Lords Sitting of 7 November 1944

Preamble
The House met at twelve of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  THE LATE LORD O'NEILL.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I have to inform your Lordships that Lord O'Neill has been killed in action in Italy. I am sure the House would wish to join with me in expressing its deepest sympathy with his relatives.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (CANALS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Message of Wednesday last read.
The Message acquainted this House that the Commons have given leave for the suspension of any further proceedings on the Bills in the House of Commons until the next Session of Parliament.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STANMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Message be now considered.
Moved, that the Commons Message be now considered.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which is down on the Order Paper with reference to these two Bills which corresponds to that agreed to in another place. There was some delay in connexion with the opposition to the Bills which had nothing to do with the powers contained in either Bill. Considerable expense has been incurred in both Houses during the Committee stage and it would I think be an injustice if we did not allow the Bills to be carried over to the next Session.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bills which have been introduced into this House in the present Session of Parliament, and which have passed this House and been sent to the House of Commons, shall have leave to introduce the same in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than three o'clock on the day prior to the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon, up to that period, be paid:
That such Bills shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agents, stating that the Bills are the same in every respect as the Bills at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session:
That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro formâ in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session; and that no new fees be charged in respect to such stages:
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to the said Bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have .passed during the present: Session.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered a accordingly.
Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
12.13 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE MINISTER OF RECONSTRUCTION (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Woolton.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, on the Motion to commit this Bill I rise to call attention, as I have given private notice to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that I intended to do, to what I regard as the extremely unsatis-

827
factory nature of the reply to your Lordships' debate last week which we received from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I intend to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House two questions, but as they are rather long, before I read them to your Lordships I ask your Lordships' permission to recall very briefly the course of the debate last week. In moving the Second Reading of his Bill my noble friend the Minister of Reconstruction stuck pretty closely to the Bill, as he was perfectly entitled to do. There followed a debate extending over two days, during the course of which noble Lord after noble Lord got up to complain that there was no indication in this Bill of the Government's long-term national planning policy.
When my noble and learned friend came to reply, I suggest to your Lordships that the least your Lordships' House had the right to expect was a reply which would put this instalment of policy into perspective in connexion with the Government's planning policy. What did we get from my noble and learned friend? Not only did my noble and learned friend not tell us anything about the Government's long-term planning policy, which is now extremely obscure, but he went out of his way, if a literal interpretation can be put upon his words, to throw overboard the whole idea of national planning. Let me read two very short extracts from my noble and learned friend's speech. In reply to something I had said about national planning he said:
"We must, I think, avoid getting into the condition where we speak of national planning as though it were to be brought about by some heavenly body, without any connexion with local committees and the people who live on the part of the land that is going to be affected."
A little later he said:
"Is it not really necessary that, while adequate powers are provided, it should be the local authorities who make the plans, and who get the approval and encouragement and financial support of the central Government and administration to carry them out?"
That my noble and learned friend should indulge in a modified sneer at my efforts in support of national planning leaves me entirely cold. It is a matter of no importance. But it is important that my noble and learned friend should go on to say in so many words that the
828
initiative has got to be with the local authorities and not even to qualify that by saying there is to be some national direction and inspiration.
That is a situation so serious that I have ventured to take this rather unusual course of calling attention to the matter on the Motion to go into Committee. I ventured, in an intervention which my noble and learned friend was courteous enough to allow me to make at the close of his remarks, to refer to the need for some national direction in connexion with the overspill from the great cities. I am greatly obliged to my noble and learned friend because my intervention was perhaps rather a long one. I would like to develop the point. I want to show the need for some national direction of planning by a reference to a plan to deal with overspill from the greatest city of all, that is, London. I wonder how many of your Lordships noticed a week or two ago an unobtrusive little paragraph in the public Press to the effect that the Minister of Health has confirmed the provisional order for compulsory purchase by the London County Council of the Oxhey Estate. What does that mean? Another few thousand acres of green and pleasant land engulfed into the ocean of bricks and mortar, the countryside pushed a mile or two further from the teeming population who may benefit by it.
I am not blaming the London County Council. The London County Council are under extreme urgency to provide for their own overspill and for their immediate post-war plans. They are driven by necessity which I have no doubt has compelled them to take this step. But what next? What after Oxhey? If there is no national direction of planning it can only mean a further expansion of the suburban sprawl extending miles and miles into the countryside, enveloping agricultural land that touches upon the area and, what I feel is the worst feature of the situation, more and more divorcing the people of the towns from access to the countryside. The obverse to Oxhey is, of course, the problem of open spaces in the great towns. I am quite sure many of your Lordships must have felt great sympathy with my noble friend opposite, Lord Latham, when he was pleading the cause of the poorer London boroughs in your Lordships' House last week. He told us that there were ten metropolitan boroughs which, I think, have less than

829
one acre of open space for every thousand persons; some of them have one-tenth of an acre and some one-fifth. That is equivalent to saying that they have no open space at all. In talking about preservation of the countryside and about providing open spaces for children and others to play in, I am talking about things which are very dear to your Lordships' hearts. There is nothing that your Lordships treasure more than the good life in the country and unless we have some degree of national planning that is what is threatened by the lack of policy of His Majesty's Government.
An immense amount of industry was evacuated from London at the beginning of the war. How incomparably better would it not have been had there been some sort of plan instead of indiscriminate evacuation. How immeasurably better would it not be even now if there were a London plan so that the Government could indicate and influence permanent homes for that industry instead of letting it all flock back into congested districts, whence it came. It is not generally realized that plans for a new town, should it be decided to establish such, will take two years from the date when the decision is taken. Your Lordships can see how greatly the shilly-shally of the last two years is going to prejudice permanent arrangements for the proper ordering of Greater London. The Barlow, Uthwatt and Scot Reports have become household words. They have been discussed, perhaps. I might say, with more enthusiasm than knowledge of their contents, but there is another Scott Report of which I wish to remind your Lordships. Mr. Justice Scott was asked, during the last war, to consider and report upon the defects in the existing system of the law and practice involved in the acquisition and valuation of land for public purposes. What became of that Report is history. It may have had some moderate influence on the 1932 Planning Bill. Mr. Justice Uthwatt begins his Report after quoting some paragraphs from the Scott Report, by saying:
"That these paragraphs, although written in 1918, would form a fitting opening to our own Report, is a measure of the failure of the past twenty years to adapt planning policy and methods to the needs of the situation."
I must confess I was disappointed with the reply of my noble and learned friend. I have listened to my noble and learned
830
friend defending national planning so often in the last two or three years that he must forgive me if I had come to the conclusion that he really believed in it himself. I hope I am reading more into those sentences than they really meant, but I cannot afford, and your Lordships' House cannot afford, to leave the matter in doubt. There are two questions therefore which I address to the Leader of the House. They are these. What machinery do the Government propose to coordinate the various Departmental policies for land use and development, and in particular to concert policy with regard to the location of the overspill of industry and population resulting from decongestion of the big towns? The second question is: Will the Government give an undertaking that they will introduce legislation next Session dealing with compensation and betterment on the lines of the White Paper on Land Use or of some improvement of it? Where is the White Paper? We discussed it five or six weeks ago, but so far as I know the Government have not put it clown for discussion in another place. What do the Government really intend to do? Having had some difficulty over the 1939 price, are they going to funk this difficulty about development rights altogether and is that the last we are to hear of it? It looks uncommonly like it.
Naturally I do not ask for a reply to these two questions now. What I suggest is that the Government should think them over and tell your Lordships on the Third Reading of this Bill what the answers are. They are vital to your Lordships' consideration of the principle of this Bill. I think we ought to have had answers to these questions on the last occasion, but I do not press for an answer now. I ask that we shall have a considered answer on the Third Reading of this Bill, and if the answer is not satisfactory I for one shall certainly record my vote against the Third Reading.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, may I say how very glad I am as an ordinary Back-Bencher, who has been considerably troubled during the week-end trying to understand this Bill, to hear the pertinent speech of my noble friend Lord Balfour, because it appears to me we are handing over powers to local authorities—there are local authorities and local authorities—which are not always the best authorities

831
to carry out duties in connexion with national planning.
12.23 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I need not say how sincerely sorry I am that my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh should entertain such strong feelings about the inadequacy of the reply which I made, very late in the afternoon of the second day of the debate on this Bill, to an extremely select collection of your Lordships. I had thought that there was no objection raised to the Second Reading of the Bill, and as it was the Second Reading of the Bill which had been moved and the Second Reading of the Bill which was about to be decided, I had thought that I was entitled to recognize that fact and to reserve discussion on a large number of matters of very considerable importance which we should enter upon more completely at this stage of the Bill. If in the course of my remarks I made some observations which have so much disturbed my noble friend I am sincerely sorry, because that was not by any means my intention. I am grateful to him for having said that he is not asking for an answer now to his specific questions, because although he is absolutely correct in saying that he propounded these questions to my noble friend the Leader of the House, he did so, I understand, on a piece of paper which reached the hands of the noble Earl the Deputy Leader while he was speaking, and as far as I am concerned I have had no communication from him. Therefore your Lordships will probably think I am entitled to a certain measure of indulgence.
I understand from the noble Lord's speech, and more particularly from what he said at the end of it, that he is anxious among other things to know when the White Paper on the Control of Land Use is likely to be debated in another place. He said so in his concluding sentences. When he asked "Where is the White Paper?" he meant in regard to another place. I will give him all the information I have. As far as your Lordships' House is concerned we have had a discussion upon it. Time was found for that, but I gather that time has not been found for it yet in another place. We have no con-
832
trol of the programme in another place, but I feel perfectly confident—and I am prepared to take the risk of giving my noble friend an assurance—that it is the firm intention of the Government to arrange for a debate on this very important White Paper in another place as soon as it can be managed. I do not say it will be debated this Session—I have no right to say anything of the kind—but I am quite sure the matter is not shelved. The Government realize the importance of it, but it is one of a vast number of questions which will have to be considered in another place. Therefore I hope I may give my noble friend some small measure of comfort when I assure him, as I do, that it is the intention of the Government at the earliest moment that can be managed, probably early next Session, to have such a discussion of this White Paper.
My noble friend has spoken with great sincerity and great fervour, and I do not complain if he was a little reproachful to me, as to the relation between national planning and the provisions of the present Bill. I thought that I made a relevant observation, though he did not quote it, in my reply on the last occasion when I reminded him and others that this Bill is an instalment. I think most people recognize it as a necessary instalment. I pointed out that the Government had been forced to bring in this legislation dealing with "blitzed" areas as soon as they could and that that is the primary object of this Bill. The relation between national planning and the provisions of the present Bill is an important question and if everything was to be left until that is settled, this Bill could not be passed into law at once. If, however, this Bill were all, there would be much ground for the criticism which the noble Lord made. But although this is an instalment, the Bill is so drawn that the Minister of Town and Country Planning will exercise control and supervision because of the necessity of having agreement, I will not say at every point, but on a large number of points. The Bill does preserve the situation until more complete provision can be made.
I myself have been most conscious that there is still what we may call a gap as to the intentions of the Government in dealing with the general question of compensation and betterment. I think the noble Lord is deeply interested in that for the

833
reason that he believes that the great enterprise of planning the use of the land of this country in the best interests of the nation will be crowned with final success only when the present state of the law governing compensation and betterment has been corrected and improved, and I am of his own opinion in that respect. I can go further and I can say deliberately that the Government share that view. It would indeed be foolish of me to hesitate on such a point because, of course, in the Paper on the Control of Land Use there is a paragraph—it happens to be paragraph 5—which says so in the plainest terms. The purpose of the Government in publishing the White Paper, as set out clearly in the foreword, was to secure public attention and public discussion on this question. They set out reasons for having made a prolonged and detailed search for a solution which might be broadly acceptable, and they declared their belief that the scheme outlined in the Paper provided the basis of a practical system whereby individual rights of land tenure may be reconciled with the best use of land in the national interest.
The final words of the Foreword were these:
"They present this Paper to Parliament in order to focus public discussion of the difficult issues involved and to assure themselves that there would be a substantial measure of public support for a solution on the lines proposed."
It is the Government's intention that this process of focusing public discussion shall. be carried further with the least possible del We have had, as I have reminded your Lordships, the discussion in this House on the White Paper, and it is, as I have intimated, the Government's hope that there may be found time in the near future, despite the pressure of other business in the House of Commons, for similar discussion there. That will be the next and most necessary step in the direction, I trust, of an agreed solution of what is undoubtedly a highly difficult problem. And I wish to assure the House that the Government are most anxious that the solution should be found without delay.
So much by way of explanation, and I hope that my noble friend will understand that, at the same time, I am endeavouring to make some amends for what he seems to feel was an omission, or perhaps a misunderstanding, on the Second Reading. I venture to say that I
834
think your Lordships will agree that it would have been a profound error of judgment on the part of the Government if they had delayed further the introduction of planning legislation until agreement had been reached on the vastly complicated subjects of compensation and betterment. In view of the fact that the Motion for the Second Reading was carried without a dissentient voice I take it that that is the opinion of this House We were perfectly right in presenting to Parliament, simultaneously with the White Paper on the general subject of the Control of Land Use, a Bill which is designed to provide for special needs, most urgent needs, arising directly out of the war, in order that local authorities may be able to secure redevelopment of both devastated and obsolescent areas on sound planning lines without waiting for agreement to be reached. It would not, perhaps, be too easy for agreement to be reached on those wider and still more controversial issues of compensation and betterment and the relations between them.
That is the true background. I am very willing to believe—and I am sorry for it—that my language may have been careless in sketching in the background, when I spoke last Wednesday, and that I may have seemed to have sketched it in in some different way. Lord Balfour of Burleigh is, of course, perfectly entitled to call attention to that, and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity for making plain, I hope, what is the Government's position on that matter. Our object is to get this Bill carried through with the least possible delay after your Lordships have considered it in Committee, in order that, at least, this instalment of land reform which this Government is endeavouring to bring about may be brought about. I am sorry for having had to take up these few minutes of your Lordships' time in this way, but, after all, I had to answer. I hope that I have done so with complete good temper, and that I have spoken to the point. I trust that your Lordships may shortly be prepared to accept the Motion that this House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
12.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I wish to detain your Lordships for a few moments only but I cannot refrain from expressing deep concern at the concluding observations of the noble and learned

835
Viscount who sits on the Woolsack. He emphasized two or three times over that the Government's further progress in these matters must depend upon agreement being reached. Not once or twice, but three or four times, he said that this matter of compensation and betterment and the future larger development of town planning must depend upon agreement being reached. This means that a veto is to be placed in the hands of those interests specially affected. That has been the subject of our complaint during the last four years, when we have vehemently and repeatedly objected to the prolonged procrastination in dealing with this matter, and asserted the view that it was due to the fact that the Government was unable to move unless it had complete or, at all events, substantial agreement between the various parties and interests affected. So long as that continues, so long there may be this delay and inaction. Therefore, I think it my duty to raise a protest at this stage against the whole development of national policy being made dependent upon the consent of all the parties affected.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I would like to say a few words in reply to the noble Viscount who has just spoken. I seem to be singularly unfortunate in my endeavours to make my meaning plain. The stipulation that agreement should be reached does not mean that every interest in the country should be of one mind. It means that you cannot carry legislation of this sort through unless there be, as a result of discussion and exchange of views, .a plan which can be worked out which will command the support of the great mass of the country. That is all I meant to say.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
12.40 p.m.
Clause 1:
Designation of areas of extensive war damage, and of land needed for re-location of population and industries of such areas.
(2) Where the Minister is satisfied that land is or will be required for the purpose of providing for re-location of population or industry, or for replacement of open space…
In this Act the expression "re-location of population or industry" means, in relation to an area of extensive war damage, rendering available elsewhere than in that area, whether in an existing community or in a community
836
to be newly established, accommodation for residential purposes or for the carrying on of business or other activities, together with all appropriate public services, facilities for recreation, worship and amenity and other requirements, being accommodation to be rendered available for persons or undertakings who are living or carrying on business or other activities in that area…
(4) Where a local planning authority have taken into consideration for the purposes of this section the question of the laying out afresh and redevelopment as a whole of a part of their area, or the question of providing in any locality for re-location of population or industry or for replacement of open space, they shall publish in one or more newspapers circulating in their area a notice stating that they are considering the said question and describing in general terms the situation of the part of their area or the locality, and shall not make an application for an order under this section as respects that part of their area or that locality, as the case may be, before the expiration of two months from the date on which a notice has been published or first published in relation thereto in pursuance of the subsection.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON had given Notice that he would move, in the second paragraph of subsection (2), to substitute "worship, recreation" for "recreation, worship." The right reverend Prelate said: Since I put this Amendment down, another point has occurred to me. I think that in an Act of Parliament the proper wording should be "public worship" and not "worship." Worship may be either public or private, and in so far as it is a private act it requires no facilities from anybody. I therefore ask leave to move the Amendment in the form of leaving out the words "recreation, worship," and inserting the words "public worship, recreation." I trust that this Amendment will at once win universal consent. The Bill refers to "facilities for recreation, worship and amenity." I do not think that the Committee will feel that it is fitting or suitable that in such a catalogue worship, the obligation owed to God, should come second to recreation, which is an amenity enjoyed by man for his own sake. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("recreation, worship") and insert ("public worship, recreation").—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government are prepared to accept this Amendment with the change, which seems to me to be an improvement, just suggested by the right reverend Prelate.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, in subsection (4), to substitute "one month" for "two months." The noble Lord said: Subsection (4) of this clause was added to the Bill in the Report stage in the House of Commons, and provides for two months' notice being given before application is made to the Minister under this clause. During the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, various Amendments were made at the instance of the Minister, simplifying and expediting the procedure under the Bill with regard to compulsory purchase orders and local inquiries, these Amendments being made as a result of his discussions with representatives of the local authorities. On October r8 in another place the Minister, in moving an Amendment to give effect to an undertaking in the Committee stage, said:
"My desire, and the desire of the House, will be that local authorities should co-operate at the earliest possible moment with all important interests in their locality, so that their project for reconstruction will bear some close and real resemblance to the needs and wishes of their constituents."
That was supported by the Parliamentary Secretary, who said that he was anxious to secure that it should not be made a burdensome or cumbersome requirement on local authorities, but should help to secure what was already the practice of the best local authorities—namely, the consultation of all proper interests in advance.
Although consultation is desirable, it should be borne in mind that war-damaged areas will be somewhat different from those dealt with in an ordinary town planning scheme, in that the proposal will deal with a devastated area which has to be redeveloped as a whole. If the giving of two months' notice of the intention to apply for an order is to enable negotiations to take place and modifications to be made in the proposal, it will operate to delay the submission; on the other hand, if the notice is intended to serve only as a warning of what the local authority propose to do, the time is too long and will lead to delay in submitting the application. It is therefore thought that the period of notice might be reduced from two months to one month. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 6, leave out ("two months") and insert ("one month").—(Lord Ammon.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend has very clearly expressed the proposal which he makes, but I would ask the Committee not to make the change. It is necessary to look at the subsection in which this occurs, which is subsection (4), on page 2. I will read it:
"Where a local planning authority have taken into consideration for the purposes of this section the question of the laying out afresh and redevelopment as a whole of a part of their area, or the question of providing in any locality for re-location of population or industry or for replacement of open space, they shall publish in one or more newspapers circulating in their area a notice stating that they are considering the said question and describing in general terms the situation of the part of their area or the locality, and shall not make an application for an order under this section as respects that part of their area or that locality, as the case may be, before the expiration of two months from the date on which a notice has been published or first published in relation thereto in pursuance of this subsection."
The application, of course, is the application to the Minister under subsection (1) that an order may be made for declaring, that the land is subject to compulsory purchase.
Subsection (4), I understand, was put into the Bill during the Report stage in the House of Commons, although the principle of it had been accepted before. This principle is clearly right, because if a local planning authority is proposing to make an application which may result in an order by the Minister declaring that the land is subject to compulsory purchase being made, it is only right that there should be some notice given to those in the neighbourhood of what is afoot The sole question is whether the notice should be given two months as a minimum before the application is made, or one month. I should expect in the working of the Bill that an energetic authority would probably make the announcement a good deal earlier than two months beforehand. Its object is to carry people with it and to make it clear to those to whom it is responsible that it has plans afoot and wants to carry them through. This is a notice in quite general terms, and not at all to be confused with the plans which are laid before the Minister. It does not involve publishing any map or plan, and it does not give any new right of objection. It has the good and' democratic purpose of informing everybody concerned in the area of the kind of

839
thing which the local authority is going to ask the Minister to authorize.
What remains is a practical point on which I do not presume to speak with special authority, but it is one which we can all judge. The practical question is whether it is reasonable to say that that should be done two months before the application is actually made. It may be done at any time of the year, and it may be that those who are interested in the land are also interested in some rival plan and are not immediately available. Is not it reasonable to say that the local authority shall not make their application until they have given this general announcement of what their intention is? The effect of the Amendment would simply be to reduce the period for such local consideration and perhaps for the submission of suggestions from two months to one month. The view taken by those who are informing me on this matter—I do not claim to be an expert myself—is that it is perfectly reasonable to say two months, and that nothing much would be gained by altering the period to one month.
LORD LATHAM: The effect of this subsection will be to delay the work of local planning authorities. Even without this provision the Minister would not proceed to make a declaratory order without public notice, because by paragraph (a) of subsection (7) of this clause the Minister, before making the order, must give appropriate notice in the Gazette and otherwise, and when it comes to the actual acquisition—that is to say, the confirmation of the compulsory purchase order—under Part I of the Second Schedule the local authority is required again to advertise. This new subsection will hamper and delay the work of the local authority. If the object of the two months' notice is to permit of negotiation and consultation with the interests concerned, then two months is quite inadequate for schemes which may embrace relatively large areas of built-up cities. It is a little difficult to discern what were the reasons which led the Minister to introduce this subsection. It had not been discussed with the- local authorities. In his statement in another place, the Minister seemed to be concerned about the needs and wishes of constituents, which are not necessarily the same as interests, whereas the Parliamentary Secre-
840
tary in another place seemed to be concerned that the local authorities should consult all proper interests. Now as regards constituents they are consulted and what the council or planning authority proposes to do is made available at the open council meetings, at which the Press are by law entitled to be present.
At what point does the intention to make an application commence? Is it when the appropriate town planning committee starts to consider a recommendation to the council that certain redevelopment should be done in a specified area, or does the intention crystallize only when the council have approved it? If the latter then the public will have had notice, because there will have been a public meeting of the council. We are very concerned that this subsection will delay the work of planning authorities, especially in areas where there are many and, in some cases, large devastated areas. If it is for the purpose of consultation with interests it is much too short. If it is for the purpose of giving notice to constituents we submit that it is unnecessary. We should prefer—and I think the local authorities would prefer—that this subsection were omitted from the Bill, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, has said, we had no great hopes of that. We have sought, therefore, by this Amendment to minimize the delay and, if I may say so, the damage which in fact its appearance in the Bill may do.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. It is really consequential on changes made in the Bill in the House of Commons, but all the consequential changes in the draft were not made in that House.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, leave out ("replacements") and insert ("re-location of population or industry, or for replacement of open space").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is purely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 14, leave out ("as aforesaid") and insert ("by Gazette and local advertisement").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
12. 54 p.m.
Clause 2:
Power to purchase land for re-development of areas of extensive war damage, or needed for re-location of population and industries of such areas.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, a local planning authority may be authorized in manner aforesaid to purchase compulsorily any land in their area which is in an area of extensive war damage, notwithstanding that no order under Section one of this Act is in force in relation thereto, if—

(a) the Minister is satisfied that its acquisition by the authority will be required for the purpose of dealing satisfactorily with the damage whatever may be decided as to the manner in which the land is to be laid out and used, and that the postponement of the acquisition thereof would be prejudicial to the public interest; and

(b) the order authorizing the purchase is submitted to the Minister before the expiration of two years from the date appointed under subsection (1) of the preceding section.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The purpose of the first Amendment to this clause is really to assimilate the language here to the language used in other parts of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5 line 9, after ("made") insert ("by the authority")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to substitute "five years" for "two years." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment on the Paper. It will bring the Bill back to the form in which it was when it was introduced. This relates to the time which is allowed to elapse before the local planning authority may be authorized to purchase land, etc., in their area under the expedited procedure in the Bill. Originally the general scheme of the Bill was that, in view of the very extensive damage which has been done in some places and of the very prolonged negotiations which must take place with a very large number of authorities, a period of at least live years was required. So it was defended by the Minister in charge of the Bill, but for some reason which I have never been able to ascertain, he accepted an Amendment on the Report stage to limit this period to two years, curtailing five years to two. My submission is that the Bill as it was
842
originally introduced was right and that two years is too short a period.
If we think even in sketch of what will be involved on the part of an authority in an extensively damaged area in preparing schemes, in negotiating with the different interests concerned, in taking care that it gets its plans right, that it adjusts itself to public requirements and is as reasonable as possible in all its exceedingly complicated business (and nobody knows how or when it will end, or the circumstances, and so on) it is to my mind quite unthinkable that, unless the thing is going to be improperly rushed in a large number of places, the work can be done in two years. I do not think it will be possible with the best will in the world to get all this complicated business transacted before the expiration of two years. Let me read what the Minister himself said on this very point. He was explaining why five years were necessary.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: On what date?
LORD ADDISON: October 3. The Minister himself said that if local authorities were to make a proper job of it (they might, for instance, apply for too much land) at all events they ought to have good time to work out where their roads and everything else should be, to avoid ill-digested applications, and so on. He made a very reasonable statement, with which I entirely agree, that five years will at least be necessary in a large number of cases.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Was that on Clause 2?
LORD ADDISON: That is right. I understand that it was. There was an Amendment on the Committee stage. On the Committee stage the Minister resisted the Amendment but for some reason which I cannot make out—though I have read his speech—he agreed that the five years should be reduced to two on the Report stage. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will be able to explain it. However, it is quite evident to me that whatever the Minister may have said or may not have said, two years is too short. I am quite sure it is too short for a local authority to gets its application in order, before it is submitted to the Minister; but if it has to submit its application to enable it to take advantage of the procedure of this Bill within two

843
years—which is the proposal here which I am discussing—it will certainly mean that in a large number of cases you will have rushed applications, you will have applications which have not been properly thought out; and I submit that the period of five years as originally printed in the Bill was the right period. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, leave out ("two") and insert ("five").—(Lord Addison.)
12.59 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not differ from my noble friend Lord Addison, that there has been a certain amount of what may be called confusion in expounding this clause, but if your Lordships will be good enough to give me your attention for two or three minutes I am confident that I can show that there is good reason in using this shorter period of two years. Even now (I say it with the sincerest respect to the noble Lord) I doubt whether he has quite apprehended what it is which Clause 2 provides. At any rate he will forgive me if I do a little rather elementary exposition. The normal procedure of the Bill is under Clause 1, with the five years; and under that procedure it is necessary for the local planning authority which is making an application to the Minister, to present not merely a map showing what area it wants to take but—what is a far more elaborate thing—the map or maps which show what it intends to do with the area, and my noble friend referred incidentally to roads. That is perfectly correct under Clause 1; I will cite the words if necessary, but I think that will be understood.
Therefore if you are going to have the normal procedure, before the local authority is in a position to ask the Minister to give it the necessary formal authority it has to work out its plan and has to present to the Minister the scheme that it has got—for London or wherever it may be. Clause 2 deals with a totally different situation. There will be cases in which it is very important to get authority to purchase an utterly smashed up area before ever it has been possible to work out the plan. If you do not purchase this shattered area quickly and at once all sorts of interests may arise, all sorts of difficulties may trip you up, and Clause 2 is designed for the case where, because of that need for urgency, the local
844
planning authority asks for authority to buy the area without ever producing a plan at all. That is the distinction, and I think, once that is really appreciated, my noble friend will see it. He is much too candid to shake his head.
I have no doubt about it because I was as much confused as he was by reading what was said in the House of Commons, so I am not in the least claiming to be superior about it. But if one really looks into it, one will see that is right, and that is why the shorter period appears to be right too. Under Clause 1, the normal case, you have to get an order from the Minister declaring that the land should be subject to compulsory purchase for dealing with war damage, and you have five years in which to do it. But in subsection (6) you have to accompany your application with maps showing what you intend to acquire and—what is much more important—with maps and details which show how you intend to use the area, both as regards the internal arrangements and in relation to the layout of neighbouring areas. That is a tremendous job. One knows in the London case what an enormous amount of work has been put into it. But if you look at Clause 2—and this really was not understood on the Second Reading and that is my excuse for being a little insistent now—Clause 2 has nothing to do with that. Clause 2 is the case where the local authority shows the Minister (may I call attention to page 5 line 21?) that the postponement of the acquisition of the area would be prejudicial to the public interest, because it is very important for the local authority to lay hands on it quickly; and consequently a local planning authority may be authorized to purchase compulsorily "notwithstanding that no order under Section I of this Act is in force in relation thereto."
That is the case that has been provided for here. I am sure that Lord Latham would agree. If you take Shore-ditch, which has been swept by bombs, the most important thing there is to acquire the land at once, and consider the details of how it may all be worked out thereafter, and that is the object of Clause 2. That power to act quickly on grounds of urgency, must, I think, of necessity be for a period which is shorter than the period of five years. If indeed Clause 2 could also be used for five years there would be no particular reason for

845
having Clause 1. What is the good of stipulating that you must produce your plans before the Minister if you can get the lard equally well without producing your plans? I am not sure that what I have said is the best way of persuading my noble friend, but I hope he will understand that it is meant in the kindest way. If he will refer to what he said on this matter on the Second Reading he will see that at that moment the matter was not completely appreciated. What he said was this:
"The orders subjecting to purchase land required by local authorities for replanning purposes in areas extensively war damaged …must be made within five years."
That is not quite right, it is not the order which must be made, but the application-. He goes on:
"If your Lordships will look at Clause 2 (2) (b) you will find that the application for the order must have been made before the expiration of two years."
That is not so at all. The application could be made within five years under the normal procedure of Clause 1 and accompanied by plans for the future; but if there be a case in which it is thought urgently necessary to acquire the land, saying nothing about how it is going to be used hereafter, you acquire it so that it may be stripped and be ready as a site when proposals as to how to use it come forward later, then you may do it within the two years.
There is a manifest inconsistency between saying that Clause 2 confers this power because the matter is urgent, and at the same moment saying it may be done with the same degree of delay as though it were the principal and normal method under Clause 1. I am not in the least acting as an advocate here; I really want, like everybody else, to make the Bill right, as far as I can, and on this there has been a good deal of misunderstanding. It was not till after I had sat down and read it and asked questions about it that I understood it myself at all. I think some of the language that was used about it was a little difficult to follow, but that is the true explanation, and I hope I have shown the Committee, which is always reasonable in these matters, that there really is a good reason for reducing this period to two years.
1.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I say a word about what has fallen from the
846
noble Viscount? His explanation of the difference between Clause 1 and Clause 2 (2) is precisely in accord with my view as to what is the true conception of these two clauses, which I have read very carefully. Therefore I think that my noble friend Lord Addison perhaps did not quite appreciate, in the maze of this legislation, exactly the point which was raised by Clause 2 (2). But may I suggest this to my noble and learned friend, that, after all, there is a good deal of difference between two years and five years, and it is conceivable that after the expiration of the two years the local planning authority may come to the conclusion that there is some land which they do urgently need, while at the same time they cannot make their application under Clause 1 for another year or two? In those circumstances I suggest, without pressing it in the least, that the Lord Chancellor should undertake to consider before the Report stage whether he will not substitute the word "three" for the word "two." I think that would be a little more convenient perhaps to the local planning authority.
1.10 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: In the view of the local planning authorities, as represented by their respective associations, the curtailment of the period during which Clause 2 (2) is to operate from five to two years does serious injury to the Bill, and will make very difficult the discharge by the local planning authorities of their duties. I do not think my noble friend Lord Addison misunderstood the situation at all and I would like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for a speech which, as to three parts of it, was admirably in support of the Amendment. The position is this, that when local authorities were considering this novel procedure of declaration as embodied in Clause 1 of the Bill they were concerned that in many districts it would not be physically possible to do what is required, either within the five years, or by the time by which they needed to acquire certain land. They pointed out that the detail required to accompany the declaration may be very voluminous and may need a good deal of time to prepare. The Minister accepted that submission and sought to remove the danger, in the case of an area which was likely to be declared (although a site ought to be acquired at once in the public interest), that the local

847
authority would nevertheless have to wait until all the declaratory procedure had been completed.
I can assure your Lordships that in certain areas the completion of this declaratory procedure will be no simple or short matter, especially having regard to the multiplication of various property interests. The local authorities therefore rested upon that assurance, and indeed when the Bill was first introduced it contained the proposal that it should operate for five years. There is no inconsistency, if I may say so with every respect to the noble and learned Viscount, in having the same period—namely, five years—both as regards the main provisions of Clause 1 and as regards the special provision of Clause 2. Even in the third, fourth or fifth year, during which Clause 1 will be applicable, there may be land which it is urgently necessary to secure in the public interest but the local authorities may not even then have been able to conform to, and go through, the procedure provided in Clause 1. It was because of that that the local authorities were—I will not say insistent, that would not perhaps be the right word, but represented most solidly and most firmly to the Minister that for the period of five years there should be this special procedure. This special procedure is intended to apply only at the instance of the Minister in special cases, as he said in another place, where it is in the public interest—and where the scheme as a whole has been approved by the local authority—that it should be able to buy a particular parcel of land.
This reduction to two years places local authorities—not only planning authorities but it may well be housing authorities—in a very serious position. Speaking in another place on 4th October last, the Minister referred to the importance of local authorities getting land which might be necessary for rehousing and re-establishing our people. Save as regards one detailed element of the procedure called referencing, this clause as amended gives local authorities, as regards housing, nothing that they have not got already, because under the Housing (Temporary Provisions) Act the public inquiry procedure does not operate for two years. But we are concerned with what the situation will be after two years. We shall have on the one hand, unless it be otherwise
848
continued, the Housing (Temporary Provisions) Act in respect of housing coming to an end and the obligation generally to hold public inquiries coming again into force in respect of the acquisition of land for housing, and we shall have this clause also coming to an end after two years. I beg your Lordships to remember that two years in connexion with the promotion of a housing scheme is a relatively short period having regard to all the procedure steps which have to be taken. At the end of two years we shall neither have power under this clause nor under the Housing (Temporary Provisions) Act. It is not the case, if I may say so with every respect, that because other provisions in the Bill were amended in another place to secure a speed up of procedure (which I willingly admit was the case, and for which I am sure local authorities are thankful) we do not need this Amendment.
In the discussion which followed the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, we were never given to understand that if another place accepted Amendments in regard to procedure, the consequence would be that the Minister himself would take three years out of the five years during which this clause would operate. It means in many cases, especially in regard to housing—it is not improper for me to say this in respect of housing which will become more acute than it is now—that at the end of two years we shall be thrown back as far as the acquisition of land is concerned, upon the public inquiry and the referencing, because the Housing (Temporary Provisions) Act will have expired and so will this clause. Nobody believes, I am sure the Minister of Reconstruction does not believe, that we shall have got very far in the solution of the acute housing problem by the end of two years. It is a long-term policy and there must be a long-term programme.
I beg your Lordships to look at this Amendment in the light not only of general considerations but in the light of the obligation which faces local authorities and the country at large with regard to housing. If the noble and learned Viscount would like to reconsider the position in view of what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, to see whether on reconsidera-

849
tion the original five years, or at least some period more than two years, cannot be provided I am sure my noble friend and we on this Bench, and also the local planning authorities outside, would be most grateful.
1.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble and learned Viscount explained very clearly why this procedure in Clause 2 is necessary—namely, that the local authorities should not be required to go through the whole process which may take the whole five years before having special powers to apply to the compulsory acquisition of particular areas of land, but he did not explain why that special procedure should be limited to two years. What reason is there why the powers should not proceed continuously during the five years in order that any special cases might be dealt with whenever they arise? But to compromise on three years would be better than to leave it as it is. I do not see, however, why the period should not be the same for both Clause 1 and Clause 2.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I:ay one word in support of the suggestion that we should have a longer period than two years?
LORD WOOLTON: May I help the debate by saying I am prepared to accept three years?
LORD ADDISON: I was waiting to hear what Lord Balfour of Burleigh had to say, but if my noble friend says he is going to accept the Amendment, naturally I will hold my peace.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I was only going to support the view that it ought to be more than two years, because of my intimate knowledge of the great length of time that these housing schemes take. But I will not detain your Lordships.
LORD ADDISON: I still am exactly of the same opinion as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I cannot see why it should not be five years, the same as Clause 1. I am quite sure that some local authorities when they put their application in will make themselves sure by applying for more than they really want. Some noble Lords opposite are extremely anxious that the local authorities should not do too drastic things, but I am sure, if I were a leading spirit of a local autho-
850
rity and had to rush my application in I should take good care that I applied for plenty. I think it will be probably found that that will be the case. Does not the noble Lord think, in the interests of sensible forms of application, that it should not be less than five years? I was not under any misapprehension although I did not quite express myself clearly as to the difference between Clauses 2 and I read them over very many times before I got hold of their meaning.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: You should not read them too often if you want to understand them.
LORD ADDISON: I accept that. Being an old Parliamentarian I will say that we are prepared to accept small mercies and if we cannot get the bigger one I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, will accept three years.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the Amendment is moved to substitute "three" for "two" I will accept it.
LORD ADDISON: Then I will withdraw the original Amendment and move in that form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(Lord Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment, in subsection (4), is a drafting Amendment and the object is to make quite clear that the proviso applies to the quantum of the price and not only to the method of determining it.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, leave out from ("agreement") to ("his") in line 4, and insert ("at the like price, to be determined in the like manner, as if the purchase were compulsory").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential on an Amendment made in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 5, leave out ("subsection (1) or (2) of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 9 agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think it would be convenient if we adjourned now for a short interval for lunch.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past one o'clock and resumed at twenty minutes past two o'clock.

DEATH OF LORD MOYNE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): Your Lordships will have heard the tragic news of the death of Lord Moyne, His Majesty's Resident Minister in the Middle East, who was shot by terrorists outside his house in Cairo yesterday. The assassins were pursued and arrested, and are now in custody. His Majesty's Government have as yet received no official information as, to the authorship of this shocking crime, nor have we any clue as to its motive. The murderers themselves narrowly escaped lynching at the hands of Egyptian passersby, and the Egyptian Government have stated that they were not Egyptian subjects. Very searching inquiries will be made into the origins and associations of these strangers to Egypt, and the House will be given the fullest information as soon as it has been obtained.
I know how deep will be the grief of your Lordships at the severe loss which this House and the country have sustained. It will, I am sure, be your wish that tributes should be paid to Lord Moyne's memory, and I suggest that an appropriate time will present itself at the beginning of business to-morrow.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I would say that we entirely agree.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
2.23 p.m.
House again in Committee:
[THE LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 10:
Power to purchase land for certain planning purposes.
10.—(1) A local planning authority may be authorized by an order made by the authority and submitted to the Minister and confirmed by him in accordance with the provisions of
852
Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act to purchase compulsorily any land as to which the Minister is satisfied that its acquisition by the authority is expedient on the ground that land is or will be required—

(a) as a site for development of a class which is needed for the proper planning of the area of the authority, whether in its existing state or as intended, in order to secure a proper balance between development of that class and development of other classes;

and that the land in question ought to be made available for meeting that requirement:
Provided that a local planning authority shall not be authorized under this subsection to acquire land to meet a requirement falling within paragraph (a), (c) or (d) thereof if the Minister is satisfied that the nature of the requirement and other circumstances are not such as to render it expedient in the public interest that the land used for meeting the requirement should have been acquired by a local planning authority, that a person other than a local planning authority is able and willing to meet the requirement at such time and in such manner as may be requisite, and that land is available therefor on reasonable terms.
LORD BALFOUR OE BURLEIGH: The three Amendments which stand in my name should be considered together. It might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I read this paragraph—it is paragraph (a) in subsection (1) of Clause 10 and appears on page 16—as it would stand if these small Amendments were accepted. It would read as follows:
"(a) as a site for develpment of any class which is needed for the proper planning of the area of the authority, whether in its existing state or as intended, in order to secure a proper balance of development."
My object in putting down the Amendments is slightly to widen the effect of the words which, I think, are too restrictive as they stand. If they stood as they are in the Bill it would be necessary for the local authority to specify the exact purpose for which the land is required, and I think that in the interests of the elasticity of good development in changing circumstances—because circumstances will change and one development will follow another—it is advisable slightly to widen these words.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Agreed.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Is the noble and learned Viscount going to accept the amendments?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Then perhaps I may just point out that these words do not really fit in with the Housing Act of 1936 which gives very much wider powers to local authorities. If any one of your Lordships has any doubt about that let him refer to Section 73 of the Housing Act of 1936. As I understand that my noble and learned friend is prepared to accept these Amendments I will not take up the time of the House further.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 8, leave out the second ("a") end insert ("any").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble fiend Lord Balfour of Burleigh did, I think, mention this point on the Second Reading. I have looked into it, and. I am very glad to be able to accept his proposals.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 11, leave out ("between") and insert ("of")
Page 16, line 11, leave out from ("development") to end of line 12.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
2.28 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (1). The noble Lord said: I hope that I may be no less fortunate as regards this Amendment than my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh was with his Amendments. I will not for one moment say that Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Amendments were not important, but this Amendment really goes to the root of one aspect of planning in this country. It seeks to leave out the proviso of Clause 10 at page 16, a proviso which, I may say, was not in the Bill as it was introduced in another place. It ties up with Clause 18 (3), where restrictions are placed on local planning authorities as to the development which they may wish to carry out, and, as will be within the recollection of the Committee, the associations of local authorities strongly protested, in the statement which was issued, against the Minister seeking, or being directed rather, not to consent to development unless he was satisfied that there was no oher person willing and able to carry out this development. This proviso is of the same order. It will be observed that whereas in the terms of the clause the
854
local planning authority may be authorized to do certain things, this proviso states that "a local planning authority shall not be authorized under this subsection to acquire land to meet a requirement falling within paragraph (a), (c) or (d)." Those paragraphs, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has pointed out, are designed to give planning authorities an opportunity of doing positive planning and not merely negative planning, but this proviso is going to make the exercise of this positive power of planning dependent upon whether there is a person "able and willing" to carry out that development.
The local authorities take the view that that will very seriously restrict the capacity of local planning authorities to do positive planning; and if there is one single cause for the unplanned and untidy state of this country, it is that up to the present planning authorities have had no power to plan positively. The only power that they have had has been to regulate what other people might wish to do—a kind of negative planning. This proviso, which was introduced, as I have said, after the Bill was first presented in another place, will seriously restrict this very desirable positive planning. It is, I think, pertinent to inquire by what means the Minister hopes to find out whether there is a person "able and willing" to carry out the development in the way that the local authority, with the Minister's approval, would desire that it should be carried out. Who is to find this willing and able person? Is it to be the Minister, or is it to be the local authority? By what means is it to be done? In any case it cannot fail to lead to delay, and it will really seriously hamper the powers of local planning authorities in carrying out ordered, tidy and comprehensive development.
There seems to be behind this proviso, as also behind Clause 18 (3), a fear and a misgiving about local authorities owning land. As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, pointed out in the debate in your Lordships' House on September 27, many of the large cities of this country own considerable land within their boundaries. For instance, Leeds owns a quarter of its area, Liverpool about one-third and Huddersfield almost two-fifths. The London County Council owns a good deal of land both within the county and outside, and has been responsible, with the

855
metropolitan borough councils, for the provision within the last twenty years of no fewer than 132,000 dwellings. Why this proviso should be put in the Bill, except on the notion that it is wrong for a local authority to own land, I do not know. Especially is it wrong, apparently, in the minds of some people, and indeed almost wicked, that a local authority should carry out development of a remunerative order. The person who is "able and willing" will be able and willing to carry it out only because he will see some profit in the development. If there be no profit in the development there will be no person coming forward willing to carry it out, and that unprofitable development will be left to the local authorities, as of course it has been in the past. The local authorities take the view that if they are to carry out, as they must, unremunerative development, they should not be forbidden, as this proviso will forbid them, to carry out development which may he of a remunerative order. It is only fair that they should have such opportunities as arise in the redevelopment and replanning of their areas to offset unremunerative by remunerative development.
It is perhaps not inappropriate for me to point out that in a subsequent Amendment, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, there is a reference to derelict land. The local authorities can have the derelict land; an Amendment has been put down empowering them to acquire derelict land. Land which has gone derelict has done so as a rule because there is no profit in its development and no profit in tidying it up, and so it has been left undeveloped and derelict. An Amendment has been submitted by the Minister of Reconstruction empowering the local authorities to buy that land. We do submit, in all equity, that the proviso of which I am speaking will hamper proper development under the Bill, and notably under this clause, and that it is unfair that local authorities should be allowed to develop only the unremunerative elements in planning and redevelopment, while private enterprise can come along and take the plums. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, leave out lines 32 to 41.—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: There are two points that I want to make on this Amend-
856
ment. The first is that this is one of the fewoccasions in this Bill when private enterprise is given the least chance. I feel strongly that private enterprise should have just as much chance to play its part in the future development of this country as have the local authorities, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, in the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. As I pointed out on that occasion, private enterprise has between the two wars provided three-quarters of the houses which were built during that period.
LORD LATHAM: But not to let.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Not necessarily to let, but many of them were to let.
LORD LATHAM: Very few.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The second point that I want to make is that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, as I suppose is natural with him, is thinking in terms of towns and towns only, whereas this Bill deals with the whole area of England.
LORD ADDISON: This Bill relates only to areas which have been destroyed or damaged. It does not relate to the whole of England; I wish it did.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am sorry; I withdraw. I did not read it with sumcient care.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think that we must, in considering this Amendment, consider the powers which local authorities already have under the Housing Acts. Under Section 80 of the Housing Act of 1936, the powers of local authorities include power
"…to provide and maintain—any building adapted for use as a shop, any recreation grounds, or other buildings or land which in the opinion of the Minister will serve a beneficial purpose in connexion with the requirements of the persons for whom the housing accommodation is provided."
In Section 73 of the same Act there is a whole catalogue of what the local authorities can do. Having acquired the land they can use it for lease or sale
"…with a view to the use thereof for purposes which in the opinion of the local authority are necessary or desirable for, or incidental to, the development of the land as a building estate, including the provision, maintenance, and improvement of houses and gardens, factories, workshops, places of worship,

857
places of recreation, and other works or buildings for, or for the convenience of, persons belonging to the working-classes and other persons."
Why in the name of goodness should the local authorities not be allowed to develop their land? I have already told your Lordships that I do not agree with the acquisition of these large blocks of freehold by the local authority. I do not think it is the best way to do it. But that is what is in the Bill, and if you are going to do it it seems awfully shortsighted to stop the local authority making the best use by development of this land. Consequently I am bound to say I do support my noble friend opposite.
2.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend Lord Radnor had no reason to apoligize for or to withdraw his observations. Clause 10 is, as he correctly said, a clause as wide as its language indicates. It is not in any way limited to an urban arca—not in the least. I am afraid must disappoint the noble Lori opposite on this occasion, because this Amendment, I venture to suggest to the Committee, ought not to be accepted. This is certainly a difficult Bill to follow—undoubtedly that is true—and I am not quite sure that I myself have followed the observation just made by my noble friend Lord Balfour. At any rate let me put an illustration of what is here involved. The issue is undoubtedly whether, where it is not necessary to invoke compulsory powers at all, it tolerable that two private persons should agree with one another. I do not deny hat if the local authority used compulsory powers it could acquire land for various purposes here. But supposing that the situation is one in which it is not necessary to invoke compulsory powers I at present fail to see why we should provide in the Bill that such powers should exist.
Let me give a simple illustration. Supposing a local planning authority plans a road and, in order to carry out that plan, it will be inevitable that a private person who has a building in the line .of that road must give it up. That is quite all right. There the public interest mist come first and, subject to the special provisions protecting individuals, the local authority of course can get authority to make its road, and the private individual must give up his property
858
which is in the line of the read. But the private individual may want land elsewhere in substitution for the land which he has given up. If the private person can get the land elsewhere by agreement with a person who will sell it to him, why should the local planning authority insist: "You must not do that; we must have the power to buy out the person who is going to sell it to you and then we will provide you with the land on" (no doubt) "proper terms"? Why should the local planning authority insist on acquiring something compulsorily which the person who is dispossessed is able to acquire by private treaty? That, as Lord Latham perfectly fairly and quite frankly said, is an issue between private property and municipal compulsory purchase, and the proviso is a proviso that, while the local planning authority shall have the power certainly to expropriate compulsorily in order to find the land that is needed in substitution for the land that has been evacuated, it shall not be authorized to do it "if the Minister is satisfied that the nature of the requirement and other circumstances are not such as to render it expedient in the public interest that the land used for meeting the requirement should have been acquired by the local planning authority."
If what was happening was that the local planning authority, in the course of making the road, would have to shift, let us say, a community centre so that the community centre would have to be moved to some other place, I think your Lordships would probably agree that it is perfectly right and natural that the new site of the community centre should be acquired by the local planning authority. That is why the proviso says that the question is whether it is expedient in the public interest that the land used should be acquired by a local planning authority rather than anybody else. On the other hand, supposing the plan to make the road displaces a garage, what possible ground is there for saying that the local planning authority must be the authority who will expropriate somebody off the line of the road in order to provide the site for a new garage, if the owner of the garage is able to make his own arrangements to acquire a new site? I venture to think this Bill is rather more easily understood, at any rate on rapid inspection, by taking an illustration. The

859
illustration is directly within that proviso, and I submit to the House that we ought not to remove the proviso from the Bill.
LORD LATHAM: With all respect to the noble and learned Viscount the illustration is not appropriate, it I may say so, to this proviso. Local authorities are not unaccustomed to having to deal with factories or garages which are moved as a result of the making of a road or the building of a housing estate, and local authorities normally, if the dispossessed owner wishes to do so—and mostly he does—are only too willing to be relieved of the physical obligation of finding a replacement for him. They would rather very often deal with it in terms of money. That is the case. But this proviso goes much beyond that. This proviso, I submit to your Lordships, must be read in connexion with the purpose of this subsection. This subsection is intended to permit of positive development, of the balance of development, of the endeavour to avoid that type of community about which the noble Lord, the Minister of Reconstruction, spoke quite properly with so much feeling the other day—the housing estate where the people were miserable; where there was no community centre; where there was no cinema; where there were no facilities for recreation.
LORD JESSEL: No public-houses.
LORD LATHAM: I will leave public-houses to the noble Lord, if I may.
LORD JESSEL: You do not go to them?
LORD LATHAM: This section is intended to permit of a balance of development in which you can not only balance housing with industry and commerce but, what is not less important, balance the types of house. Nothing is likely to be less desirable than to get large aggregations of a certain type of house—such as houses, as the law says, for the working classes. The whole object of this clause is to secure, and it requires, that there shall be a balance of development. If such a situation arose as is envisaged by the noble and learned Viscount, then the Minister has ample powers under the first part of Clause 10 because the local authority cannot acquire without the Minister's confirmation. It cannot do it. Why,
860
therefore, is it desired to have this mandatory proviso that the local planning authority shall cot—which means (does it not?) that the Minister shall not—authorize a local authority to carry out a development, however desirable it may be, however much it may fit into the development which they have already carried out, unless the Minister is satisfied that there is not a person who is willing to carry it out and able to carry it out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is it not, with respect, a little wider than that? My noble friend is quite right in introducing a reference to the Minister, but the proviso is restrictive only "if the Ministry is satisfied that the nature of the requirement and other circumstances are not such as to render it expedient in the public interest" that it should be done by compulsory powers. Is that not so?
LORD LATHAM: I agree. That is our objection. That extends the power of the Minister. The Minister, when the land is to be acquired under Clause 10, would have an opportunity of deciding whether the acquisition is desirable or not.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: But here his powers are going to be limited.
LORD LATHAM: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. The local authorities' powers are going to be limited, and that is just the contention of the local authorities. They say that this proviso seriously limits their powers. It cannot fail in the result to leave the local authorities with the unremunerative development and enable private enterprise—I use that term in no offensive sense at all—to carry out the profitable part.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Would this be a fair example of the possible working of this proviso? Suppose that a local authority, say the town of Plymouth, has a very fine extensive plan for the redevelopment of its area and the surrounding area, prepared by the best planning authorities, and for that purpose proposes to purchase a very considerable area of land and develop it in accordance with a finely conceived scheme. Suppose then some speculative builder comes forward and says that in regard to this particular area of five acres he can develop it as an estate, and that he is in a position to purchase the land and to put up houses which appear to him to be adequate and

861
which would in his view probably be as good as those of the city council. Does that mean that under this proviso the Minister would not be able, even if he wished, to give to the city council the complete control of the whole area but would be obliged to insist that the offer of the speculative builder should be accepted; and thereupon that a number of little enclaves would be created in what would otherwise be a very fine and properly developed municipal estate? Whether that is so or not I am not sure, but that seems to me to be a possible interpretation of the working of this proviso, and I would like to ask the Government whether that is their view of its provisions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am much obliged to my noble friend. I do not think that is the effect of the proviso at all. He introduces the private person under the slightly opprobrious name of a spec native builder: he means, I suppose, a person who is prepared to build houses. Let us leave out the epithet. The provision is not that because some person is prepared to build the houses in the case supposed the local planning authority shall not have its compulsory powers: not at all. The test is whether the Minister is satisfied that the nature of the requirement and of the circumstances are not such as to render it expedient in the public interest that the land should be acquired for the local planning authority. I should have thought that the Minister was very unlikely to take that view if it was a question of developing a great scheme. My noble friend's suggestion of a series of little enclaves shows at once that it is exceedingly inconvenient and, I should have thought, quite contrary to the public interest that that should be done. The only case in which the power of the local planning authority is limited is a case where the Minister is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the requirement, it is not expedient in the public interest to leave the local planning authority to do the acquiring, because it can perfectly well be done otherwise.
If I may remind my noble friend of my illustration of the garage he will see it at once. There cannot be any public interest involved in leaving the man who is dispossessed because his garage is in the way of a road to make his own
862
arrangements with an adjoining owner for the purpose of acquiring a new site. That does not appear to be a matter concerning the public interest. But if you are working out a consistent housing scheme other considerations arise. I should have thought you could safely leave it to the Minister to interpose under this proviso, realizing that he is only authorized to interpose if he is absolutely satisfied that the nature of the requirement is such that it is not expedient for it to be provided in the public interest by compulsory powers. Use compulsory powers where it is necessary of course, use compulsory powers where the local planning authority must be the master, but leave a loophole for cases in which there is no reason whatever for the local planning authority to use compulsory powers.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I should like to remind your Lordships that this proviso relates only to cases where the local planning authority might be authorized to acquire land to meet a requirement falling within paragraphs (a), (c) or (d) of the subsection. It is strictly limited.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
2.58 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next two Amendments in the proviso in subsection (1) are merely an exercise in grammar. It is thought that it is better to say "the land to be used for meeting the requirement should be acquired" rather than to use the words which are found in the Bill.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 37, after ("land") insert ("to be")
Page 16, line 37, leave nut ("have been") and insert ("be").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after subsection (2):
"(3) A local planning authority may be authorized in manner aforesaid to purchase compulsorily land in the area of the authority as to which the Minister is satisfied that by reason of the land being derelict and not likely otherwise to be brought into use, it is expedient that it should be acquired by the authority with a view to securing that it is brought into use."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the Amendment to which the noble

863
Lord, Lord Latham, made a passing reference just now. I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact, now that we have got the Amendment in front of us, that it is not an Amendment which forces the local authorities to acquire derelict land whether they like it or not; it is a permission, and a permission which, to the best of my belief, the local authorities desire to have. If you take, for example, abandoned surface workings, there may well be cases in which it is, on good public grounds, desirable that the local planning authority should be able to acquire them, and therefore the provision is that
"A local planning authority may be authorized in manner aforesaid to purchase compulsorily land in the area of the authority as to which the Minister is satisfied that by reason of the land being derelict and not likely otherwise to be brought into use, it is expedient that it should be acquired by the authority with a view to securing that it is brought into use."
That, I should have thought, was a proposition which, as far as it goes, would be approved by anybody.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 13, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Might I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that he should consider between now and Report whether the words "and not likely otherwise to be brought into use" quite carry out his object? It may be that it will be a soil heap or something of that sort that will be involved. The point is that any soil heap nowadays is likely to be brought into use, but it will take a long time if you have to wait perhaps twenty years before the weather has got at it and then plant appropriate seeds. But there is hardly any land in which you could not say that it is not likely to be brought into use sooner or later. I suggest that words might be put in such as "at the approximate date be put into use."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We may consider that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: The Amendment in my name is the same as the one I moved in Clause 1. I beg to move it with the same alteration as in the previous case.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("recreation, worship") and insert ("public
864
worship, recreation").—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Power to authorize purchase by local planning authority for area where land is, in lieu of by another authority]:
3.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause:
"(3) An authorization or consent under this section shall not be given except after consultation with any local planning authority to whom it could have been given apart from this section.''
The noble and learned Viscount said: It appears to me, from such preparation as I was able to make for the Committee stage, that in some respects this Amendment rather runs in with the proposal in the name of Lord Latham to be introduced into the same place. Perhaps there is no reason to alter the order of our procedure but we must bear that in mind. The question is a difficult one. I am not sure it does not come rather near to the subject on which Lord Balfour of Burleigh addressed us before we went into Committee. It is very easy to think of the working of a Bill like this only from the point of view of one authority, perhaps the big urban authority, but there is a planning authority within the definition of the Bill everywhere within this country and if you go over a boundary you come to another authority which may be much smaller but still has its own importance.
I will use an illustration without any idea of being accurate in fact. It is this. If the London County Council has a plan which will involve overspill into Essex, that will be an invasion, no doubt very friendly, of the Epping division. But remember there is also a local planning authority which may have ideas as to how it should deal with its own area. I do not know that it would be so bold as to suggest that it would put its overspill into London, but this is, after all, a process of accommodation between neighbouring authorities, an accommodation which no doubt is usually reached in the most friendly and practical spirit. We were most anxious to add (and indeed I think in the House of Commons it was promised) something at the end of Clause 11 where the clause at present runs: "a local planning authority may, with the consent of the Minister, acquire by agreement any

865
land which they could be authorized under this section to purchase compulsorily." In my illustration, though they could make agreement with the Epping authority we were wishing to add, "but that this consent of the Minister should only be given after consultation with," (in my illustration) "Epping." It obviously would be right at the very least that the other authority should be consulted and that is the object of this Amendment. It provides for consultation between the two authorities, particularly with the authority which would have been authorized to purchase apart from the exercise of powers under this clause, because it was the authority within whose boundary the land was to be found. That is, I submit, a perfectly sensible and indeed a necessary provision and I hope it will not be opposed.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 38, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Is it not desirable that we should, at the same time, deal with the Amendment proposed by Lord Latham, which it seems to me covers the same ground and, if I may say so with great respect, is a little easier to understand?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It deals with the same subject. I think what has been said by my noble and leaded friend is right. I said what I did because I did not want, as it were, to seem to be springing a matter upon the noble Lord opposite (Lord Latham) which I thought would perhaps interfere with his Amendment. If it is thought convenient by your Lordships I should prefer Lord Latham to explain his views on his Amendment and then perhaps we could deal with the two together. They aim at the same result.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I agree.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM had given Notice of an Amendment to insert:
"(3) The powers of this section shall not be exercised except in agreement between the local planning authority first mentioned in subsection (r) of this section and the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated.
(4) The powers of this section shall not be exercised unless the Minister is satisfied that the development of the land by the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated will be in conformity with any pro-
866
posals submitted to the Minister by the local planning authority first mentioned in subsection (r) of this section and approved by him and will achieve the objects of those proposals."
The noble Lord said: The Amendments seek the same result but my Amendment would secure it better than the Lord Chancellor's. I hope your Lordships will not misunderstand me if I say that I personally would be the last person to invade the Epping division. The county of Essex is a different matter. This is really a matter of accommodation and procedure. There is no issue here between local authorities, it is a question of machinery. Under Clause 11 the Minister may give the power to the planning authority in the area of the land to be acquired to acquire it in substitution for the power given to the local authority which wants the land. It may apply to neighbouring land and it may also apply to land for overspill whether the overspill be in connexion with war damaged areas or overspill generally for decongestion. This is the trouble. The authority which desires to acquire has come to the decision that it must acquire not necessarily in reference to a particular piece of land but in reference to the requirements of a particular scheme within its own area. It may wish to rehouse 20,000 people and it will wish to rehouse them, so far as maybe, where there are appropriate transport facilities and where there is likely to be some measure of local industry.
It is only after the whole scheme of the planning authority has been almost finally settled that it then seeks to get the land which we might describe as overspill land; but the authority is going to be in a gravely difficult position if at that stage the Minister says to, say, the London County Council: "You shall not acquire the land that you want at Oxhey although another Minister has agreed that it ought to be publicly acquired. Notwithstanding the fact that you want this land for housing, the rural district of Watford shall acquire this land." First of all the rural district of Watford could not acquire the land except by putting up its rate enormously, and secondly the rural district council of Watford could not build four or five thousand houses there, which is what the London County Council wants the Oxhey Estate for. Whilst therefore I welcome the step forward which is indicated in the Amendment of my noble

867
friend I submit that it really does not go far enough. To meet the situation, if I may say so, the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name should be accepted. In another place an honourable Member not unacquainted with the difficulties of town planning asked the Minister what the situation would be in this regard. If the authority whose land is to be acquired is to be given power to acquire the land, how is the authority which needs the land to secure that its overcrowded population are housed on the land that is acquired by the acquiring authority and not the population of the acquiring authority itself? For instance, how could the London County Council, if the Watford Rural District Council were permitted to acquire the land at Oxhey, secure that residents in Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, Stepney and other places, some of whom will we hope ultimately go to Oxhey, should be given accommodation in the houses built on the land at Oxhey?
That is a problem which frequently arises. Almost from the moment it is known that a new estate is to be built by the London County Council outside London we get applications, which in total amount to a very large number, from all sorts of people living near the place where we propose to build asking us to provide them with housing accommodation. We have to reply that we cannot do it, because we must first provide for the residents in the County of London. If the situation remains as it is in the Bill, or even if it is improved to the extent it would be by the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, there will be difficulties. I respectfully submit that if the Amendment standing in my name were accepted it would avoid those difficulties and make for more cordial relationship between the authorities. There is nothing worse than that a large authority should go into the area of another authority to build houses and then find that relations are not friendly. My Amendment, I think, would preserve friendly relations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope I may be excused for rising again because the matters dealt with by the noble Lord opposite require rather special consideration from this side. The Government are at one with the noble Lord in wanting to
868
get the best accommodation. We are not being obstructive, but this is a very complicated thing to get together and we want to get it together without any prejudice to anybody. If it is permitted in discussion to refer to the sidenote—it is not the clearest explanation I have ever seen of a clause—I would say it is very important to put in the comma at the right place. The sidenote is "Power to authorize purchase by local planning authority for area where land is" comma "in lieu of by another authority." So you get by the clause as it is in the Bill the position that where a local planning authority wants to be authorized to acquire compulsorily land outside its area the authorization may be given to the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated.
I quite understand the illustration given by the noble Lord, which is a clear and obvious one, but there may be many cases in which that would not be a practical arrangement at all. The proposed subsection (3) is very definite and one-sided. It says:
"The powers of this section"—
that is to say, the powers of the Minister in certain circumstances to give power to acquire to the authority of the area that is invaded and not to the invader—
"shall not be exercised except in agreement between the local planning authority first mentioned in subsection (1) of this section and the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated."
May I with due politeness say "Thank you for nothing." If you make a provision that there shall be no exception unless the planning authority that has promoted the scheme agrees, that means of course that it can veto any transfer of the authorization to any other party. I dare say it would only veto it in cases that were proper, but that is the effect of it.
LORD LATHAM: It also means that the other authority could veto the development.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think so, but do not let us get on to a side point. Then there is the proposed subsection (4) which, as I read it, is really independent of subsection (3). It says:
"The powers of this section shall not be exercised unless the Minister is satisfied that the development of the land by the local

869
planning authority in whose area the land is situated will be in conformity with any proposals submitted to the Minister by the local planning authority first mentioned in subsection (1) of this section and approved by him and will achieve the objects of those proposals."
If I may be permitted to say so there is concealed in these words a rather serious misapprehension as to the real effect of the clause. These words can only result in a practical scheme if it is assumed that once a local planning authority has made application to the Minister accompanied by plans showing how it is intended to use the area, the plans put forward are given some fixed final authority. That is not the way in which this Bill will work. There will be many cases in which the plan put forward as the intention of the local planning authority will be different from the plan that is in fact carried out.
If your Lordships will turn to Clause 17 you will see that the Minister may very well find in the course of the development that he is asked by the local planning authority to approve of a variation and a different use of the land. There is nothing inconsistent with this Bill in the idea which I should think would probably be fulfilled in practice that, a local planning authority having put forward elaborate plans showing in great detail what it is intended to do, in the course of carrying it out the plan may none the less be quite substantially altered. There is no fixity in the plan as such and it follows, if I have made myself plain, that you cannot apply the test by saying, "Will the other authority carry out the thing in conformity with what has been approved by the Minister?" because this thing is a fluid thing and the Minister will alter no doubt, at the request of the promoting authority, a plan in all sorts of respects, and it may come out quite different from that for which the authority was given. Those who advise me say that they really do not know how that would be worked. That is the reason why the Government have put down, and I have shortly explained, an Amendment of their own, which is designed to meet that difficulty by saying that authority is not to be given by the Minister except after consultation with any local planning authority to whom it could have been given apart from this clause. I doubt very much whether we can go further. If we did I do not believe we would get a practical working machine.
870
If my noble friend or those who are with him in this matter think that I am wrong about that, and will explain it to the Minister or to me in more detail, I am perfectly willing to consider it again. But as things stand I am afraid that I cannot agree to the proposed subsection (3) or subsection (4). Subsection (4) is merely saying that although there is to be a possible transfer the transfer can only take place if the promoting authority agrees. That is giving them a veto which I do not think is fair. Subsection (4), with very great respect, seems to those who advise me not to be a workable proposition. I may be wrong, but I am just stating to the Committee the view which has been put forward without any thought of obstructing the general idea of these Amendments at all.
LORD LATHAM: May I say how much I appreciate the spirit in which the noble and learned Viscount has approached this matter. It would, I think, be a little unfortunate if it was thought that by subsection (3) it was sought to impose a veto on anyone. But I ask the noble and learned Viscount and your Lordships to picture the situation. It clearly would be of no utility to the London County Council if, having acquired a piece of land outside its area for an open space, the local authorities were to say: "Yes, we will buy this land and exercise power of compulsory purchase, provided the land be not used for an open space but for factory development." Quite clearly that would be useless from the point of view of the London County Council. Therefore, my Amendment is designed to secure not only that land shall be acquired, but that when acquired it can be used for the purpose intended by the promoter. It is not an unreasonable desire to impose a veto on anyone which has inspired the Amendment. It would be no good taking steps to get land for an open space if when it is acquired by some other authority that authority can say that it cannot be used for an open space, but must be used for some productive purpose because they consider that they need an increase in their rateable value.
With regard to subsection (4), if I may say so with great respect the noble and learned Viscount slightly misunderstood the situation. It is important to realize that there are at least two stages in this procedure. The stage at which the Minister will have been furnished with a plan,

871
which, inescapably, must be fluid, is the declaratory stage outlined in subsection (1). That plan is not concerned with the overspill problem in so far as it exists in the particular promoting area. The promoting authority cannot plan where overspill is going outside. It is not required to do so. The plan which has to accompany the application for a declaration as I understand it under subsection (1) is the plan showing how you are going to plan the area within your planning jurisdiction. If that requires that you shall, if I may so put it, decant people or industry, then there are provisions in the Bill to enable you to acquire land for such purpose. That plan as regards declaratory procedure will be fluid. I hope it will. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than that we should, to-day, determine how a particular area should be developed say in twenty-five years' time, except, of course, on broad principles.
But here the situation is quite different. The promoting authority wants some land in order to deal with its overspill requirements. It looks round and it finds some land, but it cannot buy it by agreement. If it did purchase by agreement, these provisions would not apply, and the invaded authority would not be consulted at all. If you buy by agreement there is no public inquiry or anything of that sort. You just buy; that is all. If the authority cannot buy by agreement then it has to apply for a compulsory purchase order, or rather, I should say, it makes a compulsory order subject to confirmation. When it makes this compulsory order, it then must submit to the Minister details of how it proposes to use the land, if acquired. It must set out whether it is to be used for a housing estate, an open space or for other purposes. It is really no good if the Minister says, "You can have this land; I will get the local authority in whose area it is to acquire it for you," without at the same time giving an assurance that if it be so acquired it can be used for the purposes intended by the promoting authority, which is what we are seeking to do. That is what subsection (4) seeks to do. We want land for a specific purpose. If the acquiring authority can prevent that purpose being realized it is useless to us. I hope that in the circumstances the noble and learned Viscount—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was going to make a suggestion. It is obvious that we are occupied in discussing alternatives, alternative subsections. This is a subject that one needs to know a great deal about before one appreciates everything that is involved, and there my noble friend Lord Latham has very much the advantage of me. I wonder if he would agree that both sides should withdraw their suggested subsections, and that we should then have a meeting—we would of course get the Ministry authorities to attend—in order to see if we could not agree upon a suitable clause. I cannot make any promise, but I am very much impressed by what my noble friend has said. I do not wish to take up time in discussion here on matters about which in principle there is no disagreement, if this could be satisfactorily settled behind the scenes.
LORD LATHAM: Upon that assurance I shall not now move my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: And I withdraw mine.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
3.27 p.m.
Clause 13 [Restriction on purchase of commons and open spaces]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after subsection (1):
"(2) A local planning authority may be authorized, by an order made by the authority and submitted to the Minister and confirmed by him, to appropriate for the purposes of this Part of this Act any land for the time being held by them for other purposes being, or forming part of, a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment (including any such land which is specially regulated by any enactment, whether public general or local or private):
Provided that an order under this subsection shall be provisional only and shall be of no effect until confirmed by Parliament, except as mentioned in the preceding subsection."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a suggested further subsection to Clause 13. Clause 13 is the clause which contains restrictions on the purchase of commons and open spaces. The suggested Amendment of the Government would come at the end of the present subsection (1), and it would say:
"A local planning authority may be authorized, by an order made by the authority and submitted to the Minister and confirmed by him, to appropriate for the purposes of this

873
Part of this Act any land for time being held by them for other purposes being, or forming part of, a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment (including any such land which is specially regulated by any enactment, whether public general or local or private):
Provided that an order under this subsection shall be provisional only and shall be of no effect until confirmed by Parliament, except as mentioned in the preceding subsection."
I believe that the matter with which this suggested subsection was designed to deal was raised either in another place or behind the scenes, and I may say that Parliament Hill Fields afford an example. I am told that another example might be Hackney Marshes, which at present, I believe, are held by the London County Council, but under restrictive conditions which would not enable the County Council to deal with them as they might otherwise wish to to do. It seemed to us that this would be a way of meeting their difficulties and would enable them to deal with open spaces which already belong to them, but which are in their hands for certain strictly limited purposes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 39, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Before there is any general discussion on this Amendment, would the noble and learned Viscount tell us what is meant by the word "fuel"—"open space or fuel or field garden allotment"?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I may reveal to the Committee that I demanded that in somewhat impetuous terms behind the scenes, and was told that it meant a fuel allotment on which coal and so on can be stacked, or an allotment on which gardening of a certain character may be carried on. There is, I think, a definition somewhere. I am sorry I cannot be more informative.
LORD AMMON: I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether the Amendment which he has just moved removes the protection already accorded in the case of the Green Belt? because it may be necessary to move a new clause in that connexion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have caused inquiry to be made, and I am informed that the Green Belt is not affected by this at all, but I will give instructions that that shall be looked at
874
again so as to be quite sure. It is not the intention to interfere with the Green Belt.
LORD LATHAM: An Amendment has been handed in, but I am sorry not in time to be printed, which is designed to protect the land acquired under the Act dealing with the Green Belt from being diverted from the purpose for which it was acquired. I hope that on the Report stage that can be considered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It will certainly be considered.
LORD LATHAM: I am sure that the Minister of Town and Country Planning would not wish to mark his advent by doing anything which would impinge on the Green Belt.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It could only be done by the action of the owning local authority, of course.
LORD LATHAM: This land has been acquired by a number of local authorities and it is within their areas, but a large contribution has been made, I am proud to say, by the London County Council, amounting already in actual cash to very nearly £1,000,000, with an obligation when the war is over and the land is actually acquired to contribute very nearly another £1,000,000. Having given nearly £2,000,000 for land which we do not possess and which is not within our area, we do not want the local authority in whose area it may be to have the power to appropriate it or to divert it from the purpose for which it was bought for the people of Greater London.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are two good reasons, and perhaps three, why that will not happen. The first is that there are the financial grounds against it, which the noble Lord has mentioned. Secondly, the Government desire that it should not happen, because they, think that the Green Belt is most valuable. Thirdly, this clause does not put the Green Belt in danger.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"( )Where—

(a) a purchasing authority have been authorized under any enactment in this Part of this Act to purchase compulsorily land forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment, or

875

(b) a local planning authority have been authorized under subsection (2) of this section to appropriate any such land,

the authority may be authorized, in a case falling within paragraph (a) of this subsection in accordance with the provisions of the enactment therein mentioned, and in a case falling within paragraph (b) thereof in accordance with the provisions of Section ten of this Act, to purchase compulsorily, or they may acquire by agreement, land for giving in exchange for the land purchased or appropriated:
Provided that the power of a local planning or highway authority under this subsection to acquire land by agreement shall be exercisable only with the consent of the Minister."
The noble and learned Viscount said: I am sorry to have to interpose again with a Government Amendment, but I think it will be enough to say that this Amendment provides that where a purchasing authority is authorized to purchase land forming part of a common, open space and so on, it may also be authorized to purchase, compulsorily if necessary, land for giving in exchange. The Amendment will thus ensure that in appropriate cases any common land or open space which had to be used for other purposes is replaced by other land. If that is a correct description of the effect of the Amendment, and I think it is, I do not suppose that it is likely to be opposed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 10, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"( ) Subsection (2) of this section shall have effect, in relation to such land as is therein mentioned, to the exclusion of the provisions of subsection (1) of Section one hundred and sixty-three of the Local Government Act, 1933, or of subsection (1) of Section one hundred and six of the London Government Act, 1939, as the case may be, but subsections (2) and (3) of the said Section one hundred and sixty-three, and subsections (2) and (3) of the said Section one hundred and six (which relate to the operation of Section sixty-eight of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and to adjustments in accounts, on appropriations under those sections respectively) shall have effect in relation to an appropriation under subsection (2) of this section as they have effect in relation to appropriations under those sections respectively."
The noble and learned Viscount said: I confess that when I saw this Amendment in print I felt that it had a rather forbidding aspect, because there are so
876
many arithmetical symbols in it; but the only note I have about it is that this Amendment is machinery. I am glad to give the Committee an opportunity of observing how the wheels go round! I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 16, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ADDISON: I should like, with the greatest possible respect to the noble and learned Viscount, whose reticence I respect, to suggest that we ought not to put this into an Act of Parliament without knowing what it is about. I have read this Bill, and have done my best to understand some parts of it. I do not pretend to say that I have succeeded, but I have tried. Reading laboriously through it, we are suddenly confronted by this. This is legislation by reference. It mentions Section 163 of the Local Government Act, 1933, and another section of the Local Government Act, 1939, "as the case may be," and refers to Section 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and various other provisions. Personally, I have not the faintest idea what it means, and I wonder how many others have.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Nobody knows.
LORD ADDISON: I would plead with the noble and learned Viscount, who himself quite properly for our guidance sought some light on the subject, not to ask us to incorporate this in the Bill and let it become the law of the land. It is a very serious matter. What in the world we are asked to commit ourselves to I have not the faintest idea.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Lord Addison has made his appeal as a legislator; I wish to make an appeal as an administrator. I happen to be a member of a local planning authority, and when I come to consider how my unfortunate colleagues are going to understand the meaning of this I am in despair. I suggest that before another stage is reached the Government draftsman should be asked whether he cannot put down the purport of this Amendment in simpler and more intelligible language.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly look into that, but I must in a sentence or two say something, which is intended to be serious, in defence of this.

877
It is plain enough to any of us, if we look at the draft, that the object is to secure that Clause 13 (2) of the Bill, which itself is quite easy to understand, should not be thought by anybody to be prevented from operating because of certain provisions in the Local Government Acts and other Acts. I have no doubt that it would be possible to write that out at length, but I do not think, although this has a forbidding look, that it is a bad example of legislation by reference. It is really clearing the ground and saying that these other Statutes are not to affect the operation of subsection (2). If my noble friend would like it as a holiday exercise, he can have a short excursus on this, dealing with each of the clauses, and it would give me great pleasure to tender that to him for reading over the week-end.
LORD ADDISON: I am not anxious to burden myself in that way, because I have many other things to do, but what I am pleading for is this. This is a legislative assembly, and we are making laws to affect all our citizens. With the greatest possible respect, I submit that we are entitled to know what sort of laws we are making. I know in his heart the noble and learned Viscount has no more liking for it than I have. Let us have something on the Report stage if we can. In fairness to ourselves and to everybody else we ought to know what we are doing.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I feel bound to support my noble friend Lord Addison on this point. It is really not right that the Legislature should make itself responsible for something of this kind which it is so hard to understand without an explanatory memorandum. When I looked at it I was as much in the dark as anybody else as to what it meant. I got down the various Acts and I proceeded to turn up the relevant sections. Then I endeavoured to find out what in the name of goodness it meant but unfortunately I was summoned away before I had exhausted my examination. Although I really have tried I have not been able to do it yet. The books are on the table if anybody would like to look at them. I would suggest that we postpone the consideration of this Amendment until some short memorandum, which can be furnished and read out to the House, explains what the object of it is. I myself feel perfectly certain that it is not a very important object. But there it is. It
878
may have something in it which we do not like.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: It is not only that this House should know what it is passing but also that the persons who have to administer this measure and the courts which are called upon to interpret it and solicitors and others, should know what Parliament has desired. I do not think I can remember in a long experience any instance of drafting quite so bad as this. I think it should be referred back to the Department concerned and to the draftsmen for them to attempt to make it more intelligible.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am perfectly willing to withdraw the subsection. I would warn my noble friend who has just spoken that of course it is possible to make a thing intelligible to everybody but it will be much longer. That may perhaps be no disadvantage. I agree that it is not a very big matter, and I am sure myself that it is merely securing that there shall not be a misunderstanding as to the overriding effect of earlier legislation. If I may have the leave of the Committee I will withdraw the Amendment in order to see if I can produce something which on reading conveys a precise meaning to everybody. As for my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham, I am sure he must have been interrupted in his researches because in another capacity he would get to the bottom of this in ten minutes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Validity and date of operation of order, etc.]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment to this clause is really consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 7, after ("certificate") insert ("or order").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following new clause:
Registration of Orders as Local Land Charges.
".—(1) As soon as may be after an order under Section one of this Act, or an order authorizing a compulsory purchase of land

879
under any enactment in this Part of this Act, becomes operative, it shall be registered in the prescribed manner in the register of local land charges by the proper officer of the council of each county borough or county district in which the land designated by the order or any part thereof is situated, or, if that land, or any part thereof, is situated in the City of London or any other part of the administrative County of London, by the proper officer of the Common Council of the City of London or of the London County Council, as the case may be.
(2) It shall be the duty of the authority on whose application an order under Section one of this Act is made, and of the purchasing authority under an order authorizing a compulsory purchase as aforesaid, as soon as may be after the order has become operative, to notify that fact to the proper officer of any other authority by whom it is required to be registered as aforesaid, and to furnish to him all information relating to the order requisite in that behalf.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (6) of Section fifteen of the Land Charges Act, 1925, to make rules for giving effect to the provisions of that section shall be exercisable for giving effect to the provisions of this section, and in this section the expression 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules made in exercise of that power."
The noble and learned Viscount said: It has been represented that, in order to enable persons interested in land which may be subject to an order under Clause 1 or subject to a compulsory purchase order under the Bill to have a means of ascertaining readily whether such order affects the land, it will be convenient that such order should be registered in the Register of Local Land Charges. The matter has been looked into in my Department I am told, and this provision is thought to be suitable. That will be the effect of making the Amendment.
Amendment moved,
Page 22, line 43, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Disposal or appropriation by local planning authority of land held by them for purposes of this Part.
17.—(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect with respect to the disposal or appropriation by a local planning authority of land which has been acquired or appropriated and is for the time being held by them for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
(7) If it appears to the Minister that it is expedient as mentioned in subsection (2) of
880
this section that a local planning authority should dispose of land under this section to any person and the authority have refused to dispose of it to him or are unable to reach agreement with him as to the manner in which or the terms or conditions on or subject to which it is to be disposed of to him, the Minister may, after consultation with the authority and that person, require the authority to offer to dispose of it to him, and give directions as to the manner of the disposal and as to all or any of the terms or conditions on or subject to which it is to be offered to him:
Provided that the authority shall not be required by any such directions (except to such extent as may appear to the Minister to be requisite in any particular case for giving effect to the last preceding subsection) to offer to dispose of land for a money consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained, having regard to the other terms and conditions on and subject to which the offer is to be made, so, however, that in estimating the best consideration, any amount which only a particular purchaser might be prepared to offer by reason of special needs of his shall be disregarded, and any difference as to what is the best consideration shall be referred to and determined by an official arbitrator to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.
(8) In the exercise of the powers conferred by this section a local planning authority shall have regard to the desirability of preserving features of special architectural or historic interest, and in particular buildings included in any list compiled or approved under the provisions of Section forty of this Act, and the Minister shall not give his consent to the disposal under this section of any land comprising a building included in such a list unless either—

(a) the consent is given subject to such conditions or limitations as in the opinion of the Minister will secure the preservation of the building; or

(b) the Minister is satisfied that the purpose which the local planning authority seek to achieve by the proposed exercise of their powers under this section is one which ought in the public interest to be carried out, and, either that the preservation of the building would prevent the carrying out of that purpose, whether by the use of the land in question or otherwise, or that the effect of preserving the building on the carrying out as aforesaid of the said purpose would be such that notwithstanding the desirability of preserving the building it is inexpedient so to do.

3.47 p.m.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, in subsection (7), after "conditions," where that word occurs for the second time, to insert "(other than the money consideration)." The noble Lord said: This subsection has

881
already undergone some alteration in another place. When the Bill was first introduced it read:
"If it appears to the Minister that it is expedient as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section that a local planning authority should dispose of land under this section to any person in any manner he may direct the authority to dispose of it accordingly."
You will see that the subsection has been considerably added to since then, but even so the new form did little to it beyond making clear that power is not to be exercised except when an, authority has refused to dispose of land to a particular person. In that case the Minister is called upon to arbitrate. Here is another case where there does seem to be some invidious distinction drawn against the local authority. My noble friend Lord Latham a little while ago called attention to the fact that there seemed to be some objection to local authorities carrying out any remunerative investments.
On this subsection—and I aril moving only the first and second Amendments; the other, the third Amendment is an alternative—the first and second Amendments deal with the question of price, and the proviso after stating that the price is to be the best that can possibly be obtained says a particular offer by reason of special needs is to be disregarded. It is difficult to understand why in negotiations like this the local authority should be prevented from getting the best possible price that it can, as anybody else would do. The subsection is so drafted now that if a particular person has special needs and refuses to pay then he is in a position to take it to the Minister to operate this clause and the Minister can accede to his request in which case the local authority cannot demand a higher price, which is altogether different from the position if there are private persons in the market after the same piece of land. What is suggested in this clause in the first two Amendments is that it should not be definitely laid down as to the basis on which the land is to be disposed of but it should be a matter of agreement between the parties concerned or failing that it should be determined by arbitration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 15, after ("conditions") insert ("other than the money consideration").(Lord Ammon).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that the Government cannot accept this proposal. It arises, as the Committee will appreciate, on subsection (7) of this long Clause 17. It deals with the case where the local planning authority may be disposing of land. Under the Bill as it is drafted the Minister may not require the local planning authority to dispose of land to any person for less than the best price obtainable except to such extent as may be necessary in any particular case for giving effect to the requirement of the terms upon which the land shall be disposed of to that person and to have regard to the price paid by the authority. In other words if the authority has paid the former owner a figure which is so much smaller perhaps than some people might think right, then the local authority when it disposes of the land to him is to have regard to the fact that he has had to part with his land without getting a higher price, and that must be allowed for in selling land to him. It is really referring back to subsection (6).
What would be the effect of my noble friend's Amendment? The effect would be to take the question of price at which the local authority shall dispose of land to the person by whom they are directed by the Minister to dispose of it entirely out of the Minister's hands. They would have acquired the land it may be from A.B. and paid so much for it, which in the view of some people may be less than would have been the amount he might have exacted in a free market; I do not know. Now this is a proposal that when they sell land back to him the local planning authority is to be entirely free of any control from the Minister. Another effect would be this. It would omit altogether the proviso in subsection (7) that in estimating the best consideration any amount which only a particular purchaser might be prepared to offer by reason of his special needs should be disregarded. It appears to the Government that it is right for the Minister to come in and exercise that kind of control, as he does in many other places in the Bill, to which no objection has been taken. It would be wrong that a Minister should be excluded altogether from any part in the determination of the money consideration, for it is only he who can determine to what extent the

883
requirements of subsection (6) would affect the price.
There is this further consideration, that to omit the provision that the value to a special purchaser should be disregarded would defeat one of the objects of the clause, which is to see that in the general interest of planning land should be disposed of, if need be, to a purchaser of small means. I am not accusing planning authorities generally of neglecting those considerations, but it is right that there should be that degree of control. The local planning authorities who are acting reasonably would not have any reason to resent it. There is a subsidiary point, which I mention because Lord Ammon referred to it in his speech. By omitting these words in the proviso he is leaving out any sort of principle on which the arbitrator is to act. An arbitrator may have great powers, but you have to indicate the kind of principle on which the arbitrator is to act. Is he to find the best price? Is he to find the lowest price? What is he to do? You cannot get out of the difficulty by saying that if there is a dispute it should be referred to an arbitrator, and the Amendment is not workable on that ground. It gives no clue on which the arbitrator is to decide what the money consideration is to be. That is a defect which, in working, is rather serious. It is quite different from the arrangement in the Bill for the use of the arbitrator, for there the arbitrator is given a concrete question to answer, and the question is, "What is the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained?" For these reasons I am sorry not to be able to accept the Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: Did I rightly understand the noble and learned Viscount to say that this clause only applies to cases where an acquiring authority was selling land back to the person or persons who were acquiring it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I believe I used some such words. In doing so I was inaccurate.
LORD LATHAM: If we are limited in that sense it would be less objectionable. This is the first case in this Bill, indeed the only one, in which the Minister presumes to settle the price of land. Even in the contentious clauses, Clauses 52, 53 and 54, the Minister does not come in,
884
it is a person outside the Minister. It is undesirable that the Minister who is administering the Act should at the same time have to concern himself with settling the price between two parties in regard to the acquisition of a piece of land. The noble and learned Viscount, with his very wide experience, will know that there are many instances in which the arbitrator has to determine the value of land and property without any directions at all. It is the case that for the acquisition of land under the compensation clauses there are general rules. There are directions as to a willing seller and a willing buyer, but there are no details as to any particularity. The local authority frequently has to pay a price for land because of its special needs—for instance, because it must have a school within two miles of where the children live: that is part of the new Education Act, so far as concerns children up to eight—or because it must have a road where the road ought to go; it frequently has to pay the price of land enhanced by special need. Why should any authority, when it is directed by the Minister to dispose of land, be hampered and fettered and not permitted to obtain the proper market price for it, without consideration for its special need? It seems very unfair against the local authorities, and in fact the clause as it stands means that the Minister will in fact determine the price. We think that price should be removed completely from the realm and domain of the Minister, and should be settled, as will be suggested in the next Amendment to be moved by Lord Ammon, by an arbitrator to be agreed between the parties.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: This is a point of some importance, I agree. I did not take it that the Minister was going to fix the price. I thought one of the conditions which he mentioned was that the price should be determined by some form of arbitration. That would be the normal course he would adopt.
LORD LATHAM: That is the purpose of Lord Ammon's Amendment.
LORD AMMON: I am bound to say that I, too, fell into the same error. I certainly felt that the noble and learned Viscount was arguing as if the only person concerned was the person who had sold land to the authority and then wanted to buy it back again. I cannot

885
understand the noble and learned Viscount saying that there are no rules to work upon because money is not mentioned. Surely there are many factors. There is the price the authority wants and the price the other person is prepared to pay, and between those two there is room for dispute. But the whole thing turns simply on the fact that it might have been necessary to acquire land to carry out certain public conveniences that are essential and they have had to pay the price that was demanded, whatever it was, because necessity compelled them. Why on earth should they be debarred from demanding and getting the best price they can in the public interest—not in the interest of any individual—for land which they have got to sell back to somebody who may have a special need for it, particularly as the Minister is in effect determining the price that should be paid? That in itself, I should say, is a pretty dangerous thing to establish.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, in the proviso in subsection (7), after "by," where that word last occurs, to insert "an arbitrator to be agreed between the parties, or, failing agreement."
The noble Lord said: This is an alternative Amendment to that which your Lordships have already declined to accept. It relates to an arbitrator to be appointed in the case of a dispute. Under the Minister's Amendment the official arbitrator under the Act of 1919 is the person who will be called in to arbitrate. That is a very expensive form of arbitration especially to determine the price of land. It is therefore suggested in this Amendment that the official arbitrator should only act if the parties fail to agree among themselves on the appointment of an arbitrator. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 27, after ("by") insert ("an arbitrator to be agreed between the parties, or, failing agreement")—(Lord Ammon.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to have the opportunity of looking at this Amendment purely from a technical point of view. I am disposed to think the proposal of the noble Lord is right, but he will perhaps give me the opportunity of consulting those who advise me as to the form of the words. In the meantime I give him an undertaking that on
886
Report stage I will either ask him to move, or will myself move, something to cover this point.
LORD AMMON: In that case I wish to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I have given private notice of an Amendment which I had intended to put down in writing if it was not put down by someone else. It relates to subsection (5) of Clause 17. That subsection contains the somewhat, as I think, peculiar provision that the consent of the Minister to a sale to a local planning authority under this section of the freehold in any land—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will my noble friend kindly indicate on what page and line it comes?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Page 24, line 29.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: We have already dealt with an Amendment subsequent to that.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I thought not having given formal notice of it I ought to wait till those Amendments which had been formally notified had been disposed of. If that is wrong I can move it on Report.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, if that is equally convenient.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (8), after "disposal," to insert "or appropriation." The noble Lord said: The subsection as drafted provides that the Minister may not give his consent to the disposal of land acquired under the Bill on which there is a building listed as of special or historic interest unless the conditions of limitation are such as in the opinion of the Minister will secure the preservation of the building. The purpose of the Amendment is to impose a similar limitation on the appropriation of land. I think land most certainly should be included.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 35, after ("disposal") insert ("or appropriation".)—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (8), after "the Minister is satisfied", to insert

887
"after causing such particulars as appear to him requisite of the disposal or appropriation for which his consent is sought to be published by Gazette and local advertisement not less than twenty-eight days before he gives his decision on the application for his consent". The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment really meets a point raised in the House of Commons. It provides for the advertisement in the London Gazette and local newspapers of any proposal of a local planning authority to dispose of, or appropriate, any listed building of special architectural or historic interest before the Minister gives his decision on the application for his consent. I think your Lordships would unanimously agree that is a reasonable thing to do.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 4o, after ("satisfied") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:
Power of planning authority to carry out development of land held by them for purposes of this Part.
(2) The consent of the Minister shall be requisite to any exercise by a local planning authority of the power conferred on them by the preceding subsection, and may be given as respects either a particular operation or operations of any class, and either subject to or free from any conditions or limitations.
(3) The Minister shall not give his consent for the purposes of the last preceding subsection as respects any operation if it appears to him that a person other than the local planning authority is able and willing to carry it out at such time and in such manner as may be requisite for meeting the purpose for which it is needed:
Provided that the limitation imposed by this subsection shall not have effect in the case of subsequent operations forming part of a project for the initiation of which the authority have incurred expenditure if those operations ought in the opinion of the Minister to be carried out by them in order to enable them to balance their expenditure in connexion with the project as a whole.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved to insert in subsection (2):
"Provided that before application is made to the Minister for his consent to the erection, construction or carrying out of any building or work under the authority of this section, the local planning authority shall publish by advertisement in one or more newspapers cir-
888
culating in the locality a notice stating their intention to erect, construct or carry out the building or work and stating where it is intended that it shall be situated and the purpose for which it is required."
The noble Lord said: Clause 18 gives power to the planning authority to carry out the development of land which they have acquired. Subsection (2) provides that the consent of the Minister shall be first given to such development and subsection (3) provides that the Minister will not give that consent if the proposed development could be carried out by private enterprise. The Amendment which I now move provides that where the intention of carrying out such development is contemplated the local planning authority shall advertise the fact in the local Press in order to give private enterprise a chance of knowing before the Minister is consulted what is to be done. The point was raised in Committee in another place and at that time, the 5th October, the Minister said it seemed to him to follow logically that there should be some sort of notice. He then went on to ask that the Amendment should be withdrawn in order to enable him to examine it in more detail, on the understanding that if no insuperable obstacle would interfere an Amendment would be made at a later stage. No more was heard about it in another place. I cannot think that there is any insuperable obstacle to this being done. The Amendment is purely one of giving notice and I very much hope that it will be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 46, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Chesham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think there is any difference between the noble Lord who has moved this and the rest of us. His account of what happened in the other House is, if I may say so, quite accurate and relevant, but perhaps he has not had his attention called to the fact that the Government have put down an Amendment to meet this point. I think the Amendment must be on the Paper but I do not happen to have the Paper before me at the moment. I see it comes in a little later in Clause 18, page 27, line 11. It is an Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Woolton, which provides that the Minister is to be notified and the Minister may direct such advertisement by the authority as appears to him to be requisite for the

889
purpose of the two last preceding sections. There is also an Amendment in the name of Lord Woolton in far more general terms giving authority to the Minister which will really produce the same result. It is therefore a question how you are to express it and where you bring it in. I prefer, if my noble friend would agree, that he should withdraw his Amendment.
LORD CHESHAM: I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment and in doing so I would like to explain that these Amendments have not been printed and circulated very long. I got mine for the first time at twelve o'clock to-day when I arrived here. If I had had my Amendments at a reasonable time I might have found there was an Amendment in the same terms. However, I shall be delighted to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.9 P.m.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This Amendment contains a point of principle not dissimilar to the one recently negatived by your Lordships. It does raise altogether different considerations. It is a matter that has concerned local authorities very considerably and when the Bill was first introduced in another place they sent a letter to a Member of Parliament from which I extract the following:
"The power to develop land is hampered by restriction which may leave the local authorities with only the unremunerative development. The provision that a local authority may embark on positive development only when private enterprise is unwilling to do so, will make it impossible for the authority to take the initiative (which is most desirable) to encourage proper development."
The representatives of the local authorities did not attempt to get any Amendment moved in another place, but they wanted the matter ventilated on the floor of the House and that had the effect that the Minister did amend the Bill by bringing in the clause as it now appears in the Bill. But although the Amendment made concessions it did not go very far. The effect of the subsection is that the local authority will be denied the possibility of making profit from development although it may have taken the risk of initiating it. It seems to show that there is some desire that a local authority shall not have the free play accorded to private enterprise. The proviso does not
890
make any provision to meet the development of civic centres. The Minister might go further and at least put a local authority and private enterprise on the same level in regard to initiating new developments of civic life.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 1, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Ammon.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My name appears with that of the noble Lord opposite on the Order Paper, and as a matter of fact I put down the Amendment in entire ignorance that he was doing the same thing. I propose to defend the Amendment on slightly different grounds. I do not regard this as a matter of public versus private development as such. I ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment in order to enable a local authority to make a proper job of development. As it is, they will be hampered and restricted. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord said, that a certain concession was made in another place by the insertion of the proviso which will enable them to balance their expenditure in connexion with the project as a whole. That, however, simply means that the local authority is to be allowed to come out all square but not to show a balance on the right side. It seems to me to be rather pettifogging. It is not as if the Treasury had not an interest in this.
If your Lordships turn back to Clause 8, you will see that there is provision for a quinquennial review of the financial effect of redevelopment. There is ample provision there for the Treasury to get a share in the profit, if any, which a local authority makes because subsection (3) provides that receipts of the Minister shall be paid into the Exchequer. This is a question of good development. Many of your Lordships may know the development of Welwyn Garden City. It may sometimes be desirable for a local authority to build shops and let them themselves rather than simply provide other people with an opportunity of investing money by providing building leases. I think the Minister has ample discretion under the previous subsection to this clause and that it will be very prejudicial to good development if the Minister has not discretion to allow a local authority to do this development in the way it likes. Again I must refer to the Housing Act, 1936. It is not as if it is something new; it may be

891
done under existing legislation. Section 80 (3) of that Act provides:
"The powers of the London County Council and of a metropolitan borough council under this Part of this Act to provide housing accommodation shall include also a power to provide and maintain with the consent of the Minister in connexion with any such housing accommodation any building or part of a building adapted for use for any commercial purpose."
If you give local authorities power to build shops and let them, which is proper development under the Housing Act, surely it would be sensible to include it under this Bill. I ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I beg to support the Amendment put forward by the noble Lords who have just spoken. They have stated the arguments so fully and so clearly that it is unnecessary for me to delay your Lordships by repeating them in any form. I merely express the hope that the Government and the House will accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Once again I entirely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour. He says this is not a question of public versus private development, but it quite clearly is. If the Government agree to this Amendment it will cut out a large part of possible private development which as we know has in the past very often been very good. As for the argument that it is against good planning, that is met by the stipulation in lines 4 and 5 that if such areas are developed by private enterprise it must be by a person able and willing to carry it out at such time and in such manner as may be requisite for meeting the purpose for which it is needed. Is that not quite clear enough? Surely we want not only to safeguard the local authority but to safeguard private enterprise which has done so much for this country.
LORD CHESHAM: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. We are told every day, and it is obvious to anybody, that the housing position is going to be very difficult after the war. I have been depressed—this is a digression—to hear that in two years there has been very little housing preparation and that a period of five years is not enough. We are going to be faced with a very difficult situation, and that means that everybody must do their best. I was
892
assured by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, the other day that private enterprise would not only be allowed to take part but would be called upon to take part in this work. I should think that the work falling on local authorities immediately after the war is going to be so great that they would be only too delighted to have people willing to take some of the building off their hands. If they are to be influenced by considerations of whether a form of development is going to pay them or to put money into the hands of private enterprise then I say that is not the spirit in which we ought to work. We ought to work together to get houses built because that will be the most important thing after the war.
LORD LATHAM: I think the facts should be understood as regards this Amendment. Private enterprise is not being excluded. Private enterprise may put forward a scheme to acquire land, but the local authority has already bought the land and planned development, and secured the Minister's approval for development. It is then that the Minister says that he is satisfied that a person other than the local authority is willing and able to develop the land although it is the local authority which has done all the initiatory work, which has taken all the risk, which has adventured its own capital funds in purchasing the land. The local authority is to be excluded, and the private person who comes along at the eleventh hour, and may be at the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour, because he sees in it a possible revenue—and I am not complaining of that; it is the leit motif of private enterprise—when all the risk has been taken and the preliminary work has been done, is allowed to step in. That, it seems to me, offends against the accepted canons of equity and justice, and even a local authority is entitled, sometimes, to some justice.
My noble friend Lord Chesham said that he was a bit despondent about my comments as to the housing situation. He rightly referred to the contribution made by private enterprise, but the noble Lord knows as well as I do that in the twenty years between the two wars, that is between 1919 and 1939, in the whole of the country there were not more than 4,000,000 houses built. Well, it will not be sufficient if we go on at that rate. But

893
that does indicate what is the capacity both of local authorities and of private enterprise. I do not wish to criticize what private enterprise has done in the provision of houses, but local authorities have done their share with this notable additional feature that, apart from about 10 per cent., private enterprise did not, between the two wars, build working-class accommodation, or indeed lower middle class accommodation, to let. Private enterprise built for sale and it was left to the local authorities to provide the dwellings for the working class and the lower middle class to be let at rents which were sufficiently low to be appropriate, and to bear a very heavy subsidy in so doing.
I have not got the exact statistics with me, but reliable figures which have been furnished to me show that apart from what was done by local authorities no more than about 8,000 dwellings, other than non-working-class dwellings, were built to let by private enterprise in the County of London between the two wars. The rest, some 71,000 were built as to 62,000 by local authorities and as to 8,600 by housing associations. And most of the housing associations were subsidized and supported, and quite properly so, whether as to capital assistance or revenue assistance, by the local authorities. I submit that it is unfair on the local authorities that this subsection which the Amendment put forward by Lord Ammon is designed to leave out should stand.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must say a few words about this, for the arguments that have been employed are very well worthy of attention. I would like, first of all, to make it entirely plain that the endeavour of the Government is to make a fair provision. As a Government, we are not, in this clause, attempting to favour one method as against another, but there must be some adjustment made. First let this be known: it is quite a mistake to suppose that anything in this clause, or indeed anything in this Bill, in the least puts any fetter on the powers of authorities to carry out development under existing Statutes. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, with his very great knowledge of the housing problem, will appreciate that nothing has been put down here which alters the full powers of local authorities as regards housing or as regards anything outside this Bill. This
894
Bill and this clause refer solely to land—I read from page 26, line 34—
"land which has been acquired or appropriated and is for the time being held by them for the purposes of this Part of this Act."
It applies to the new powers to develop land which otherwise would not be possessed but are now by this Bill given, under certain conditions, to the local authorities.
I draw attention again to the words and ask your Lordships to be good enough to note them. They are in lines 34, 35 and 36:
"land which has been acquired or appropriated and is for the time being held by them for the purposes of this Part of this Act."
The question is what is the fair arrangement for Parliament to make in cases in which land that has been so acquired is to be sold. No objection is taken, as I gather, to subsection (2); it has been passed without comment. It states that:
"The consent of the Minister shall be requisite to any exercise by a local planning authority of the power conferred on them by the preceding subsection, and may be given as respects either a particular operation or operations of any class, and either subject to or free from conditions or limitations."
The way in which matters present themselves to the Government, as I understand it, is this. If a local planning authority has acquired, at the expense of the ratepayers, an area it wishes to see developed as a residential centre, it is perfectly true that if the local authority itself were to build the first few shops of what is designed ultimately to be a shopping centre it would be incurring an expense and would be indulging in enterprise of the private variety—though it would be none the worse for that—and it would be very wrong if, after it had created the attraction on that site for shopping purposes, a private builder should come along and say: "This is going to be a successful shopping centre that you have started. You have built the first shops and the bait is working. We are going to have a society here which will use this shopping centre for all sorts of purposes. Now I want to come in to build the rest of the shops." In my humble judgment, that would be entirely unfair.
LORD LATHAM: That is not prevented.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We will see about the words. But I think that it is prevented. But as I say I think that that would be unfair unless there is something quite exceptional about the circumstances, and I am assuming that there is not. That is why this provision was put in in subsection (3):
"Provided that the limitation imposed by this subsection shall not have effect in the case of subsequent operations forming part of a project for the initiation of which the authority have incurred expenditure if those operations ought in the opinion of the Minister to be carried out by them in order to enable them to balance their expenditure in connexion with the project as a whole."
I could not help hearing my noble friend say that the proviso did not secure what I was suggesting but I will just take the words and see if it does not cover the situation. Surely they would mean, "Provided that the limitation imposed by this subsection shall not have effect in the case of the local authority desiring to build the rest of the shopping centre forming part of a project for the initiation of which it may have incurred expenditure if those operations ought in the opinion of the Minister to be carried out by them in order to enable them to balance their expenditure in connexion with the project as a whole." That is the very object of the proviso, and the Committee will see, therefore, that in fact the Government have made a genuine effort to secure that there shall not be what Lord Latham has several times referred to with emphasis, the unfair loading on the local authority of what is unprofitable, merely in order that other people may come in and take advantage of it afterwards. That is not what is intended at all.
Apart from that, is there really anything wrong in saying that the Minister shall not give his consent to an operation if it appears to him
"that a person other than the local planning authority is able and willing to carry it out at such time and in such manner as may be requisite for meeting the purpose for which it is needed"?
Surely even the strongest supporter of municipal enterprise will see that there are in our society occasions when it is perfectly right that what is called private enterprise should have this opportunity and seize it, and, as has just been said, if it is a question of how we are going to rehouse our people in the next few years, I should have thought that those who take the most serious view of it
896
would not be likely to decline the assistance of private enterprise or to seek to put in the Bill words which, if they do not actually prevent private enterprise from having this opportunity, would make it much less likely. That is the explanation, and I venture to think that it is a straightforward one, which should appeal to the Committee. I therefore ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.
LORD ADDISON: It is not a question of objecting to private enterprise getting this opportunity by its own operations, by purchasing land on its own account and so on.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would it have compulsory powers?
LORD ADDISON: No, certainly not, but when you have conferred these compulsory powers upon a local authority it is surely very unfair to estop that authority as is really proposed here. We have the words here: "The Minister shall not give his consent for the purposes of the last preceding subsection" and that covers everything else in the subsection, so that the example given by the noble and learned Viscount with regard to the shopping centre does not apply. This means that the Minister shall not give his consent if so-and-so and so-and-so—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Do not shut the book too soon; it goes on: "Provided.…"
LORD ADDISON: Yes, but it is an instruction to the Minister not to give his consent unless so-and-so, and therefore it places a premium on somebody else stepping in and picking out the plums. There is no doubt that that is what will actually be the result, and I do not think that it is fair to prejudice local authorities in this way. Nobody wants to prevent private enterprise picking out plums, but that is not the point; the point is that the local authority has acquired the land and made the plans, and there is no reason why we should not allow the local authority to have a plum or two occasionally.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I gather that the noble and learned Viscount said that the need of housing was so great and the difficulty of carrying it out so considerable that a local authority, if wise, would be only too pleased to see private enterprise coming forward to help. But there is

897
nothing to prevent that being done; a local authority would still be able to say: "Here in this town we shall be very pleased if private enterprise will come forward, and we shall gladly agree to its developing this part of the estate." This subsection, however, says: "Whether you wish it or whether you do not, you shall not develop that part of the estate yourself, but must hand it over to private enterprise if private enterprise desires the opportunity." That is the distinction.
LORD AMMON: I want to say at once that if my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh will not support me, I am at any rate glad to support him in his desire to get the best that he possibly can out of this Bill. The arguments which we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and from the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, have shown clearly that this is a clear-cut distinction between local authorities and private enterprise. I have never known the noble and learned Viscount, For whose ability I have a profound admiration, succeed so well in making a bad case seem good as in the argument which he has just put forward, but I cannot accept for a moment what he said.
In effect, what does the Bill say? It says that local authorities are to be content if they just get the balance of expenditure, and other people are to be in a position to come in and secure all the remunerative advantages which may accrue. Accepting the noble and learned Viscount's own illustration of a row of shops, it may very well be that private enterprise would take the better end of the row—there are such things in shopping districts—but that will be possible
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
only because the local authority has cleared the site and done all the preliminary work, and then the others will come in and take advantage of it. I think that the case is so strong for this Amendment that this is a matter on which the Committee ought to be called on to divide.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Heaven protect me from being dubbed a supporter of municipal enterprise. I am trying to secure two things: I am trying to secure the best development of the area, and at the same time I am trying to be fair even to the local authority. I think that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Ammon) has made out a case. The local authority will have had the energy and enterprise to buy this land and do a certain amount of development. If private enterprise were doing it there is not the slightest doubt that they would go in for this commercial development, because that is how they would make money and probably best develop the area. I think it is all wrong to fetter the discretion of the Minister in this way, because that is what this subsection is doing; it is fettering the discretion of the Minister. If, therefore, Lord Ammon wants to divide, I am quite ready to go with him.
THE CHAIRMAN: To safeguard the next Amendment, I shall have to put the Motion in the form: That the words from the beginning of line 1, page 27, to the end of line 5, stand part of the clause.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 14.

CONTENTS.

Simon, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Hailsham, V.

Hemingford, L.

Maugham, V.

Hindlip, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Jessel, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Bingley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Jersey, E.

Cecil L. (V. Cranborne.)

Luke, L.

Lucan, E.

Chesham, L.

Remnant, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

St. Levan, L.

Poulett, E.

Templemore, L [Teller.]

Radnor E.

Courtauld-Thomson, L.

Wardington, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Denham, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Wolverton, L.

Falmouth, V.

Hastings, L.

Woolton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Addison, L.

Faringdon, L.

Airedale, L.

Holden, L.

Astor, V.

Amnion, L. [Teller.]

Latham L.

Esher, V.

Balfour of Burleigh, L. Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

South wood, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Samuel, V.

4.47 P.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), after "needed," immediately before the proviso, to insert "if the land in question is made available to him on such terms as may be agreed by the Minister and the authority to be appropriate." The noble and learned Viscount said: We have just had before us Clause 18, subsection (3), but as the clause is at present drafted a private person could still hold himself out as willing to carry out the required development even though he would never do so if he could not get the land at less than the fair rent. I suppose one may put the opposite point. The local authority might, I suppose, ask for an inflated price in order to ensure that no private developer should be forthcoming. There are other things that it will be important to cover besides the time and the manner. If, for example, factories or lock-up shops are to be built to accommodate small purchasers or small retailers it may be convenient to fix the maximum rent to be charged in order that it may be within the financial capacity of the people for whom the buildings are intended. This Amendment enables appropriate terms for the land to be settled by the local planning authority and the Minister as the basis upon which the Minister can decide, as the clause requires him to do, whether a private developer is willing to carry out the development in accordance with public needs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved:
Page 27, line 5, at end insert ("if the land in question is made available to him on such terms as may be agreed by the Minister and the authority to be appropriate").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LATHAM: The Minister by this Amendment seems to want to enter into the detailed administration of the affairs of local authorities. The land having been acquired by the local authority, why should the Minister want to come in as regards the rent or the terms upon which the land should be dealt with? Why cannot local authorities deal with these matters without interference by the Minister? There is no question of planning involved. It is a question of the financial relations between two parties one of which is a statutory body. I really feel that the Minister is quite unwarrantably invading the field of autonomous local government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think we may take it as a matter of course that, subsection (3) being in the Bill—my noble friend would prefer not to have it in, but we have decided to have it in—some provision such as this is necessary. Although I agree that it involves certain intervention I would point out that what the Amendment requires is that the terms agreed by the Minister and the authority should be appropriate. Any attempt by the Minister to force the situation would not meet with agreement. The real object is to enable the Minister to do his statutory duty, and to determine whether this is a case in which he ought not to authorize dealing with the matter by the local authority.
LORD LATHAM: But the authority purchased the land. The authority may have agreed the terms, but the proposal may not go through, or the terms may be altered by the Minister, because the agreement of the authority with the purchaser is not required, and the Minister surely should only come in if there is a dispute between them. I can see the Minister exercising the right to interfere and saying, "Well, you may have agreed as to the rent, or you may have agreed as to the purchase price, but I do not agree, and under this clause unless I agree it cannot be done." That is an unwarrantable interference with the day-to-day administration of autonomous local government.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I cannot help thinking that the Government would be well advised if they undertook before the Report stage to redraft these provisions, or to consider their being redrafted, so as to carry out what I have no doubt is the real object of the Government. It seems to me that the reasonable lines on which this clause should run are these: That if the Minister, when he is asked for his consent, should find that there is somebody other than the local planning authority who is able and willing to carry out the work, he should take steps to bring together the local authority and the person in question, and see if he cannot bring them to terms under which the transaction may be carried out by the private builder rather than by the local authority. If that is done by consent I conceive there will be no great difficulty in the matter. If, however, the

901
clause remains as it is I foresee this difficulty, that the Minister may find himself quite unable to get the local planning authority and the builder to come to terms. Then there will be a deadlock, for the Minister cannot give his consent because there is somebody who is willing to do tae work; and, on the other hand, he cannot enforce the provision which would be appropriate as between the local planning authority who have acquired the land and the builder who says "I am quite willing to build." There has to be an agreement between them somehow if the builder is willing to do it. If not, I conceive that the only thing is to let the local planning authority do it. But it does seem to me that a little further consideration of this clause would be desirable.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not differ from my noble and learned friend about that. I want to do my best to serve the House, and I think it would not be serving the House well to treat this subsection as it stands as the last word in neatly expressed drafting. It does need to be looked into. I should like the House, however, to add these proposed words, if it would be so good, because I would rather look at the subsection as a whole. But I agree with my noble and learned friend that this should be looked into between now and Report, because I am not certain in my mind that at present it is in the best possible from.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) Where a local planning authority propose to carry out any operation which they would have power to carry out by virtue only of subsection (1), of this section, they shall notify the Minister of their proposal, and the Minister may direct such advertisement by the authority as appears to him to be requisite for the purposes of the two last preceding subsections."
The noble and learned Viscount said: A promise was made in another place that we would move an Amendment which would provide for this sort of thing. The suggestion was accepted as necessary in some cases: there may be cases in which the Minister does not think it necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor).
LORD LATHAM: This Bill is in danger of becoming a Bill for the promotion of the interests of the advertising profession. What is the necessity for these further advertisements? Let us consider what the situation is qua advertisements. There must be an advertisement before the declaratory notification can be made—that is under Clause 1 (7); there must be an advertisement of the notice of the snaking of a compulsory purchase order; there must be an advertisement for the confirmation by the Minister of the making of a compulsory order. What more advertisements does private enterprise need to wake it up, to give it notice that large areas of cities and towns are being dealt with and that even the despised local authorities are showing so much unwelcome activity? After all, neither the local authority nor the Minister can call upon private enterprise to advertise in advance what it proposes to do; there is no obligation upon private enterprise to do that. And this applies to the exercise of powers under subsection (1) of this clause. I do ask the Government not to press this Amendment or to continue their joyful, if somewhat portentous, exercise of finding how much business they can provide for the advertising trade of this country.
LORD CHESHAM: I withdrew an Amendment just now very much on the same lines as this, though the Amendment I withdrew certainly was a little bit stronger. Under this Amendment the Minister may direct that such advertisements should be published by the authority. Could not the Government make it "shall"? I would like it to be even stronger. I know that local authorities will not like it, but I will be perfectly frank with the noble Lord opposite. He does not speak for every local authority. I have been on local authorities, and I should hate to speak for some of them. For the one that he represents I have the greatest respect, but there are a great many of whom I would say very much the opposite, and it is absolutely essential to guard against the bad local authority, just as much as it is to guard against the bad property owner and speculator. Legislation is always being introduced to guard against the bad property owner and the speculator, but there is such a thing as a good property owner and there is such a thing as a bad local authority and we have

903
to guard against the one just as much as against the other. I do ask the Government to consider whether they could not strengthen the Amendment by altering the word "may" to "shall."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think I could make that alteration. I find it rather a difficult thing to balance myself between the contrasting arguments. There are cases, I should suppose, in which an advertisement would not be required. A provision that the Minister may consent in cases where it is required, is quite another matter. We must proceed now on the assumption that private enterprise is to have this opportunity. That is not thought to be the correct way to proceed by some who sit opposite to me, but that is the basis we have now adopted for the Bill on the Committee stage, and I hope we are going to continue on that basis and carry it out like sensible people.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Authorization of development on land acquired for purposes of this Part notwithstanding interference with easements, etc.]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think there are Amendments at this point which can conveniently be taken together. They all involve inserting the words "or highway." By this means the highway authority as well as the planning authority will be covered. I do not think I need spend any time in justifying that arrangement. I could explain why it is really right in the interests of good government to do this but I do not think it is necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 43, after ("planning") insert ("or highway").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move the next Amendment which is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 14, at end insert ("or highway").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This seems a suitable point at which to close our proceedings to-day, if that is the view of my noble friend Lord Woolton, because this is an Amendment which simplifies the Bill. I was anxious to end on what I may call a happy note.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 32, after ("shall") insert ("be treated as conforming with planning control").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The other Amendments are drafting Amendments and I think they can be taken together. They will undoubtedly simplify the Bill. I might say that the proviso in subsection (3) deals with works carried out by the authorities who administer the interim development order. Such works are governed by Clause 29 of the Bill and not entirely by the interim development order for the scheme. I do not think the proviso as it stands in the Bill is happily drafted, and I have no doubt that by the Amendments we shall achieve in the text of the Bill the desired result by means of one step instead of by two. I beg to move the last three Amendments on this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 28, line 32, after ("if") insert ("it is")
Page 28, line 35, leave out from ("consent") to end of line 38,
Page 28, line 4o, after ("planning") insert ("or highway.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the time of our meeting to-morrow depended upon the progress made to-day. As we are not yet half way through the clauses and we still have the Schedules to deal with, I think it would be advisable to meet at twelve o'clock to-morrow.
House adjourned at seven minutes past five o'clock.