HC Deb 24 March 1959 vol 602 cc1183-202
Mr. A. J. Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, at the end to insert: Provided that, if the said first-mentioned authority is the local planning authority, any application for a certificate under this section may be made to the Minister and in that event references in this section to the local planning authority shall have effect as references to the Minister. It may be that in some cases the acquiring authority and the local planning authority are one and the same. As we said in the Standing Committee, it is desirable in such a case that the owner of the interest should not get the impression that he is being unfairly dealt with. If he is in dispute with the acquiring authority and is told, "You can settle this under the law by applying for a certificate", and then he finds he is making application for the certificate to the local planning authority which is also the acquiring authority, he may feel that he is getting a very raw deal.

The Amendment would make it possible for him to take his application for a certificate direct to the Minister. It goes without saying that there should be no unfairness in the treatment of these matters by local authorities, but we are anxious that it should be clear that there is no unfairness.

When this matter was considered earlier, it was thought to be open to objection on the ground that the Minister and his Department should not be burdened with all the work involved if references were made direct to the Minister. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out that the difficulty could be avoided by the method, proposed in the Amendment, of making it discretionary for the owner of the interest to go to the Minister in a case where the acquiring authority and the local planning authority are the same body.

In many cases the owner of the interest, when in dispute with the acquiring authority, will be content to have the matter referred to the local planning authority. He will appreciate that in such cases that consideration will be borne in mind by the adjudicating authority and he will be quite content that it should go there for it to settle the matter; but in other cases, where the owner of the interest might want to go direct to the Minister—there will be a minority of cases—it will be very desirable that he should do so. We believe that the principle embodied in the Amendment is important.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Bevins

An Amendment on broadly similar lines was considered at an earlier stage. The present Amendment is not quite identical with that one, which was rejected by my right hon. Friend.

This Amendment would give the parties directly concerned in a transaction the choice of applying for a certificate either to the local planning authority or to the Minister, in cases where the local planning authority happened also to be the acquiring authority. I have noted that the Amendment now has "may" in substitution for the earlier "shall". The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has explained why that change has been made. I do not think that that substitution would have more than a very slight effect on the number of applications made direct to the Minister, but I agree that that is a matter of opinion.

My right hon. Friend undertook to re-examine this proposition when it was debated in Committee, and that we have done. I am sorry to say that my right hon. Friend does not feel that he can accept this proposal. There is no doubt that in principle there was force in the argument that an authority should not be the judge in its own cause, but the applicant enjoys the right of appeal to the Minister. Any owner of land which is being acquired by the local planning authority has his interest completely safeguarded by the right of appeal to my right hon. Friend.

Local planning authorities are well aware that if at times they contemplate issuing an arbitrary decision—they cannot be wholly perfect all the time—on a planning application or an application for a certificate, as the case may be, it is more than likely to be upset by the Minister of Housing and Local Government on appeal.

There is within the Department, as we know from time to time, evidence of that happening, but generally local planning authorities are responsible bodies and may be relied on, as the hon. and learned Member rightly said, to make impartial decisions. In many cases, perhaps in most cases, it is to be expected that the certificate which the planning authority will issue will be to the satisfaction of the owner and there will be no need to trouble the Minister at all. I am bound to say that I do not think that the Amendment would really increase the protection for the owner's interests. On the other hand, without a shadow of doubt it would place a very considerable burden upon the Minister.

I have already said that I do not think that making this revised procedure optional would have a large effect on the number of cases which would come forward to the Minister, but it would mean that the Minister would have to deal with a very large number of applications for certificates where land was being acquired by county boroughs or county councils and of course by the largest local authority of all, London County Council.

The mere fact that an attempt was made to limit the cases liable to come forward to those where the acquiring authority was also the local planning authority with no question of delegation would still mean that we could have this flood of cases from the bigger county boroughs, county councils, and so forth, which, in many cases, do not delegate their planning powers to subordinate authorities, very often, of course, because there are no subordinate authorities.

As my right hon. Friend aptly said at an earlier stage, applicants would certainly dislike the prospect of quick decisions being taken behind closed doors in Whitehall. I do not think that there is any doubt at all that if applicants were to have the choice of applying either to the local planning authority or the Minister of Housing and Local Government it certainly would not be possible on grounds of fairness, or for the sake of giving the impression of fairness, for those applications to be considered in Whitehall purely as paper applications, as they might be considered by local planning authorities with all the knowledge they have of local conditions and circumstances, which knowledge is not available to the Ministry in London.

For those reasons we feel this Amendment will not achieve anything appreciably worth while for applicants and landowners, but, on the other hand, it would thrust an enormous burden of work on the Ministry. I know that the hon. and learned Member will think that perhaps we are being a little inflexible in this respect. I hope he will take it from me that we have already deferred, and rightly, to a number of points of view expressed by hon. Members opposite. I do not think that we have yet reached the end of the road, but this is one which we cannot commend to the House.

Mr. Mitchison

There was an old battleship called "Inflexible". I am sure that it is concealed somewhere inside the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend draw their inspiration from it every day. What is worse than inflexibility is this habit of producing contradictory answers. The Parliamentary Secretary did it this time.

He first told us that everyone would prefer to have his case decided by the local planning authority than decided in Whitehall, but he also told us that the effect of giving such an option in the matter, that is to say, of allowing them to go to the Minister instead of obliging them to go to the Minister, would be very small indeed. It appeared that it would follow that the vast majority of people would prefer to go to Whitehall than to the local planning authority.

I trust that the hon. Gentleman, whose look of repentance I welcome, is now realising the contradictions inherent in his remarks. The fact is that if the considered opinion of the hon. Gentleman, which he gave us several times, was that there would be a vast flood of cases coming in under this option, the majority of cases would be coming in under the option. There would be all the more need for the option because those would be the people who need not go to the Minister, but exercise their option to do so because they do not think it quite fair that their cases should be decided by the local planning authority when that authority is the same as the acquiring authority.

If, in fact, there is a widespread sense of grievance resulting in a flood of cases, it may be more troublesome to the Ministry, but it is a much better argument for accepting the Amendment. I tell the Parliamentary Secretary that it was his own speech which made me so uneasy about the consequences of not accepting the Amendment. It is this flood of cases which worries me. The question is: which do we prefer—the old question of administrative convenience or social justice? In this case, the hon. Gentleman came down with a plomp on the side of preferring administrative convenience. It would be a troublesome flood of cases and it did not matter that in every case there would be a feeling of grievance of some sort—otherwise they would not have exercised the option—that did not appeal to him at all. What appealed to him was that it would create a lot of trouble in the Ministry. That is what upsets me.

I am not certain that the hon. Gentleman is right. In my inability to make any attack worth talking about on "Inflexible", I take leave to comfort myself a little in this way. The local planning authority does not, of course, mean an authority exercising delegated powers under some limited scheme. It must mean either the county council or the county borough council.

Both county councils, even in Rutland-shire, and county borough councils are large authorities and their powers are exercised separately. Nominally, the planning committee and the committee concerned with acquiring property of this kind are committees of the same council, but in practice their membership, functions and all their actions are distinct. The planning committee, in particular, has a status of its own which perhaps does not quite attain to the independence of an education committee or even of a finance committee, but still is very considerable.

We may have to be content with the existence of this grievance in some cases—it certainly will exist—and rely on the independence of these various committees of a large council, whether it be a county council or a county borough council.

I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I am a little disappointed in him and his right hon. Friend. Their original objections were to a compulsory application to the Minister. I see the force of that, but I do not think that they have appreciated the significance of what will happen if there is a flood of applications. It will mean that in a very large number of cases a great many people, whether justice is done or not, will feel that justice is not being done.

In a Bill the substantial object of which is to do both justice and apparent justice in cases of compensation for compulsory acquisition, it is very inadvisable to introduce or preserve the obvious possibility of apparent injustice. I sometimes feel that lawyers are perhaps almost too keen on not allowing apparent injustice, but if it is an error it is certainly one on the right side. It would be only too easy to let this kind of thing slip into a Bill and for an obstinate Department to say that it will cause them a great deal of trouble and then to find that one has done something which brings down on the head of the right hon. Gentleman even more obloquy than he naturally deserves.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I rise to support the Amendment and to express my disappointment with the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary. The doctrine that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done is one that we cannot depart from lightly. That doctrine was very well developed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). Therefore, I do not intend to repeat arguments which, I believe, are quite unanswerable.

I want to speak on this subject from the local government point of view. I am exceedingly anxious that in all these important matters the county council and not the committee should be recognised as the authority, whether it is the acquiring committee or the general planning committee. If there are two committees of one local authority finally appealing before the authority and there is a dispute, if there is some disagreement on the council, it will be a very disastrous thing for county government if it is thought that the voting on a popularly elected body will settle matters of justice. After all, that is what we are concerned with.

If we rely on the appeal to the Ministry, I am of the opinion that what will be felt by the landowner will be that, having obtained a decision from the local authority, it is very unlikely that that will be upset on appeal. He will feel that he has already lost a good deal of his case because it has already been once adjudicated upon by the authority. If he likes to say that he does not want it to go to the Ministry, he need not exercise his option of going there. I think that the option should be open to him, where the authority is both the acquiring and purchasing authority, to be able to say that he would sooner have a first decision given by a body which is at least not divided within itself on the issue on which adjudication is to be made.

I sincerely hope that the Ministry will have some further thoughts on this matter before it departs from the sound principle that nobody should be allowed to judge his own case. In both cases it is the authority and not the committee which is vested with the decision to be made. It seems to me to be quite anomalous that my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment should have been greeted in the way it was by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bevins

It would be discourteous if I were not to make two short comments on what has been said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine).

There may be a little misunderstanding, and perhaps it was my fault because of the way I expressed myself. When I referred to the possibility of a flood of applications to the Minister, what I had in mind, as one naturally would have in mind, was the very large number, for example, of planning appeals which normally find their way to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The planning appeals which come to the Ministry probably represent a very small percentage of the total number of applications which go to local planning authorities.

I would not presume to give the House a figure, because nobody knows precisely what the figure is. From the point of view of the Ministry and of the burden of work which would fall upon it under the arrangements proposed in the Amendment, that would represent a flood of applications to the Ministry, although the proportion of cases to the whole might be relatively small.

On the main point made by the right hon. Member for South Shields, he had in mind that some owners of land might feel that, because their case had been considered by a particular committee of a local authority and they had lost their case with the local planning authority and had not got What they wanted, they might in some ways be prejudiced in the ultimate result.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the House that that simply is not so. As in the case of planning appeals, these cases are considered by my right hon. Friend on a completely impartial basis and, no matter what the decision of this authority or that authority may have been, the case is looked at entirely impartially and afresh. I beg the House to bear in mind that no matter what the merits or demerits of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment may be in principle, in cases where the applicant does not get his way with the local planning authority he is completely uninhibited from appealing to my right hon. Friend. Nothing can deprive him of that right.

Mr. Ede

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the courtesy of his reply. I am concerned with what is in the minds of those persons. They will not have had the great advantage of hearing the Minister's elucidation, but they will have a grave suspicion that if they are up against the authority and get a decision from which they want to appeal, they have already encountered one reverse from which it is difficult to recover. Many of those who get involved in this kind of difficulty are quite small people, with great fears as to what will happen to them. I am thinking of their minds, not of the perfectly pure mind of the Parliamentary Secretary, and the nearly as pure mind of the Minister, when they have to deal with any appeal.

Mr. Willis

The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the flood of planning appeals that would come before the Minister. Is that true of Scotland? We have been told that conditions are rather different there and that there the Bill's impact is not so great. Will the same arguments hold good? I am quite certain that had this Bill gone to the Scottish Grand Committee, as we wanted, the Minister would have found great difficulty in resisting this Amendment.

Where a local authority such as Edinburgh or Glasgow is involved, the applicant for a certificate will feel that once the local authority has turned down his application an appeal to the Secretary of State against that decision will be a very formidable job. There are a great number of owner-occupiers in Edinburgh— the owners of the dominium utile—and a large number of them will be unaware of their right to appeal to the Secretary of State. In fact, they seek our advice about this now. As conditions in Scotland may be rather different, it would be good to be given some information as to the likely number of applications, and whether the Scottish Office would be unable to deal with them. We have not been told anything about that.

Mr. N. Macpherson

It is undeniable that the number of applications would be very much less. The country is smaller, so the number of transactions is proportionately smaller. I understand that there are about 200 appeals per annum at present which is very much less than the number in England. Nevertheless, that does not alter the main argument. It is still better for these applications to go, in the first place, to the planning authority, and afterwards, if necessary, to appeal.

The planning authority is on the spot and has the machinery for investigating on the spot. Even in a comparatively small country like Scotland, it is more difficult to investigate from the centre. I quite realise that a stronger case could be made out in Scotland than in England but, on balance, I think that it is better to have the same procedure in all cases, whether or not the planning authority is also the acquiring authority.

Mr. Mitchison

Is there not this difference between Scotland and England, that, save in exceptional cases, the acquiring authority in Scotland will be the same as the planning authority, because of the different position of county councils as housing authorities?

Mr. Macpherson

That is true, of course, and that in a sense, enhances the value of my argument, namely, that there are a smaller number of cases at present but that the Amendment would mean a proportionately larger number of cases coming to the centre.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has said, as has the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), that people will be afraid to appeal. I can only say that the evidence we have is that in ordinary planning applications no disposition is shown of fear to appeal, and there is no more reason why there should be in this case. In any case, of course, information about the right to appeal would be printed on the notice, so that there would be no doubt that the person receiving a refusal would be well aware of his rights. As I say, in planning applications there has certainly not been any disposition whatsoever for people not to avail themselves of the right to appeal, and we think that that would apply also in the case of certificates.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Brooke

I beg to move, in page 6, line 18, after "section" to insert: made by one of the parties directly concerned— (a)". With this Amendment, the House might think it convenient to take those in page 6, lines 21 and 24, and the three consequential Amendments to Clause 7, in page 9, lines 7, 8 and 9.

I hope that this group of six Amendments will be generally acceptable as they give effect to my hon. Friend's assurance in Standing Committee, when he accepted the principle of a very similar Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). They provide that when one of the parties directly concerned applies for a certificate under Clause 4, he must state that he has notified, or is notifying the other party on a particular date, and the local planning authority must not take a decision on the application until 21 days after that date.

That deals with the Amendments to Clause 4. The House will bear in mind that what is now Clause 7 contains various supplementary provisions relating to the certificate system. As I have said, the three Amendments to Clause 7 are purely consequential on the changes we are proposing to make in Clause 4.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 21, at end insert and (b) shall be accompanied by a statement specifying the date on which a copy of the application has been or will be served upon the other of those parties".

In line 24, after "shall", insert: not earlier than twenty-one days after the date specified in the statement accompanying the application in accordance with paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

6.30 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine

I beg to move, in page 6, line 31, after "granted", to insert "or refused".

In my submission, this Amendment will improve the machinery of certification. This is a comparatively small procedural point, but I believe the change will be of advantage and possibly it will save a good deal of time and trouble in future years.

It may be that the acquiring authority and the owner of the interest are engaged in a disputation about the amount of development likely to be permitted. The owner of the interest may be contending for a more variable use—let us say a light industrial use. The acquiring authority would inform the owner of the interest that he would not get permission for light industrial use but would get permission only for residential use, residental use being for this purpose a rather less valuable use of the land.

It would be possible in such a case for the owner of the interest, who might possibly be dog-in-the-manger about it, to refuse to apply for a certificate. In that hypothesis, what the acquiring authority would want—and would be justified in wanting—would be a certificate by the local planning authority that a light industrial use would not be permitted. That is the form of adjudication to which it is entitled.

It does not meet the case for the local authority to apply for a certificate that the land could be used for residential purposes because the affirmative answer to that does not exclude the possibility that light industrial use may be an appropriate alternative use.

The only other way that difficulty can be overcome is by the acquiring authority putting forward an application in which it formally goes to the local planning authority and asks for an adjudication that a use which it does not want to see attached to the land is one which the local planning authority would be likely to permit.

Surely the Government will yield on this small though not unimportant point which, if it is accepted, will save trouble in the future and give the local authority the opportunity to put forward its application for a certificate in a form of words which will be both convenient and suit the case.

Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central)

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Brooke

This, as the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) said, is a small point. He has argued persuasively, but I must put it to the House that it would not improve the Bill to make the Amendment.

The hon. Member has omitted to mention what really must be the guiding principle here. We are seeking to make this certificate procedure run as nearly parallel as we can to the procedure for applying for planning permission. The hon. and learned Member seeks by his Amendment to enable the planning authority to state in a certificate not only those classes of development for which permission might in its opinion reasonably have been expected to be granted, but also those classes in which permission might reasonably have been expected to have been refused.

No applicant for planning permission can ever obtain from a local planning authority a statement of the permissions which will be refused. There is no machinery for doing that. He can apply for the grant of planning permission but not for the refusal of planning permission. Applications can be made to a planning authority for any sort of development the applicant cares to put down, and those applications must be considered, and either granted or refused, individually, but there is no machinery by which an applicant can obtain a general statement of the permissions which would be refused in relation to the site or property he proposes to develop.

As the House is aware, certificates under the Clause are intended to take the place of the planning permission an owner might reasonably have expected to get were the land not being acquired for some public purpose, and to provide for a certificate which would be refused—in other words, to provide for an entirely negative certificate—would be contrary to the principle we are trying to establish.

Although I may have been too optimistic on a previous occasion in saying that the Committee was agreed on something, I believe it was generally agreed that the certificate system was an ingenious expedient for solving an undoubted problem. If we have this certificate procedure at all, and if it is to be operated by planning authorities with an appeal to the Minister, surely it is wise to keep it as nearly parallel as may be to the system of applications for planning permission.

It is on those grounds that I would advise the House not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison

I cannot help getting the impression that the right hon. Gentleman has not paid enough attention to the other provisions of his own Clause. We are concerned with cases where an application for a certificate is made specifying one or more classes of development which the applicant considers to be appropriate. The subsection we are dealing with provides: Where an application is made … the local planning authority shall issue to the applicant a certificate stating … that, in the opinion of the local planning authority, planning permission … of one or more classes specified in the certificate (whether being classes of development specified in the application or not) might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably have been expected to be granted … That procedure does not parallel anything in an ordinary planning application, because there there is an application, various uses are specified by the applicant as being in his opinion suitable, and at the end of the day the local planning authority can express its opinion on that application that other classes of permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted, and there is no limitation to what they might put in.

In addition, the next paragraph permits it to say one thing in the negative, namely, that no planning permission would be granted except for the development which the acquiring authority proposes to carry out. That, again, is much more than a negative to the application. In fact, the planning authority is allowed to express a negative intention, or a refusal, in one case only, whereas it is allowed to express an expected grant in an almost unlimited field. Why should it not similarly be allowed to express its opinion, if it thinks it relevant, as to an anticipated refusal?

The Clause rightly leaves it to the planning authority to express its opinion not merely on what is in the application but on what it thinks to be relevant to all the circumstances of the case. Why the Government should give that wide liberty to the planning authority and then refuse to allow it in the case of a refusal passes my comprehension.

I cannot help feeling that in this part of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman is wavering about. At times he thinks that he has found a complete answer to every question, and then, when we seek to complete the matter for him, he says, "No, you must not have that." That would interfere with some mysterious scheme he has in his head. I can assure him that this part of the Bill is profoundly illogical; it is incomplete, and it calls all the time for the exercise of a certain amount of knowledge, experience and common sense by valuers, for instance. Surely the same latitude might be allowed to planning authorities. I cannot help feeling that my hon. and learned Friend's simple Amendment raises a question of principle of some importance, and that "H.M.S. 'Inflexible'" is wrong again.

Mr. Irvine

The right hon. Gentleman's argument is quite untenable, on examination. Subsection (4, b) provides for the negative decision, and that surely takes away the basis of the Minister's argument. That being so, I hope that he will express a readiness to consider the matter again. The parallel between the procedure under the Bill and the application for planning permission is not a close one, in any event, but quite apart from that there is provision in the proposed procedure for the negative adjudication by the local authority, and I cannot see why it should not be extended in the manner proposed.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 220.

Division No. 74.] AYES [6.43 p.m.6
Ainsley, J. W. Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Burton, Miss F. E.
Awbery, S. S. BraddocK, Mrs. Elizabeth Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Bacon, Miss Alice Brockway, A. F. Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Balfour, A. Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Carmichael, J.
Benson, Sir George Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Blackburn, F. Brown, Thomas (Ince) Champion, A. J.
Chapman, W. D. Janner, B. Redhead, E. C.
Chetwynd, G. R. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Reeves, J.
Cliffe, Michael Johnson, James (Rugby) Reid, William
Coldrick, W. Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) Reynolds, G. W.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jones J. Idwal (Wrexham) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Cronin, J. D. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Cullen, Mrs. A. King, Dr. H. M. Ross, William
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Lawson, G. M. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Davies, Stephen, (Merthyr) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
de Freitas, Geoffrey Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Skeffington, A. M.
Delargy, H. J. Lewis, Arthur Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Diamond, John Logan, D. G. Slater, J, (Sedgefield)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. McAllster, Mrs. Mary Sorensen, R, W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) McCann, J. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) MacColl, J. E. Sparks, J. A.
Edwards Robert (Bilston) Mclnnes, J. Spriggs, Leslie
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) McKay, John (Wallsend) Steele, T.
Fernyhough, E. McLeavy, Frank Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Fletcher, Eric MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Foot, D. M. Mahon, Simon Swingler, S. T.
Forman, J. C. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Sylvester, G. O.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mann, Mrs. Jean Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Gooch, E. G. Mason, Roy Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mitchison, G. R. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Greenwood, Anthony Monslow, W. Timmons, J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Moody, A. S. Tomney, F.
Grey, C. F. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mort, D. L. Vlant, S. P.
Hale, Leslie Moss, R. Warbey, W. N.
Hamilton, W. W. Moyle, A. Weitzmann, D.
Hannan, W. Mulley, F. w. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Wheeldon, W. E.
Hastings, S. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.) White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Hayman, F. H. Oswald, T. Wilkins, W. A.
Healey, Denis Owen, W. J. Williams, David (Neath)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Padley, W. E. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Herbison, Miss M. Paget, R. T.
Hewltson, Capt. M. Palmer, A. M. F. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Holman, P. Parker, J. Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Holmes, Horace Paton, John Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Houghton, Douglas Pearson, A. Winterbottom, Richard
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Pentland, N. Woof, R. E.
Howell, Denis (All Saints) Plummer, Sir Leslie Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Hoy, J. H. Prentice, R. E. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Hunter, A. E. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Zilliacus, K.
Hynd, H. (Accrington) Probert, A. R.
Hynd J. B. (Attercliffe) Pursey, Cmdr. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Randall, H. E Mr. Simmons and Mr. Short
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Channon, H. P. G. Finlay, Graeme
Aitken, W. T. Chichester-Clark, R. Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Alport, C. J. M. Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Gammans, Lady
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Cole, Norman Garner-Evans, E. H.
Arbuthnot, John Conant, Maj. Sir Roger George, J. C. (Pollok)
Armstrong, C. W. Cooke, Robert Gibson-Watt, D.
Ashton, H. Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Glover, D.
Atkins, H. E. Corfield, F. V. Godber, J. B.
Baldwin, Sir Archer Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Gough, C. F. H.
Barter, John Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Gower, H. R.
Batsford, Brian Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Graham, Sir Fergus
Baxter, Sir Beverley Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Beamish, Col. Tufton Cunningham, Knox Green, A.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Currie, G. B. H. Grimond, J.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Davidson, Viscountess Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Bidgood, J. C. Deedes, W. F. Gurden, Harold
Biggs-Davison J. A. de Ferranti, Basil Hall, John (Wycombe)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Digby, Simon Wingfield Harris, Reader (Heston)
Bishop, F. P. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Body, R. F. Doughty, C. J. A. Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Bossom, Sir Alfred du Cann, E. D. L. Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Duncan, Sir James Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Brooman-White, R. C, Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.) Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Bryan, P. Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Burden, F. F. A. Farey-Jones, F. W. Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Carr, Robert Fell, A. Hesketh, R. F.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E. Russell, R. S.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Mathew, R. Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Mawby, R. L. Sharples, R. C.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Shepherd, William
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Medilcott, Sir Frank Spearman, Sir Alexander
Hirst, Geoffrey Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Speir, R. M.
Hope, Lord John Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Hornby, R. P. Moore, Sir Thomas Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Morrison, John (Salisbury) Stevens, Geoffrey
Howard Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Hurd, Sir Anthony Nabarro, G. D. N. Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.) Nairn, D. L. S. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun) Nicholls, Harmar Storey, S.
Iremonger, T. L. Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham) Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'Gh) Studholme, Sir Henry
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan Summers, Sir Spencer
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Noble, Michael (Argyll) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Nugent, G. R. H. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Kaberry D. Oakshott, H. D. Teeling, W.
Kerr Sir Hamilton O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Temple, John M.
Kershaw, J. A. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Kirk, P. M. Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Langford-Holt, J. A. Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Leather, E. H. C. Osborne, C. Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Leavey, J. A. Page, R. G. Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Partridge, E. Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Lindsay, Martin (Sollhull) Peel, w. J. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Peyton, J. W. W. Vickers, Miss Joan
Longden, Gilbert Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Loveys, Walter H. Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Pitman, I. J. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) Pitt, Miss E. M. Wall, Patrick
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Pott, H. P. Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
McAdden S. J. Powell, J. Enoch Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Macdonald, Sir Peter Price, David (Eastleigh) Webster, David
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Whitelaw, W. S. I.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Ramsden, J. E. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Redmayne, M. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Rees-Davies, w. R. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Maddan, Martin Remnant, Hon. P. Woollam, John victor
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Renton, D. L. M. Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Ridsdale, J. E.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Markham, Major Sir Frank Robson Brown, Sir William Mr. Hughes-Young and Mr. Legh
Marlowe, A. A. H. Roper, Sir Harold
Mr. Bevins

I beg to move, in page 6, line 47, at the end to insert: (6) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection, a local planning authority may formulate general requirements applicable to such classes of cases as may be described therein; and any conditions required to be specified in a certificate in accordance with that subsection may, if it appears to the local planning authority to be convenient to do so, be specified by reference to those requirements, subject to such special modifications thereof (if any) as may be set out in the certificate. Perhaps it would be acceptable, Mr. Speaker, to take with this Amendment that to Clause 7, page 9, line 28.

Mr. Speaker indicated assent.

Mr. Bevins

These Amendments fulfil the object of Amendments which were moved earlier by the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and Clapham (Mr. Gibson). Their intention was to make less onerous the obligation placed upon planning authorities to specify conditions in certificates.

The first Amendment enables a planning authority, instead of always having to state in detail the conditions which apply to the development specified in a certificate under Clause 4, to formulate general requirements applicable to particular classes of cases and to specify any such conditions by reference to these general requirements with or without modifications.

The second Amendment empowers the Minister to provide by a development order that a copy of any general requirements relevant to a certificate must be supplied with the certificate unless those requirements have been published. The system is optional. It will be open to any planning authority which wishes to do so to prepare a statement of its standard requirements, but my right hon. Friend took the view that provisions of this sort would no doubt be helpful to the larger local authorities, including the London County Council.

Mr. Mitchison

I feel sure that these Amendments will meet the difficulties anticipated by the London County Council and mentioned by my hon. Friend in Committee. The difficulties may have been anticipated by other large authorities. We are grateful to the Government for the Amendments.

Mr. Ross

I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is better versed in these matter than I am, and I am glad to know that he is grateful to the Government. However, I should like to know what the five and a half lines of the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman moved really mean. I have never read an Amendment so wrapped in doubt. Vagueness, generalities and qualifications are all incorporated in it, starting with the word "may". We also find the words, general requirements applicable to such classes of cases as may be described therein". There is no indication as to who is to describe them. We them get the curious words: if it appears to the local planning authority to be convenient to do so. What is that phrase doing in the Amendment? It could well be done without. There is no meaning to it and nothing that is being done would be changed if that phrase were left out. There are qualifications, permissive powers, ifs, buts, conditions, and all the rest of it.

Mr. Willis

And the inevitable "if any".

Mr. Ross

Yes. These five and a half lines might have been drawn up by Robert Benchley. I doubt whether the words mean anything at all.

Mr. Bevins

I should like to reassure the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), whose claims to legal knowledge are so great. The meaning of the Amendment is perfectly clear to any hon. Member who cares to apply his mind to it. I do not want to deal with all the questions which the hon. Gentleman raised, because that would be a ridiculous exercise, but the hon. Gentleman asked who was to formulate the general requirements. The Amendment says "a local planning authority", and I assume that the hon. Gentleman knows what a local planning authority is. This is a perfectly straightforward piece of drafting.

Mr. Ross

On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to speak more than once in relation to an Amendment?

Mr. Speaker

On consideration of a Bill which comes from a Standing Committee there is a relaxation of the rule in the case of a mover of an Amendment or the Member in charge of a Bill, but not in other cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 15, leave out from beginning to first "and" in line 18 and insert: authority to whom the Act of 1919 applies".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]