TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.

HL Deb 30 June 1932 vol 85 cc355-449

House again in Committee (according to Order): The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.

Clause 17:

Power to make orders for preservation of certain buildings.

17.—(1) Where a resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme has taken affect, the Common Council of the City of London as respects the City of London, or the London County Council as respects the County of London, or the council of any other county or the council of any county borough or county district which, or any part of which, is situate within the area to which the resolution applies may at any time make an order with respect to any building of special architectural or historic interest within that area and within the county borough or district directing that without their consent the building, if it is a dwelling-house, shall not be demolished and shall not be altered with a view to use otherwise than as a dwelling-house, or, if it is not a dwelling-house, shall neither be altered nor demolished, and may at any time vary or revoke an order so made by them.

(2) Subject as hereinafter provided no such order, and no variation or revocation of such an order, shall take effect unless and until the order, variation, or revocation, as the case may be, has been approved, with or without modifications, by the Minister, and the Minister before approving it shall consider any representations made to him by the owner of the building, or by any local government electors of the county borough or district, and shall consult with the Commissioners of Works:

Provided that if it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Commissioners of Works, that the order should take effect immediately, he may make a declaration to that effect, and in that case the order shall come into operation so soon as a copy of the order and of the declaration is served on the owner of the building, but shall cease to have effect at the expiration of two months from the date of the declaration unless it has been previously approved by the Minister under this subsection.

(3) Where the owner of a building with respect to which an order made under this section is in force has applied to the council to vary or revoke the order, or to consent, in the case of a building which is a dwelling,-house, to its demolition, or to its alteration with a view to use otherwise than as a dwelling-house, and in the case of a building other than a dwelling-house, either to its alteration or to its demolition, he may, if he is aggrieved by their refusal to vary or revoke the order, or to grant their consent, or by any terms imposed by them as a condition of their consent, appeal to the Minister within twenty-eight days after the council have notified to him their decision.

On any appeal under this subsection, the decision of the Minister shall be final and conclusive, but before giving his decision he shall consult with the Commissioners of Works.

(4) Nothing in an order made under this section shall be construed as requiring the consent of the council to the taking of proper measures for the protection, preservation, or maintenance of a building.

(5) Where an order has been made under this section, the coming into operation of a scheme for the area within which the building is situated shall not, unless the scheme so provides, operate as a revocation of the order.

(6) Nothing in this section shall—

1. (i) empower a council to make an order—
1. (a) with respect to any ecclesiastical building which is for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes; or
357
2. (b) with respect to any building to which a scheme or order made under any enactments for the time being in force with respect to ancient monuments applies; or
3. (c) with respect to any building for the time being included in a list of monuments published by the Commissioners of Works, under any such enactments as aforesaid.
2. (ii) affect any powers of the Commissioners of Works under any such enactment as aforesaid.

(7) A building shall not, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be a dwelling-house by reason only that the building or some part thereof is occupied as a dwelling-house by a person employed as the caretaker thereof or by members of his family.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the Common Council of the City of London as respects the City of London, or the London County Council as respects the County of London, or the council of any other county or." The noble Viscount said: This and the next two Amendments are really drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 25, leave out from ("effect") to the second ("the") in line 28.—(Viscount Gage.)

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

On these Amendments may I ask the noble Viscount a question? As I see it the effect of his Amendments would be that both a county council and a district council could make a scheme for the same building. That may be all right; possibly the noble Viscount will be able to explain how that would work. But it does seem without an explanation to be bad management to allow two separate bodies to make a scheme for the same historic building. I cannot see in the rest of the clause any provision whereby the Minister can say to one or the other: "You must not make a scheme because the first one is doing it."

VISCOUNT GAGE

I think the words "county council" were put in in another place in answer to a request that the Government should give the county council some authority in the matter; that in every case where a scheme was made the county council should have concurrent powers with the district council. It is true that both authorities would in this case have the power to make an order, and the question of which should have the priority would be decided by the Minister when the owner appealed. That is the explanation.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

Does that quite meet the point? When the owner appeals against the order being made, it still leaves it that both can make an order and send it up to the Minister. It then rests with the Minister to decide which of the two orders shall go on. At this time when we want to avoid expense it does seem an unnecessary expense to leave it to both bodies to make a scheme and then afterwards, when both have incurred certain expense—not great expense—to say that one shall not go on. Provision should be made that if there is an intention to make a scheme the Minister should decide which of them is to do it previously to any scheme being put through.

VISCOUNT GAGE

If there is a difficulty of the sort mentioned by the noble Lord I will look into it.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

I thank the noble Viscount. It will be done before Report?

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My next two Amendments are consequential.

Amendments moved— Page 23, line 31, after ("applies") insert ("or, as respects a building in such a county district, the council of the county comprising that district,") Page 23, line 33, leave out ("county borough or district") and insert ("district of that council").—(Viscount Gage.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD CRAN WORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "if it is a dwelling-house, shall not be demolished and shall not be altered with a view to use otherwise than as a dwelling-house, or, if it is not a dwelling-house." The noble Lord said: The associations on whose behalf I have the honour to move this Amendment have considered this Bill for weeks and months, and of course also this clause. We are ready to admit that in this clause there are undoubted points that are worth preserving because we have seen, as many of your Lordships have seen, cases where beautiful buildings have heedlessly and needlessly been demolished and even in some cases have been sent abroad brick by brick to another country. Many of us feel that the destruction of such a work of beauty is as bad as entering the National Gallery and destroying a beautiful picture. But as the clause stands now, we feel that it is capable of, and would undoubtedly inflict, intolerable hardship upon many men.

In our opinion the clause as it stands is tainted by the malevolence towards property-owning people with which the whole of the last Bill was saturated and which the Government and the Minister in charge and his Committee have done so much to remove. If your Lordships will read my Amendments carefully you will see that this Amendment and the succeeding one are really all one and the effect is to make the subsection, as altered by myself and the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, run like this: Where a resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme has taken effect or the council of any county borough or county district which, or any part of which, is situate within the area to Which the resolution applies or, as respects a building in such a county district, the council of the county comprising that district may at any time make an order with respect to any building of special architectural or historic interest within that area and within the district of that council directing that without their consent the building shall not be demolished, and may at any time vary or revoke an order so made by them. It leaves this clause prohibiting in certain cases demolishment, but it takes away the alteration of buildings, whether dwelling-houses or not.

It seems to me that as the clause stands now it would definitely and most injuriously affect certain people. We will take, for instance, a man with a house who, owing to the crippling effect of taxation and the Death Duties, does not know how to turn and wishes to start a private school. Under this Bill, if the house is scheduled he will be unable to make such alterations as will be necessary for that purpose, such as demolishing compartments, putting in internal heating, and so forth, and thereby he would be deprived of the means of making a living. Again, he might wish to set up an antique shop; and we know there are many cases in which beautiful ruins are used for certain purposes, such as a cottage for a caretaker, which are useful and have no effect upon the exterior whatever. The owner will be doing no harm and merely providing his family with a living, owing to the necessity forced upon him by taxation, and to prevent him from doing that would be intolerably hard. I sincerely hope that the Government can see their way to accept this Amendment. I and my friends would like to see the good effect of the clause remain, but if this Amendment cannot be accepted we shall be forced to accept an Amendment which comes later.

Amendment moved— Page 23, lines 34 and 35, leave out from ("building") to ("shall") in line 37.—(Lord Cranworth.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

My noble friend has proposed a very substantial modification of this clause, because I think it is quite obvious that a great deal can be done in the direction of demolishing buildings under the guise of alteration, but my right hon. friend the Minister is always anxious to meet, if he can do so, the views put forward by representatives of the great landowners' associations, for we do recognise that on the willing co-operation of the landowners much of the success of town planning will depend. I think there is a great deal in what the noble Lord has said, and I therefore feel that I should accept this Amendment. But I have no doubt this House will recognise that in accepting the Amendment, which confines the powers of the authorities to demolishing, we are accepting a very considerable modification of the clause, and I might even go so far as to say an illogical amendment of it, because, as I have said, you can do a great deal in the direction of demolishment under the guise of alteration. On the other hand, this is a new power given to the local authorities, and perhaps we ought not to give them too much power at a time. We therefore propose to limit their power to preventing demolition, and see how that works.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

I confess that I am rather sorry the Government have accepted this Amendment, because, as Lord Gage has just said, by alteration you can practically change the appearance of a building altogether. Why is this clause put in at all, and put in, I hope, with the joyful concurrence of practically everybody in this country? It is in order that historic buildings in this country may be preserved. If the Amendment is accepted you have one great advantage, as I read it, that no one in future will be able to sell an historic building stone by stone, for exportation to another country. That is an advance, but not a very substantial advance, because I do not think such things occur very often.

I go further. I think it is a pity that when the Minister of Health and the Office of Works working in conjunction—and no Government office has done such good work as the Office of Works in the preservation of our ancient buildings in the last ten years, and no individual society either—it is going rather far to say that it should be possible by alteration to change the whole character of a building. If the Government accept the Amendment nothing more can be said, but I shall be surprised if in another place rather strong dissent is not expressed from this Amendment. I know the Minister, who is a man of taste and desires to maintain the historic character of our buildings, has this matter very much at heart, and if the Government do accept this Amendment is it not possible, between now and the Report stage, that some different words may be introduced to allow reasonable alterations to be made, and yet not such drastic alterations as could be done under this Amendment? Practically the whole facade of a building could be quite changed and the building made not worth preserving at all.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

I should like to support the noble Lord. There is a strong case for the Amendment. No one with any fairness can deny that; but if the Amendment is accepted as it is, and nothing is put in the place of the words left out this will mean that small houses which are not scheduled as ancient monuments can be completely changed. I am told that in different parts of the country small and beautiful houses have not been demolished, but their characters have been entirely changed by their being converted into shops, and this clause, I think, was intended to avoid that kind of thing. I hope that the Government will consider whether something can be done to avoid this danger.

LORD CRANWORTH

I understood the Government had accepted the Amend- ment, and I thought that that finished the matter. But I would like to point out to your Lordships and to Lord Gage that this clause still means that the landowner is going to make a very definite sacrifice—not all landowners, but some of them—and we are making that sacrifice to help the Bill. I am very sorry that there is any suggestion that our sacrifice is not sufficient.

EARL PEEL

I did not have the opportunity of hearing the mover develop his case, but I am afraid that this Amendment, if it is left as it is, will really affect the other words "shall neither be altered nor demolished," because if the clause stands with those words I am not very clear whether it will have any effect at all. I am very anxious, like Lord Mount Temple, to have all these houses as far as possible preserved. I am not very sure whether there is great value in giving the local authorities power over them. The Office of Works is, I think, the most beneficent office in the Government. It has a very highly trained staff, and also a very highly trained body of mechanics who are capable of dealing with these buildings and keeping them in repair. But if the local authorities are to deal with them and they can only order that a building shall not be demolished, then apparently all that the owner can do is, under subsection (4), to take measures for the preservation or maintenance of the building, and I do not think it would be preserved at all. For ex hypothesi the owner is an unwilling owner, and is not likely to spend money on a building if he wants to demolish it. The local authority cannot spend money upon it, and the result will be that it will gradually tumble down until it is hardly worth while keeping the order in existence. I urge in the interests of ancient buildings that the Government should look carefully into this clause again and devise something more effective to carry out what I believe to be a beneficent purpose.

VISCOUNT GAGE

We seem to have gone a bit beyond the Amendment, and I think that I will reserve anything further that I have to say till after the speech of my noble friend Lord Banbury, who proposes to omit the clause. Perhaps some of the points which Lord Peel has mentioned have escaped the Government's notice, and we will cer- tainly look into them, but for the time being we accept the Amendment of Lord Cranworth.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Is that statement a qualification of the previous acceptance of the Amendment?

VISCOUNT GAGE

No, it is an addendum.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRANWORTH

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 38, leave out ("neither be altered nor") and insert ("not be").—(Lord Cranworth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2), after "owner" to insert "or occupier." The noble Lord said: This is a very small Amendment and I cannot but think that the Government will agree with me that the occupier of a historic building, who might have a very long lease, should also be consulted in the matter.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 7, after ("owner") insert ("or occupier").—(Lord Cranworth.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

I think this point is really covered by an Amendment which we propose to move on the next line, requiring the Minister before approving the order to consider representations made by any other person. I think that Amendment would cover the occupier.

LORD CRANWORTH

I am quite satisfied with that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "local government electors of the county borough or district," and to insert "other person." The noble Viscount said: This is the Amendment I referred to. There are certain objections to the words in the Bill, and we thought it simpler to replace them by "other person."

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 8, leave out from ("any") to ("and") in line 9, and insert ("other person").—(Viscount Gage.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRANWORTH

The next three Amendments are consequential.

Amendments moved— Page 24, line 16, after ("owner") insert ("and occupier") Page 24, line 24, leave out from ("consent") to ("house") in line 25. Page 24, line 25, leave out from ("demolition") to the first ("he") in line 28.—(Lord Cranworth.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL GREY moved, in subsection (6) (I) (a), to leave out "is for the time being" and to insert "has not permanently ceased to be." The noble Earl said: When I read this part of the clause I confess I did not exactly understand how to construe the words "which is for the time being," although I am told that those are words taken from the Ancient Monuments Act. I asked the Legal Board of the Church Assembly whether they are satisfied with those words, and they asked me to put down this Amendment. I confess that there is no difference in the intention of the Amendment and the intention of the wording of the Bill, but I submit that the words in the Amendment are clearer in their meaning than the words "is for the time being."

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 6 leave out ("is for the time being") and insert ("has not permanently ceased to be").—(Earl Grey.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

This Amendment has only recently been circulated, but I am informed that the wording of the Bill as printed was approved by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the noble Earl has already mentioned that the wording of the Bill follows the wording of the Ancient Monuments Act—"any ecclesiastical building which is for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes." It was thought undesirable to have two different wordings covering much the same point in the Ancient Monuments Act and in this Bill.

EARL GREY

The Legal Board of the Church Assembly of which Sir Stanford Downing, the permanent head of the Ecclesiastical Commission, is a member, thought differently, and drafted this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT GAGE

The two Amendments in any name which we have now reached are drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 25, line 9, leave out ("enactments") and insert ("enactment"). Page 25, line 25, leave out ("enactments") and insert ("enactment").— (Viscount Gage.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD CRANWORTH moved to leave out subsection (7). The noble Lord said: This is consequential on the Amendment accepted.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 18 leave out subsection (7).—(Lord Cranwarth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 17. The noble Lord said: I rise to move the deletion of this clause. My recollection is that there was something of a similar nature introduced in the Bill of 1925, which afterwards became an Act, and that it was left out either by your Lordships' House or by another place—I rather think by your Lordships' wish. The clause has been improved to a certain extent by the Amendments which the Government have accepted, but it still remains, in my opinion, a bad and unfortunate clause to have introduced at the present moment. It practically enacts that an owner who has an historic building may be ordered by the local authority not to demolish or alter that building. It may be that a building is not of much use to the owner, and, I do not mind admitting, it may be that the owner is offered a considerable sum if he will allow the building to be demolished and removed, we will say, to America. Why not? We had yesterday a debate in this House about economy, and we were told by the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal that anything which would make the working classes believe that the other classes were not doing all they could in the direction of economy would be fatal to any reduction of taxation. Now we are going to say that, when a person can secure for himself a little money by selling a certain building he must not do so because certain artistic people, who do not own the building and who will not receive any benefit from the sale, but who like to be generous with other people's money, would like to preserve at the expense of somebody else what they choose to call the beauty of the countryside. I am glad my noble friend Lord Peel, who has much greater influence than I have, has taken the question up, and I hope, if the Government refuse to accept the proposal to leave out the clauses that we shall divide the House upon it.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 17.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

I might perhaps start by saying that my noble friend's memory has for once played him false, because I think this is the first time there has been any intention of inserting a clause of this sort in a Town Planning Bill.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I hope it will be the last.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I quite admit that this clause has had to be drafted with a certain amount of latitude to cover the various eases in which action might be called for on the part of the local authorities. I admit that it might be possible to imagine examples where the local authority, the Minister and the First Commissioner of Works, all acting in conjunction, might make pointless and ridiculous orders, but the question I would like to submit with all respect is whether in fact it would be likely that three responsible authorities would make such orders. It is very difficult to imagine, even in the most unfavourable combination of circumstances, that either a local authority or a Minister or a First Commissioner of Works would wish to make an order the effect of which would be to leave a house tumbling down. That is only in reference to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Peel. I admit it would be possible to make such a ridiculous decision, but I deny that there is any likelihood of one being made, and I submit that, whether the decision is foolish or not, the owner would in no wise suffer financially, because he would be protected under Clause 18 (1) (a), where it is laid down that he can claim compensation in respect of all orders under Clause 17.

The real intention of the clause is an intention which I hope will commend itself to the majority of your Lordships' sentiments. It is intended to check what my noble friend Lord Banbury described as the exporting of old houses abroad. I would point out that there is nothing at present to prevent an owner selling the birthplace perhaps of some of our national poets or some fine example of English architecture and sending it abroad, and there is nothing to prevent a man who is not an owner buying a property of this description for the purpose of exporting it. It may be argued from a certain point of view that old houses are a form of property like any other form of property, and that there ought to be no restrictions on their removal. I submit with all respect that the historic buildings of England are unique, and are a great national asset, particularly in these days of what is called the "Come to Britain movement," and that it would be very false economy to allow such unique national possessions to be dissipated. I do not know whether my noble friend has taken any strong exception to the principle of the Ancient Monuments Act, because this is really only an extension of that principle.

The safeguards for owners provided in this clause and in subsection (1) of Clause 18 are sufficient to ensure that owners do not suffer, and the main safeguard against the making of orders which would have undesirable or absurd results would be that it would be to no one's advantage whatever to make such orders. On the other hand, by operating as a kind of extension of the existing law concerning ancient monuments, we may save some of the historic houses of England, which cannot be touched under the Ancient Monuments Act. I think some apprehensions have been expressed about the position in regard to compensation when an owner is prevented from exporting his house. I think the clause would operate in this way in regard to compensation. If an owner wished to sell his house for exportation abroad and was prevented by the local authority from doing so, he would be required to prove that the offer to buy was a genuine one. Then he could claim compensation under Clause 18 (1). Of course, he could not obtain the full value of the building, because he would remain in possession of it and could sell it to someone else provided the building remained on the site, but I think there is no doubt whatever that he could claim reasonable compensation.

EARL PEEL

I should like to say in reference to this Amendment that my noble friend Lord Banbury cannot claim me exactly as a. colleague because, I think, I differ from all the observations he made.

LORD BANBURY OF SOU THAM

Never mind. If you vote with me that will be all right.

EARL PEEL

I am not sure that I shall. The point of view that I want to put forward is that I think it will be very difficult for these local authorities, many of them very small local authorities, to deal with this matter. As your Lordships know very well, the question of preserving ancient buildings and ancient monuments is one which needs expert knowledge and it is quite impossible to expect that local authorities will either have, or be able to go to the expense of obtaining, competent advice on this subject. I am aware that this is not to be done without consultation with the Office of Works, and I think that is a very wise and prudent provision. What will happen in practice, I suppose, is that the Minister or Office of Works will send one of their highly-skilled inspectors down to inspect the building or monument to see whether it is worth preserving or not. They will take the responsibility. The best that can be said for the clause is that it gives a certain amount of interest to the local authorities in monuments in their district, but although I am not in favour of centralisation in many matters I think that when æsthetic questions of this kind have to be dealt with, it would be better, if you are going to extend the powers of any authority, to extend the powers of the Office of Works.

At the present moment, as your Lordships know and as my noble friend the Marquess of Londonderry knows very well, a preservation order made by the Office of Works lasts eighteen months and the Office of Works can—and do in many cases—take over these buildings and look after them. In the present impoverished state of many landowners there are a great many historic buildings all over the country which are being looked after—not restored, but preserved—by the Office of Works. At the present moment, however, the Office of Works does not deal with the whole field. The Office of Works cannot, for instance, deal with inhabited buildings. If power of this kind is to be given, I should like to see it put into the most competent hands. What I would suggest is that in order to give an interest to local authorities, they should have power to make representations to the Office of Works in reference to any building which they consider of any importance in their areas and which they think ought to be preserved. To have a division of authority between the Office of Works and the local authorities in this respect would not be of very great value in my opinion.

There is one point with regard to demolition which my noble friend seems to have misunderstood. I think that merely to insert a clause prohibiting demolition without giving any power to take over the building or any power to spend money on its upkeep, would be rather futile. After all, why is an order prohibiting demolition made? It can only be because it is thought that the owner desires to demolish the building. Ex hypotltesi that is the only reason for making such an order. What happens then? Who is to spend money on keeping up the building? The local authority cannot, the owner will not, because he wants to demolish the building. So it seems to me that the building will go to dissolution, because however powerful an order may he it will not be able to arrest time or decay, or to arrest the affects of wind or moisture. Is it not better, therefore, that the matter should be left in the hands of the Office of Works—which already has powers which are usefully exercised in this respect—and not give powers to local authorities which I think can be of no value at all? If you wish—and you may rightly wish—to enlist the interest of the local authorities let the stimulus come from them, but let control be in the hands of a centralised body able to command the best capacity in the country in regard to these matters of antiquarian interest, and having the power not only to make orders but to make those orders effective.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

Without saying that I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Banbury has said in moving this Amendment, I am a little frightened of Clause 17 as it stands at present. It has been said—I think it was said by the right rev. Prelate on the Second Reading of the Bill—that one thing we have to do is to preserve the heritage of our country for our children. We ought to be rather careful when using words of that kind that we know exactly what we mean. Are we to preserve the heritage that our children want or are we to preserve the heritage that we think the children ought to want? There may be a difference between the two. Although you have this Clause 17 in the Bill I can find nothing in the Bill which provides anything for the upkeep of these buildings. Suppose a building is in the state of being very nearly a. ruin. What is to be done? Is there anything in the Bill to make the owner keep it up? If not, what heritage is going to be left except a pile of stones? The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill is good enough to suggest that anyhow the owner would be compensated under Clause 18. That, of course, only means an added amount of expense under the Bill, and when we come to later clauses we may have to say something about expense. This clause, however, is going to add expense to a certain extent.

What is the careful owner to do who has a building which he is not allowed to demolish, which he cannot use, and which he has no money to keep up? It would ill-become your Lordships' House to make a suggestion of the kind, but the only thing that I can think of is that he would have to have a fire as quickly as possible and get rid of it. I do not find anything in the Bill to prevent him doing that. Having no use for the building, having no money to keep it up and not being allowed to pull it down, his cheapest way out of the difficulty would be to have a fire. I frankly confess that I do not like Clause 17. I would not go so far as the noble Lord who moved the Amendment and I would not vote with him for leaving it out entirely, but I do suggest that the Government might think about it a little more before the next stage and possibly make some alteration in it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I hope your Lordships will accept the arrangement which has now been come to between my noble friend the Earl of Radnor and his colleagues and the Government as to Clause 17. The compromise seems one that we might very properly support. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peel that local authorities are not very competent for any purpose of this kind. I have some knowledge of ancient monuments in the possession of private individuals and I do not think that the local authorities in whose areas those monuments are situated are competent to pronounce an opinion on their value and artistic merit and on what ought to be done with those monuments. The most objectionable features of this clause, in so far as it gave the local authority power of interference, have been eliminated by the Amendments already accepted, and practically all that is left is the provision that a local authority may interfere if an owner proposes to demolish his ancient monument. The question of alteration is excluded. I have no sympathy at all with owners who want to demolish ancient monuments and I shall do nothing to try to protect them.

The local authority is not a very adequate body to interfere but that is a matter of perfect indifference as far as my noble friends behind me and I are concerned. The arrangement seems a perfectly fair compromise, favourable from the point of view from which I regard it, and I hope that it will be accepted. It is very important that the Amendments which my noble friends have persuaded the Government to insert in the Bill should be maintained. We must not take away from an owner the incentive to do his best for the ancient monuments in his possession. Most of us who have ancient monuments value them intensely and are prepared to spend money on them if we have got any money left. But, if a very ignorant local authority was perpetually interfering with us, we would say: "Let the thing go rip. We will not spend another halfpenny on it." That would be most unfortunate and therefore I am very glad that the Amendments have been accepted. I agree with my noble friend that the proper people to concern themselves with these ancient buildings are not the local authority but the central authority, but this gives a local interest. As the clause now stands, no harm will be done and I hope the compromise will be accepted.

LORD CRANWORTH

I hope that the clause will do good as it is now amended and I personally hope that no further Government Department will be dragged into this matter, because my experience is that when they are it always costs somebody money.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My noble friend Lord Peel was good enough to say that he did not agree with anything I ever said—

EARL PEEL

No, not with anything you ever said, but with what you are saying now.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My remarks were certainly ad rem to the word "demolish" if, as I understand, the word "alter" is left out. This only refers now to an owner demolishing a building and my remarks were perfectly in order as regards that. If an owner has a building which he is unable to repair because he has not got any money, what is going to happen to him? If this clause is left out, he may be able to obtain a considerable sum of money for it—as far as I am concerned it leaves me cold whether it is from an American or anybody else. He is to be deprived of that because it is said that this ancient building ought to be left. The only result is that the American will not get the building, the owner will not get any money, and the building will disappear. That really cannot be intended but, as I gather that my noble friend Lord Peel thinks that the clause had better be left in and as he is a little doubtful as to his course of action, although his name is down to reject the clause, I do not propose to divide the Committee, but I shall not withdraw.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18:

Provisions as to compensation for injurious affection, etc.

(2) In awarding any compensation payable in respect of property injuriously affected by the coming into operation of any provision contained in a scheme, account shall be taken of any additional injurious affection of the property by reason that since the commencement of the Act the Minister has refused, on an appeal made to him under an interim development order, to grant an application for permission to develop the property, or that the Minister has imposed any conditions on the grant of such an application made since that date.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

In order to save the next Amendment, I will put the first Amendment in the form to leave out "since the commencement of."

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "since the commencement of the Act." The noble Lord said: My Amendments here deal with compensation on matters which have arisen before the commencement of the Act. On the last occasion the Lord Chancellor gave an assurance that a similar Amendment to Clause 6 was unnecessary. I understand from him that this Amendment is also unnecessary and, if that is so, I shall withdraw.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 22, leave out ("since the commencement of the Act").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY)

I give the noble Lord the same assurance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT GAGE

The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 23, leave out ("the") and insert ("this").—(Viscount Gage.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I understand from my noble friend in charge of the Bill that he is prepared to bring forward an Amendment on Report dealing with this question of abortive expenditure, and I do not therefore move my Amendment.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I owe some explanation to the noble Lord on his Amendment. The Amendment in the form in which he has drafted it is impossible but what we propose to do is to insert a provision that if, since the commencement of the Act, an application for permission to develop has been granted subject to conditions by the Minister on appeal, on the ground of a proposed provision in the scheme and if necessary expenditure has been incurred on works to comply with the conditions, then, if such a provision is not in fact inserted in the scheme and the provision would be one in respect of which a right to claim compensation could have been made, the Minister shall secure the insertion in the scheme of a right to claim compensation in respect of the abortive expenditure. Those may not be the final words but that is the sense of it.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19:

Power of Minister to exclude compensation in certain classes of cases.

19.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a scheme may provide, either gen- erally or as respects all property except such as may be specified for the purpose in the scheme, that no compensation shall be payable under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the last preceding section in respect of the injurious affection of property by the coming into operation of any provision of the scheme which—

(2) The Minister shall not approve the insertion in a scheme of a provision excluding compensation under the last preceding subsection or himself insert in a scheme such a provision—

1. (i) unless he is satisfied that, having regard to the objects of the scheme, the provision in respect of which compensation is to be excluded is proper and reasonable;
2. (iii) if the provision …
1. (c) prohibits or restricts as respect any land so reserved the winning by surface working of minerals, which, or the right to win which, had before the material date been acquired by some person for the purpose of winning them.

(v) if the provision in respect of which compensation is to be excluded is such a provision as is mentioned in paragraph (k) of the said subsection, and, so far as concerns any particular land, unless he is satisfied, if representations are made to him as respects that land, that it will be practicable notwithstanding the provision to erect thereon such a building or buildings which are suitable, having regard to the other provisions of the scheme governing the development of that land.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), before "paragraph (a),"to insert "so much of." The noble Lord said: Subsection (1) of Clause 19 refers to paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 18, and that paragraph in turn refers to Clause 17. The reason for this Amendment and the next two Amendments is to make it clear that the reference to Clause 17 has no bearing on Clause 19 because the orders in Clause 17 are no part, so far as I can see, of any scheme that is brought forward. Therefore the reference to the whole of subsection (1) paragraph (a) of Clause 18 is not entirely relevant to Clause 19. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 33, after ("under") insert ("so much of").—(The Earl of Radnor.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

We have looked carefully into this point and consider that the Amendment is really unnecessary because it is expressly stated already in Clause 19 that the clause relates only to injurious affection of property by the coming into operation of any provision of the scheme. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I am prepared, in the circumstances, to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1) (c), to leave out "or the materials to be used in buildings." The noble Lord said: This is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 41, leave out from ("buildings") to ("or") in line 42.—(The Earl of Radnor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ASKWITH, who had an Amendment down to leave out paragraph (k) of subsection (1), said: This is connected with an Amendment standing in my name dealing with page 29, line 32, and I will not move it.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, at the end of subsection (2) (i), to insert "and expedient having regard to the local circumstances." The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 10, at end insert ("and expedient having regard to the local circumstances").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD PHILLIMORE had given Notice to move, at the end of subsection (2) (i), to insert: and that in the case of land already built upon the provision in its application to the redevelopment of such land is not more restrictive than the provisions of existing statutes and by-laws in force in the area. The noble Lord said: This is a very difficult Bill and I am sure we feel sympathy with the noble Viscount in charge of it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Might I assist my noble friend? I have had communications in the interest of saving time. We agree with the objects of the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord and the next two Amendments standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. We entirely think they are proper objects and the only point is which is the best form of words. We rather think ours is, but we see the advantage in some respects of theirs. If your Lordships will allow these to be withdrawn we hope to be able to meet your view between this and the Report stage.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I shall be happy to accept that suggestion and will not move now.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

After that intimation I will not move to insert new paragraphs in subsection (2).

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, at the end of subsection (2) (iii) (c), to insert "or had before that date devolved upon any person desirous of winning them." The noble Earl said: The reason for putting this Amendment down is to get some definition of the word "acquired," whether it covers inheritance or not. I shall be grateful if the Lord Chancellor can give an answer.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 17, at end insert ("or had before that date devolved upon any person desirous of winning them").—(The Earl of Radnor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

On the meaning of the word I do not think it covers what the noble Earl wants, but I accept the Amendment. It might be better to leave out the whole of the subsection on Report, but I accept the Amendment now.

LORD DYNEVOR

I am not sure I understood how much the noble and learned Lord means to leave out on Report. I should like to stop at "surface working of minerals." It seems to me that in the words in the Bill there is a limitation and there is also a limitation in the noble Earl's Amendment. There are a great number of minerals in this country that have to be worked from the surface. The time may not be quite ripe for working the whole of the area; meanwhile a scheme would come and hold up the minerals, in respect of many of which Death Duties have already been paid.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am obliged to the noble Lord. I accept the Amendment and we will consider the other point and deal with it on Report.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (2) (v), to leave out all words after the second "land" and insert "that the area of the land of the owner fronting the street or proposed street will not be diminished to such an extent by the fixing of the building line as to render it less suitable for the erection of buildings in conformity with the provisions of the scheme." The noble Lord said: I formally move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 32, leave out from the second ("that") to the end of line 37 and insert the said words.—(Lord Askwith.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 [Exclusion or limitation of compensation in certain other cases]:

VISCOUNT GAGE

The amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 23, leave out ("made").—(Viscount Gage.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRANWORTH moved to add to the clause: ( ) Nothing in this section shall deprive any person of compensation in respect of injury caused by the coming into operation of any provision contained in a scheme made under this Act on the ground that that provision could have been validly, inserted in a scheme made under a local Act repealed by this Act and that if the same had been inserted in such scheme either no compensation in respect of injury caused by the coining into operation of that provision or compensation in respect thereof less than that payable under this Act would have been payable. The noble Lord said: I think there were one or two cases under previous Acts where greater compensation was allowed after negotiations, and where it is so it would seem desirable that that compensation should not be diminished. In another place this proposal was moved, and the Attorney-General, I understand, said that he would look into it, but when they came to the Report stage, when it was to be considered, owing to the guillotine or the kangaroo, or some other peculiar thing which exists there, he never had an opportunity of so doing. I therefore ask the noble Viscount whether this Amendment is really necessary, or whether the object of it is covered. It may be that there are no such cases in existence.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 2, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Cranworth.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

I rather gathered that the noble Lord's purpose was to safeguard individuals from, being deprived of compensation, under the pretext that they could not be paid compensation under a local Act, but it does not really affect my argument, because the circumstances which the noble Lord fears could not arise. No such schemes are in existence to-day. I am informed that the cases in which he thinks individuals may suffer could in fact not arise, because they do not exist.

LORD CRANWORTH

If the noble Lord gives me the assurance, which I take it is in response to a request from another place, I am thankful to him, and will beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

Are we quite sure the Government have looked into this point really diligently? It seems to me impossible that with nineteen local Acts in operation—Acts which have been on the Statute Book for years—there should not be a substantial number of cases in which it had been agreed that a certain scale of compensation should be paid to the landowner. Surely these local Acts have not been lying dormant? Might I respectfully ask the noble Viscount if between now and the Report stage he will look into the matter and be quite sure that there are no cases where compensation has been agreed upon?

VISCOUNT GAGE

I would point out that in the first place, no schemes under these Acts have in fact come into operation nor, if, as we hope, the present Bill finds its way on to the Statute Book in the course of the next few days, will they. Secondly—and this is a more important point—subsection (3) does not apply to any local Act which will be repealed by the Bill, for this reason, that such an Act will have disappeared from the Statute Book long before a scheme under the Bill can possibly come into operation. The subsection only applies to some Act in force immediately before a scheme under the Bill comes into operation and, as I have said, none of the local Acts which the noble Lord has in mind can possibly be in force at that date. I will give this undertaking that if the wording of the Bill does not fulfil that intention or there is any possibility of doubt about the matter we will endeavour to make it clear that the words "any other Act" in that subsection mean any other Act in force at the date when the scheme comes into operation which has been repealed by the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21:

Recovery of betterment from owners of property increased in value.

21.—(1) Where by the coming into operation of any provision contained in a scheme, or by the execution by a responsible authority of any work under a scheme, any property is increased in value, the responsible authority, if within twelve months after the date on which the provision came into operation or such longer period as may be specified in the scheme, or within twelve months after the completion of the work, as the case may be, they make a claim in that behalf, may, subject to the provisions of this Act, recover from the person whose property is so increased in value an amount not exceeding seventy-five per cent. of the amount of that increase:

Provided that, except where the person against whom the claim is made has claimed from the responsible authority by way of compensation under this Act in connection with the scheme and in respect of any injurious affection other than injurious affection immediately suffered an amount not less than the amount claimed by the responsible authority under this section and the claim for compensation has been allowed in an amount not less than the amount claimed by the responsible authority as aforesaid, or is outstanding that person may at any time within twenty-eight days after service on him of the claim give notice in writing to the responsible authority requiring them to defer the claim, and in that event the claim shall be withdrawn.

(2) Where a notice has been given in respect of any property under the last preceding subsection the responsible authority shall be entitled to make a fresh claim against the person who gave the notice—

1. (a) on the taking effect at any time within fourteen years from the date of service of the said notice of a disposition of the property;
2. (b) on the taking place at any time within the said period of fourteen years of a change in the use of the property;
3. (c) in the case of property which was at the date of the original claim used for the purposes of any business or industry, and in respect of which there has not within the period of five years next after the date of the service of the notice been made any claim under paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection, at any time within a period of twelve months after the expiration of the said period of five years:

Provided that no claim shall be made— (i) under paragraph (b) of this subsection in the case of property used at the date of the original claim as arable, meadow or pasture ground, or as market gardens, nursery grounds, orchards or allotments, or for a plantation or a wood or for the growth of saleable underwood, or as allotment gardens within the meaning of the Allotments Act, 1922, or (being land which exceeds one quarter of an acre) for the purpose of poultry farming, if the new use of the property is a use for one or more of those purposes; and

(5) In assessing the amount of any sum payable under this section in respect of any property account shall be taken— (b) of any gift of land, or money, or any concession made by any person against whom the claim under this section in respect of the property is made or his predecessors in title with a view to facilitating the making or carrying into effect of the scheme.

(6) Any sum recoverable under this section may be paid either immediately or by such instalments spread over a period not exceeding thirty years as may be agreed or determined under this Act, and where payment is made by instalments interest at such rate as may from time to time be fixed by the Treasury shall be chargeable on the aggregate amount of the instalments for the time being outstanding.

(7) A person who gives a notice under subsection (1) of this section shall, within one month after the date on which any such disposition as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section takes effect or any such change of use as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of the said subsection (2) takes place, give written notice thereof to the responsible authority and shall, within one month after receiving from the responsible authority a demand in that behalf (which demand shall be made within two months after the giving of the notice), furnish to the authority such particulars as they may reasonably require for the purposes of this section:

(11) In this section the expression "disposition" means a disposition by way of sale (including a sale in consideration of a rentcharge or other periodical payment) or by way of lease or tenancy agreement for a period of not less than three years, and references to the person who gives a notice under subsection (1) of this section shall, where a devolution of the property to which the notice relates has occurred since the notice was given, be construed as references to the person on whom the property to which the notice relates last devolved before the date on which a disposition takes effect or a change of use takes place.

VISOUNT HEREFORD moved, in subsection (1) after "by" ["by a responsible authority"] to insert "and at the sole expense of." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to protect the owner from a betterment charge in respect of an increase in value due to his own expenditure on improvements. In Standing Committee A the Minister promised that if on consideration he felt such a protection was needed he would provide for it on Report. The Minister has not done anything on Report, and we may presume he did not think it necessary. Therefore those on behalf of whom I speak would be better satisfied if this Amendment were carried, so that the danger we fear would be obviated.

Amendment moved— Page 32 line 5, after ("by") insert ("and at the sole expense of").—(Viscount Hereford.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

I do not think it is possible to accept the Amendment proposed by my noble friend, because I do not think the wording entirely limits his intention to what I believe it to be. Under his Amendment betterment could be claimed in cases where a road had been entirely constructed by a particular local authority, and not where it had been constructed partly by a local authority and partly by a grant from the Road Fund. If any other authority contributed towards the expense that would again do away with the power to claim betterment. What I think the noble Lord intends to do is to ensure that betterment shall not be levied on works to which the owner had himself contributed, but I am informed that that is secured, because no arbitrator would award betterment in respect of such work. The Government propose to accept in a modified form an Amendment by Lord Phillimore to subsection 5 (b) of this clause, and I think that would meet my noble friend's case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "fifty per cent." for "seventy-five per cent." The noble Lord said: This Amendment will, I trust, be accepted by the noble Viscount because it seems to me it is remarkably difficult to justify the figure of 75 per cent. In the Bill of 1925 the figure was 50 and I should like to ask whether in those various Acts which have been passed that figure has not been found to work satisfactorily. In the Bill of 1931 this figure stood at 100 per cent. and to show the spirit in which that 100 per cent. was put in it was actually a fact that the unfortunate owner was to be charged 100 per cent. and was to be asked to pay that money whether he got it or not—an almost incredible proviso. As I understand it this figure of 75 is a compromise between 100 and 50, but I do not think your Lordships are confirmed in any compromise in this matter. The point at issue is whether 50 per cent. does achieve all the effect that is justified—whether it has proved in the years it has been in existence not to have worked properly. If it has I venture to suggest that 50 is the figure that should stand.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 14, leave out ("seventy-five") and insert ("fifty").—(Lord Cranworth.)

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

May I say one word about this Amendment which also stands in my name? I cannot logically see any reason for any division at all. I should have thought that 25 per cent. would have been better than 50 per cent., but, not being greedy, I put down 50 in this Amendment, which stands in my name as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, as a reasonable compromise. As there is no possible logical argument that is convincing why either one or the other should get the whole or none at all, it seemed to me, to use a common expression, that a fifty-fifty arrangement was the best compromise we could get.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

I should like to draw attention to two matters which really have a considerable bearing on this question of whether 75 or 50 per cent. should be recoverable. For the first time in this Bill two great acts of justice are done. If a. scheme injuriously affects a landowner he should in all legitimate cases receive compensation. That has never been in any other Act. The next point is that he does not have to pay under this Bill till he receives the advantage. In all other Acts—in the Lloyd George taxes and in previous Acts—whether he got the increment or not he had to pay. If, under this Bill, you get justice done in those two respects I think the 75 per cent. is not unreasonable.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I hope that the noble Viscount will accept this Amendment, because I prefer it to the one standing in my name and that of the noble Viscount, Lord Hereford. Our Amendment is in the nature of a further compromise.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

The noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, is utterly wrong when he says this will be the first Act that gives compensation. If you look at Section 10 of the Act of 1925 you will find that there was full compensation given in respect of any property which was injuriously affected.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

But you had to pay whether you got it or not.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

No.

VISCOUNT GAGE

We have accepted a great number of Amendments this afternoon, and I suggest that this is one which the noble Lords who introduced it might further consider. Lord Cranworth, I think, introduced it because he is against a compromise, but Lord Halsbury supported it on the ground that he was in favour of a fair compromise. However that may be, it is perfectly true that this is not a matter which can be proved one way or the other. It is really a matter of opinion. The question is how much it is fair to ask from an owner in respect of improvements to his property which have been made entirely at the expense of the general community. We have been reminded that so far the figure has been 50 per cent. but for the first time landowners are placed by this Bill in a more equitable position than they have hitherto been in because, I think for the first time, owners are allowed to postpone paying betterment until they have actually realised it, until it is, so to speak, in their pockets. Another concession to them is that no claim in regard to betterment can be made after the lapse of fourteen years. I think there is only one case where betterment has actually been collected in cash form. The principal value of betterment is for negotiation purposes. I sug-

gest that an owner, protected as he is under this Bill, is much better off with the 75 per cent., plus his new safeguards, than he was with the 50 per cent. without them, and I suggest that we should leave the Bill as it stands.

LORD CRANWORTH

My question was whether the present state of things has not worked well. I take it from the fact that the noble Viscount said that there was only one case in which 50 per cent. has been collected that he meant it had worked remarkably well. Therefore why alter it?

VISCOUNT GAGE

We are putting the owner in a much better position. We think that something should be done for the authorities.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

The noble Viscount takes credit to the Government because under this Bill the landowners are given a certain measure of justice. I do not think they are entitled to take any credit for an extremely belated and partial act of justice. I would also point out on this question of betterment that the Act as a whole is designed to preserve the amenities of the countryside—amenities which in the past have been created by the landowners, very often at considerable expense to themselves, and from which the public have derived benefit. The landowners have received no compensation in the past from the public. This proposal of 50 per cent. is perhaps a compromise. The 75 per cent. proposed in the Bill is possibly a compromise within a compromise for all we know. I hope the noble Viscount will consider whether he cannot accede to this Amendment, and go back to the terms of the 1925 Act.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS.
Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Plymouth, E.	Addington, L.
	Stanhope, E.	Arnold, L.
Argyll, D.	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Balfour of Burleigh, L.
Somerset, D.		Darling, L.
Wellington, D.	Burnham, V.	Ebbisham, L.
	FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Salisbury, M.	Hailsham, V.	Gainford, L.
	Hood, V.	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
De La Warr, E.	Ullswater, V.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)
Denbigh, E.		Heneage, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Winchester, L. Bp.	Lawrence, L.
Marks, L.	Phillimore, L.	Stanmore, L.
Marley, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.	Stonehaven, L.
Marshall of Chipstead, L.	Rathcreedan, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)	Rhayader, L.
Mount Temple, L.	Rochester, L.	Templemore, L. [Teller.]
Moyne, L.	Saltoun, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Bedford, D.	Pembroke and Montgomery, E.	Cranworth, L. [Teller.]
		Dynevor, L.
Bradford, E.	Radnor, E.	Doverdale, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)		Fairfax of Cameron, L.
	Bertie of Thame, V.	Forester, L.
Grey, E.	Hereford, V.	Greenway, L.
Halsbury, E. [Teller.]		Redesdale, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Askwith, L.	Sinclair, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Banbury of Southam, L.	Strachie, L.
Midleton, E.	Bayford, L.	Wharton, L.
	Clinton, L.	Wynford, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

VISCOUNT HEREFORD moved, in subsection (1), immediately before the proviso, to insert, "unless the land has been in the same ownership for the previous ten years, when the amount shall not exceed fifty per cent. of that increase." The noble Viscount said: Although the Government have not thought fit to accept the Amendment of my noble friend, I hope they may be induced to accept my more moderate one which I beg now to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 14, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Hereford.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

I am afraid we do not see any logical basis for this Amendment. I think what is right in one case is right in another, without respect to who owns the property. I am afraid we must resist this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD CRANWORTH moved to omit the proviso in subsection (1) and insert: Provided that the person against whom the claim is made may at any time within twenty-eight days after the service on him of the claim give notice in writing to the responsible authority requiring them to defer the claim and in that event the claim shall be withdrawn except in any case in which such person shall prior to the receipt by him of the claim have himself claimed from the said authority by way of compensation under this Act in connection with the scheme and in respect of any injurious affection not immediately suffered an amount not less than the amount claimed by the said authority against him under this section and such claim for compensation shall have been allowed in an amount not less than the amount claimed by the responsible authority as aforesaid or shall be outstand- ing in which case it shall not be obligatory upon the responsible authority to withdraw the said claim made by them.

The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I now move is, in fact, a drafting Amendment—that is to say, it is intended to have exactly the same effect as the clause. If the noble Viscount tells me it does not have that effect then I shall at once withdraw it. Though it is a drafting Amendment it is, I think, rather important, because when this particular clause was drawn up it was, I am informed—the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong—as a result of representations made to the effect that the original clause did not meet the full intention of the Bill, and the clause was rather hurriedly drawn up, or so I understand. If your Lordships will read it you will, I think, agree with me that it seems to be remarkably difficult of comprehension. I think the Amendment is important in this way, that if the substituted proviso is clearer than the words in the Bill we ought to put it in, as this is a charter of the property owners, who are affected by this Bill and stand or fall by it. It seems to me most important, therefore, that this particular part of the Bill should be as clear as drafting can make it. The Amendment I move has been very carefully considered, and we think it is an improvement. If we leave in words that are difficult of comprehension it will mean that when the Bill becomes an Act it will be a great benefit to the lawyers, whereas if my Amendment is put in the lawyers will perhaps lose some valuable time, but the property owners will save a considerable sum of money. Therefore, hoping your Lordships and the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill have more sympathy with property owners than with the legal profession, I trust you will accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 32, leave out lines 15 to 28 and insert the said proviso.—(Lord Cranworth.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

We were very anxious to hear the reason put forward by my noble friend for his preference for his Amendment to the clause as drafted. If he will allow the present clause to remain until Report stage we will consider the wording of his Amendment in connection with what he has said, and if we find that his wording is indeed better we will accept it.

LORD CRANWORTH

I thank the noble Viscount very much. That entirely meets my point, and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "fourteen" and insert "seven". The noble Lord said: I have found it rather difficult to understand why fourteen years was inserted. It seems to me that the effect of it must be that a good many people will be frightened, possibly unnecessarily frightened, by the operation of this 75 per cent., and will hang up pieces of land in various places for a period of fourteen years throughout all these schemes. I think that a great many schemes must quite clearly be injuriously affected by that. I should have thought that the object of this subsection is fully attained if "seven" is substituted for "fourteen". I think that if anyone for seven years definitely uses the land for a certain purpose it must be fairly clear he did not mean in any way to rob the public but meant to carry on his business in the way he was accustomed to. I suggest that this will benefit and help the scheme rather than hurt it, and if that be the noble Viscount's view perhaps he will accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 33, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("seven").—(Lord Cranworth.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Clause 21, as your Lordships are aware, enables an owner to defer a claim for betterment until it has been realised. A claim can only be made if the realisation occurs within fourteen years. The Amendment would substitute "seven" for "four- teen". Theoretically there ought to be no limit of time, but permit a lawyer to sympathise with a property owner and to say that fourteen years is a real compromise which I would suggest to him should stand. It was originally suggested by those whose ideas of betterment perhaps go too far that there should be no limit of time, but it was felt that that would hang up a claim over the property indefinitely. Then there was suggested a period of twenty-one years, but after a good deal of discussion it was thought that fourteen years was a favourable and proper compromise between those who said there ought to be no limit of time and those who thought, as the noble Lord thinks, that the time should be seven years. We do not fear any suggestion that may be put forward that this is in any way tying up property or tying up a scheme. The provision that betterment cannot be levied until it is realised in some form is the great protection to landowners. This fourteen years is a very reasonable compromise between those who wanted a very short time and those who thought there should be no time limit. I would ask the noble Earl to accept this compromise which in another place was accepted, even in the famous Standing Committee A, where I believe a similar Amendment was moved and negatived without a Division.

LORD CRANWORTH

I am a great believer in and admirer of the blessed word compromise, but I thought we had hardly got to compromise at this stage. The compromise I would like the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to consider would be ten years. However, 'as there seems no likelihood of that being accepted I do not feel that I can press the matter to a Division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD PHILLIMORE moved to leave out paragraph (c) of subsection (2). The noble Lord said: If my noble friend Lord Cranworth had asked me why the period of fourteen years was chosen I could have told him. It is because it will take at least fourteen years for the Ministry to understand their Bill. If he had taken a very long breath indeed and had read subsection (2) of Clause 21 he might understand why I am in considerable difficulty in interpreting paragraph (c). I am anxious to obtain from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill an assurance that when the Minister is dealing with a business or industry he has not got in his mind, and the Bill has not got in its wording, any threat that the profits of a well-managed business will be attacked in order to recover the alleged betterment due to the action of a local authority. I find the wording extremely unclear on this point. If, as I assume—or as I would like to assume—it is only the land value which is to be assessed for betterment, and if the wording were quite clear on that point, I should be happier. I would urge that in the case of a business it is of extreme importance that the management should know where they stand as to future liabilities. Is it not possible to introduce into this clause words which will have the effect of assessing the value to be obtained by the local authority by way of betterment at an earlier stage than at the expiration of the five years contemplated?

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 39, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Phillimore.)

LORD CRANWORTH

I agree with my noble friend Lord Phillimore that this particular paragraph is extremely obscure. So far as I can see, as the clause stands now, it is a case of legislation which is discriminatory against the shopkeeper or industrialist as opposed to the landlord. If the answer to Lord Phillimore's question regarding the profits of the shopkeeper is that they will not be taken into effect, one can only presume that betterment in this case is going to be levied on the landlord, who very frequently will not actually derive an increased rent in spite of the fact that his tenant may be getting increased business as the result of the operation of a scheme. I think it is extremely obscure and I think it would be well if the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill would explain it before we go any further.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I think perhaps I had better endeavour to give an explanation of the whole position. We start with the assumption that the principle of betterment is admitted. Then we say that we do not think it is fair that the owner should be charged this betterment until he has realised it and put it in his pocket. We give the owner accordingly the right to postpone payment until he has realised it. In the case of multiple shops or garages directed by a central organisation, the probability is that cases where there is a disposition of the property within the fourteen years (which governs the whole question) will be very rare, and cases where there is a change of user will he very rare. Everybody will appreciate that normally unless there is a disposition or change of user value cannot be claimed. Therefore in these particular cases we say that it is fair that the calculation should be based on the value which is realised, that the calculation should be on the increased profits of the business. Actually the calculation of the increased value will be made with the help of the profits, so to speak. The amount of extra profits will constitute, as it were, the yard stick by which the measure of the increased site value will be made. Unless we make some provision of this sort owners of these multiple shops or garages would be put in a far better position than the owners of other property because they would escape altogether. We think that five years from the date when a scheme is made would be a suitable moment to ascertain whether any additional value has accrued that could be attributed to the scheme. The intention of the clause is simply to put the owners of these particular forms of property on an equality with other owners.

LORD BAYFORD

Will this betterment be levied on the increase of the site value alone or on the increase of the site plus the building? I understand the noble Viscount to say that the betterment would be on the increased value of the business, but I understood it to be on the increased value of the site, which is quite a different thing.

VISCOUNT GAGE

As I take it, the particular type of building and business combined would be treated exactly the same as any other form of property but, for the purposes of this assessment, the question of the extra profits will be taken into account as a measure instead of the increased value which in the case of a long lease will accrue from the scheme. We are endeavouring to put all classes of property on the same basis. It is not intended to treat these businesses in any different way to any other form of property.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Does the noble Lord mean this? A man is engaged in business and by his industry and hard work increases the value of the business. Will his assessment be put up?

VISCOUNT GAGE

Only so far as the scheme has increased the value of the property.

LORD BAYFORD

The noble Viscount has not answered my question. Is the property he speaks of the site or the building erected on the site? On which is betterment paid?

LORD PHILLIMORE

I am not at all satisfied at present with the answer I have got. Neither has much light been thrown on this obscure provision. The noble Viscount said that change of use governed the whole consideration. As far as this paragraph is concerned I see no words relating to change of use. It is quite true that in paragraphs (a) and (b) there are such words, but the subsection says: Where a notice has been given in respect of any property … the responsible authority shall be entitled to make a fresh claim against the person who gave the notice … in the case of property which was at the date of the original claim used for the purpose of any business … and in respect of which there has not within the period of five years … been made any claim. If one reads that straight through, there are no words whatever relating to change of use. The second point on which I am not satisfied is that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill did distinctly say that the profits of this business would be taken into consideration in assessing the degree of betterment obtained. That is a principle to which I take the strongest objection. Thirdly, I take strong objection to this. We are imagining a single particular instance such as a multiple shop or a garage and applying the arguments of the Government entirely to such an instance. But we all know that, whatever we may have in mind, we are likely to have the words related in actual fact to instances of extreme variety and complexity. It is a mistake to assume that this paragraph will only apply to multiple shops or garages. Unless I get a satisfactory answer, I shall have to go to a Division.

EARL GREY

Suppose you have two businesses side by side and in five years one increases its profits very much and the other has the reverse experience: how can you prove that the increase is due to the increment? I do not see how you can possibly decide betterment by the profits of a business.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. Betterment will not be levied on the profits. As to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, as to whether betterment is levied on the site and building or site only, the answer is that it is levied on the site and building. This question of profits really does not arise. I do not think that I ever said that betterment would be levied on profits, but, if I ever said that, I must ask your Lordships' pardon. The noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, referred to a change of user. Again I am afraid that I did not make myself clear. I only referred to it in its application to paragraphs (a) and (b). I said that in those two cases the change of user was the governing consideration because it was in change of user that the additional value was reflected. There is no possibility of such a calculation being possible in the case of these businesses where there is no change. This is the device we have adopted to put on the owners of these businesses a similar liability to that on the owners of other forms of property.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

If it is not intended to include profits, surely some words could be put in on Report to make that clear. Otherwise the Law Courts will be full of cases on that point. I suggest that the noble Lord should consider that matter between now and Report.

VISCOUNT GAGE

That is a fair suggestion. If the intention is not clear, it ought to be made clear.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

If it is not intended to include profits, surely paragraphs (a) and (b) would cover the point without the change of user?

VISCOUNT GAGE

No, we do not expect any change of user here. The same company goes on, the name is continued, and it does not matter what happens to the manager or the employees, the ownership of the property goes on. There is no change in disposition and user. The garage is the same but the scheme brings it a very much larger volume of business.

THE EARL of RADNOR

I do not know that we have had a very clear answer as to whether it is the owner or the occupier who will pay. I can imagine many cases of long leases where the owner will not receive any benefit from increased profits. The whole clause is obviously unfair. In many cases it undoubtedly bears the imprint of discriminatory legislation and will hit these small men very hard indeed. The Government ought to accept the Amendment.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I agree that the whole clause is very badly drawn. If we are to believe the noble Viscount, it would deal with property which was, at the date of the coming into operation of the scheme, the property of a corporation, a limited liability or some such body as that denoting persons who do not die. There is in the wording particular reference to business or industry. I suggest it would be better if the Government could accept my Amendment, and produce on report a clause more nearly carrying cut their real intentions.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am inclined to suggest that that would be the wiser course. It is not that I want to break any lance with the Government over the policy intended in this clause, but it is evidently so obscure that I do not believe there is a single member of the House, except the noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill and the Lord Chancellor, who really understands it. In the circumstances perhaps it would be wiser to leave it out and for the Government draftsman to draft a. new clause which would lie clear.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I quite agree that nobody here wishes to assess betterment on profit, but on the other hand you do want to get at the man who, having made profits, perhaps would be paying an enhanced rental unless the lease went on for some time. That is the case we want to hit. We none of us want to hit profits at all, but we do want to hit the man who, being in an advantageous site, makes large profits and would he paying an increased rental should it be possible for the landlord every year to alter the rent. This is an extremely complicated Bill and it is very difficult, at the moment, to give adequate reasons, but I am sure we all want to do the right thing, and I would suggest that this should remain. If we cannot persuade the noble Lord we will not trouble him and we will let it go, but I should think it unwise to let this go out now if by so doing we failed to get at the man we all desire to get at. I would appeal to the noble Lord to let this go through now and perhaps I might see him in the meantime. The point is that there is no desire to tax profits; the only person we want to get at is the one I have indicated.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I gladly accept the suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in proviso (i) in subsection (2), after "claim," to insert "as a park or garden or." The noble Lord said: "Garden" was in the Bill originally and I cannot understand why it is taken out. I think there must be some mistake. Surely it would be hard that a man who, when his surroundings are being built up, makes his garden into a market garden so as to supply people in the neighbourhood and earn a living in that way, should not come within the operation of this paragraph. I think "park" should also be in. It is always difficult to decide whether a park is a park or a meadow or a field, and the question is constantly giving rise to litigation. But on equitable grounds I attach more importance to "garden" than "park' I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 9, after ("claim") insert ("as a park or garden or").—(Lord Cranworth.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

Perhaps I might deal with this Amendment and the one following at the same time because I think they are both based on a misapprehension of the intention of the clause. Except in certain cases which do not for the moment arise we propose to give the owner the right to demand postponement of betterment claims. Further on, in subsection (4), it is stated that: the responsible authority may recover a suns net exceeding 75 per cent. of the amount by which the property has for the purposes of its new use been increased in value. In order to strengthen the position of the owners as regards agricultural land there is an express statement that if the change of user is from one agricultural use to another no question of betterment should be raised. That is to guard against the possibility of betterment being claimed in a case where a man transfers from mixed farming to market gardening. If we take the case given by the noble Lord of "park" or "garden," provided it is only used for agricultural purposes or purposes which are not building it would be excluded, but I think he will agree that if it should be used for building purposes it is only fair that betterment should be claimed against it in the ordinary way. As long as the park or garden is used for agricultural purposes there is no question of any betterment charge.

LORD CRANWORTH

I am glad to get that assurance, but I cannot see it in the Bill. If the noble Viscount gives me the assurance with full authority that where a man changes his garden and makes it a market garden, thereby making it somewhat more profitable, there is no question of betterment, there is no need for my Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in proviso (i) in subsection (2), after "farming," to insert "or for charitable purposes or wholly or mainly for the purpose of public religious worship or as a churchyard or burial ground or mainly or exclusively for the purposes of open-air games or recreation or as a private aerodrome licensed under the Air Navigation Act, 1920." The noble Earl said: This is somewhat on the same lines as the other Amendment. It is really to make an addition to the list of changes between which there can be no claim for betterment. The clause as a whole gives the right to a claim for betterment on a change of user, and it does not state that there has got to be an actual enjoyment of the betterment. There may be a change from an allotment ground to a church, and there may be a considerable claim for betterment, which betterment is not enjoyed by the church concerned but is there all the same. As your Lordships are aware, there are a number of other cases. Take the letting of a house. If in the goodness of one's heart one lets a house at below its value, one is not so assessed under Schedule A. They merely tell you you are a fool for doing so. That may be the case under this clause, and that is why we wish to see a certain extension in the user under which no claim can be made.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 17, after ("farming") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Radnor.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

Surely this question will come under the particular phrase "for purposes of the new use"? I would suggest to the noble Earl that if land is converted and used for charitable purposes, or for the purposes of religious public worship, or for churchyards or graveyards, it can hardly be shown that it has increased in value for the purpose of any of those uses, because none of these things can be described as paying propositions, except perhaps a crematorium run on profitable lines, in which case I do not see why betterment should not be claimed against it. I do not see the object either of including aerodromes, unless the noble Earl wishes to encourage private aviation, and in that event I would suggest that this is not the place to do it. As he has limited the case to private aerodromes, I think it is doubtful whether such things have any value, except agricultural, and therefore they will be protected. I think the noble Earl has no cause for alarm in this matter.

LORD CRANWORTH

I am very glad to hear the noble Lord's argument, and I hope he will be open to reason in this matter. I would ask him whether if, on further consideration, I find myself unable to agree with his conclusions, he will not object to my bringing the matter up again.

VISCOUNT GAGE

Certainly not.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I would suggest that if this matter is covered, and I am not certain it is, there can be no harm in accepting the Amendment. It does not alter the intention of the Bill.

VISCOUNT GAGE

There is always an objection to making a particular exception when it is really unnecessary.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (5) (b), after "by," to insert, "or work carried out by or at the expense in whole or in part of." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to provide that where an owner has himself contributed to the increased value of the property, by work carried out at his own expense, this expenditure should be taken into account before betterment is assessed. My next Amendment is much to the same effect. I think I caught from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill a murmur to the effect that he was prepared to meet me on this clause, and therefore I will not say any more until I have heard from him.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 11, after ("by") insert ("or work carried out by, or at the expense in whole or in part of").—(Lord Phillimore.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

We are prepared to accept this Amendment if it is drafted in this form "or any works executed under arrangement with the local authority." If he will accept that modification, I am prepared to put it down on the Report stage.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I would like to ask whether in making that offer the noble Viscount contends that works not carried out by arrangement with the local authority would ipso facto be taken into account by the arbitrator?

VISCOUNT GAGE

That is our contention, that the arbitrator would take into account any works which the owner executed at his own expense.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

If that is so, why not accept the Amendment, which says in effect what the noble Viscount has just said? Lord Phillimore's Amendment, as I understand it, says that where the work has been carried out at the expense, in whole or in part, of the owner, he shall not be taxed betterment on the money he has expended.

VISCOUNT GAGE

It is considered undesirable to give special instructions of that sort to an arbitrator, because they indicate the sort of line on which the arbitrator anyhow would act. Our contention is that it is undesirable to put in words which might convey to an arbitrator that he should not take into account works undertaken by the owner.

LORD PHILLIMORE

Surely the answer to that is that in the Agriculture Acts the arbitrator is specially told to take into account, in arriving at tenant right, works carried out by the tenant.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

I would urge the Government to accept this Amendment, which only carries out their expressed intention as indicated by Lord Gage. There are numerous Acts in which arbitrators and valuers are instructed to do certain things and not to do others. Then why cannot this be put into this Bill?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

I would rather suggest to my noble friend that he should accept Lord Gage's offer. I confess I have no opinion as to the merits of the two alternative forms, because I have not considered them. The Ministry of Health, who probably know this Bill almost as well as Lord Phillimore, and that is saying a good deal, feel that there would he great objection to inserting this Amendment as it now stands. If, however, words are put down on Report and he is not satisfied, Lord Phillimore can put down his own words on Report. Meanwhile the matter can be considered with a view to ascertaining which is the best form. In the event of there being no real difference, then, with the assistance of the Ministry of Health, it will be possible to arrive at a decision. The Government are willing to accept the Amendment with a slight modification, but they are not willing to take the risk of accepting an Amendment which, on the whole, they do not feel to be desirable. Probably the shortest way in the interest of time, which we are all anxious about, would be to adopt that course.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. But after all when we come to Report I shall probably be told that the time is valuable then also.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I hope by that time the matter will be adjusted.

LORD PHILLIMORE

The two points really are so totally distinct. What Lord Gage has offered me is that where the local authority has agreed in advance then such works shall be taken into account. What I am talking about is the case of works in respect of which the local authority has not agreed in advance but which the owner, for his own purposes if you like, has undertaken and thereby increased the value of his property. It is such a very definite thing that I feel a little doubt about accepting the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion that I shall withdraw my Amendment in favour of some such compromise as is indicated by my noble friend Lord Gage. But if the noble Viscount will undertake to look into the whole clause in order to meet this point I will most gladly withdraw my Amendment.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Yes, that is the best.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (6), after "rate," to insert "not being greater than one half per cent. above Bank rate for the time being or than four per cent., whichever shall be the less." The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment which seems to me to be dictated by caution and common sense. I do not at all like the words "such rate as may from time to time be fixed by the Treasury." We think that that is dangerous. The Treasury themselves charge four per cent. on Death Duties, and it would seem quite unreasonable that they should ask these unfortunate payers of betterment to pay any greater rate of interest in this particular case.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 20, after ("rate") insert the said words.—(Lord Cranworth.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The effect of this Amendment would be to limit the powers of the Treasury in fixing the rate of interest payable on instalments. I quite agree that in some cases when you are dealing with certain bodies it may be a wise thing to tie them down to a certain limit, but with regard to the Treasury who, after all, are the guardians of the public purse—

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Ought to be but aint!

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord says, "Ought to be but aint." Well, opinions might differ on that. Let me tell him that if he were the head of a Department, as I am, he would soon find what the powers of the Treasury are. We have consulted with the Treasury about this matter, and they very much object—and, after all, they are people of very great consequence—to being made responsible for fixing the rate of interest unless they are given full discretion. The subsection as it stands is quite in common form. It has precedents in Housing Acts and elsewhere, and we do not see why there should be any exception in this particular case. I think we shall agree, in spite of the plaisanterie of Lord Banbury, that, after all, we can trust the Treasury in this matter, and they take a very strong view about this. Personally I am somewhat in sympathy with the noble Lord's view, but I am speaking really on behalf of the Treasury, and not only do they look with very great disfavour upon this, but they say it will be introducing a precedent to which they very much object. Having regard to the position which the Treasury hold in our economical system, I am afraid this is a matter on which, whatever my personal inclinations were, I should not be able to agree with the noble Lord.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

The noble and learned Viscount quoted the Housing Act. Under the provisions of that Act there is nothing to do with betterment, and this clause applies to betterment. Therefore there is no analogy between the two.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I think it is only natural that the Treasury would not like any restrictions on their power, but I can see no reason why they should not have them imposed on them. After all, the Treasury is not entirely supreme. Parliament is supreme over the Treasury.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Certainly.

LORD CRANWORTH

I confess I have heard no argument in reply to my Amendment that has any weight with me. I dare say this is one of those matters which it is no use forcing any further, because I should not get any further. Therefore, though I am not in the least convinced, I beg to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT GAGE

The next is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 33 leave out ("within") and insert ("not later than the expiration of").—(Viscount Gage.)

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (11), to leave out "or tenancy agreement." The noble Lord said: This is a very modest Amendment. It seems to me that this period of a lease for three years rendering a man subject to betterment is contrary to the whole of the present spirit of this Bill, because, as I understand the present spirit of the Bill, it is that a man shall not pay betterment until such time as he realises that betterment. Take a man who lets a building for three years at some slightly increased rent, say £50 a year, and at the end of three years he has obtained£150. He will then be told, according to this subsection, that his property has increased by that sum, and that he must now pay £100. That is contrary to the whole spirit which has now been introduced into this Bill, and I think that by increasing the three years to seven, as I propose to do by the next Amendment, I am still making a very modest proposal, because even in seven years the owner will not really have reaped the full benefit.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 35, leave out ("or tenancy agreement").—(Lord Cranworth.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

This is another question of the drafting of the Bill, and perhaps I may consider it in connection with the next Amendment to increase the period to seven years, to which the noble Lord has just referred. I think the two go together. What the Bill says is that if a property is let on a lease which covers anything under a three years' term the lease shall not be regarded as a disposition of the property. I think there would be some good ground for questioning whether it was right to exclude leases for any period from the term "disposition." It might be argued that an owner would make as much profit by letting his ground for successive periods of two years as he would by letting for successive periods of three years, but we have always endeavoured to meet the views of the landowners as far as we could, and I believe this period was inserted in the first place to meet the owners' representatives, or at least to go some way towards meeting them.

If the noble Lord is to claim that we shall extend this concession to a lease of seven years it would be equivalent to saying no lease of any kind, however profitable and however much it might reflect the added value which is due to the scheme, should be taken into consideration in. estimating betterment, because nothing would be easier for the owner than to arrange to let the lease out for periods of six years instead of seven, and as the claim for betterment lapses after a period of fourteen years the whole object of the paragraph would completely disappear. I submit we have already gone to illogical lengths in this matter in order to meet the wishes of owners, and that if we go any further the whole subsection will be really quite useless. I think there is some misapprehension on the part of the noble Lord. I hope I am not doing him an injustice in saying that, but the whole question of whether or not there has been a disposition of the property depends on the length of the lease. If you lease for successive short periods of under three years then to some extent you get out of paying betterment. Perhaps the noble Lord does not realise that.

LORD CRANWORTH

If the clause really means that the landlord can go on letting for a period of three years and not paying betterment, then in my judgment it is a remarkably bad clause. My intention is that betterment shall not be paid until in either one or more periods the total comes to seven years. I do not want a man to get out of paying altogether. What I want to do is to keep the spirit that has been introduced into this Bill, that betterment shall not he payable until that betterment has accrued.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I will consider what the noble Lord says but I am not empowered to accept his Amendment. All the considerations he has put forward will, however, be considered.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Would it not be possible in the circumstances for the noble Viscount to consider an alteration of the expression "disposition" to the effect that it means "disposition or dispositions by way of a sale for a period of not less than seven years," in order to make it possible to have tenancies so that the owner of the land shall after seven years have increased profits out of which to pay betterment?

VISCOUNT GAGE

I will consider that suggestion. It is the first time, I think, it has been made.

LORD CRANWORTH

I hope the noble Viscount will note that in this particular matter our aim is to strengthen the Bill as against the owner, not the reverse. If he realises that I feel certain he will be able to see his way to meet me. I take it that is an understanding?

VISCOUNT GAGE

I cannot give a pledge but I will consider the matter with a view to taking into account the points which have been made by the noble Lord.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 [Making of claims for compensation or betterment]:

VISCOUNT GAGE

The Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 7, leave out ("section") and insert ("Act").—(Viscount Gage.)

LORD DYNEVOR

Will the noble Viscount give us a definite statement that this only is drafting because he leaves out the word "section" and inserts "Act." Act is of course, a much wider word than section.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I am informed that another clause, Clause 6, subsection (6), provides a period within which compensation must be claimed and consequently the opening words of Clause 22, subsection (2), are subject to the provisions of this Act.

LORD DYNEVOR

I am quite satisfied.

VISCOUNT GAGE

The next Amendment is drafting. I can explain it, if necessary.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 36, leave out ("for him").—(Viscount Gage.)

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23:

Determination of claims and recovery amounts due.

(2) The arbitrator or other person charged with the duty of determining any such question as aforesaid—

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

The Amendments in my name are drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 38, line 13, leave out first ("has") and insert ("have") Page 38, leave out ("is") and insert ("are") Page 38, line 13, leave out second ("has'') and insert ("have") Page 38, line 14, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert: (iv) Shall have regard to the degree to which the increase in the value of the property is due to the owner's expenditure thereon. The noble Lord said: The clause begins by saying that any question arising under this Act as to the right of a claimant to recover compensation, or the right of an authority to recover any amount in respect of an increase in the value of any property, shall in certain circumstances go to arbitration. Then it gives certain directions to the arbitrator and says he has to consider certain things and have regard to certain undertakings. Then paragraph (ii) says that if the question arises after the coming into operation of a supplementary scheme, he shall "take into account any amount which the responsible authority has paid or is liable to pay." Paragraph (iii) says that if any contribution has been made by an authority under the provisions of the Bill relating to interim development orders, he shall take this into account, too. I also want to say that if the owner has, owing to his exertions increased the value of the property, the arbitrator shall also, besides paying attention to any contribution that has been made by an authority under the provisions of this Act, have regard to the degree to which the increase in the value of the property is due to the owner's expenditure thereon. It seems to be a simple act of justice and I hope my noble friend will accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 21, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Banbury of Southern.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

I think this is the same kind of point as that raised previously by my noble friend Lord Phillimore. I feel sure my noble friend knows much more about arbitrators than I do but I would submit this point for his consideration. What the arbitrator is required to do by the Bill is to estimate the increased value of property which is due to the scheme. That would automatically oblige him to deduct from the assessment any increase in value which was due to anything the owner had done to improve the value of his own property. I would further suggest that if you do put in words of this kind you rather imply that the arbitrator should not take into consideration other factors which are neither due to the owner's efforts nor to the scheme—namely, the increase in value which automatically comes from the general growth of a district. The noble Lord's Amendment is unnecessary and in fact rather dangerous, and I would suggest that on reflection he might withdraw it.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am sorry that I do not agree with the noble Viscount. If subsection (2) was not in the Bill, if there were no directions given to the arbitrator at all as to what he should have regard to, but merely the provision in subsection (1), then I think the noble Viscount would be right. But the clause gives the arbitrator directions. Subsection (2) says he is to have regard to certain things and paragraph (iii) of that subsection says: If any contribution has been made by an authority under the provisions of this Act relating to interim development orders, [he] shall take into account that contribution. All I want to do is to ensure that he shall also take into account any similar contribution made by the owner. That seems to be perfectly fair and it cannot do any harm. As directions are already given to the arbitrator I think this other direction ought to be given.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

I really think my noble friend Lord Banbury is under a misapprehension. The only money which can be recovered from the owner of property is betterment which comes to him as the result of a scheme. His Amendment seeks to deal with increased value which comes owing to the action of the owner. That would be automatically excluded from betterment. Therefore his Amendment is quite unnecessary.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Why give any directions to the arbitrator at all? The clause reads in this way: (1) Any question arising under this Act as to—

1. (i) the right of a claimant to recover compensation; or
2. (ii) the right of an authority to recover any amount in respect of an increase in the value of any property; or
406
3. (iii) the amount and manner of payment …"

shall be referred to an arbitrator. Then directions are given to the arbitrator to have regard to certain things, and I consider the clause ought also to give directions with regard to the increase in value which has been caused by the spending of the money of the owner. It cannot do any harm.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It can.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

How?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will tell you. The position is that betterment can be claimed only in respect of the provisions in a scheme or the execution of work under a scheme. The insertion of these words would make it extremely dangerous for owners. They might have to pay very much more, and for this reason. If you make a suggestion that it may be possible to levy betterment in respect of an increase in value which is due to something other than the provisions of a scheme or the execution of work under that scheme, the unfortunate thing would be that the owner would have to pay betterment although it was not duo to anything in the scheme but to something he had done himself. It is really the opposite of what the noble Lord wishes to attain. If the noble Lord wishes the owner to pay more betterment let him stick to this Amendment, but if he wishes the owner only to pay betterment caused by the provisions of a scheme he will not press it.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

In those circumstances I will withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 agreed to.

Clause 25:

Acquisition of land to which scheme applies.

25.—(1) The responsible authority may purchase by agreement any land to which a scheme applies which they require for the purposes of the scheme as if those purposes were purposes of the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1926, and, where the responsible authority are not a local authority for the purposes of those Acts, as if they were such an authority, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, they may purchase such land—

VISCOUNT GAGE

The Amendment standing in my name is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 16, after ("scheme") insert ("whether made under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act").—(Viscount Gage.)

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert in subsection (1): Provided that they shall not be authorised to purchase compulsorily any land abutting on a new street or on an existing street as proposed to be widened under the scheme for the purpose of securing the development or redevelopment of such land, but nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect the operation of the Public Health Acts. The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to limit powers for compulsory purchase in the same way as they are limited in local Acts applying the 1925 Act to built-up areas. The Derby Corporation Act and the Birmingham Corporation Act both contain this proviso. It is said that this Bill follows many Private Acts and the two which I have quoted seem very good precedents to follow. The danger is that local authorities may be tempted to speculate in land under the guise of buying land for street widening. For these reasons I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 7, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

On the face of it, especially having regard to the last remark of the noble Viscount, this is a very attractive proposition, but when it is examined a little more closely I do not think it will carry out what the noble Viscount really wishes to be carried out. What is the object of the Amendment? The object is to limit the power to acquire frontage land which is given by Clause 25 so that it can be acquired only by agreement. The powers of compulsory acquisition available under the Public Health Acts are saved by the Amendment. The point before your Lordships is: Ought they to have compulsory powers or is it sufficient to leave it that the land can only be acquired by agreement? I quite sympathise with the noble Viscount's fears. He says this provision may lead to a very large amount of acquisition of land by local authorities. We do not anticipate that, but of course we may be wrong and the noble Viscount may be right, so there is nothing much in that particular argument. But the matter will not rest in the unfettered discretion of local authorities for two reasons. In the first place, they will be able to acquire land compulsorily only by an order which is not valid unless it is confirmed by the Minister. There is that central control over local expenditure. Secondly, and perhaps this is even more important, for any large acquisition of land, whether by agreement or whether compulsorily, the local authority would require a loan. There again there is control by the central authority. They would have to get the sanction of the Minister before they could get a loan in order to buy the land. The provision is in line with the general law. The Public Health Acts enable the local authority to acquire frontage and adjoining land where a road improvement is carried out. There are ample safeguards here.

Let me come now to the merits. It is often very desirable that, authorities should have this power. Why? Because where a road is being widened, for instance, odd bits of land may be left which are insufficient for redevelopment. That would be grossly wasteful. Those bits of land could not be acquired unless they had these powers. In addition, there is need for a legitimate measure of control in order to prevent undesirable forms of development such as ribbon development along existing as well as newly constructed highways. I may say that that is required, not only in the interests of the highway authorities in order to secure the full traffic value of the highway, but also for the better protection of owners whose property is liable to suffer unfair depreciation as the result of uncontrolled frontage development. This procedure is under the existing Town Planning Act and has always been so. It really would not be wise, if frontage lands can be compulsorily acquired under the Public Health Acts, that it should not be possible to acquire them under planning powers, because the very object of the planning powers is to secure sensible and economic development as a whole. That is the whole case and I suggest to the noble Viscount that his fear is not likely to be realised. I agree that it may be, but, on the other hand, there are the safeguards I have indicated. These powers will prevent wasteful development and it seems rather hard that town planning, which is so important, should not have these powers to finish off its work.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

The Lord Chancellor said that under the 1925 Act the same sort of clause appears. Then I do not understand why these two clauses were put into these two Private Acts since 1925. Still, my noble friend has been so persuasive that I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT GAGE

The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment and the two following Amendments are consequential.

Amendments moved— Page 40, line 20, after ("of") insert ("Part III of") Page 40, line 25, after ("scheme") insert ("whether made under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act") Page 40, line 33, after ("scheme") insert ("whether made under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act").—(Viscount Gage.)

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26 [Acquisition of land for open spaces and playing fields in area covered by planning scheme]:

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Amendment to this clause is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 39, after ("scheme") insert ("whether made under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act").—(Viscount Gage.)

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 [Limitation of street work charges]:

VISCOUNT GAGE

The Amendments to this clause are drafting.

Amendments moved— Page 41, line 16, after the last ("the") insert ("execution of") Page 41, line 17, leave out ("executed") Page 41, line 19, leave out ("for the time being").—(Viscount Gage.)

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 [Contributions by local authorities towards expenses of, or in connection with, schemes]:

VISCOUNT GAGE

The Amendment to this clause is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 11, after ("scheme") insert ("whether made under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act").(Viscount Gage.)

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31 [Contributions by statutory undertakers towards expenses of, or in connection with, schemes]:

VISCOUNT GAGE

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 25, after ("scheme") insert ("whether made under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act").—(Viscount Gage.)

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clause 33 [Power of public departments to make agreements in connection with schemes]:

VISCOUNT GAGE

The Amendment standing in my name is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 37, after ("scheme") insert ("whether made under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act").—(Viscount Gage.)

LORD MOYNE moved to add to the clause: (3) Where, at any time after a resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme has taken effect, any land or buildings situate within the area to which the resolution applies is or are under the control of a public Department or is or are in their occupation or is or are vested in them for public purposes or for the public service and any charge in the existing use of such land or buildings is proposed to be made, the appropriate public Department shall, before authorising such change of user, consult with the Minister of Health. The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to deal with the Crown exemption from town-planning schemes and is designed to secure that public Departments should not over-ride these schemes without due consideration. The Crown must necessarily remain free from the full effect of town-planning schemes. There will obviously be cases where, in the public interest, public Departments should be allowed to transgress the strict letter of town-planning schemes. It may specially arise with the Defence Departments in matters of strategical or defensive importance. If the subject is to submit to sacrifices, heavy sacrifices in some cases, of pre-existing rights owing to the limitations of the schemes, it does not seem reasonable that the Crown should be in a position to destroy the object of the schemes without absolute public necessity.

There has been a case recently which is exciting a great amount of apprehension in a part of the County of London. The Middlesex Territorial Association have entered into negotiations to buy a very valuable piece of land for the purpose of a drill hall at Hampstead. This particular area is subject to very severe town-planning restrictions because the local community have for many years past attached very great importance to the amenities of Hampstead Heath. The freeholders there have gladly accepted these limitations and in this district no private owner is allowed to build more than two houses to each acre of land. There is very great feeling in Hampstead at an authority from outside the County of London choosing, under the expected protection of the Air Ministry, to break in on the Hampstead town-planning scheme. There is certainly no strategical reason for putting a drill hall in this particular place. I do not for one moment assume that the Air Ministry is going to sanction this scheme. In view of the appeals which we have had from the Government for public and private economy, I cannot believe that the Minister for Air will sanction the purchase of land at about £5,000 an acre in about the most valuable part of the outer ring of London for a purpose which could be equally well served by far cheaper land close by. I feel sure that the noble Marquess (Lord Londonderry) will go into the scheme and will examine it from all these points of view—economy and the actual necessity on grounds of defence. This scheme is exciting very great local uneasiness and I hope that the Government will agree that, in a case like this, it is only fair that public authorities should not over-ride town-planning schemes without the fullest necessity.

The method that I suggest is that there should be consultation between the public Department concerned that is proposing to over-ride the scheme and the Ministry of Health as the experts on these matters. It certainly would not be in any way derogatory to the position of these nonexpert Departments that they should consult the Minister of Health, seeing that there is a precedent in Clause 42 where the Ministry of Health itself, the expert Department, in matters which may affect the interests of architecture or archaeology are to consult the Office of Works. In view of this precedent and in view of the heavy financial sacrifices which private persons have voluntarily assumed for the purpose of town-planning schemes, I do beg the Government on public grounds to give this security against unnecessary interference.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 16, at end, insert the said subsection (3).—(Lord Moyne.)

LORD ASKWITH

My name is also attached to the Amendment and I wish to support it. It might be said that this is only a matter of procedure, but it is a matter of procedure of great importance. Although Government Departments generally do consult, one knows of many instances where they have not done so. If there is this invitation in the Bill that they should consult the Minister of Health it will be of great advantage in the future.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR.

It is a little unfortunate that the Amendment should have come up at this particular moment for the noble Lord has quoted an example in Hampstead which obviously has a great deal to do with the Air Ministry and the War Office and unfortunately the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, who is Minister for Air, and the noble and learned Viscount, who is Minister for War, are both at a meeting of the Cabinet at which I also ought to be present. I am, therefore, rather at the disadvantage that I cannot argue with the noble Lord on the details of his case. I accept every word of what he has said. I am told that even now arrangements are being made to put the matter on a proper footing, but I cannot say more because I do not know.

May I come to the general consideration because I am sure the noble Lord would not desire to argue from the par- titular to the general? It may be that his instance is a good one of a very hard case which ought somehow to be remedied, but you cannot argue from one instance to the general consideration. I will tell the noble Lord the position. This Clause 33 deals with land in the occupation of public Departments and in effect it provides that a Department may make agreement with the planning authority for securing that the Department's land is developed in conformity with a scheme. On the face of it that seems all right. I can follow the suggestion that where land is in the occupation of a public Department the Department must consult the Minister, (1), if any change in the user of the land is proposed before the passing of a resolution to prepare a scheme; and (2), if the Department proposes to acquire land for public purposes after the passing of such a resolution.

LORD MOYNE

I think the noble and learned Viscount is reading from the original Amendment which has been withdrawn. On the Order Paper to-day there is a smaller Amendment which limits the operation of this proposal to cases where the scheme has already been adopted.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The rest of my argument will proceed upon that basis. I agree with Lord Askwith that there is no doubt that the public Departments do consult one another, and it would seem that that is a very wise thing to do; but to compel them to consult one another and to put it in an Act of Parliament that they shall do, when as a matter of fact we know they do, is another matter. The Town Planning Act of 1925 made no reference to the Crown and consequently not only was Crown land not bound by the Act, but there was no machinery for consultation and agreement between Departments and planning authorities. That was obviously something that ought to have been remedied and it was partly remedied. By Section 12 of the Crown Lands Act, 1927, provision was made for consultation and agreement in the case of land in the occupation of the Commissioners of Crown Lands.

When this Town Planning Bill came before the various Departments there was long negotiation between all of them. In the Law Courts I should not be allowed to give hearsay evidence, but the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has told me that his Department took a great part in these negotiations. They were difficult negotiations; they were negotiations between all the Departments and this clause represents a compromise arrived at between all the Departments and the Treasury. The clause was very fully discussed between the Ministry of Health and the Treasury and the effect of it is to extend Section 12 of the Crown Lands Act, 1927, to all public Departments. It is the considered view of the Government—and may I add it is the considered view of all those who are in charge of Departments because this is the result of the pooling of their brains?—that this represents a long step in advance and for practical purposes it goes as far as can be reasonably expected.

Public Departments, and in particular the Departments responsible for the defence of the country, would strongly and not unreasonably object to having imposed on them a legal obligation to consult the Minister of Health before taking action in the cases referred to in the Amendment. The noble Lord need not have the slightest doubt that consultation will take place, but the Departments responsible for the defence of the country desire to resist a Parliamentary obligation which they think is not in the interest of the Defence Services, and the Government cannot possibly accept it. Those are the general considerations and I would beg the noble Lord in the circumstances, when we have agreement on a very difficult question, to let the matter rest where it is on this compromise.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

The noble and learned Viscount has stated that it would be unthinkable or inadvisable to compel one Government Department to consult with another. Might I draw his attention to Clause 17, which is entitled "Power to make orders for preservation of certain buildings"? There you will see that the Minister of Health shall consult with the First Commissioner of Works. Again if he turns to Clause 42, which is headed "Consultation of Commissioners of Works as to schemes affecting certain buildings," there he will find that the Minister shall, before approving the scheme, consult the Commissioners of Works. I do not say this invalidates the argument of the noble and learned Viscount but it does show that in his own Bill he contemplates what he now condemns.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34 agreed to.

Clause 35 [Acquisition of land for purpose of garden cities]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I beg to move the Amendment standing my name, which is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 12, leave out ("its") and insert ("their").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36:

Power of Minister to require preparation or adoption of scheme, and to require execution of scheme.

36.—(1) If the Minister is satisfied after the holding of a local inquiry that a scheme ought to be prepared by any authority as respects any land, he may by order require the authority to prepare a scheme and to take such other steps as may be necessary for bringing it into operation, and the order of the Minister shall have the same effect as a resolution to prepare a scheme for the area to which the order relates passed by the authority and approved by the Minister.

(2) If the authority fail to prepare a scheme to the satisfaction of the Minister within such time as may be specified in the order, or to take any other steps which they are required by this Act, or by regulations made thereunder, or by order of the Minister thereunder, to take, the Minister may himself act in the place and at the expense of the authority, or in the case of the council of a rural district, or the council of an urban district which for the time being contains, according to the latest published return of the Registrar-General, a population of less than twenty thousand, may, if he thinks fit, and after consultation with the council of the county in which the district is situate empower that council so to act.

(3) If the Minister is satisfied after the holding of a local inquiry that any authority have failed to adopt any scheme proposed by owners of land in a case where a scheme ought to be adopted, he may order the authority to adopt the scheme proposed, or if he thinks fit, may himself approve the proposed scheme with or without modifications, and a scheme so approved by him shall he deemed to have been adopted by the authority and approved by the Minister.

(4) If the Minister is satisfied after the holding of a local inquiry that a responsible authority have failed to enforce effectively the observance of a scheme which has come into operation or any provisions thereof, or to execute any works or do any things which under the scheme or this Act the authority are required to execute or do, the Minister may by order, Which shall be enforceable by mandamus, require the authority to do all things necessary for remedying their default and for carrying into execution the scheme or, if he thinks fit, he may himself act in the place and at the expense of the authority or in the case of a rural district or such an urban district as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, may, if he thinks fit, and after consultation with the council of the county in which the district is situate empower that council so to act.

(5) The Minister shall furnish a copy of the report made to him by the person who holds a local inquiry directed by this section to every authority concerned and, on payment of such fee as may be fixed by the Minister, to any person interested.

(6) Any expenses incurred by the Minister in exercising under this section any powers of any authority shall be paid, in the first instance, out of moneys provided by Parliament, but the amount of those expenses as certified by the Minister shall, on demand, be paid by the authority to the Minister and shall be recoverable as a debt due to the Crown.

(7) The payment of any such expenses as aforesaid shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister, be a purpose for which an authority may borrow money in accordance with the provisions of this Act or of the scheme under which the authority is constituted.

(8) Where an order is made by the Minister under subsection (2) or subsection (4) of this section empowering a county council to act in the place of the council of a rural or urban district, the order may apply any of the provisions of Section sixty-three of the Local Government Act, 1894, with such modifications and adaptations as appear necessary or expedient.

LORD PHILLIMORE, who had on the Paper two Amendments, to leave out subsection (1) and subsection (2) respectively, said: This clause deals with the power of the Minister to deal with a laggard or recalcitrant authority. We all know, at any rate in this House, that we have a great horror of over-bureaucratic treatment, but I feel on further consideration, and in the light of the concessions which have been made during the course of the passage of this Bill, that it would be asking too much of the Government to ask them to accept this Amendment, and that it would imperil the Bill as a whole if I were to insist upon these Amendments. I therefore propose, so far as I am concerned, not to move my Amendments.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Amendment to this clause is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 27, leave out ("thereof") and insert ("of such a scheme (whether being a scheme made under this Act or being a scheme made under any Act repealed by this Act)").—(Viscount Gage.)

LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out Clause 36. The noble Lord said: This clause, which I am moving to leave out, is a mandatory clause, and the reason for my Amendment is to be found in what the Minister said when moving the Second Reading of the Bill. He said: This is a local Bill and not a centralising Bill. It is not a Bill of compulsion but one of permission. It is simply to put powers which the people want into their hands to use as and when they desire to use them. It is not a Bill to force action down the throats of the local authorities. That seems a very contradictory statement in the light of what appears in the marginal note to this clause, namely: "Power of Minister to require preparation or adoption of scheme and to require execution of scheme." That seems, on the face of it, to be entirely contradictory of what the Minister said in another place, and if one examines the clause one finds that it has actually eight subsections and covers nearly two pages of the Bill.

Under subsection (1) the Minister may order the authority to prepare a scheme. That is certainly very mandatory. There does not seem to be much local option about that. Then subsection (2) says that if the Minister is not, satisfied with the scheme prepared the Minister himself may take action at the expense of the local authority. We are always being told that the Government are very anxious not to encourage expense with regard to local rates as well as Imperial taxes; yet here the Minister is allowed to act himself and at the expense of the local authority, to make them do something they do not want to do, or he may empower the county council to act, so as to coerce the local authority. I am a member of a county council, but I do not think that they are anxious to bully local authorities where the local authorities do not wish to carry out a scheme and the Minister insists upon it. Then subsection (3) says that if the authority fails to adopt a scheme proposed by the landowners the Minister may enforce that scheme against the wishes of the local authority. I thought the whole object was to give powers to the local authorities, but apparently an owner may come down and force the local authority to do something that they do not wish to do.

Then by subsection (4) if the Minister considers that the authority have failed to enforce effectively the observance of a scheme he may have a mandamus at the expense of the authority. This is the second time that it is proposed that the local authority, if the Minister disagrees with them, may be fined by the expense of a mandamus or by the empowering of the county council to act for the local authority. I think it is very unfair to put it into the Bill that where the Minister does not wish to make himself unpopular he may force the county council to do what will make them unpopular. Under subsection (7) it is actually proposed that the local authorities may be empowered to borrow in order to pay the expenses which they have been put to under the authority of the Minister because they refused to put the scheme in force. That seems to be a, most objectionable part of the Bill because it contemplates heavy expense on the part of the local authorities. I beg to move that Clause 36 be omitted.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 36.—(Lord Strachie.)

VISCOUNT BERTIE, OF THAME

I hope your Lordships will not follow the advice of Lord Strachie because if subsection (5) is left out it will rob me of a very valuable argument on Clause 38, and I hope that when we come to that clause my noble friend in charge of the Bill will have sufficient gratitude to accept my Amendment.

LORD DYNEVOR

This clause is the one which coerces local authorities. I would suggest to my noble friend that it might be better if he concentrated his energy to getting rid of Clause 52 rather than of Clause 36. What does this clause do? It is suggested the local authority will not move so the Minister then orders a scheme and the local authority still refuses to move. The Minister then may act by himself and charge the expenses to the local authority or he may ask the county council to move, if it is a question of a district council or small urban authority. What happens if the authority refuses to pay the Minister's expenses? I believe the Minister can recover them as a debt, but I am not sure that he will not have very great difficulty in getting the money. I think we can safely leave it to him and the local authority to fight it out between them. I think if you are going to have a Town Planning Bill at all you must give the Minister some power and this is a clause which enables him to coerce or ginger or shove along the local authorities if they are not anxious to have a scheme. Without these powers the Bill would be perfectly useless.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I wish to support Lord Strachie. I think this clause is most objectionable. Yesterday with the connivance of the Government this House paid lip loyalty to economy. This clause enables the Minister to cast a great deal of expense upon the local authority. What is the use of having these local authorities with enlarged powers if you are not going to trust them? On the Local Government Bill of a previous Government one of the great arguments, especially as regards Scotland, where the alterations were much greater than in the English Bill as to the constitution of the local authorities, was that there would be more liberty for these larger bodies. It seems to me that you are going by this clause to give great powers to the Minister and to cause great expense against the wishes of the local authorities and probably of the ratepayers. I think it is a very wrong power to put in this Bill. It is not as if even at the present time, in spite of the economy cry, the Departments were economical. Even up till quite recently Departments have been trying to force local authorities to spend money unnecessarily, and it seems to me that if we pass this clause we should simply be supporting that attitude of Government Departments, whether in London or Edinburgh.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

I am sorry that in many ways Lord Phillimore did not move his Amendments, because I rather prefer his Amendments, which would have omitted the first two subsections, to this Amendment, which would omit the whole clause. There is something to be said for the remaining subsections, but under subsections (1) and (2) the Minister is given absolute authority to act himself instead of the local authority. It has been said that you cannot run a country unless you leave to Ministers of the Crown who are responsible to Parliament final residual powers to see that the will of Parliament as expressed in Acts of Parliament is carried out, and that this is the minimum power which is necessary here. That was the explanation given by the Minister in another place of what he meant by a permissive Act. It is giving him absolute power to act by himself if he is not content with the way in which the local authority is acting. I do not think that is a power that your Lordships ought to give to a Minister. You have no real power to challenge any decision he makes, and you are leaving it in the Minister's hands alone, and not in the hands of the local authority. For that reason I shall support the Amendment.

LORD LOVAT

By the Berating Act the local authorities were increased very much in size. In Scotland, for instance, the county, not the district, is the rating authority and the authority responsible for carrying out the whole of local government. You would have thought that His Majesty's Government would be more inclined to leave greater power to the local authorities now that their units are larger, but in all recent legislation the very fact that you have handed over local government to bigger bodies seems to increase the distrust of the central Government for local authorities. It strikes me as entirely illogical. When the Derating Act was passed it was said that one of the aims of the Act was to take things out of the hands of small local groups and put them into the hands of larger bodies so that matters should be considered from a larger point of view. But this legislation particularly and much other legislation as well is in the direction of not trusting the man on the spot.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My noble friend Lord Dynevor suggested that we should do better to concentrate on removing Clause 52 rather than this, but if we did—and I hope we shall get Clause 52 deleted—we shall as a necessary consequence in our own interest have to get Clause 36 deleted also, because, unless we do, the Minister can act under Clause 36 and achieve exactly the same result as would be achieved under Clause 52. There is also another reason, which is that the local authority are surely the people best able to judge whether development in their own area is going on in the way which is most suitable, rather than somebody in London who has no local knowledge and cannot acquire it in the course of the two or three days of a local inquiry.

LORD BALFOUR OF BUBLEIGH

I hope your Lordships will not agree to this Amendment. I think there is some misconception about it. Your Lordships are in favour of the principle of town planning, but it does seem to me that this clause is necessary to meet the case where, for example, you might have a small authority, say a rural district council, which is obstructing by refusing to come into a much bigger scheme. It may be a perfectly good scheme, and I think you must give the Minister power to intervene in a case of that kind. I am bound to say some of your Lordships are unduly apprehensive of the powers of the Minister. I think it is quite necessary to have powers of this kind.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I think I shall not be under-stating the case if I say that, were this clause left out, instead of advancing town-planning legislation we should be going back some way. This is what is called the default clause, which empowers the Minister to take action where local authorities have flagrantly and grossly neglected their duties. Such a power has existed in town-planning legislation since 1909, and if we look at other Acts we shall see that this provision empowering the Minister so to act is an old one, and has been constantly reaffirmed by Parliament. It occurs, for instance, in the Public Health Act, 1875, and in the Local Government Act, 1929, this default power was again reaffirmed by Parliament. I quite admit that if the Minister did use this power in frequent cases and without due justification he might impose a considerable burden on local authorities, but I am quite sure that your Lordships will agree that Ministers do not exercise such default powers without due cause. I think you will also agree that there is no likelihood of any Minister using these powers in an irresponsible manner. I think there is a good argument for say- ing that compulsion ought to be applied as little as possible in permissive Acts, but I do not think we can put the default clause into that category. I very much hope that your Lordships will not in this case take away a power which has existed for the last twenty years, which has been exercised in a perfectly unobjectionable manner, and in regard to which I do not believe that anyone has reason to think that it will be exercised less discreetly in the future. We attach great importance to the retention of this clause, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, does this Bill an injustice. He cannot have had in mind Clauses 3 and 4. There most careful provision is made that where two or more authorities are interested in a scheme they should be asked to act as a joint local authority, and the particular fear that the noble Lord felt cannot arise. The authors of the Bill have been most careful to provide against it.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

Before this discussion closes, perhaps I might be allowed to express the view of the Opposition on this matter. We maintain that the Minister should bring pressure to bear on recalcitrant authorities. To take a specific instance of the damage that would be done if this clause were deleted, I would draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (3). Under subsection (3) the Ministry is entitled to override a single local authority which is hanging up a project prepared and agreed upon by a group of local authorities. This in. bound to be of practical importance, because in all regional planning a number of local authorities are represented, and if there is one reactionary and stagnant authority which objects to the whole scheme, unless the Ministry can step in and interfere a project which would be of the greatest benefit to the particular locality would be defeated. It is, therefore, in agreement with the general principle behind this clause that the Opposition would oppose the Amendment that has been moved.

On Question, Whether Clause 36 shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 30.

CONTENTS.
Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Mersey, V.	Heneage, L.
	Ullswater, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Reading, M.		Mount Temple, L.
Salisbury, M.	Addington, L.	Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)
	Balfour of Burleigh, L.	Phillimore, L.
Denbigh, E.	Bayford, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Biddulph, L.	Rathcreedan, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Danesfort, L.	Redesdale, L.
Plymouth, E.	Darling, L.	Rhayader, L.
Stanhope, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
	Gainford, L.	Snell, L.
Bertie of Thame, V.	Hampton, L.	Stonehaven, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Hanworth, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
Hereford, V.	Hawke, L.	Templemore, L. [Teller.]
Hood, V.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)
NOT-CONTENTS.
Argyll, D.	Iddesleigh, E.	Greville, L,
Bedford, D.	Midleton, E.	Jessel, L.
Somerset, D.	Morton, E.	Lawrence, L.
Wellington, D.	Pembroke and Montgomery, E.	Lovat, L.
		Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Linlithgow, M.	Radnor, E.	Moyne, L.
		Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Bradford, E.	Banbury of Southam, L.	Remnant, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) [Teller.]	Clinton, L.	Strachie, L. [Teller.]
	Cranworth, L.	Teynham, L.
Grey, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Wharton, L.
Halsbury, E.	Forester, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 agreed to.

Clause 38:

Local inquiries.

38.—(1) For the purposes of the execution of his powers and duties under this Act, the Minister may cause to he held such local inquiries as are directed by this Act and such other local inquiries as he may think fit, and the costs incurred in relation to any such local inquiry shall be paid by the authorities and persons concerned in the inquiry, or by such of them and in such proportions as the Minister may direct, and the Minister may certify the amount of the costs incurred, and any sum so certified and directed by the Minister to be paid by any authority or person shall be a debt to the Crown from such authority or person.

LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), after "fit," to insert "and the report of the person holding such inquiry shall at the request of any person represented at the inquiry be open to inspection by him." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I put down on behalf of the Central Landowners Association. I notice that there are other Amendments exactly on the same lines as my own, and I suppose for the convenience of the House we shall probably take our decision upon them. My intention is to go to a Division upon my Amendment. What does Clause 38 do? Subsection (5) of Clause 36 requires the Minister to furnish a copy of the report of an inquiry to every authority concerned. I cannot see why under Clause 38 there should be a different procedure. Why should not the Minister in the same way have to furnish a report of what his inspectors have told him in regard to this matter? The inquiry is held in public, the Press are there, and the whole thing is thrashed out in public. I suppose some comments are made by the inspector. I know that in some cases they are made, and the whole of the evidence is published, so that the local authorities affected and the public have the whole question before them, but they are not to be allowed to know what are the grounds upon which the inspector comes to his decision and makes his recommendations to the Minister.

Why should this report be secret? It is not to be secret in the case of Clause 36, but it is to be secret in the case of Clause 38. What did the Minister say on this question, I think on June 6 last? He said they all knew that they would be depriving the Minister of his power to get a confidential report from the inspector who was holding the inquiry and really would be depriving him of a large part of his responsibility and authority. That was said another place when there was a, good deal of opposition to the proposal that the report should not be published and that the local authorities should not have the benefit of knowing exactly what was the advice that was given and upon what grounds the Minister made his decision. It seems curious the Minister should say that this would really deprive him of a large part of his responsibility and authority. Surely the responsibility and the authority of a Minister do not rest upon the secrecy of the report of an inspector? Of course it may be more convenient for the Minister if he is going to give a decision against the local authority not to have to justify his reasons but merely to rest it on his own ipse dixit.

The Minister said something else which struck me as rather extraordinary. He said that a Minister ought not to be tied down to do what his inspector tells him. Why should a Minister be tied down by his inspector's report? He would certainly use his own judgment. It seems to me that there are strong reasons why the report should be made public in order that we may have the Minister dealing with the matter on his own judgment and authority and able to justify himself, if necessary, by his inspector's report, or, if he goes against the inspector's report, to enable people to see why he went against it. When we come to a much more important question, the imposition of Import Duties, we find that the reports of the Tariff Advisory Committee are to be published. Surely if the President of the Board of Trade has to take full responsibility and has to justify himself whether he does or does not impose duties on certain articles, if he is able to exercise his authority and give reasons for accepting or rejecting proposed ditties, there is no reason why the Minister in this particular case should not have to publish these reports?

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 5, after ("fit") insert ("and the report of the person holding such inquiry shall at the request of any person represented at the inquiry be open to inspection by him").—(Lord Strachie.)

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Perhaps it would be convenient to have a general discussion on this matter. I have on the Paper what may be called a rival Amendment. The Government appointed a Committee on Ministers' powers, doubtless with preconceived ideas. They are like the lady who goes to her best friend for advice. If the advice given is according to her preconceived ideas she will take it but if not the friendship is broken. This Amendment is based on the recommendation of the Committee on Ministers' Powers, that the report of the inspector should be published. It goes further than my noble friend's Amendment, but not quite so far as the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Bayford has put on the Paper. It is a sort of halfway house, and for that reason alone it may be preferable. Publication was resisted by the Minister in Committee and on Report in the other House on the ground that the inspector should not be under any such inhibitions as would result if he had to state things in such a form as to make it possible to present them to the public. I do not propose that they should he presented to the public, but simply to the interested parties. The Minister conceded publication where he himself supersedes the responsible authority under Clause 36 (5), and this Amendment simply applies this new subsection to all inquiries in the same words.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Strachie, said he could not understand why if the report was published it should tie the Minister's hands. It obviously must tie the Minister's hands if the inspector reports in favour of the local authority and the Minister, having read all the evidence, thinks the inspector is wrong. It will be very difficult for him to go against his inspector's report if it has been published, because everybody will say: "You had a local inquiry, the inspector who heard the evidence recommends a certain course, and you who were not there go against him." It seems to me that if you publish the report it makes it very difficult for the Minister ever to go against the recommendations of his paid officials. Surely a Minister is entitled to receive confidential reports from those whom he asks to do work for him? The ideal, no doubt, would be for the Minister to hold all inquiries himself. Of course he cannot do that. Therefore I submit that he is entitled to get a clear, unbiased and really truthful presentation of the case from the inspector which he will not be able to get if the report is published. In a report which is for the eye of the Minister alone and for the eye of the chief civil servant in the Department many things can be said which ought to be said but which cannot be said in public, which would be perhaps, not libellous but unprovable by the Minister, although he knows that what the inspector says is true.

What harm does it do to the local authority if the report is not published? They have every opportunity of presenting their case at the public inquiry. They can bring forward all the witnesses they like and they can ask the inspector to take all the evidence they wish to bring forward. All that evidence is before the public. There is no question, I understand, of holding the inquiry in private. It is to be held in public. I do beg your Lordships not to tie the hands of the Minister so that he is not to be allowed to receive a confidential report from one of his permanent officials whom he trusts. If you do pass the Amendment it will have no effect in practice because all that would happen would be that the Minister would tell the inspector to send in a sketchy formal report and see him in his room next morning when they could talk the matter over freely and the Minister could be informed of the real facts. All you would do would be to increase the burdens of the inspecting officer and the Minister.

LORD DYNEVOR

I have a similar Amendment on the Paper and perhaps it would be convenient for me to speak now as I understand we are having a general discussion on principle. To my mind the Minister ought to furnish a copy of the report to every authority concerned. I do not know why the Minister wants to have this secret diplomacy. Every person interested in the report ought to be able to obtain a copy on paying a fee. I cannot help thinking that the Minister may be rather alarmed lest some adverse comments should be made on the report if it is published. I suggest that we should have everything above board and that everybody interested ought to know what is in the report which has been furnished to the Minister.

LORD BAYFORD

I have an Amendment on the same subject but I should be ready to accept either of the other Amendments on the Paper. The difference in the case of my Amendment is that I do insist on absolute publication. The other Amendments merely go so far as to say that those who are interested parties to the inquiry shall have an opportunity of seeing the report and the result of the inquiry. My noble friend Lord Mount Temple has stated that these inquiries may be. so confidential that it is not in the public interest that the Minister should divulge the report that comes to him from his official. He even goes further and says that the official may report one thing but the Minister may decide another, which seems to me to make it all the more necessary that the report should be published. What, after all, is there that is so very secret? What is there that the Minister should be afraid or ashamed of publishing? What reason is there that he should be afraid of letting the interested parties know the details of the inquiries which his official has made? The unkindest cut of all comes in the fact that apparently the interested parties have to pay for this inquiry and yet they cannot even see the result or the reasons on which that result was arrived at. That is a travesty of British justice. I am told that the same sort of thing has occurred in many cases. That may be so but in those particular cases there may be good reasons for it. I cannot see any reason for secrecy whatever in this particular case. There is nothing mysterious about it, nothing that should be kept secret in the public interest. The whole thing should be open and above board and for that reason I support this Amendment.

LORD HANWORTH

I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. It goes far deeper than any of those who have supported it realise. The objection to it is far different from any that the supporters of the Amendment have suggested. It is not a question of its being contrary to British justice; it is not a question of the Minister being afraid or ashamed; it is not a question of hush hush or of preventing the true facts coming out. The point is one which covers a good many matters of importance in the public service. What is of importance is that the Minister should get a complete report, a fearless report, a report which he can act upon, a report which gives him details and which will be confidential in this sense. There are persons who are interested and who will give diverse opinions. A will say one thing and B will say another. Is that report to be available, not merely at the discretion of the Minister? That is the point. If the Minister afterwards likes to publish the report and there is no harm in it, well and good, but these Amendments provide that the Minister must give the report.

None of those who have supported the Amendment have thought for a moment of this point. A says one thing and B takes a different view. They are both from the same locality. If the Minister is compelled to produce the report, then A knows what B has said and B knows what A has said. Might not that conduce to uneasiness and to the discomfiture of those who have made their report? That is the point. It, is because we want to find out what are the true views. Those views may be discordant and you want to have that information given under what is the seal of confidence. I venture to speak somewhat strongly on this point because it is one that constantly crops up. It cropped up when I was a Law Officer and wanted to get reports and information in circumstances in which those who give the information need not be afraid of the consequences that will follow their information or their revelations. It cropped up the other day in a case that came before your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity. A man went down to make an inquiry in relation to some industrial assurance. He said: "I am going to hold this inquiry in public. I will have no nonsense but will hear and probe all this matter to the full. I will have witnesses before me who will tell the truth and I will have full revelations of everything." What was the result? He got people who made charges which were unfounded, who made charges against the conduct of what had been done, who gave information which had to be sifted and considered for the purpose of the report, but which placed those who had to answer them in a position of peril and put them in a, position that they ought not to be placed in.

In this case, if the inspector goes down to make an inquiry and to get a report, if he is sure that his report must be produced to any person who is interested, to any person who has been represented at the inquiry, will it be possible for him to make a report in as full and candid a manner as would be possible if he reports upon the materials before him under the seal of confidence? I beg your Lordships not to be led away by the phrases, misleading in this connection, of British justice or that somebody may be ashamed of the report. It is not in the interests of the Minister or the inspector that this is done. It is for the purpose of getting real information under the seal of confidence, which will enable the inspector to report quite fearlessly and candidly what he thinks and without fear of having that report made use of in the locality to the disadvantage of those who have given the information to the inspector. On these grounds I hope your Lordships will reject the Amendment.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

There are one or two passages I would like to read from the Report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers: The inspector fixes a hearing in the locality, when an opportunity is given to all interested parties to put their views and their evidence before him and the witnesses called on either side may be and often are cross-examined by the other side. Now comes the important sentence: In addition the inspector gathers information from other sources. Those other sources are not subject to cross-examination. They may be quite incorrect. Those people may take the inspector in. The report continues: It has been alleged that the inspector does not always act judicially, but that he supplements his formal inquiry by personal investigation, and that it is improper that any decision should be based on such information. I am sure the Lord Chancellor agrees with that in his heart of hearts. In the case of a public local inquiry held as preliminary to a judicial decision, it is in our opinion essential that the forms and methods appropriate to judicial proceedings should be strictly observed.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I venture to think there has been come misapprehension with regard to the nature of the inspector and his reports. The curious thing about the debate has been that I find myself in agreement with nearly everything that has been said about British justice and secrecy, but I suggest to your Lordships that the particular question we are now discussing has nothing to do with British justice. The Donoughmore Report, published a few weeks ago, made a distinction between several sorts of reports. You can have a report which is in the nature of a judicial decision and nobody could object to that report being disclosed. Of course it ought to be disclosed. You may have a report which is in the nature of a quasi-judicial decision. Opinions may differ about that, but my personal opinion is that that also ought to be disclosed, and the Donoughmore Committee recommended that where the report was either judicial or quasi-judicial it ought to be disclosed.

But there is another sort of report which I suggest is the kind which we are now discussing and which is really administrative. It comes to this in effect—the Minister wishes to inform himself upon certain local conditions and he sends down an inspector to see and to hear witnesses and, if you like, to gather information—though I personally object to that. His report is not a judicial or quasi-judicial document. It is a piece of advice to the Minister which the Minister must take into consideration when forming his conclusions. Is there a single one of your Lordships who, having sent some one to make inquiries for the purpose of advising you on a certain matter, would think when that advice came that it ought to be published? It is a confidential document. The House will not be wise to pass this Amendment. You will not only be doing considerable harm, but throwing the law of England to a certain extent out of gear.

Do your Lordships realise what a report is? I expect most of you do. I have one here which I will hand to anyone who wishes to see it, though I am not at liberty to tell you in respect of what district it is. That report is of a most confidential character. I am not good at arithmetic, but it contains over 60,000 words, and that is only half the total amount of documents, because I understand there was attached a considerable number of maps, sections, and road elevations without which you would not understand the report if you read it. That is the sort of report. What happens? The Minister takes it into consideration, but he does not read it all himself. He does not "get it up" himself, but he has people to do it for him and then he says to them: "What do you think of it?" The result is that this report is no more judicial or quasi-judicial than any advice which your Lordships might get from an estate agent as to what you should do in a certain set of circumstances.

May I, because the matter is of such importance constitutionally, tell your Lordships the procedure.? I am informed that after the report is received—this document of 60,000 words—the recommendations of the inspector are by no means adopted as a matter of course. I see in the report I have before me that there are one hundred recommendations. After the report is received the recommendations of the inspector are by no means adopted as a matter of course. The matters are thrashed out in the Department, in conference with the inspector in important cases, with the wealth of information and experience which is available in the Department. Private interests in this way are far more assuredly safeguarded and, incidentally, the fact that there is general satisfaction is indicated by the very few complaints which are received.

LORD BAYFORD

Is there such a report as is referred to in the clause—namely, a report of which the expenses are paid by the people who are being enquired about?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Certainly. Now, if I may, I want to make an appeal to the House. In spite of what I have been saying I see a great deal in the arguments which have been put on the other side, but the position is that this Departmental practice wants thorough overhauling and as a consequence of the Donoughmore Report we are going to have it thoroughly overhauled. I would suggest that your Lordships should do now precisely what you did on Tuesday in regard to the affirmative and negative Resolutions. Let us for the moment reject this Amendment. That can do no harm because there are no schemes likely to come about for some considerable time. On the other hand, we do not want to create a precedent unless we are sure we are doing the right thing. I think it will be necessary to consider—and I think you will before the end of the year—the general policy regarding all these reports. Without committing myself with regard to the future it seems to me there is no halfway house between trusting the Minister with adequate checks and a system under which you make the man whom you send down and who is the judge, so to speak, decide the case. I do not say that is a good plan, but between the two alternatives it is difficult to imagine a halfway house.

Let me sum up. Do not let us here set a precedent that we may have cause to regret. Do as you did the other night and say that this shall stand and we will examine the whole of this subject. There is not a single Act like this in which the report is not said to be confidential. No other Act proposes what the Amendment proposes. It may be necessary to schedule the Acts in future, and to say in these Acts the report shall be disclosed, and in these other Acts the report shall not be disclosed. I ask your Lordships not to come to a decision which I am sure you may have cause to regret later on.

LORD STRACHIE

I only intervene for one moment because I think the noble Lord, the Master of the Rolls, is entirely mistaken. These inquiries are entirely public, and the Press are present, and the only thing which is secret is the report of the inspector. Of course if the whole inquiry was secret I could understand it being said that the report should be treated as secret, but if the whole inquiry is public the report should be made public. I could not follow the Lord Chancellor in his argument. I could not see that it really took away from the principle that a Minister ought to be entirely responsible. We ought to know the grounds on which he makes his decision. I must stick to my Amendment and take a Division upon it.

On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

My Lords, there being no second Teller for the Contents the Question is resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived accordingly.

Clause 38 agreed to.

Clause 39 [Appeals to Quarter Sessions]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 28, leave out ("has") and insert ("have").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 40 agreed to.

Clause 41 [For the protection of Statutory undertakers]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, has just approached me and told me that I am in error in my first Amendment to substitute "are" for "is" and that being so I do not propose to move it. But I move the second.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 9, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 42 to 45 agreed to.

Clause 46:

Provision as to the preservation of trees.

46.—(1) The provisions to be inserted in a scheme with respect to securing amenity and the protection of existing amenities may include provisions for the preservation of trees, whether standing alone or in groups or in woodlands.

(2) Where any provisions for the preservation of trees in woodlands are included in a scheme, the scheme must also contain provisions enabling the responsible authority to consent, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as they think proper to impose, to the cutting of trees and other forestry operations in a woodland which is in use, and is intended to be continued in use, for the production of timber.

(3) A person aggrieved by the refusal of a responsible authority to give their consent to any such operations as aforesaid, or by any conditions imposed by the responsible authority, may within twenty-eight days from the date on which he received notice of the decision of the authority, or such longer period as the Forestry Commissioners may allow, appeal to the Forestry Commissioners, and the Forestry Commissioners shall allow the appeal, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as they think proper to impose, if they are satisfied that the proposed operations are in accordance with the practice of good forestry.

The decision of the Forestry Commissioners on an appeal under this subsection shall be final and conclusive and shall have effect as if it were a decision of the authority.

(4) In this section the expression "timber" includes all forest products.

LORD CLINTON moved to leave out Clause 46. The noble Lord said: The object of this clause is to include provisions for the preservation of trees or groups of trees or woodlands in schemes for securing the amenity of any district. So far as trees and groups of trees are concerned I take no very great objection to the clause. Most of that class of timber would probably be included under the heading of park trees or avenues, possibly fine roadside trees, and trees forming some group of landscape importance—a class of trees which generally one would desire to keep perhaps for the reason that they are much more valuable to the estate standing than if they were cut down. But we come to quite a different category when we deal with commercial woodlands. They were planted by their owners for their own purposes, and the owners should be free to deal with them as they please. It would be very unfair to penalise the owner, because his action in planting has really improved the amenity of the district. The woodlands are of importance to the district certainly, but they are of much greater importance to the owner himself.

Consider the position of an owner who has been unfortunate enough to have his woodlands included in a scheme. He can under this clause take no part in the management of his woodlands. He can neither clean, nor thin, nor prune, nor fell without the consent of the responsible authority. The responsible authority may decline to give consent, and he would then have to appeal to the Forestry Commission. That would be a, very valuable safeguard. The Forestry Commission, I am quite certain, would decide exceedingly fairly, but they can only decide on the ground of whether the felling or treatment of the timber is, in the terms of the Bill, an operation "in accordance with the practice of good forestry." But they have no powers, they are not competent to decide whether in the owner's interest and for his own purposes he ought not to be allowed to fell and obtain the value of his timber. There are very few inducements to-day for any owner of land to plant trees. The costs are very high and the profits, which may or may not accrue, at all events are a long time deferred; and the main inducement for planting is to enable an owner to accumulate capital which may serve the purpose of his successor in paying Death Duties, If that inducement is taken away it will, in my opinion, be the most serious discouragement to planting which you could have. For that reason I claim that your Lordships should not allow the owner of commercial woodlands to be put under the control of an authority and prevented from employing those woodlands in the way which it is necessary for him to do. I do not take any objection to this clause so far as the amenity timber is concerned, and if the Government desires to pass such portion of it as deals with the amenity timber and if they would leave to the owner full freedom to deal with his commercial woodlands, I should raise no further objection.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 46.—(Lord Clinton.)

LORD LOVAT

I would like to support the noble Lord in his Amendment and also to associate myself with his view that if commercial timber were excluded the clause might be passed. With the best intentions the local authorities and the supporters of the preservation of rural amenities do not always see the same way. I remember very well that at a deputation at which the noble Lord who proposed this Amendment was present, a suggestion was made to the Forestry Commission that a certain area called Devil's Jump should not be planted. It was only after we had examined the witnesses that we found that seven out of fourteen who had come on the deputation, at the time when the area had been originally clear felled had deputised to the authority in charge in an exactly contrary spirit. I remember another occasion when the local authorities resented certain action taken by the Forestry Commission. The case was raised in this House. Having gone three times down to examine the place, we found that the petition was concerned with only twelve trees out of 12,100,000. Therefore I do not think that the local authorities are always good judges. It would be the final blow to forestry in Great Britain if no commercial timber were safe from any Minister who desired to take it entirely out of the hands of the owner and put it under a scheme which would prevent its being used for the purpose for which, after all, most planters do plant their land—namely, in order to have something which can be cut at the time when Death Duties fall to be paid. For this reason I personally shall not fail as a Teller if the noble Lord divides the House.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. We have had speeches from two noble Lords of great authority, and there is certainly no one in this country who has done so much to get land planted and the forests brought to a profitable state for the good of the country and for the good of the nation as those two noble Lords. I should be very sorry for any one who was asked to say what operations were "in accordance with the practice of good forestry." Certainly you could not get the information from any of the professors of forestry in the Universities, for they have had very little practical experience. The whole clause amounts to saying: "We do not want another tree planted in this country."

VISCOUNT GAGE

I do not think the noble Duke need have reminded us of the authority of the two noble Lords who addressed us. It is well known to the Government. As far as I understand the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, they are chiefly concerned with the security of commercial woodland. He is not satisfied that if an owner wants to cut down timber in a woodland which is preserved—to cut it down, for example, for Death Duties—that he will be ever able to do so, or will be entitled to be fully compensated if he cannot do so; and, further, that financial necessity may make it necessary in some cases for an owner to realise the value of the timber before it is fully grown. We quite appreciate the points made by the noble Lord and we have no desire to do anything which is not fair to owners. I may say that there have already been some consultations between the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, and the Government upon this matter, and, as I think he said that upon the general object of preserving the amenity timber he would support us, perhaps we may be able to come to some mutually satisfactory agreement if we can allow this matter to stand over till Report.

There is a suggestion which has been put forward that the best way to meet the noble Lord's point would probably be something on these lines, that we should provide that if an owner at any time wants to cut timber and preserve woodland he shall give notice to the responsible authority, and they may decide that the timber shall not be cut down, and that then he may forthwith claim compensation for his loss. I do not know if I can go further into the matter.

LORD CLINTON

I do not think the noble Viscount need go further on those lines, but if he wishes to proceed no doubt your Lordships will be glad to hear him.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I do not know if the noble Lord really wishes me to outline any further one of the proposals made by the Government?

LORD CLINTON

If the noble Lord is asking me what I think, so long as the owner is under the control of the local authority, as I think he is under the proposal he has read, we should still raise a strong objection.

VISCOUNT GAGE

Several schemes, I understand, have been put forward for consideration, and I suggest that one of them might possibly meet the noble Lord satisfactorily. I suggest that unless the noble Lord can put forward some alternative on his own account we should leave the clause as it stands and agree mutually on a satisfactory alternative on the Report stage.

LORD CLINTON

So far as I am concerned I am perfectly willing to come to an agreement with the noble Viscount provided two things happen, which I hope I have made clear—that our commercial woodlands are not to be placed under any control of a local authority, but that the owner is to be allowed to deal with them in his ordinary forest practice as he pleases. If that is put into the clause, so far as I am concerned that part of it dealing with amenity matters may remain, or anything which the noble Lord can put in which will encourage and not discourage forestry operations may be put in.

LORD CRANWORTH

Would it not be better that the Amendment of my noble friend should be accepted now? There seems general agreement. I should think that that was the more satisfactory way.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I am in rather a difficult position, because negotiations have reached a certain point, and the noble Lord is asking me to take away a clause which has had a very full debate in another place in favour of something which has not so far been put into specific terms.

LORD CLINTON

I think the noble Viscount might go a little further in informing the Committee of certain things which I know are in his mind with regard to a possible compromise rather than throw out the clause straight away. I think the Committee might have an opportunity of judging the matter.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

Could not we possibly pass subsection (1) and subsection (4) on the top of page 52, which deal with amenities, and omit the rest? Would that meet with approval?

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW

As my name appears to the Amendment perhaps I may be allowed to say a word. If I understand his view, I should be prepared to accept the compromise of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, but I am not at all satisfied that the compromise as described by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill has a strong likeness to that of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton. I think the Committee would be well advised at this stage to strike out the clause, because I do not see that the omission of the clause at this stage will in any way interfere with the arrangement which I hope will be made between now and Report.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

May I make a suggestion? I gather that discussions have gone a considerable way between the Ministry and my noble friend Lord Clinton, and nobody who has sat in this House can fail to appreciate the fact that Lord Clinton is always reasonable and anxious to meet any fair suggestion. We have not got a clause in a form which we can bring forward for discussion at this moment. We cannot, I think, accept the clean omission of the clause, and what I would therefore propose would be, if your Lordships saw fit, that we should accept the Amendment for the moment to allow the clause to be deleted, reserving to ourselves the right to bring up a clause in an altered form on Report. I am quite sure that none of my noble friends who are anxious for this Amendment or something similar to it will be more extravagant in their demands by reason of the fact that we are doing it in that way rather than in another way.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47 [Powers with respect to advertisements]:

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after subsection (7), to insert: (8) Save as provided by this section, a scheme shall not contain any provision prohibiting or controlling the erection or use of structures for the purpose of advertising: Provided that the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not render unlawful the insertion in a scheme of a provision which prohibits the erection on any land or buildings generally, or under which buildings generally could be removed from any land, if that provision is required for a purpose other than the prevention of inquiry to amenity by advertisements or hoardings. The noble Viscount said: this Amendment has been agreed to with the advertising people concerned. It is a pendant to the advertising clause, and is intended to make it clear, so far as planning schemes are concerned, that advertisements shall be controlled by the method laid down.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 19, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Gage.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 48 agreed to.

Clause 49:

Expenses of, and borrowing by, local authorities.

49.—(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (7) of Section thirty-six of this Act, any expenses incurred by a local authority or a county council under this Act shall be defrayed, in the case of the common council of the, city of London, as expenses of that council chargeable to the general rate of that city, in the case of a county council, as expenses for general county purposes or as expenses for special county purposes chargeable upon such part of the county as the county council may determine, and, in the case of the council of a county borough or county district, as expenses of the council under the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1926:

Provided that a county council, before determining that any such expenses incurred by them under so much of Section thirty of this Act as authorises them to contribute towards the expenses incurred by any authority in connection with the carrying into execution of a scheme shall be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes, shall serve notice on every other local authority in the administrative county who have passed a resolution which has taken effect under Section six of this Act or any similar enactment repealed by this Act. Any such local authority aggrieved by the determination of the county council may appeal to the Minister, and tie decision of the Minister on an appeal under this proviso shall be final and conclusive, and shall have effect as if it were the decision of the county council:

Provided further that any expenses properly incurred in or in connection with the preparation or carrying into execution of a scheme made by the common council of the city of London where such scheme is consequential upon a scheme made by the London County Council in respect of a part of the county of London and forms part of a general proposal for planning an area comprising, land in the city of London and land in the county of London shall be de frayed by the London County Council as expenses for general county purposes, and any difference between the said common council and the London County Council under this proviso shall be referred to and determined by the Minister.

(2) A local authority or a county council may borrow for the purposes of this Act—

1. (a) in the case of the common council of the city of London under the City of London Sewers Acts, 1848 to 1897.
2. (b) in the case of the London County Council, under and in accordance with the London County Council (Finance Consolidation) Act, 1912, as amended by any subsequent enactment; and
3. (c) in the case of any other county council, under and in accordance with Section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888, as amended by any subsequent enactment; and
4. (d) in the case of the council of a county borough or county district, as for the purposes of the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1926.

VISCOUNT GAGE

The first Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 1, leave out ("(7)") and insert ("(8)").—(Viscount Gaye.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (1), to insert: Provided that no county council or council of a county borough or county district shall under the powers of this Act expend or contribute for the purposes of a scheme or order thereunder any greater sum in any one year before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty, than an amount which would be produced by a rate of one penny in the pound on the rateable hereditaments in so much of their respective county, county borough or county district as is comprised in the area to which the scheme applies.

The noble Earl said: The Amendment which stands in my name is a somewhat important one. Yesterday and yesterday-week your Lordships were considering economy, and it would be—I use the word quite frankly—the veriest hypocrisy to speak as your Lordships did on those occasions and not take the trouble to see whether you are doing anything in fact to implement the various pious hopes that were thrown out. If you look at Clause 25 of this Bill you will find that there is a power compulsorily to acquire land. Clause 35 gives power to acquire land for garden cities and planning garden cities, and another clause gives compensation, and the compensation must be real compensation. It is plain, therefore, that sooner or later, this Bill is going to cost a very great deal. There is nothing at all in the Bill at the present time to put any check upon the amount of money that may be spent. There is an absolutely free hand for the local authority and the Minister. As your Lordships know, the Minister has been given a very free hand without any real control from Parliament. Surely we ought to put in some provision as to how much ought to be allowed to be spent, some limitation of the amount within a certain time.

The Amendment standing in my name proposes that for a certain number of years not more than a certain amount shall be spent under this Bill. I put it in my Amendment as an amount which would be produced by the rate of one penny in the pound on the rateable hereditaments. It may be said that there will be some compensation set off against betterment. We heard from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that so far there has been only one claim with regard to betterment. That is true and there have been only two with regard to compensation, so we do not know with regard to either how they will end. I suggest to your Lordships that we ought not to pass the Bill at all unless there is contained in it some limitation of spending powers.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sure that everybody agrees with the general statement made by the noble Earl. It was put, I think, somewhat metaphorically by somebody yesterday that we are all out for economy, and there is no doubt about that, but at the same time I would remind the noble Earl that there is such a thing as wise spending, and although economy is very good in the abstract there may be spending which will bring you in such a return that it is well worth laying out the money. Your return may be a hundredfold. If the noble Earl will allow me to say so the only criticism I would like to offer on his speech is that he rather left out of consideration the contra account. I would suggest to him, coming to practical things, that it is probable that many of these schemes will cost very much less than the penny rate which he proposes.

Will he permit me to give one or two examples? First of all, the cost of preparing a scheme may be very small. There was an instance given on Second Reading. For an area which was partly industrial of 11,000 acres in a county borough and neighbouring districts the cost was equivalent to less than one-tenth of a penny in the pound spread over the whole of the districts for five years. The noble Earl may say to me: "Then why do you not accept the Amendment? If in one case the rate will be only one-tenth of a penny, how will a penny rate hurt you?" I think the noble Earl on reflection will appreciate this consideration. It is a very unfortunate thing to prescribe a maximum, because you will always find that if you prescribe a maximum that is the amount which people will spend. If the noble Earl says that a penny rate may be spent it will tempt people to say that they are entitled to spend up to that amount and therefore they will spend it.

The next consideration I would put to him is that you do not really want a mechanical check of this character. I should have thought, subject to the noble Earl's better opinion, that in the present state of public opinion he might well rest content feeling sure that local authorities are not likely at the present time to incur any serious expenditure. May I ask the noble Earl to take into consideration also that a limit in terms of rates, though it can serve as a mechanical check, is now less appropriate than ever because of the measures of derating and the block grant? This is especially so in the case of rural areas where rateable value has fallen very low and the yield of a penny rate is very small because of the complete derating of agricultural land, the loss being made up in other ways.

May I give the noble Earl some figures in an endeavour to allay his apprehensions? Taking the five years ending in 1930 the average annual expenditure out of revenue on town planning has been about £85,000 for the whole of England and Wales. It may be said, however, that the expenditure for compensation and the acquisition of land may be large. Experience up to the present time does not support that view. As I have already pointed out the average annual expenditure for five years has been only £85,000, and the average annual expenditure during the same period out of loans has been only £400. So the position is that the amount which has been spent up to now is within very reasonable proportions. There is also this further consideration that planning schemes for built-up areas will take time to prepare. Authorities will have to do much preliminary work, not costly, but requiring time.

I should have thought it would be well not to put this check at the present moment on local authorities having regard to the state of public opinion. It would simply prevent many authorities getting on with schemes which we want to have ready in time for the expected revival of trade. The schemes themselves do not usually provide for the carrying out of work. The work will as a rule be carried out when the time is ripe under the powers of the general law. What practical good, therefore, would be done by the Amendment? I suggest to your Lordships that if you put in this limit of a penny rate you will induce people to spend up to the full amount when without it probably they would not spend anything like that for the next five years. Much therefore as I sympathise with the noble Earl, I think, first, he has not taken into consideration the contra account, and, secondly, that if you do have a mechanical limit people will go up to that limit. I suggest therefore that it would be wiser not to impose this mechanical check.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

May I ask the noble and learned Viscount a question? In the example which he gave of a cost of one-tenth of a penny was anything taken into consideration for compensation and the acquisition of land?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have not got the answer to that. I think the answer is no, but I will make inquiries.

The EARL OF HALSBURY

I may in answer to the noble and learned Viscount say first of all that I prefer a mechanical check to no check. Secondly, as I understand it, the noble and learned Viscount says that at the present moment and for the next five years we shall not be spending very much because we shall not be given the really big building operations. If that is so, what is the objection to limiting the sum to a penny in the pound? Preparation does not cost very much. It is when you begin to acquire your land and pay compensation that the money is going to be spent and when

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

It would probably be convenient now to postpone our deliberations until a quarter past nine. I hope that some of your Lordships may find it convenient to come back fairly punctually at that time as there are some important Amendments to be disposed of.

[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: Provided that the powers of borrowing under this section shall not be exercisable until the expiration of three years after the commencement of this Act or such date thereafter as may be determined by Resolution of each House of Parliament, except for the purpose of acquiring land for the provision of public open spaces. The noble Earl said: I beg leave to move this Amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, who greatly regrets that he is unable to be present to-night and who has by no means lost interest in his Amendment. The Amendment provides that no local authority shall be we want the check. In the first five years they will not spend very much but when they begin to spend some limit ought to be applied.

On Question, Whether the said proviso shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 30.

CONTENTS.
Wellington, D.	Morton, E.	Biddulph, L.
	Radnor, E.	Dynevor, L.
Doncaster, E.(D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)		Fairfax of Cameron, L.
	Bertie of Thame, V.	Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Halsbury, E. [Teller.]		Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]	Strachie, L.
Midleton, E.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)	FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Marks, L.
	Hailsham, V.	Marley, L.
Somerset, D.		Mount Temple, L.
	Addington, L.	Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)
Linlithgow, M.	Balfour of Burleigh, L.	Phillimore, L.
	Clinton, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Grey, E.	Cranworth, L.	Rathcreedan, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)	Remnant, L.
Lucan, K. [Teller.]	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)	Snell, L.
Plymouth, E.	Heneage, L.	Stanmore, L.
Stanhope, E.	Jessel, L.	Templemore, L. [Teller.]
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

allowed to borrow for the purposes of this Bid for three years after its passage, or such longer time as Parliament may decide. But an exception is made in favour of schemes for the acquisition of open spaces which may often be a matter of great urgency. The Amendment is of a studiously moderate character and I think of very great importance.

Last night we were informed of the figure for the aggregate local debt of England and Wales. The sum was £1,158,000,000. The noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal asked us to deduct from that a large sum in respect of debt secured by trading or profit-making services and we were asked to make further large reduction in respect of debts secured by housing. I find some difficulty in following the argument which sought to make the debt on housing a profit-making one. If we make those reductions to the full extent we are left with a local debt of £338,000,000. That sum is not evenly spread over the country. There are some honourable and economical local authorities. I believe the County of London is one and there are a certain number of others. But there is a large number of local authorities whose use of their powers of borrowing is what might almost be called reckless.

I would venture to give in a graphic form the figures for one large local authority in the North of England. I will mention the name if challenged to do so. The local debt of this authority in the year 1930 amounted to £60 per head of the population and of that rather more than half was non-productive debt. In 1913 the comparable figure was only £17, so that in seventeen years the debt of that authority was about quadrupled. That position is a very serious one indeed, but I am far from blaming the local authorities themselves for the situation which obtains. It is a constant complaint by members of local authorities that their economies are discouraged and their expenditure encouraged by Whitehall, and I have heard members of local authorities say that a very large share indeed, particularly of the non-productive debt, is due to the direct action of the Government, to the temptations which Parliament in its wisdom has seen fit to lay in their paths. In the present circumstances I need hardly stress the importance of not adding to those temptations, and it might well be a good thing if some clause such as this were added to every Bill which you pass during the present crisis. Let us make a beginning, and a good beginning, with this Bill. I believe that my noble friend Lord Askwith has raised a very important and very urgent matter in this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 11, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

This Amendment follows very closely after the Amendment which I moved. I gave your Lordships some broad views as to why some check ought to be put on this expenditure, and with regard to economic questions. It would of course be entirely wrong that I should inflict those arguments on your Lordships again, but for the reasons which I gave when moving my Amendment I entirely agree with and hope to support this Amendment, which I trust your Lordships will accept.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW

I hardly think the noble Lord who placed this Amendment on the Paper could have left it in better hands than those of the noble Earl who moved it in his place. The debate upon economy, which concluded last evening in your Lordships' House, echoed a public demand for economy in public expenditure, and the urgent need that the central Government, the National Government, should by precept and example do all in its power to encourage local authorities towards retrenchment. It is bad enough that local authorities should be wasteful in schemes adopted of their own motion. It is worse that local authorities are cajoled, or bribed as the noble Earl suggested, by the central Government, by the instrument of grants in aid and so forth; but it is surely worst of all that there should be any risk that. the Minister of the Crown, or the Department of State, should say to a local authority: Whether you like it or whether you do not like it, you shall adopt this scheme, and we insist that you shall undertake the cost of that scheme, and we recognise that you will have to borrow capital sums in order to carry out such scheme.

I may say that I for one am glad that Lord Askwith, in framing his Amendment, was careful to omit from the prohibition against borrowing for three years, borrowing for the purpose of securing to the public open spaces where schemes are being undertaken. I think that is a wise exception, because it seems to me impossible to over-stress the value to the public of such open spaces, whether upon the ground of amenity or of health. And plainly there may be schemes and occasions when the acquisition of such open spaces would not be within the financial resources of local authorities out of revenue, and schemes in which a failure to secure such open spaces in the initial stages of the scheme might lead to those open spaces being built over and being lost to the public for good. In view of the extremely anxious nature of our financial position, I think it well that Parliament should at any rate for a period of time—and I think three years is a prudent period—curb the enthusiasm of local authorities for adding to the debt of the ratepayers in their areas, and I do not think that this embargo against borrowing for only three years need in any way prevent the adoption of reasonable schemes of town planning nor their proper carrying out when adopted.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Before the debate is continued further I would ask your Lordships' leave to move that the House shall resume in order that I may make in this House a statement of great importance which is being made in another place at this moment and which I desire your Lordships to hear at the same time as it is being heard elsewhere. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Hailsham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed accordingly.