HC Deb 21 June 1963 vol 679 cc819-26
Sir G. Nicholson

I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out "the next subsection" and to insert "this Act".

This is purely a drafting Amendment consequential upon Clause 12(1). Its practical effect is to make it clear that the exercise of the powers in Clause 2(1) is subject to Clause 12(1) as well as to the remaining provisions of Clause 2.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, after "Minister", to insert: given on an application in that behalf made by the local authority". If it would be for the convenience of the House, this Amendment goes well with the next.

Mr. Speaker

If the House so wishes.

Mr. Page

I am much obliged.

Clause 2 is very like Section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, which gives rather similar, but perhaps narrower, powers to local authorities to develop land, to construct buildings and carry out works on the land. Section 79 gave power to local authorities to erect, construct or carry out building or work on land which they had acquired or appropriated for planning purposes, and under it the Minister's consent was required before the local authority could carry out these operations. By its subsection (4) the Minister could direct a local authority to advertise as might appear to him necessary in order to reach a decision as to whether he should give his consent.

Clause 2 goes a little wider and is an extension of the powers of Section 79. However, as drawn, Clause 2 makes no provision for the Minister, when he is asked for his consent, to advertise to see whether there are any objections to the operations being carried out. If Clause 2 is giving wider powers to local authorities than Section 79 did, it is all the more important that the public should have the protection of advertising, of a public notice, of what the local authority is to do so that the public and neighbours where the development is being carried out may know what is intended and may raise objection at the stage when the Minister is asked for his consent.

These Amendments would provide that when the Minister is asked for his consent for development under Clause 2, he would have the power to direct the local authority to put a public notice in the local papers to advertise the fact of what it is to do, and then he could consider the results arising from that advertisement or public notice before giving his consent to that development. This is merely introducing into Clause 2 a procedure which was well recognised in the 1962 Measure, which itself was a repetition of a Section from a Statute many years older which had operated very well over the years.

Sir G. Nicholson

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and I have very much pleasure in accepting the two Amendments. I have consulted my right hon. Friend and I understand that they are agreeable to him and his Department, and I hope that they will be included in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Page 2, line 18, at end insert: (3) Where an application for the consent of the Minister is made under the last foregoing subsection by a local authority, the Minister may direct such advertisement by the authority as appears to him to be requisite for the purpose of enabling him to determine whether he shall give such consent.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Sir G. Nicholson

I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, to leave out subsection (4).

Subsection (4) provides that no development carried out with the consent of the Minister shall be exempt by reason of that consent from the restrictions relating to the use of land which are contained in Section 194(4) of the Law of Property Act, 1925. The subsection is now unnecessary because its purpose is achieved by Clause 12(1), which was introduced in Committee.

One effect of that subsection is to make it clear, in case there might be any doubt, that the provisions of Clauses 2 and 5 will not enable a local authority to ignore or override any restrictions on carrying out development which may be contained in any other Statute. That will, of course, include restrictions in Section 194 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, and so render subsection (4) of Clause 2 unnecessary.

Amendment agreed to.

12 noon.

Mr. Corfield

I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, to leave out subsection (5)

The reasons for moving this Amendment are close to the reasons on which I based my advice to the House in connection with the first new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). We consider that subsection (5) represents a wholly unnecessary provision with all the defects—to which I have referred and to which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) referred—which the insertion of extraneous matter is likely to have.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby bases some of his concern as to the need for these provisions on a comparison with Section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. The relevant words there are to erect, construct or carry out any building or work on any land", whereas the words in Clause 2(1) of this Bill are erect any building and construct or carry out works on land. I assure the House that the slight difference in the wording in Clause 2(1) was adopted merely as a drafting improvement on an Act which, although dated 1962, was a consolidating Act. It was adopted as a matter of better grammar, and was, therefore, an improvement.

There is nothing to suggest that this very slight difference whereby the relevant verbs are next to the corresponding nouns in subsection (1), whereas this is not the case in Section 79, means that the powers are altered in any way, and I certainly cannot conceive how it can be read into that very slight alteration that it confers on local authorities a power to carry on some trade or business which is not present in the implications in the present similar wording of Section 79 of the 1962 Act.

I hope that my hon. Friend will at least be satisfied that there is nothing in the distinction between these provisions and those of Section 79 which can give rise to the fears that he has. This is my advice, and I hope that what I have said will convince the House that this is so.

The second matter which I understand concerns my hon. Friend is the fact that this provision appears in some Acts, and one of the recent Private Acts in which it appears is the Devon County Council Act. I was a member of the Committee which considered this Act when it was going through the House. The Bill as it then was contained certain powers to operate a garage and matters of that sort. To meet the objections of a petitioner, the sponsors of the Bill inserted a proviso to ensure that the Devon County Council would not be able to carry out commercial activities in relation to the garage, but the original proviso was tied solely to trading operations which might be ancillary to a garage.

When the Bill came to Committee the worry to which we have referred arose, as to whether this rather narrow prohibition might give rise to the idea that some other form of commercial activity not connected with the running of a garage might, by inference, be permitted. It was thought that wording on the lines of subsection (5) of this Clause was a more prudent form of provision than the narrow provision which was in the Bill. That had been put there by the sponsors and it clearly could not be extracted altogether, because it was only as a result of provisions of this sort that the sponsors had avoided having to face a petition.

I hope that that helps to explain to my hon. Friend the position in the Devon County Council Bill, and I suggest to him that it shows a considerable distinction with the matter with which we are dealing this morning in this Clause. Basically, the objective of the Amendment is to remove something which I am advised with great force is wholly unnecessary, and because it is unnecessary it has all the objections to which the hon. Member for Islington, East referred, as I did, and to which other hon. Members have referred from time to time in Committee and elsewhere.

Mr. Graham Page

This is an occasion which is calculated to cause revolution on the back benches, if, indeed, I had an army behind me to revolt. In Standing Committee, I moved the introduction of this subsection to Clause 2, and it was accepted. Now my hon. Friend comes along and steamrollers it out of the Bill.

I think that my hon. Friend's argument that this is unnecessary is rather defeated by Clause 5(4). That subsection goes to some lengths to say that in connection with the erection of garages and hard standings and that sort of thing local authorities shall not carry on trade. It even sets out the trades which they shall not carry on, and I think that Clause 2 needs some such limitation when it speaks of the local authority having power to carry out works. All that I want to do is to make sure, in the Bill, that the local authority is not, by the words "carry out works," entitled to carry on a trade or business, and if it is not so entitled, let us say so clearly in the Bill.

For a definition of the words "works on land" I need not go outside town planning legislation. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the case decided in 1952, the Buckinghamshire County Council v. Callingham, in which the Bekonscot model village, which is a picturesque little village on a scale of 1 inch to a foot, was held to be works on land. It was run as a little model village. People paid to see it. Thus the business of a model village was carried on there, and it was held to be works on land.

I do not know how far the definition can extend, but I think that it would be wise, in a Bill of this kind, to say that it would not extend to trade or business by the local authority, and to say so quite clearly.

Mr. MacColl

I was bitterly disappointed with the Parliamentary Secretary's speech. I looked at the Notice Paper and saw the words: "Sir Keith Joseph Page 2, line 35 [Clause 2], leave out subsection (5). I then turned to subsection (5) and read: Nothing in this section shall empower a local authority to carry on any trade or business. I whooped with delight, because I thought that we had a formidable convert to municipal Socialism and I was prepared to support the right hon. Gentleman to the bitter end. I am sorry that the only reason which the Parliamentary Secretary has for making this proposal is that he thinks these restrictions already exist. I hope that he is wrong and, for the first time in my life in this House, that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is right in saying that this power still exists.

The hon. Member for Crosby talked about his "army". Fifty per cent. of my army consists of Privy Councillors, and it would be impertinent of me to speak for that 50 per cent., but as far as the other half is concerned I unequivocally state that we shall support the hon. Member in the Division Lobby if he thinks that he can get the Amendment through.

Dr. Alan Glyn

I am disappointed that, having got this subsection through in Committee, my hon. Friend is now seeking to take it out. The words are quite clear, and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that they should be left in. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not press the Amendment. He has already said that this subsection does no harm. His argument is based on the fact that it is unnecessary. I submit that the Committee, in its wisdom, having discussed the matter very fully, wished to include it in the Bill.

If there is any element of doubt about the question of a local authority carrying on a trade or business, I humbly suggest that on this occasion—in the amicable surroundings of a Friday—this subsection should be left in the Bill.

Sir G. Nicholson

I want to tell the House what happened in Committee. We were too kind-hearted to my hon. Friend for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I pointed out then that the Amendment was not necessary, but I promised that we would consider the matter and, if necessary, introduce an Amendment on Report. My hon. Friend wrung our withers, however, so we let him have his Amendment. I hope that he will now reciprocate and agree that the subsection should be taken out, since he said that he would agree to this if it were found to be unnecessary. It is unnecessary, and I will say why.

A general power to erect and maintain buildings and carry out works cannot be construed as a power to carry on a trade or business. There is no such saving provision in Section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. Whenever my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) speaks I always find myself thinking of the man on the Clapham omnibus. My hon. Friend says that if this provision does no harm we ought to stick it in. But that is not the way that we should legislate. Our legislation should be crisp and minimal, and also clear. If that is the only argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham relies upon it is not a good one.

Dr. Glyn

I said that if there were any element of doubt about the matter it would surely be wise to leave the subsection in.

Sir G. Nicholson

If there were any substantial element of doubt I would agree with my hon. Friend, but the expert advice that I have received—and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has received similar advice—is that there is no element of doubt.

I should be sorry if a useful little Bill of this sort, which I have had the honour of introducing, should in any way be taken as a precedent for cluttering up the Statute Book with unnecessary words, and I hope that in the light of what has been said my hon. Friend will not oppose the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.