land. Therefore, presumably, planning permission would have been given on the first occasion when it desired to acquire the land. I cannot conceive of any case where it could acquire the land without planning permission for the use to which it sought to put the land. Subsequently, within a period of five years the local authority might want it for another use and, presumably, applies for planning permission for the new use. Again, it could not possibly use the land for another purpose without having the planning permission.

Does the Clause refer to planning permission to be obtained by a local authority for the use of land which it has acquired? If we can be told whether that is what we are referring to, it would considerably clear the air. We are somewhat confused by the fact that a claim for compensation may be made based upon a use other than that to which the local authority will put the land. [Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) shaking his head. I take nobody's advice on this, least of all the advice of any hon. Member on the other side.

Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)

On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to ask my hon. Friend to shut up?

Mr. Gibson

It is bad manners.

Mr. Speaker

It is an unfortunate expression and should not be used among Parliamentarians.

Mr. Sparks

I can well understand that we are getting in difficulty with this dreadful Bill and the Clauses which it contains. I do not know how many of us, including the Minister, understand what is in the Bill.

What I was trying to do was to get a clear impression of what the Minister intends in the whole series of consequential Lords Amendments he is putting before us tonight, because if this is the granting of planning permissions for development really it means planning permissions which the local authority has to obtain first of all when it acquires a site for use and secondly within five years if it requires to change the use. That is the second planning permission. I can understand that, but it is further complicated, as I said before, by the fact that the owner of the land may make application for planning permission for a use different from that to which the local authority wants to put the land, and that planning permission has in certain circumstances to be granted. The planning permission is granted for the purpose of compensation and it may be for a use which is quite different from that to which the local authority is going to put it.

What I am concerned to find out is what planning permissions we are really talking about here. Does this refer to planning permissions which the local authority must obtain for the first use of the site, and then, if it changes its mind, and wants it for another use, for that use? That is the second planning permission. If that is all we are referring to, I think it considerably clears the air, but I do not think anybody at the moment can say whether it is so or not. If the hon. Gentleman can tell us what planning permissions we are concerned with in this Clause 17 (7) I am sure it will be helpful.

Mr. H. Brooke

If I may have the permission of the House to speak again I should like to say to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) that I think that if he reads in HANSARD tomorrow what I said when I was moving, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," he will find that I really answered his questions in advance. There are two points here. First of all, there are planning permissions which are not given by a local planning authority. A development order can be made by the Minister.

I am sure the hon. Member is familiar with the general development order, 1950. The effect of a development order made by the Minister may be to grant additional planning permissions where they did not exist beforehand. I am sure the hon. Member would assent to the proposition that they should not be treated for the purposes of this Part of the Bill in any different way from any ordinary planning permission. That would be quite anomalous. So one of the purposes of this group of Lords Amendments, of which, as I say, the new Clause is the heart, is to make sure that planning permissions granted by a development order are covered.

The second class with which we are dealing here is another kind with which I am sure the hon. Member is also familiar from his experience.

Mr. Sparks

Before the right hon. Gentleman goes on to the second class perhaps he would clear this up. The general development order which carries with it a planning permission; who is to receive the benefit of that development order? Is it a development order granted to the local authority for its developments? I can understand that. Or is it a general development order for somebody else other than the local authority? We are concerned here with a local authority acquiring land for its own use. Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to a general development order in relation to the use to which the local authority will put the land? I can understand that.

Mr. Brooke

What we are dealing with here is an order which may be made at some subsequent date and which may have the effect of granting a new planning permission for a piece of land which is acquired by this Bill. It will not be a specific development order for that particular piece of land. A development order made by the Minister does normally have effect as regards all land of a particular character. It might be that a piece of land compulsorily acquired, to which this Part of the Bill applied, was affected by a development order of that kind.

The other class is the case with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is also familiar, of deemed planning permission. He will know that there are certain kinds of planning permission which are deemed to be granted. There the point at issue is, what should be the crucial date? At what date was planning permission deemed to have been granted?

The Clause as it left the House did not clarify that matter, and we might have had cases in the courts to settle a dispute as to what was the relevant date. The other main purpose of the new Clause is to put beyond doubt what the date is at which the deemed planning permission shall be deemed to have been granted. I will willingly explain the Clause subsection by subsection if the House wishes, but that is its meaning, as I think the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has recognised.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 22, line 38, leave out "and the two next following sections" and insert: section and in the following provisions of this Part of this Act".

In line 41, at end insert "the following, that is to say".

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 27, leave out from "if" to "and" in line 31 and insert: for paragraph (d) thereof there were substituted the following paragraph, that is to say— (d) to land acquired by a local authority, whether compulsorily or by agreement, where on the relevant date the land consisted or formed part of an area to which a town development scheme under Part II of the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, related".

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment deals with cases where additional compensation should not be payable. It is really a drafting Amendment and applies to Scotland only. Section 13 of the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, enables the receiving authority to acquire land within the area defined in accordance with that Act as a town development scheme area. The Amendment substitutes for a reference to Section 13 the new paragraph (d) explanatory of the acquisitions intended to be covered. This will meet criticisms made on previous stages in that it removes to some extent legislation by reference. It gives what we hope is a clear statement and avoids the possibility of confusion arising from subsection 4 (d) which was moved at an earlier stage of our proceedings.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 29, leave out paragraph (d) and insert: (d) if in accordance with the last preceding paragraph a person would be entitled to additional consideration in respect of an acquisition or sale, but before the planning decision in question that person has died, or any other act or event has occurred whereby the right to the additional consideration, if vested in him immediately before that act or event, would thereupon have vested in some other person, the right to the additional consideration shall be treated as having devolved as if that right had been vested in him immediately before his death or immediately before that act or event, as the case may be, and the additional consideration shall be payable to the persons claiming under him accordingly.

Mr. N. Macpherson

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a purely drafting Amendment. It is a rewrite of the paragraph as it stands at present.

Mr. Ross

I do not think the Joint Under-Secretary is quite right in saying that it is a rewrite. It is nothing of the kind, because it incorporates an Amendment which we have just made to the English part of the Clause. It incorporates an Amendment the rights to discuss which at this point I sought to safegard with an intervention earlier. We are now meandering down from dominium utile to the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845 and its related section as read with Section 62 of the Scottish Act of 1954. I am always very doubtful, as one with great respect for the clarity of Scottish law, when we find ourselves enacting a Clause or paragraph which is word for word with English law. The Joint Under-Secretary knows as well as I do that there are important historical differences in relation to even the meanings of phrases and words.

10.15 p.m.

This will mean the payment by the acquiring authority of what is nicely known as additional consideration—nothing so sordid as compensation—to the land superiors in Scotland in respect of the discharge of feu duties and the like. It is their share of what additional is going in respect of an additional planning decision. These words concern me: … any other act or event has occurred whereby the right to the additional consideration … would thereupon have vested in some other person … And the local authority has to pay the additional consideration which shall be payable to "the persons claiming under him accordingly". I want to know what that phrase means in Scottish law: the local authority or the acquiring authority has to pay "the persons claiming under him". I should have thought it meant persons who had established the right to claim, not just persons claiming.

Once again there is a looseness here that does not satisfy me and which we would not let slip past quite so easily if we had been dealing with this matter in the Scottish Grand Committee. I am not sure that what pleases the English lawyers would satisfy the ordinary Scottish lay back bencher as adequate and right in the circumstances.

Mr. Willis

I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will reply. We have already asked numerous questions to which neither he nor the Joint Under-Secretary has thought fit to reply, so I trust that on this Amendment he will give us a better explanation than we have had so far. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, this is more than a drafting Amendment; it incorporates within it Amendments made previously to the English provisions, with the result that we have a new subsection to the Scottish application subsection, which repeats verbatim subsection (5) of the Clause.

Surely we have not drifted into the position where we have to legislate for Scotland by saying something taking fourteen lines twice? That is what we are doing here. We do not even say in this subsection that subsection (5) shall not apply to Scotland. I should have thought that if we were to put in this new subsection we should at least have said at the commencement that subsection (5) of the Section shall not apply to Scotland or, that these words shall be substituted for that subsection.

Mr. Ross

I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that this is additional. This is for the benefit of the great Scottish land superior.

Mr. Willis

I appreciate that too. My point is, why should we do that? Is it that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is preparing the way for the Scottish Bill that is to be introduced subsequently? because we understand that there is to be a Scottish version.

Mr. Ross

A re-write.

Mr. Willis

If the Bill is to be rewritten in the way these Amendments are re-written, instead of taking over 100 pages, the Bill will take over 200 pages.

Mr. Ross

Printed by Macmillan & Co. and suitably illustrated.

Mr. Willis

What is the purpose of it? Perhaps the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland will now tell us?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

If I may deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I think the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) really answered him, because subsection (5) deals with cases of compensation and the Amendment with which we are now dealing deals with consideration. The hon. Member will remember from the Committee stage, and this I am afraid goes back to the 1845 Act, that the feuer gets the compensation and the superior gets the consideration, and, indeed, the additional consideration.

Certain criticisms were made in the Committee stage, if I remember rightly, because this Amendment to paragraph (d), which we are replacing, proceeded by cross reference. We thought it right to rewrite the paragraph, so that the new paragraph (d) is self-contained and can now be understood at a glance both by lawyer and layman.

In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock concerning persons claiming under him accordingly, it is safeguarded by the proviso, by the initial "if", so to speak. It must have vested in some other person, to begin with, and thereupon the person claiming under the original person is the person who is in right and title to what I might call the original estate. It is as clear as we can make it, both in England and Scotland.

Question put, and agreed to.