HC Deb 24 March 1959 vol 602 cc1162-82
Mr. Brooke

I beg to move, in page 4, line 29, to leave out first "be" and to insert "have been".

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we could also take the Amendments in page 4, line 42, page 5, line 31, page 7, line 15, and page 56, line 15.

This group of Amendments is designed wholly to meet a valid point raised in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). Their purpose is to make it clear that the planning permissions to be assumed under subsections (2) and (3) of the Clause by reference to allocations in a development plan are for development for which planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted if the relevant land were not proposed to be acquired by any public authority.

In the Bill as it stands, the phrase is development for which planning permission might reasonably be expected to be granted". In Committee, the hon. and learned Member pointed out that at the time when notice to treat is served, planning permission could not reasonably be expected for anything except what the acquiring authority proposed to do. It would, indeed, be nonsense if planning permission were at that stage expected to be granted for something quite different.

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his suggestion, which definitely improves the Bill. This new wording is in line with our conception of a fair market value as the price which an owner could reasonably have expected to receive for his land if there had been no proposal for its purchase by a public authority. I assure the hon. and learned Member that though there are subsequent drafting Amendments the sole effective change which these five Amendments make is to satisfy the point which he reasonably raised in Committee.

Mr. Mitchison

Suspicious though I am by temperament, I can do no more than express my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the need for this series of glorified drafting Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bevins

I beg to move, in page 4, line 29, at the end to insert: in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof, as the case may be". This Amendment might, perhaps, be taken with the identical Amendment in page 4, line 42.

These two Amendments are, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred to the last series, rather glorified drafting Amendments, but they meet a point of a little obscurity that was raised by the hon and learned Member at an earlier stage. It was suggested that the phrase in Clause 3 development for which planning permission might reasonably be expected to be granted was meant to relate to the relevant land, as, clearly, it is intended to relate. The effects of these Amendments are to make that clear beyond all doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 42, leave out first "be" and insert "have been".

In line 42, at end insert: in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof, as the case may be".—[Mr. Brooke.]

5.0 p.m.

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

I beg to move, in page 4, line 45, to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and to insert: it shall be assumed that planning permission would be granted, in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof, as the case may be, for any development for the purposes of a use of the relevant land or that part thereof falling within the planned range of uses (whether it is the use which, in accordance with the particulars and proposals comprised in the current development plan in relation to the area in question, is indicated in the plan as the proposed use of the relevant land or that part thereof, or is any other use falling within the planned range of uses) being development for which, in the circumstances specified in the next following subsection, planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof, as the case may be". It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discuss the Amendments in page 5, lines 15, 19 and 24.

These are mainly drafting Amendments, designed to meet the criticisms of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who thought, in particular, that the meaning of the words "take into account" in this context were not sufficiently clear. The Amendment removes any possibility of doubt as to their intention. The planning permission to be assumed will be planning permission for such use or uses within the range of uses planned for the area of comprehensive development as could reasonably have been expected to be granted had the area not been an area of comprehensive development and had no development in accordance with the plan taken place. The first Amendment introduces the phrase "planned range of uses" and the fourth Amendment defines that. The combined effect of those two Amendments makes no change whatever in the intention as explained by my right hon. Friend at length in Committee. We have done our best in this Amendment to meet the criticisms of the hon. Gentleman.

The Amendment to page 5, line 19, goes perhaps a little further than pure drafting. This is designed to make it clear that in considering what planning permissions should be assumed, the valuer is not only to disregard the fact that the land to be acquired is in an area defined as an area of comprehensive development but also is to disregard any particulars or proposals comprised in the plan relating to the land to be acquired. In brief, this means that the valuer will have regard within the planned range of uses to the uses for which permission might have been given had the lay-out of the area remained substantially as it was, and had there been no question of comprehensive redevelopment.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

I welcome a Scottish Minister at the Dispatch Box to deal with matters relating to Scotland. This is the first time we have had the pleasure of an explanation from the hon. Gentleman. I was pleased to hear him say that this Amendment is designed to clarify the Clause, because I have been spending some time trying to find out what it means, and not being a lawyer, I found it difficult.

I wonder whether all this verbiage is necessary when we come to deal with the intelligent people of Scotland, though I admit it might be necessary in England. Here we are dealing with intelligent men who, one assumes, do not want verbiage put into the Bill. Why, for instance, in the third line of the first Amendment, must we have "as the case may be"? What difference would it make if those words were left out? I have read this Amendment three or four times and I can see no difference in the meaning if those words were omitted.

I am surprised that the Solicitor-General for Scotland should have such a poor opinion of his own profession as to think that the Scottish legal fraternity would not be capable of interpreting this Amendment without the interpolation of those words. I can see the right hon. and learned Gentleman getting into serious trouble in Parliament House for treating his fellow-lawyers in this manner.

Then there is the long interpolation in brackets in the centre of the Amendment. Why is that necessary? It might quite well be omitted, and so might the final "as the case may be", which occurs about nine times in the Clause, for what reason I do not know. Maybe the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland can tell us; or his right hon. and learned Friend, from whom we have not yet had a word, might be prepared to give us a lesson in legal terminology. We are always prepared to sit at the feet of learned gentlemen in order to extend our knowledge of Scottish law, though I must admit that we do not seem to extend it far.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant) rose—

Mr. Willis

The Solicitor-General for Scotland, as usual, is bursting to give us the benefit of his advice. We shall be delighted to receive it, so I will let him explain why we must have all this for Scotland. The English can put what they like into their own legislation, but we should treat Scotland rather more respectfully.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I am always glad to have compliments on the intelligence of the Scots from an Englishman, and I will try to deal with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. The point of "as the case may be" is that under subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 3 we have to make an assumption in respect of the relevant, or part of the relevant, land if either the relevant land or the particular part of it complies with a specified condition. The words "as the case may be" have been inserted, and are necessary, to make it clear that when the condition applies to the relevant land the assumption also applies to the whole of the relevant land, but where it applies only to part the assumption applies only to part. If the hon. Gentleman will read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, I think he will understand the point.

Mr. Willis

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the sentence, omitting the words "as the case may be" and then tell me what is the difference?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

The difference would be this. If those words were omitted, the assumption might be applied by a skilful lawyer to the whole of the relevant land when, in fact, it applied to part only.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

Really.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I am always obliged to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) for his legal advice. I merely give him my opinion for what it is worth, and I know at what he values it. There would be doubt about these words in a case where the assumption applied only to part of the relevant land since it could be applied also to the whole.

As regards the words in brackets, brevity is not always clarity, although I find in listening sometimes to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that the opposite is sometimes the fact. The words in brackets have been inserted for clarity, and I think they are necessary.

Mr. Ross

There is one thing about the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he is always provocative. I had intended by my silence to try to assist the Committee to get through the Bill reasonably quickly. When I heard the Joint Under-Secretary of State say that this Amendment and the consequential series of Amendments are due to something I said inadvertently in the Standing Committee, I wondered whether he had paid attention to the Amendments I had put down which were not selected, for he went out of his way to give us the perfect snub by including the words "as the case may be", not once but twice in his Amendment, accepting suggestions I had made in the Committee.

Then the Solicitor-General for Scotland tried to justify not the Amendment, but the inclusion of those words. He said he gave us his advice for what I think it is worth. He knows quite well what I think his advice is worth—absolutely nothing. I doubt if any person could be in doubt, even if the words were left out, who referred to subsection (2): … in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof … What dubiety is there in respect of that? Is it that some learned lawyer in Scotland will think that it applies to the whole of the land and not only to the relevant land, or part thereof, so that we must have this importing of the words "as the case may be"? We were very concerned, and we are very willing to learn in Scotland, but when we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government saying this: … if we were to import into the drafting of all these Bills words which are really quite superfluous and unnecessary in the circumstances we should go on and on to no great purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 29th January, 1959; c. 431.] we thought that we were being helpful in suggesting that the Government should take out words which are unnecessary and superfluous. Yet the Government put them in and tell us that the Amendment is due to something which we put forward. If the Parliamentary Secretary had paid attention to what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and myself had said on Clause 3, he would have left Scotland out of it altogether and would have satisfied us, but we are glad to know that he was listening to one part of the Committee stage to what we were submitting to him.

Mr. Willis

May I ask the Joint Under-Secretary whether when a Bill containing the Scottish provisions in this Bill goes before the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in order to apply to Scotland it will be possible for that Committee to cut out some of these unnecessary words?

Mr. Macpherson

If it would alter the sense, then, of course, the words would not be taken out.

Mr. Ross

There is no sense in it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 15, leave out "paragraph (b) of".

In line 19, at end insert: no particulars or proposals relating to any land in that area had been comprised in the plan, and".

In line 24, at end insert: and in that subsection 'the planned range of uses' means the range of uses which, in accordance with the particulars and proposals comprised in the current development plan in relation to the area in question, are indicated in the plan as proposed uses of land in that area."—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Brooke

I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, to leave out from "with" to "it" in line 26 and to insert: any of the preceding subsections. This is another Amendment put forward in order to meet a point raised by the Opposition in Committee. Its purpose is to apply subsection (6) of Clause 3 to subsection (1) as well as to subsections (2), (3) and (4). I remember giving an undertaking in the Committee that I would consider carefully whether that subsection might not be applied to subsection (1) also. It was originally considered when the Bill was drafted that where a site was defined in a development plan the description in the plan gave a sufficiently specific indication of what would be permitted without further qualification.

On further consideration, it is possible to see that conditions relating to, for instance, access to roads or the height of buildings might be imposed on the grant of permission for development for which a site is defined in a plan, and it seems reasonable therefore to allow such conditions to be assumed. I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who was, I think, the first to raise the matter in Committee.

Mr. Mitchison

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Brooke

I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, after "mentioned", to insert "(a)".

This is a paving Amendment for the Amendment of substance which is the next one on the Notice Paper—in line 31, to insert the new paragraph (b). These Amendments provide for an assumption of deferred planning permission where it is indicated, by the programme map or by information contained in the written statement forming part of a development plan, that planning permission for development would be granted, but only at some future time and not immediately.

In such a case, the assumption is to be that planning permission would be granted at such future time as might reasonably be expected from the indications in the development plan. Those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recollect that this point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) during the discussion on Clause 3. I think it was generally agreed that the Bill did require Amendment, and there was time to insert the necessary Amendment in Clause 4. Subsection (5) of Clause 4 contains the Amendment which was made in Committee, and it was stated on behalf of the Government at that time that it would be necessary to pick up the point in Clause 3. That is what we are doing now.

Mr. McColl

When the right hon. Gentleman says that this was a matter which received general agreement in the Committee, I think that is a staggering overstatement. I thought for one moment that it might have happened during one of my unfortunate absences from the Committee, but I can distinctly remember speaking on it, and I think we divided on it.

I am still not clear about it, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has helped the House at all about how we discount the value of future planning permissions of this sort. I will put the point to him again. If the planning authority is asked whether it would give planning permission in fifteen years' time for a development on a particular site—it woes not matter whether it is house building or commercial building, because it makes no difference to the argument—and it has a reasonable suspicion that by then the public activities of the authority will have begun to develop in that area, and, therefore, it would not be likely any longer to be a premature development, as the services would be there, in the first place, what sort of odds is the authority to accept when it decides whether to say "Yes" or "No"?

Secondly, how is the valuer to discount the fact that it is hypothetical, that it is in the future, and that it is a development which is only possible if the public authorities develop in that particular direction, and if a private developer on his own could not possibly do it? These are the problems presented, and that was the problem which we raised upstairs, and the right hon. Gentleman has not helped us by giving us some picture of how this will work out in practice.

Mr. Brooke

I do not think this presents the valuer with any problem of any great difficulty. The fact is that there is no planning permission to be assumed for immediate development, and therefore it would be wrong to value the land as if there were. If there is an element of addition to the market value which the land would have otherwise—an element of additional value given by the assumed deferred planning permission —then that must be discounted to the extent that development cannot take place immediately. If the development could be immediate and could start forthwith, any increase of market value in the land thereby would accrue in full, but quite clearly if that additional value could not be secured for five years, the amount that should be added to the market value to take account of it must be less than it would be if the development could be immediate.

It will be further reduced if the development cannot take place for ten years, and even further reduced if it cannot take place for fifteen years. Indeed, if it went into the distant future, the additional value accruing therefrom would probably be nil or negligible, because people would be unlikely to buy land unless they were disposed to look very far ahead at the prospect of being able to carry out some developments in their children's or children's children's time.

Fortunately, the ordinary development plan does not extend for more than twenty years at the maximum, so we do not have to peer into the distant future. I assure hon. Members that it does not present the valuer with any unaccustomed obstacle if he is asked to put a value on a planning permission for development which cannot accrue immediately. That is a perfectly straightforward problem of valuation and we are not making the task of a valuer any more difficult by the Amendment.

If I went too far and suggested that there was a greater degree of amiability in Standing Committee about the corresponding Amendments to Clause 4 than there actually was, I am sorry. In Standing Committee we were amicable about some things and less amicable about others. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) asked me about the practicability of this proposal. I assure him that it would not present any difficulties to the ordinary experienced valuer.

Mr. Mitchison

This matter was discussed at considerable length in Committee when we dealt with Clause 4, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) made some very trenchant and forceful criticisms, as shown by col. 491 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. We held and still hold those objections, and we divided on the Amendment to Clause 4. The debate was of such a character that in the course of discussion there was for a time no quorum in the Committee.

However, the Amendment was put into Clause 4 and the right hon. Gentleman said at the time that if it went into Clause 4 it would also have to go into Clause 3, which we are now considering. Whatever our objections were and are, it is now in Clause 4 and it is obvious that there must be something corresponding in Clause 3. Although we do not like it in either of those places, we recognise that it must be either absent or present in both places.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 31, at end insert: and (b) if, in accordance with any map or statement comprised in the current development plan, it is indicated that any such planning permission would be granted only at a future time, then (without prejudice to the preceding paragraph) the assumption shall be that the planning permission in question would be granted at the time when, in accordance with the indications in the plan, that permission might reasonably be expected to be granted".

In line 31, at end insert: (7) Any reference in this section to development for which planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted is a reference to development for which planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted if no part of the relevant land were proposed to be acquired by any authority to whom the Act of 1919 applies.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. MacColl

I beg to move, in page 5, line 32 to leave out "section" and to insert "Part of this Act".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think that with this we can discuss the Amendments in page 5, line 44 to leave out from "area" to end of line 2 on page 6 and to insert: defined in the current development plan as the site of proposed development or shown in the current development plan as allocated primarily for a specified use or specified uses, or where any question arises as to the development for which planning permission might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably have been expected to be granted"; and in page 13, line 15, to leave out from "section" to "the" in line 16, which is consequential.

Mr. MacColl

The effective Amendment is that in page 5, line 44.

This is a complicated Amendment which at various times in the last few minutes I have not been sure that I understood myself. I do not blame myself for that, since it is complicated because of the obscure drafting of Clause 4. Clause 4 deals with those cases in which one or other of the parties applies to the local planning authority for a certificate about appropriate alternative developments. It is interesting to note in what cases that applies. The Bill approaches that question by the process of defining the cases in which it is not applied. The Amendment is restricted in the sense that it reduces the force of Clause 4 (1, b) and, by narrowing that, widens the broad principle of the cases in which an application may be made. That is complicated, but it arises by the round about way of approaching this question.

What are the cases in which no application can be made for a certificate? First, in paragraph (a), is the case of comprehensive development, which is a term of art well understood among planners. An area of comprehensive development is an area in which there is to take place comprehensive development under a comprehensive plan covering the whole area. The precise limit of comprehensive development is a subject about which we have argued and will later argue again.

The second case of exclusion from application for a certificate is where there is an area shown in the current development plan as allocated primarily for use of a residential, commercial or industrial character, or range of two or more uses. That seems to be an extremely wide exception, and in many cases its effect is that many cases where a planning authority could help with a certificate are excluded. I am puzzled to know why the Government, who invented the idea of a certificate, are so modest about using it. 'They have taken the trouble to initiate the idea and then, in paragraph (b), they have cut out some cases in which it could have been used.

Instead of having this very wide exception, our Amendment proposes that wherever an area is shown in the development plan as primarily allocated for a use of a particular character, the exclusion shall apply where it is an area defined in the current development plan as a site of proposed development, or shown as allocated primarily for a specified use or specified uses, in other words, in all cases where the development plan is vague.

For example, where it is "white land", for which no use is prescribed, or in any case where there is not a specific allocation to a specific use, but where there is ambiguity and vagueness about the development plan, the certificate procedure would be used. As drafted, the Bill provides that the certificate procedure would be excluded in those cases and the valuer would be left to his own ingenuity and imagination when making a decision.

That is the first leg of the Amendment. The second leg of the Amendment says: … where any question arises as to the development for which planning permission might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably have been expected to be granted. In other words, there will be access to the planning authority in any case of ambiguity where there is any question about which of the number of possible uses to which the land might have been put, and where there is any obscurity as to which is the most probable use. Those are essentially questions to which the planning authorities will know the answers.

Therefore, the purpose of our Amendment is to give responsibilities to the planning authority which are at present to be exercised by the valuer. Because we are dealing with planning questions, that is a much more appropriate authority to deal with them than the valuer. That principle is accepted in the whole idea of the certificate about which the Government are proud. They accept the general principle that the best people to know about planning permission are members of a planning authority. Once that principle is accepted it seems reasonable to use it in cases where there is ambiguity.

Although this Amendment is complicated, it is important, and we attach a great deal of importance to it. The Amendment will enable decisions to be taken by the right authority and will prevent valuers getting involved in a lot of decisions which are not within their compass and are not decisions about values but about planning policy and the likelihood of particular planning developments and so on. That is all common form stuff for planning authorities but goes much beyond the sphere of knowledge of the valuer.

We press this Amendment with some certainty. There is no great controversial issue here. It is a question of the improvement of procedure for the benefit of everyone and in order to get a more qualified and better decision which will benefit all the parties concerned and will be obtained quickly and smoothly from the planning authority.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison

I beg to second the Amendment.

When I was quite young I used occasionally to blow out balloons. For that purpose I took in my breath first, and that is what this Amendment does. The first part of it is not very important, but it restricts even further the restriction already imposed in the Clause itself. The Clause does not allow the certification procedure to be applied either to areas of comprehensive development or to areas which are allocated primarily for one of a number of general uses or for a range of uses. It is therefore clear in the Bill as drafted that the certification procedure will be rarely used.

The right hon. Gentleman indicated to us that in the great majority of cases its use would be in respect of white land. As I understand it, white land is land shown without any indication of the use for which it is intended, and the first words of the Amendment are designed specifically to cover the case of white land. What really matters are the words beginning … or where any question arises …. because that considerably enlarges the scope of the certification procedure. It allows that procedure to be used under general terms in cases which may or may not involve white land. That does not matter, provided that a question arises as to the development for which planning permission may reasonably have been expected to be granted.

It may be said—I should accept the criticism if it were said—that it would not have made much difference if the original words—the taking in of the breath before blowing out the balloon—had been omitted. The substantial point is dealt with by the words at the end. Therefore the Amendment is intended to apply the process of certification to all cases where there is a question about what might reasonably have been expected to be granted by way of planning permission.

Though the procedure both in this and the following Clause is not altered by this change so far as I can see, the effect of making it is considerable. We may be told by the right hon. Gentleman that there are other cases besides those involving white land, and that may be so. But in the vast majority of cases where land is shown on a development plan the certification procedure will not be applied at all. It is only a recourse in certain limited circumstances. We looked at this matter upside down and roundabout and came to the conclusion that it looks quite good, because the object of the certification procedure is to decide questions of probability in relation to planning permission and to get them decided by the person who is the best if not the only person qualified to decide them, namely, the planning authority.

The planning authority is the best judge of its own intentions and the best judge of any prospective or conditional intentions which it might have. When one has to choose between one possibility and another in a wide range, it may be very useful to know the view of the planning authority. If I may give hon. Members a homely instance, I am sure that a number of people intending to make some development in an area go informally to the planning authority beforehand to ask whether they would be likely to obtain permission for what they intend to do; because it might save a lot of time and trouble, and possibly money, being spent on something about which there is not much probability of permission being given. We are trying to go considerably beyond what is intended in the Bill by way of certification procedure and to use this piece of machinery for a realistic purpose.

If we are to assess open market value, which is what we are all trying to do, and to do so in relation to planning permission, clearly we should have some way of deciding the weight to be given to any particular planning permission and the selection in any terms of that planning permission which would be reasonably probable. That is the intention of this Clause but only for limited purposes and in limited cases. We desire to give it what I think would be an almost universal, but, of course, only a discretionary application.

We have more confidence in professional valuers than the right hon. Gentleman appears to have, judging from the way he dealt with an Amendment yesterday which would have had the result of leaving a lot more to them. Having that confidence, we think that in a great many cases there would be no necessity to go to the planning authority; but if the question did arise and if the valuers, sitting over their cups of tea in the picturesque office described by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) during the Committee stage discussions—

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley (North Angus and Mearns)

Not picturesque.

Mr, Mitchison

—in a rather grimy, dusty office, if the hon. Gentleman would have it that way—agree among themselves, no question arises. There is no need to go to the planning authority. That may be so in a number of cases, but we have given a wide discretionary power to go to the planning authority.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. I cannot say that I expect he will, because I never expect him to accept any Amendment. If he is proposing to accept anything he usually turns it down firmly at the moment and then brings it in again later. Perhaps he will turn this Amendment down today and bring it in in another place—one never knows.

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is so wedded to the frame of his Bill that he will reject the Amendment. He has invested a very nice procedure in this certification business. He ought to be proud of it. It is very sensible, very good and we compliment him on it as a bit of procedure. The trouble is that, having invented it, he does not use it. This is an endeavour to make him do so.

Therefore, we attach a considerable importance to the Amendment. We believe that it would introduce an element of reality and save a great deal of trouble in many cases, and since this is a matter to which we attach importance, it would save a good many applications to the Lands Tribunal on exactly this sort of question, because we believe the planning authorities' views on the matter would always be available and in a great many cases would be conclusive.

Mr. Bevins

This question and one or two variants of it have been discussed at some considerable length in Committee. What the hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) are seeking to do is to widen the area in which applications may be made for certificates.

Under the principal Amendment, to which the hon. Gentleman addressed himself, it would be possible, as I read it, for an acquiring authority to apply for a certificate wherever any assumptions fall to be made under Clause 3—except, of course, the assumption in subsection (1) of that Clause—and so to qualify or extinguish any planning assumptions which are to be made by reference to the development plan itself.

I am sure that the House will see that, if a change of that sort were to be made, it would very considerably widen the range of cases under which certificates could be applied for. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman is rather enamoured of the certificate device, I think one also has to bear in mind that some local authorities, especially the larger local authorities are already concerned a little at the amount of work in which certificates may involve them within the present limits provided for in the Bill.

The Bill as drafted leaves it to the valuers to determine the development for which planning permission might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably be expected to be granted, where the information contained in the plan of course can be expected to give sufficient information for the valuers to answer that question without undue difficulty. I am sure it is right that in those cases we should rely on the valuers and upon the information contained in the development plan.

There is no reason to suppose that information should not be sufficient to give the valuers enough information to enable them to do their work and, of course, the intention of my right hon. Friend is that the certificate machinery should be left for those classes of case where no authority, other than the local planning authority, can be expected to supply the information. That, I think, is the right way to go about this, and I do not believe that the change proposed in the Amendment would be one which would be very widely welcomed among the local authorities or the general public.

Mr. MacColl

I think that the hon. Gentleman has been most unhelpful. Here is something in the Bill of which we have recognised the value, the certificating procedure. We have, with the greatest good will, pointed out that it could be more effectively used and would, in many cases, lead to greater smoothness in reaching agreement between the vendor and the purchaser, and the hon. Gentleman produces no reason at all why it should not work perfectly well.

If the Government had any intention of approaching the problems of this Bill in a dispassionate way and were not obstinately determined to have their own way on everything undoubtedly they would have accepted this as a very useful extension of the certificate procedure.

I am very disappointed, and I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend is even more disappointed because he is warmhearted and wants to think well of the right hon. Gentleman if he possibly can. Therefore, we can show our distaste of the attitude of the Government towards this only by taking the matter to a Division.

Question put, That "section" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 195.

Division No. 73. AYES 15.46 p.m
Agnew, Sir Peter Gibson-Watt, D. Macdonald Sir Peter
Aitken, W. T. Glover, D. Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Alport, C. J. M. Glyn, Col. Richard H. McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Godber, J. B. McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Arbuthnot, John Goodhart, Philip Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield W.)
Armstrong, C. W. Gough, C. F. H. Macmillan Maurice (Halifax)
Ashton, H. Gower, H. R. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Atkins, H. E. Graham, Sir Fergus Maddan, Martin
Baldwin, Sir Archer Grant, Rt. Hon. w. (woodside) Maitland, Cdr.J.F.W.(Horncastle)
Barter, John Green, A. Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Batsford, Brian Grimond, J. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Baxter, Sir Beverley Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Markham, Major Sir Frank
Beamish, Col. Tufton Grimston, Sir Robert (West bury) Marlowe, A. A. H.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Gurden, Harold Marshall, Douglas
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Hall, John (Wycombe) Mathew, R.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Harris, Reader (Heston) Mawby, R. L.
Bidgood, J. C. Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Maydon, Lt.-Comdr., S, L. C.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'fd) Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Hay, John Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Bishop, F. P. Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Moore, Sir Thomas
Body, R. F. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Bonham Carter, Mark Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Nabarro, G. D. N.
Bowen, E, R. (Cardigan) Henderson, John (Cathcart) Nairn, D. L. S.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Henderson-Stewart, Sir James Nicholls, Harmar
Brooman-White, R. C. Hesketh, R. F. Nioholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Bryan, P. Hicks-Beach, Ma]. W. W. Nicolson, N. (B'nm'th, E. & Chr'ch)
Burden, F. F. A. Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Carr, Robert Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Channon, H. P. C. Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Nugent, G. R. H.
Clarke Brig. Terence (Portsmth W.) Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Oakshott, H. D.
Cole, Norman Hirst, Geoffrey O'Neill, Hn. Phelim(Co. Antrim, N.)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Hobson, John(Warwick & Leam'gt'n) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Cooke, Robert Holland-Martin, C. J. Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Hornby, R. P. Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)
Corfield, F. V. Hornsby-Smlth, Miss M. P. Osborne, C.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Page, R. G.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Hughes-Young M. H. C. Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Hurd, Sir Anthony Partridge, E.
Crowder, Sir John (Finehley) Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.) Peel, W. J.
Cunningham, Knox Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun) Peyton, J. W. W.
Currie, G. B. H. Iremonger, T. L. Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Davidson, Viscountess Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Davies,Rt.Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Pitman, I. J.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Pitt, Miss E. M
de Ferranti, Basil Kerr, Sir Hamilton Pott, H. P.
Digby, Simon Wingfield Kershaw J. A. Powell, J. Enoch
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Kirk, P. M. Price, David (Eastleigh)
Doughty, C. J. A. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L.
Drayson, G. B. Langford-Holt J. A. Ramsden, J. E.
du Cann, E. D. L> Leather, E. H. C. Redmayne, M.
Duncan, Sir James Leavey, J. A. Rees-Davies, W. R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Remnant, Hon. P.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Renton, D. L. M.
Elliott, R. w. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.) Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A, T. Ridsdale, J. E.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Farey-Jones, F. W. Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) Robertson, Sir David
Fell, A. Lloyd Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Robson Brown, Sir William
Fisher, Nigel Longden, Gilbert Roper, Sir Harold
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Loveys, Walter H. Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard
Freeth, Denzil Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Russell, R. S.
Gammans, Lady Lucas, P.B.(Brentford & Chlswick) Sharples, R. c.
Garner-Evans, E. H. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Spearman, Sir Alexander
George, J. C. (Pollok) McAdden, S. J. Speir, R. M.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.) Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway) Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Stevens, Geoffrey Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.) Webster, David
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P. Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.) Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.) Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Storey, S. Tilney, John (Wavertree) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Stuart, Rt. Hon James (Moray) Vane, W. M. F. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Studholme, Sir Henry Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. Woollam, John victor
Summers, Sir Spencer Vosper, Rt, Hon. D. F. Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Teeling, W. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Temple, John M. Wall, Patrick Mr. Chichester-Clark
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester) and Mr. Finlay.
NOES
Ainsley, J. W. Hewitson, Capt. M. Pentland, N.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) Plummer, Sir Leslie
Awbery, S. S. Holman, P. Prentice, R. E.
Bacon, Miss Alice Holmes, Horace Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Balfour, A. Houghton, Douglas Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Benson, Sir George Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Probert, A. R,
Beswick, Frank Howell, Denis (All Saints) Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Hoy, J. H. Randall, H. E.
Blackburn, F. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Redhead, E. C.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hunter, A. E. Reeves, J.
Bowden, H. w. (Leicester, S. w.) Hynd, H. (Accrington) Reid, William
Boyd, T. C. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Reynolds, G. W.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Brockway, A. F. Janner, B. Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Johnson, James (Rugby) Ross, William
Burton, Miss F. E. Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Royle, C.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Callaghan, L. J. Jones J. Idwal (Wrexham) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Carmichael, J. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Skeffington, A. M.
Champion, A. J. King, Dr. H. M. Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Chapman, W. D. Lawson, G. M. Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Chetwynd, G. R. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Coldrick, W. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Sorensen, R. W.
Collick, p. H. (Birkenhead) Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Lewis Arthur Sparks, J. A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Logan, D. G. Spriggs, Leslie
Cronin, J. D. Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stonehouse, John
Cullen, Mrs. A. McAlister, Mrs. Mary Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Darling, George (Hillsborough) McCann, J. Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) MacColl, J. E. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Davies, Harold (Leek) MacDermot, Niall Swingler, S. T.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Mclnnes, J. Sylvester, G. O.
de Freitas, Geoffrey McKay, John (Wallsend) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Diamond, John McLeavy, Frank Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) Mahon, Simon Timmons, J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Tomney, F.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mann, Mrs. Jean Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Viant, S. P.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) Mason, Roy Warbey, W. N.
Fernyhough, E. Mellish, R. J. Weitzman, D.
Fletcher, Eric Mikardo, Ian Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Forman, J. C. Mitchison, G. R. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Monslow, W. Wheeldon, W. E.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Moody, A. S. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Gooch, E. G. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Wilkins, W. A.
Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.) Williams, David (Neath)
Greenwood, Anthony Mort, D. L. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Moss, R. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Grey, C. F. Moyle, A. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Griffiths, David (Bother Valley) Mulley, F. W. Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Griffiths, William (Exchange) Neal, Harold (Boisover)
Hale, Leslie Noel-Baker Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.) Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Oswald, T. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Hamilton, W. W. Owen, W. J. Woof, R. E.
Hannan, W. Padley, W. E. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Paget, R. T. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Hastings, S. Palmer, A. M. F, Zilliacus, K.
Hayman, F. H. Parker, J.
Heeley, Denis Paton, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Pearson, A. Mr. Short and Mr. Deer
Herbison, Miss M. Peart, T. F.