TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.

HL Deb 08 November 1944 vol 133 cc927-1006

2.7 p.m.

House again in Committee:

[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 40:

Designation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.

(2) As soon as may be after any list has been compiled or approved under this section, a copy of so much of the list as relates to the area of any local planning authority (or, if the list is a list approved subject to modifications, a copy of so much of the list as modified as relates to their area) certified by or on behalf of the Minister to be a true copy thereof, shall be deposited with the clerk of the local planning authority, and also, where that authority is not the council of a county borough, with the clerk of the council of the county in which the area is situated.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The first Amendment on the Paper is to enable the Minister to amend any list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest compiled under this clause. The proposed words are a necessary addition to the clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 29, at end insert ("and may amend any list compiled or approved under this section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 31, after ("section") insert ("or any amendments of such a list have been made").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ESHER moved, in subsection (2), after "section", to insert "such list shall be published and", The noble Viscount said: I am hopeful that the noble and learned Viscount will look with favour on this little Amendment. Although these lists will be made primarily for the guidance of local authorities they are of interest not only to local authorities. They concern firstly the general public, secondly, to an even greater extent, the owners of the properties in the lists, and thirdly, all those bodies who are perpetually interested and engaged in preserving buildings of architectural and historic importance. I think the noble and learned Viscount would agree that it is only democratic to give these lists as much publicity as can be given. These voluntary societies of all sorts are accustomed to act as watch dogs not only against the developer and exploiter, but also against the carelessness and ignorance of local authorities and the carelessness and ignorance even of the central Government. There should be no atmosphere of secrecy about these lists.

There is a precedent for the publication of lists of this character under Section twelve of the Ancient Monuments Act, 1913, which provides that the Minister of Works shall from time to time cause to be prepared and published a list. I am not quite sure in my own mind whether it is necessary actually to legislate on this point, or whether the noble and learned Viscount would consider that an assurance would meet the case. If he could give some form of assurance that administrative action of this character would be taken, that would satisfy me. But surely the Government cannot be averse from the public being told what is going on concerning a matter of such wide interest and importance. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 31, after ("section") and insert ("such list shall be published and ").(Viscount Esher.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Government are in sympathy with the object that has just been explained by the noble Viscount but, anticipating the course which we should recommend, I suggest that we should not legislate about this. Once you legislate on a matter of this sort you create a mandatory duty, and there are changes in the lists, deletions and additions of all sorts, and the question arises as to how often ought publication to take place. I will gladly give an undertaking on behalf of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning that there will be publication from time to time as far as is reasonable and convenient, because we entirely agree with the noble Viscount that alike in the interest of informing the public of what is going on—and the public is interested in the preservation of these buildings—and for the sake of informing people more immediately concerned, it is right that there should be reasonable publication from time to time. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT ESHER

In view of the assurance given by the noble and learned Viscount, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 34, after ("area") insert ("or so much of the amendments; as relate thereto, as the case may be").— (The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 39, after ("compiling") insert ("or amending").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF WARWICK moved to insert at the end of subsection (3) "and shall obtain the approval of the Minister of Works." The noble Earl said: This small Amendment needs very little comment. In the past under three Acts—the Ancient Monuments Consolidation Act, 1913, the Ancient Monuments Consolidation Act, 1931, and the Minister of Works and Planning Act, 1942, power with respect to buildings of architectural and historical interest was exercised by the Commissioner of Works and then, after the alteration, by the Minister of Works. I think that this Amendment would regularize his position. In effect, if an order is made under the existing Act I think that the work which has to be carried out, the laying of the bricks and mortar, the giving of architectural advice and so on, would always come under the Minister of Works. I feel that it would regularize his position if it was laid down that he ought to be consulted.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 43, at end insert ("and shall obtain the approval of the Minister of Works").—(The Earl of Warwick.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The position of the Government about this suggestion is much as it was in relation to the proposal of my noble friend Viscount Esher. There is what I think may be properly called a constitutional objection to putting in the Statute Book mandatory provisions that one Minister shall consult another. The theory of the Constitution, and indeed it is more than a theory, is that the Ministry is one, and although it is quite true in the past there have been such clauses inserted—I could find them in the Statute Book—the modern view and the correct view is that it is better not to make stipulations that one Ministry shall consult another before it does something. We are all responsible for what happens, and it may be assumed that proper consultation takes place. To satisfy my noble friend Lord Warwick I will give him the assurance that it is not intended by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning to compile and approve and publish a list without consultation with the Ministry of Works. I hope that he will not insist on putting it in the Bill because really it is thoroughly bad practice to insist that one Minister shall consult some other named Minister. Indeed it is not in accordance with a proper constitutional principle.

THE EARL OF WARWICK

I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Viscount has said. The only difficulty which seems apparent to me is that we are every day getting legislation more and more involved and difficult for the simple man to understand. I quite see that there is no constitutional principle for making it mandatory for one Minister to consult another, but I always believe in striving—and I feel that many noble Lords would agree—to make Parliamentary Bills as easy for the simple man to understand as possible, and it was on this ground that I made the suggestion contained in the Amendment. But, if there is strong precedent to oppose it, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

2.18 p.m.

THE EARL OF WARWICK moved to add to the clause: (4) The Minister shall before including any building in any list compiled or approved under the authority of this section cause notice in writing to be given to the owner and occupier of the building of the intention to include the building in the list.

The noble Earl said: I hope that the Government will not oppose this Amendment because, as far as I can see, very little delay will be occasioned to the Government Department concerned by giving notice. It seems fair and proper to me that before anybody should have his house or other property listed he should be given reasonable opportunity for stating grounds, if he has any, for objecting. It might be maintained that it does not hurt you very much to have your name put on a list because, although it may be put on a list, it may be some time before anybody takes action because it has been put on such a list. But it seems to me that once you are on a list you have no possible means of getting off it, and being on the list you can then have an order of some kind made against you. It seems to me only ordinary justice that if you are to have your name on a list you should have reasonable opportunity to object. As the Bill is framed at the moment there is no provision for the Minister having to notify you of his intention. You are just put on the list. Unless you happen to discover it in some other way beforehand, you have no opportunity to tell him that you would like to argue his decision.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 43, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Warwick.)

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I hope the Government will be prepared to accept this Amendment. It seems to me that it really is not right that a person who is in the position of owning a house which may be on the borderline between being one of historic and architectural interest and an ordinary dwelling-house, should not have an opportunity of knowing that the house is going to be placed on the special list which, presumably, is going to give the local authorities special powers to do all sorts of things, or to prevent all sorts of things being done. It is mere justice that he should have notice of it and be ready to object.

LORD CHESHAM

I support this Amendment, because the Minister of Works, under the Ancient Monuments Acts, also compiles lists, and under those Acts he has to give the owner notice. In this Bill there is a difference in the buildings concerned, in that as the Bill stands at present the buildings which may be concerned include dwelling-houses. I know that there is an Amendment on the Paper to make an exception in that case, but as the Bill stands at present it does include dwelling-houses. It is only reasonable that if, under the Ancient Monuments Acts, the Minister of Works has to give notice to owners, so under this Bill the Minister should give notice in compiling a list both to the owner and to the occupier. I support the Amendment, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment for yet another reason. If your building is put on the list under Clause 40 you automatically, if you alter it without permission, become liable to considerable penalties under subsection (4) of Clause 41. It seems to me, therefore, that it is only reasonable that proper steps should be taken to advise the owner that he is so liable.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I find this rather a difficult question to answer. I should like to make it plain at once that when we are dealing with a monument of architectural or historic interest I do not recognize that the owner is entitled to do what he likes with it. We have to preserve such a building as a national possession, and private ownership, however important it may be in all proper ways to protect it, does not extend to the right to object to a building being put on this list. The question is whether the Bill deals fairly with the individual interests. We all want to do that. There are cases where it may be a complicated business to give notice to the owner; the building may be half a ruin and the owner may be far to seek.

As a matter of fact, I am not quite persuaded what is fair here. The Committee will see that, quite apart from any Amendment which is put forward, before any house can be put on the list the Minister, under subsection (3), has to consult with such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him appropriate as having special knowledge of or interest in buildings of architectural and historic interest. I think we may assume that nobody wants to do anything unfair here, and that the Minister is not going lo put any building on the list until he has really ascertained that in the view of those who have the best right to speak with authority it is a building which ought to be listed. On the other hand, I speak frankly and say that I do see the pinch of the argument on the other side. We do not want to catch anybody at a disadvantage. If the idea was that the owner could, by objecting, in some way improve his position with reference to the list, I should not agree to it at all, because it has nothing to do with his private inclination; it is something of public and national interest which we are engaged in protecting here, and that consideration must come first. At the same time, I am frankly in a state of some doubt about this Amendment, and in any case I do not think the wording is quite suitable. If my noble friend would be good enough to withdraw the Amendment now, I would undertake to have it looked at most candidly between now and the Report stage, bearing in mind what several of your Lordships have said. I think that that would be the most satisfactory way of dealing with it.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

This is one of the rare occasions on which I find myself side by side with the landowners, and I should therefore like to seize this opportunity of supporting their plea. It is not only a question of insisting upon the public interest where a building of historic or architectural interest is concerned, but also a question of fact as to whether any particular building ought properly to come within this class or not. It is to me not unreasonable that an owner who thinks that it is, rather unfair that his building should come into this class, and thinks it unfair that certain restrictions should be put upon him on account of some very remote or subsidiary historical interest, should at all events have art opportunity of having his case heard, and should know what is in prospect. The movement (which is a very proper and highly desirable one) to preserve for all time, or for as long as human foresight can stretch, these buildings of historic and national importance, is one which must necessarily impose certain restrictions and disabilities upon those who are the occupiers of and in residence in certain of these buildings, which frequently their families have occupied for generations, and sometimes even for centuries. It is desirable that this process of establishing public control over such buildings should be carried forward with the good will of those persons and families; and therefore, if they ask that they should receive specific notice when it is intended to put any particular building on the list, it seems to me the claim is a wholly reasonable one.

LORD LATHAM

I would not wish to do anything to disturb the temporary and limited partnership between the noble Viscount and the representatives of the landowning interests, but I should like to draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor to what appears to be a gap in Clause 40—namely, that there is no provision in Clause 40 that the owner of a building which is put on the list shall be made aware of it.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

Precisely; that is the whole point.

LORD LATHAM

But that is not the point of this Amendment. This asks for notice of an intention, which is different from the point which I am making, which is that there is no provision in Clause 40 that after the Minister has put a building on the list the owner shall be so informed. The owner, therefore, does not know whether he ought to give the notice required under Clause 41 (3). I draw the attention of the Committee to that.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I add a word about that. I have endeavoured to show my attitude towards it. The Committee must remember two things. The first is that the time when the owner may be affected is when an order is made. The fact that you put some building on the list produces no result whatever.

THE EARL OF WARWICK rose.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Is not that right?

THE EARL OF WARWICK

Once a building is put on the list. If you are not on the list because you have objected to being included in it no order can affect you, because it cannot be made.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I quite agree, but it must be borne in mind that what may prejudice any owner, as he thinks, is when an order is made. There is provision that before an order can be made objections have to be heard, and everything that the owner has to say to show that though his house looks like a Gothic fifteenth-century building it was in fact put up only three years ago by a speculative builder may then be said.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Viscount, but in Clause 41 subsection (4) says "or if any person contravenes the provisions of the last preceding subsection" and the last preceding subsection begins: No person shall execute, or cause or permit to be executed, any work for the purpose of demolishing a building to which this subsection applies … If the owner does anything of that kind, he is liable to the claims and penalties in subsection (4). Is not that so?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am quite confident no order can be made at all except after considering the objections that are raised. I do not think that is conclusive but that is the point at which the thing becomes serious. The remaining point is this—and I take your Lordships completely in my confidence, there is no prejudice about it. Those who instruct us are very doubtful as to whether or not any administrative work would in particular cases fulfil what the noble Earl, Lord Warwick, is proposing. You have a number of cases of buildings which it may be are largely ruined and in regard to which it can be a tremendous business to find out who is the person to receive the notice. It is that kind of difficulty which induced the draftsman not to include what is now suggested. I have no objection in principle to conceding that it is a convenient course to take and if my noble friend would he good enough on my assurance to withdraw the Amendment I will look at it again and we will between now and Report see whether we cannot devise a clause which will meet his wishes. But I do not feel disposed, unless the Committee presses me, to accept it now. The Ministry do not know in how many cases they could administer this and I should like another chance of looking at it again.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

The point might be met by inserting appropriate words. An Englishman's home is his castle but a castle may also be his home and he ought to receive consideration.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As long as he lets down the drawbridge.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

The difficulty could also be met in the way which perhaps the Lord Chancellor could accept quite easily—namely, to confine this proposed rule or direction to a case where the building is in occupation. It is quite true that it may be a ruined old house with only one room in it and there is no particular point in giving the notice, but if it has been occupied previously I think that notice should be given.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

You might be much more likely to demolish it if it were a ruin. But here you are to be subjected to claims and penalties if you do demolish it. I do not think what has been suggested meets the point.

THE EARL OF WARWICK

I am not at all satisfied, nor do I think many of your Lordships are, that we have really had a proper answer to this question. I always feel when answering the noble and learned Viscount like David without his sling, but I have had a charming assurance both from him and the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, that an Amendment of this nature will be included in the Bill and, subject to doing my worst against them if it is not included, I shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 40, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

VISCOUNT MERSEY

Before this clause is agreed to I should be glad if the Lord Chancellor would indicate briefly exactly what is the position of what are called national buildings. I understand that Crown lands apart from the palaces are protected by Common Law. What I am thinking of more particularly are buildings like the Inns of Court, the British Museum, the National Gallery, buildings which need not necessarily be of any particular architectural value but which are important assets to the country. Would it be possible for a local authority to pull down some portion of the National Gallery if it wished to do so or some part of the Tower of London? I have taken extreme cases but I think those who are not conversant with the full meaning of certain words would like to know exactly what is the position of that class of building and that class of land.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think I can answer my noble friend in two or three sentences. The Bill does not bind the Crown and Crown lands. You need special and exceptional provisions to do so. Crown property would not be governed by this though I am far from saying that, if a good case was made for applying a plan which did touch Crown property, any unreasonable objection would over be raised. I am quite sure it would not. But as a matter of law the Bill does not bind the Crown. Then the instances which my noble friend Lord Mersey has given are, as he says, extreme instances such as the Inns, of Court. No doubt that lard is not Crown land. I do not remember how it is about the British Museum. It is very likely held by trustees and is not Crown land. There the Bill would as a matter of principle apply. I do not think you could possibly draw a dividing line as to where it was to begin if you did not say that "Crown lands are not covered, other lands are within the scope of the Bill." I hope my noble friend has not so far got an impression of the Bill that any and every local authority in its zeal for planning will take any building of the kind he has referred to, and if it proposed to do so there is this machinery before that point is reached. I think my noble friend may be safe in assuming that, say, the National Gallery or the British Museum will not be necessarily pulled down to the ground, not even to impose a gradiose plan of the London County Council.

Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.

2.36 p.m.

Clause 41:

Preservation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.

41.—(1) The power of a local authority under Section seventeen of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, to prohibit the demolition of any building of special architectural or historic interest shall include power to make an order directing that without the consent of the authority the building shall not, in any way prohibited by the order, be altered or extended.

(2) In accordance with the preceding subsection the power of a local authority to vary an order under the said Section seventeen shall include power as respects any order made under that section (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) by a subsequent order thereunder to vary the order by adding thereto such a direction as is mentioned in the preceding subsection; and subsection (3) of the said Section seventeen (which provides for an appeal to the Minister in certain cases) shall have effect as if the reference to the demolition of a building included a reference to the alteration and to the extension thereof.

(3) No person shall execute, or cause or permit to be executed, any work for the purpose of demolishing a building to which this subsection applies, that is to say, a building included in a list compiled or approved under the provisions of the last preceding section, not being a building. as respects which an order under the said Section seventeen is for the time being in force or a building falling within subsection (5) of that section (which relates to ancient monuments and certain other buildings), or for the purpose of altering or extending a building to which this subsection applies in any way which would seriously affect the character thereof, unless at least one month before the work is executed notice has been given to the local planning authority of the proposed demolition, alteration or extension:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall render unlawful the execution of any such work as aforesaid which is urgently necessary in the interests of safety or otherwise to deal with an unforeseen emergency, so long as notice is given as aforesaid as soon as may be after the necessity for the work arises.

(6) A local authority having power to make an order under the said Section seventeen as respects any building—

1. (a) may, with the consent of the Minister, acquire by agreement the building and any land comprising or contiguous or adjacent to it which appears to the authority and the Minister to be required for maintaining it or the amenities thereof, or for affording access thereto, or for the proper control or management thereof;
2. (b) if an order under the said Section seventeen is in force as respects the building and it appears to the authority and the Minister that reasonable steps required for properly maintaining the building will not be taken unless the powers of this paragraph are exercised, may be authorized to purchase the building and any such land as aforesaid compulsorily, by means of an order made by the authority and submitted to the Minister and confirmed by him in accordance with the provisions of Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act.

(7) A local authority shall have power, as respects any land acquired by them under this section, to repair, maintain and insure any buildings or works on the land and generally to deal therewith in a proper course, of management, and may with the consent of the Minister dispose of any land so acquired in any manner which appears to the authority and the Minister expedient for, or consistent with, securing the object for which the land was acquired.

Subsections (9) to (11) of Section seventeen of this Act shall apply in relation to the disposal of land under this section as they apply in relation to the disposal of land under that section.

THE EARL OF WARWICK moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "and the local authority shall not less than twenty-eight days before making an order under Section seventeen of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, as amended by this section give notice in writing to the owner and occupier of the building of their intention so to do". The noble Earl said: This is another of those small Amendments seeking consideration for the individual which sometimes we are not able to obtain owing to the overriding demands of the Ministry. Under section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and this clause which is before us now there is no provision for notice to be given to the owner or occupier of the buliding. It is quite true that the Minister is required before approving an order to consider any representations made to him but I think it would be more satisfactory to the owner without undue inconvenience to the Ministry if this Amendment were adopted. I think it would be more convenient if the owner were given some warning. I remember a little while ago in another place a certain Minister saying that man must come before buildings. There is perhaps in the last Amendment which I moved some question of the building coming before the man. I hope your Lordships will consider this Amendment favourably.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 6, at end insert the said words. —(The Earl of Warwick.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My noble friend uses such well-chosen language that he reveals the undercurrent of his thought. I do not think he expected me actually to accept his Amendment but I will briefly explain why I think it would be a mistake to do so. Under the law as it now stands and under regulations now in force the local authority has to give notice of the submission it is making to the Minister for his approval of a preservation order under Clause 17 and it must serve a copy of the proposed order on the owner and occupier of the building and give fourteen days' notice in which objections may be laid or representations made. There at any rate you do get the owner or occupier brought in.

THE EARL OF WARWICK

Is not that only in the case of demolition, not of extension or alteration?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is modified in the Bill and here I think I am right, but I will gladly be corrected if I have not quite understood it. I think that is the position as it stands at present.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I think my noble and learned friend is wrong and Lord Warwick is right. The power of the local authority under Clause 17 may be in regard to demolition. Subsection (1) of Clause 41 says that that power to prohibit demolition shall include power to make an order directing that the building shall not be altered or extended. That does not necessarily provide that the same notice must be given in the case of alteration or extension. It is very desirable that it should be clear.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I quite agree. I find it a little difficult to state the argument if those doubts are so pronounced that they must be stated at this moment. I will inquire into that. My impression is that I am right, and that the draftsman has not been so clumsy as to forget that in Clause 41 he is extending the cases in which an order may be made. But may that be assumed for the moment? The real point here is: What would be the effect of my noble friend's Amendment? It would be to require the authority to give notice to owners and occupiers not after the order has been submitted, but twenty-eight days before it has been submitted. That would be the effect of it. What are the risks? I have no doubt that many owners, if they were given that warning, would simply wait and see what the order which the Minister made was; but you might have an owner who would say, "I have twenty-eight days; there is no time to waste, so I will pull down this building quickly"—and that is a position which we do not desire to make even possible.

Subject to the point taken by my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham, which I will look into—but it is my strong impression that the clause was adjusted to the provisions of the earlier Act—that is the objection. Provision is made in the law as it stands for giving notice. No owner or occupier ought to be put in jeopardy without having notice that the order is being applied for. There does not seem any good reason why he should be given twenty-eight days before any order is applied for. That is the full extent of the difference as I have understood it in this particular Bill, but I speak subject to correction by those who have looked through it. I will make inquiries as to the other point. I hope my noble friend will be good enough to accept that explanation because we cannot have the Bill in a form in which the owner or occupier of a building which may be of some historic or architectural value is given the opportunity, if he is so minded, to pull to pieces what remains of the building or the ruins before ever the Minister has had a chance of having an application made.

THE EARL OF WARWICK

I am not going to press this, but I do think that here we reach a point of fundamental principle. The noble and learned Viscount's answer to me was that there was some danger of some horrible owner destroying a building because he had received a notice. You cannot legislate always to cover all criminal actions. I do not think, either, that you can have happy legislation in this country unless the administration is able to pursue the ordinary lines of common courtesy which we all use between each other. I agree that there may be some technical hitch by which a man on receiving notice could tear his house down very quickly. I have no doubt the noble and learned Viscount could quickly amend that so that it was impossible. But my intention is surely a very honest and simple one. It is, if nothing else, simple courtesy if somebody is going to enter your property and tell you what you may or may not do with it, that you should have some reasonable time in which to know about it.

The noble and learned Viscount carried it a bit further, and I think he was very arbitrary—highly arbitrary—by saying that this was a matter of national interest and, therefore, the order had to come in and it was nothing to do with the owner. These are largely questions of artistic appreciation, about which many of us have very different views, and I am not at all certain that the people whom the Minister may consult before making that order would be always the right and proper people. I am certain that there is a sufficient question of doubt on that matter for it to be fair for the owner to be able to receive notice so that, if he does not agree or if other authorities on objects of art and beauty do not agree, he can prepare a case which they take to the Minister and say: "We have a lot of expert advice, too. We have the Chairman of the Birmingham Museum and the President of the Fine Arts Society. You have simply consulted the National Portrait Gallery." I use terms just figuratively, because the noble and learned Viscount presented it to me rather quickly. I think there is a sufficient doubt on all questions of an artistic nature for an owner to be allowed fair time to oppose an order if he wants to do so—not to have an order delivered to him by the Minister who must be, whatever his other abilities, arbiter eleganliarum.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If I may be excused for interrupting my noble friend, I know he is the last to wish by accident to misrepresent the position. He says it surely is only fair that the owner should be given notice of what is contemplated to be done before he is presented with the order. I do not think my noble friend can have appreciated that under the existing law, before any order can be made and when the authority applies to the Minister in respect of a building which is on the list, there has to be notice of the submission which is being made to the Minister for his approval. It is not in this Bill because it is in the existing law. That is so. It happens at this minute, and it has to be notice which is at least fourteen days before any order is made in order that the individual, if he likes, may object. If he objects—he can object within fourteen days—and says "I do not take this view at all; I have much better advice than you. My building is not, as a matter of fact, a building of this character; you are wrongly advised," he has every opportunity of arguing it out with the Ministry. That is all the existing law. The only thing for which my noble friend is asking is that he should get this notice for twenty-eight days before any application even is made to the Minister. That is a thing which I must dig my toes in about because it manifestly gives the opportunity of, not the sort of owner we are talking about but a particular kind of person saying: "I have the opportunity now of fetching in a contractor and selling the stuff as rubble before anybody can stop me;" and surely common sense requires, and every honest and decent proprietor will agree, that that ought not to be allowed. That is the only reason why I object to this proposal.

LORD HEMINGFORD

Does not the existing law give the owner the opportunity of fourteen days in which to pull down?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes, it certainly does. I do not see how that can be avoided if you are going to give the owner notice, but I do not see any reason why you should extend the period three times.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

There are two separate questions here which make it a little confusing. Section 17 of the Act of 1932 enables the local authority under certain conditions to prohibit the demolition of any building of special architectural or historic interest. Another question, which is so different a question that one almost wonders why it is put in the same subsection—except as a matter of drafting, and from that point of view it was reasonable to put it there—is the question whether there shall be power to make an order directing that without the consent of the authority the building shall not be in any way prohibited by the order from being altered or extended. That may mean some quite trivial alteration, but for all time after that order the owner of the house would have a house which he cannot touch in any substantial manner unless he goes first to the authority. If that order cannot be made without full notice to the owner, personally I am content. I think it is arguable, and the noble and learned Viscount has already told us that he is in doubt, whether it is so or not. I also am in doubt whether it is so or not, but if the noble and learned Viscount is willing to consider it, as he says he is, and to satisfy himself that the order (which, as I say, sterilizes the powers of the owner of the property altogether) shall not be made without full notice to him, I am content, and I shall be quite willing that the matter should be disposed of on Report.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That shall be done.

THE EARL OF WARWICK

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

2.52 p.m.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to insert in subsection (2): Provided that the Minister, in giving his decision upon any appeal under the said subsection by the owner of a building against a refusal by the local authority to vary or revoke an order directing that the building shall not, in any way prohibited by the order, be altered or extended or to grant their consent to the alteration or extension thereof shall, if his decision is adverse to the appellant, furnish to him a statement of his reasons for such decision.

The noble Earl said: I am afraid I do not like Clause 41 at all, for a number of reasons which I will not develop now. I will develop them later on another Amendment. This proviso comes at the end of subsection (2). Subsection (2) deals with the question of the orders, and by inference, and by reference to Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, with an appeal to the Minister. My proviso only asks that in the event of the Minister giving an answer contrary to the wish of the appellant, he should explain in writing to the appellant why he has refused his appeal. As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said just now, in this clause we are dealing with the Englishman's castle, which is his home, and the clause has extended certain provisions of the Act of 1932 so as to cover alterations and additions to that home. It does not specify large or small ones. It means to say that any alteration that a man has to make to his house—it may be for his convenience, it may be for the economical working of his house, it may be to enable him to live in his house—has to go before the local authority and, on appeal, to the Minister, who may turn it down and there is no provision for the Minister to let him know why he has turned that appeal down. I think it only fair and right as between a Government and a member of the public that the Minister should in this case be prepared to let him know why he has refused his appeal.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 16, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Radnor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My noble fiend, as he has indicated, has later on the Paper a further proposal that the whole of Clause 41 should be omitted. The greater necessarily includes the less, but I would like to make an effort—and I think it will shorten proceedings on this clause—an effort which really also covers the difficulty expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham just now, to indicate the sort of change which I think ought to be made in this clause. As it stands the clause is open to the objection which Lord Radnor has indicated, that an unreasonable or foolish authority might raise objection to internal changes in a building of this character which were purely a matter of internal structure—putting in an extra bathroom, substituting a lift for stairs, or what you please. I confess that might be, if it was unreasonably worked, most oppressive as well as futile. What you want is to preserve those characteristics of the building which really make it valuable in a national or public sense, so that inside the Englishman's castle he may make arrangements which are suitable, without having at any moment to go and ask the local authority whether it approves.

The sort of change I want to make in this clause—it may come a little earlier than the point we have passed—I believe would meet my noble friend, and I think it would meet my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham and a number of people, with whose feelings I sympathize. I would like to put it in on the Report stage. It would come after the first subsection, the subsection which provides that the local authority may make an order, and that includes an order that the building shall not in any way be altered or extended. I quite see the difficulty of those wide words because they might be used quite unreasonably. I want to put at the end of subsection (1) this: Provided that such a direction shall not be given by the authority or approved by the Minister unless the authority or the Minister as the case may be are/is satisfied that the alteration or extension of the building in the way prohibited would seriously affect the character of the building. That is what we are really after, and we are not interested in anything else, and I think it would meet the spirit of my noble friend's Amendment. It was really Lord Maugham who called my attention to this first of all. I believe that is a much better way than tinkering with the various subsections here. The result would be that the whole subject matter of the clause would be limited to orders or directions so far as alterations or extensions of the building in the way prohibited would seriously affect the character of the building.

I have asked myself whether there is any means of deciding in a borderline case, and it is very difficult to see how that can be finally decided, because it is all-important that the decision should be made before the work is done. It is not very satisfactory to have the work done and then have the prosecution. But I think one might reasonably assume that the Minister and his advisers would act on the lines I have indicated, and I am perfectly prepared to put that in. I venture to think that is what Lord Radnor and others want, and may I say that it meets his desire better than by a series of small Amendments?

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said, and I think it does meet the point of the Amendment I have put down in an endeavour to improve the clause, in the event of your Lordships not agreeing to delete it from the Bill. It does not cover my main argument, however, which I will develop when I move later on, but I will withdraw the Amendment.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

May I ask a question in reference to the suggestion which has been made by the noble and learned Viscount? I am not quite sure whether its effect would be that there would be some machinery for determining whether the proposed alteration or extension of the building is likely or calculated to interfere with the character of the building. And who is going to determine that? Because that is the point which we want to know. We do not want to leave it open, we want it determined in some way without being left to the local authority. I am not quite sure whether what my noble and learned friend has suggested covers that question or not. If there is machinery for determining that vital question then I should he myself disposed, without pledging my friends in any way, to assent.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This draft will have to be brought in on Report so there is time to get the advantage of any suggestions. I have puzzled my head over the question put to me and I should be very grateful for any suggestions. My noble and learned friend Viscount Maugham suggested an Amendment which would limit the restriction to cases where the building is occupied. His point was that it is only if such a building is occupied that you need have regard to this, but I do not think myself that it is right or necessary to limit it in that way. If you have an alteration internally which does not affect the character of the building, who cares? The less we interfere in these things the better. I shall put something down on Report and I hope that that will have the effect of shortening this discussion.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I rise only to protect myself from the view that the Amendments I have put down are the maximum Amendments I should like. They are the maximum I think I may possibly be able to get. and I should heartily welcome any improvement to my Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount can suggest.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.2 p.m.

LORD AMMON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "one month" and insert "three months." The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the preservation of buildings of special architectural and historic interest, and as has been already pointed out the preceding clause deals with the compilation of lists of such buildings. The subsection with which we are now dealing stipulates that the owner of a listed building must give a month's notice to the planning authority of his intention either to alter, extend or demolish the building. I think one month's notice of the owner's intention to alter, extend or demolish a building is not adequate for the planning authority, and subsequently the Minister, to be given, having regard to the work that will have to be undertaken. The question whether or not the building is of such a character as to make preservation a desirable thing, the question whether there will be interference with proposed replanning in the neighbourhood, and the question of what compensation if any should be paid because of prohibition to demolish would be points which might have to go before one or more committees. Therefore to allow only one month does not seem adequate. If the extension which I propose is accepted I think it might help the noble and learned Viscount in other matters.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 27, leave out ("one month") and insert ("three months.")—(Lord Ammon.)

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I feel that this Amendment is a most remarkable example of inconsistency, or if you like of favouring the local authority as against the unfortunate individual. Yesterday on Clause 1 the noble Lord who moved this Amendment moved to cut down the notice which a local authority has to give to the public from two months to one month, but now he suggests that the notice the public have got to give to the local authority should be three months instead of one month.

LORD AMMON

May I be permitted to point out that it is much easier to find the person concerned in this case than in the other?

LORD LATHAM

This Amendment is not put forward to make matters consistent but to make it administratively possible to do what is intended by the subsection. I would point out that if the later Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, is carried, and only one month's notice is to be given, the local authority will not be able to comply with the provisions in the Bill. If Lord Woolton's Amendment is adopted the local authority must send a copy to the Minister and except where the authority is the council of a county borough, to the council of the county in which the area of the authority is situated, and in either case to such other persons or bodies of persons as may be specified by the Minister either generally or as respects the building in question. If it is desired that this machinery of notice should operate effectively it is no good limiting the period to a month. I cannot see that the extension to three months would in any way prejudice the owner. It will merely enable the local authority to examine the position satisfactorily and give the notice which will be required if the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, is adopted. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, contemplates two months' notice in this kind of case.

I would like to say that Clauses 40 and 41 were not inserted in the Bill at the instance of avaricious local authorities who went to take half the National Gallery, plus the whole of the British Museum, and then if they are not satisfied have a go at the Inns of Court. They were inserted in the Bill in another place at the instance of persons and associations concerned with preserving buildings of architectural and historic importance. The London County Council were asked whether they would support these provisions. We indicated that we thought they were not unreasonable and that as far as we were concerned we had always tried to conform with them. These clauses do not give any additional power to a local authority to do anything except to restrain a private owner from doing something to the detriment of the preservation of buildings of historic or architectural value. I ask your Lordships to agree to extend the period, not as any penalty upon the owner, nor as any advantage to the local authority, but to give the local authority sufficient time properly to discharge the additional obligation which this subsection would impose upon them.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Can we across the table make a bargain? I am prepared to agree to two months. That was the precedent cited by Lord Latham.

LORD AMMON

In the true British spirit of compromise—

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will write 5o per cent. if the noble Lord will sit down quickly.

LORD AMMON

Then I will move my Amendment in that form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 27, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months").—(Lord Ammon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is simply to provide that notice must be given in writing. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 27, after ("notice") insert ("in writing").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ESHER moved, in subsection (3), after "notice," to insert "in writing in such form as may be prescribed by the Minister." The noble Viscount said: I do not wish to press this Amendment but I would like to know from the noble and learned Viscount whether he considers the wording of this subsection is clear and precise enough so that it will not be left to the court to decide what is or is not sufficient notice within the meaning of the subsection.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 27, after ("notice") insert ("in writing in such form as may be prescribed by the Minister").—(Viscount Esher.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will look at it if I may. I think it is all right, but I will have the matter looked into and if it seems that an Amendment is required I will put it down on Report.

VISCOUNT ESHER

In view of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF RADNOR had given Notice of an Amendment to insert in subsection (3): Provided that if within one month after the giving to the local planning authority of a notice under this subsection of the proposed alteration or extension of a building the authority make no order containing such a direction as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section they shall be deemed to have decided not to make such an order and nothing in this section shall prevent the person by whom the notice was given from proceeding with the work to which the notice related.

The noble Earl said: In view of the statement made by the noble and learned Viscount that he proposes to insert on Report words to confine orders under this clause to major operations rather than minor operations inside a house I think there is no particular point in moving this Amendment now.

3.10 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after subsection (3): (4) Where a local planning authority receive a notice under the last preceding subsection they shall as soon as may be send a copy of the notice to the Minister and, except where the authority is the council of a county borough, to the council of the county in which the area of the authority is situated, and in either case to such other persons or bodies of persons as may be specified by the Minister either generally or as respects the building in question.

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a proposal to add same words after subsection (3). Would the Committee allow me just to say that I am not myself convinced that the language of the proviso from lines 3o to 34 is quite correct? I do not ask for any discussion about it now, but I wish to indicate it. I doubt very much whether those words "to deal with an unforeseen emergency" can be very easily construed. We are dealing with buildings, the preservation of which is desired in the national interest and the fact of the emergency being foreseen by the owner—he may be quite sure that in another six months the place will fall down—would not seem to me sufficient reason why he should not be assisted about emergency repairs. I am going to look at it with a view to recasting it when we come to Report. We need not discuss it now.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 34, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

Would the noble and learned Viscount allow me to say that the words are necessary on the Bill as they stand, are they not? An order might have been made by the authority that the building shall not be altered in any way. Or again there might be an order, under Section 17, prohibiting demolition. Or yet again there might be a storm and the owner might afterwards be told "If you do not pull down the house it is going to fall into the street and may fall upon some people, and you would consequently be liable." That is the sort of emergency that might arise.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am obliged for the warning of my noble and learned friend, but we will not discuss this point now. My doubt is as to whether the word "unforeseen" is wide enough. It might be that there would be an owner who would say: "Let the place fall down," but even if that were his attitude it might still be necessary to help him about emergency repairs. The object, as set out, is to secure that: Where a local planning authority receives a notice under the last preceding section they shall, as soon as may be, send a copy of a notice to the Minister and, except where the authority is the council of a county borough, to the council of the county in which the area of the authority is situated, and in either case to such other persons or bodies of per- sons as may he specified by the Minister either generally or as respects the building in question. May I suggest that under the definition of bodies of persons who may be specified the National Trust would come as a very good example? The Amendment has been designed to meet a point of criticism which I think was just.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 39, leave out ("last preceding subsection") and insert ("subsection (3) of this section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to omit paragraph (b) in subsection (6). The noble Earl said: This subsection provides that, if an owner does not keep his building in repair, the local authority can purchase it compulsorily, and I think I am right in saying that there is no limit of time in years to this. Therefore they can purchase compulsorily for all time at the March 31, 1939, price. I think that is a correct interpretation. My noble and learned friend Viscount Maugham raises a very technical point on which he has an Amendment later on which in part meets my objection, but what this paragraph, in effect, means is that if an owner who is unable to keep this house—a house which has been scheduled—in the kind of repair which the local authority thinks necessary, they can dispossess him. Well, that may or may not be a good thing. Possibly it may be a good thing for the owner. But I submit that it is not quite reasonable. Equally, I do not know that it is such a good thing for the local authority. It may be a big house, and when they dispossess the owner they cannot compel him to go on living there. They cannot compel him to be their tenant. Are they going to get another?

I think that my noble friend Viscount Esher may be able to tell us something of the difficulties connected with large country houses taken over by public authorities. They are apt to be a burden on the local authority. Therefore, there are two points here. First the paragraph gives power to dispossess a man of his own home for no real fault of his own and to dispossess him at an arbitrary price. Fur- ther it may well be that the place will become a burden on the local authority which I do not think they ought necessarily to have to bear. I would also suggest that if anybody is turned out under this, or is dispossessed and leaves the house, there may well be a large and empty building on the hands of the local authority for ever and ever—a building for which they have no use. I beg to move.

Amendment moved: Page 50, leave out lines 14 to 23.—(The Earl of Padnor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Your Lordships will, of course, observe that this provision which my noble friend wishes to omit is not a compulsory provision. It is not a provision saying that the local authority must buy any white elephant in the country which will not otherwise be kept up. Not at all. It is merely a facultative provision and the simple question is this: The building in question having been decided to be a building of historic and architectural importance, is it to be left to its fate and allowed to fall down merely because the building cannot be preserved by private effort? There are cases in which some of your Lordships would prefer that private effort should prevail over public effort. But, at any rate, if private effort fails I should have thought the provision that public effort might be employed would be generally accepted. The simple point here is that in the last resort there may be no other means by which the preservation of the building can be secured. I fully appreciate that the local authority would think twice before it took over some of these buildings, but it is not required to do sc unless it wishes. If it is in the public interest that a building of historic and national importance should not be allowed to fall into ruin and the Minister is satisfied that private efforts cannot possibly maintain it, then I think your Lordships will agree that it is right there should be power in the local authority to acquire it.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

In reply to the noble and learned Viscount, it is quite true that this is only a permissive provision, although in years gone by I have very often been told when I wanted a clause altered to be mandatory that "may" means "must."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It does not here.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

It has been said to me quite often in your Lordships' House. I do not think it does mean "must" here. But equally his argument, so far as the local authority is concerned, is almost self-destructive, in that if the local authority is not going to operate this, what is the use of having this subsection? If the local authority is going to operate it, it may well find itself landed with a burden. In view of the fact that I have a later Amendment of greater importance, I shall not pursue the question further, but I do think that this is a provision which is very hard upon the owner of houses. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.21 p.m.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved to insert after subsection (6): Provided that in the case of a building which is the subject of a settlement within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1925, if it appears to the authority that reasonable steps are required for properly maintaining the building the expenses rendered necessary by taking such steps shall he included in the improvements in Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Settled Land Act, 1925, and accordingly may be carried out by the tenant for life without any scheme for the execution of the improvement being first submitted to the trustees of the settlement or the court out of capital moneys arising under the Act.

The noble and learned Viscount said: The object of the Amendment which stands in my name and in that of the Earl of Warwick is to deal with the position which I am afraid is generally occupied now throughout the country by tenants for life, and it refers simply to cases where buildings which are the subject of the present provisions happen to be included in a settlement, which I have defined in legal language. It seems to me that the position is generally this, that the owner of a house who owns the freehold will keep up the house so long as he can, and he will provide the money out of his own means for the purpose of doing so; and, as we know, many of these magnificent houses have been maintained for hundreds of years by their owners at the cost of very great deprivation with regard to the ordinary amenities of life, they regarding the upkeep of the house as a sort of sacred trust.

What, however, is the position of a tenant for life? Before the war, and perhaps going back earlier than that, the tenants for life of these houses had as a rule substantial means, and they were able to keep up the historic mansion, a typical example of which we are being asked to consider. Since the war, however, and since the enormous increase in taxation, tenants for life all over the country, if they are the tenants for life of substantial properties with a great mansion house such as we are considering, are absolutely without any income at all after they have paid Income Tax and Surtax and rates and the necessary charges for insurance. They have nothing left, and if the local authority should come to them and say, "You must keep up this building or we will take it from you by compulsory purchase," their case is very hard indeed, because often they have little enough out of their own means for looking after and educating their children and providing for the upkeep of the house and the ordinary expenses of living, probably in the very house with which I am concerned.

What I am submitting to the Committee is this. If you are going to insert, with regard to properties of this kind which happen to be in settlement, a provision to enable the local authority compulsorily to acquire the building because they find upon inquiry that the building will not be repaired (which will mean the expenditure of some thousands of pounds unless the powers of paragraph (b) of subsection (6) are exercised) it seems to me that something ought to be done; and what should be done is that for the benefit of the tenant for life and of the remaindermen, who are probably his children, it should be open to the tenant for life to effect the necessary repairs at the expense of capital. I cannot argue this at full length, because the sections which would have to be referred to in the Settled Land Act of 1925 and the Schedules are so long that it would be impossible to go into them here, at any rate in present circumstances; but I would assure the Committee that there are many things authorized at the expense of capital under the provisions of the Settled Land Act which are by no means so essential to be done in the interests of a family as the carrying out of an order which the local authority thinks is necessary, and in default of which the property is going to be compulsorily acquired. It is for that reason that I have put down this Amendment. Unless any noble Lord would like me to explain it further, I do not think that I need add anything. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 23, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Maugham.)

3.25 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am impressed by the argument of my noble and learned friend, and I think that others of your Lordships are also impressed by it. My own view is that something of this sort ought to be included in the Bill; but my noble and learned friend, who is very precise in these matters and knows them exceptionally well, will, I think, show sympathy to weaker brethren. I should like to be sure that the form of the proviso satisfies those who are advising me and others whom I shall consult. If I may ask for time, I will consult my noble and learned friend before putting down the final wording, and I hope that this may be remitted to the Report stage.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I am quite content, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM had given Notice that he would move to add to the clause: (8) This section shall not apply to any building which is occupied as a dwelling-house by any person (other than a person employed as the caretaker thereof) or his family. Provided always that if any alteration or extension is proposed to be carried out to any such building which will seriously affect the character of the building the same shall not be carried into effect without the consent of authority. (9) If any question shall arise under this section as to whether a proposed alteration of extension to a building is such as seriously to affect the character thereof such question shall be submitted to and decided by the Minister. The noble and learned Viscount said: I am not quite sure how far I shall need this Amendment if the suggestion made by my noble and learned friend with regard to some words to be added to subsection (1) of Clause 41 is carried out.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think you will need it.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I do not think that I shall, because my Amendment was intended to prevent the clause from applying to dwelling-houses unless the altera- tion or extension would seriously affect the character of the building, in which case I do not think that I ought to object to the proposal in the Bill. I am, as are my friends, very anxious that the question of whether a building will have its character seriously affected is one which will be settled either by the Minister or, it may be, by .some other body, if the Government can propose some other body to do it, and shall not be decided by the local authority. Subject to that, I do not propose to move the Amendment.

3.28 p.m.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to leave out Clause 41. The noble Earl said: I wish to move the deletion of this clause from the Bill. It will not affect the Bill as such to any major extent; in fact, I am not certain that the clause really has any place in this Bill. There is a matter of considerable importance and principle involved in this clause, which extends the power of the local authority over what a man may do in his house or with his house. In some of the earlier discussions on it, the noble and learned Viscount who is replying for the Government seemed rather to emphasize the question of pulling down a building and the question of ancient monuments, but in fact this must affect a large number of houses which are at present being occupied by human beings, and not only large houses but often sir all houses as well.

There is here a question of sentiment. On the one side there are those who wish to preserve these buildings in the condition they are in to-day and on the other side those who are living in them and wish to continue doing so and to fulfil their part in the life of the countryside. It is true that the Lord Chancellor has met objections that might be raised on the question of minor alterations, or rather he proposes to do so, but even so many of the buildings which will be concerned, probably the larger number of them, are houses built in a more spacious age, very large houses—houses which are, and have been in many cases for a number of years, the centre of a community. It may well be that -the owners of these houses in the years alter the war will have demands for major alterations that will take the form of gulling down a large part of these houses, involving very definite alterations in the character of the houses, and it may be that only by pulling clown parts can they continue to live in their homes. Is it not better that that house should be preserved in its entirety as it is with the family who have lived there for a very long time, rather than the family having to go away because they cannot continue to afford to live there, thus, if I may so put it, removing the "eye" from the community, removing the good influence in the countryside? Is it right that bricks and mortar should be given precedence over the community life of this country?

There is one other argument which I would use and about which I feel very strongly. I know that a great many people feel strongly that these buildings should be maintained as they are and should not be altered. These people have a sentimental liking for old buildings. But the character of a great many of these buildings lies in the fact that in the past generations the owners have altered them very considerably. There are, it is true, a certain number of perfect examples of architecture which have been unaltered, but a great many of the most lovely houses in this country to-day have been altered very considerably. The great, joy of them is that they are homes; they are not merely examples of good architectural construction. The clause if it is persisted in means to a very large extent sterilization. It will stop progress in the direction of those houses. I do beg your Lordships to consider that very carefully before you allow the clause to remain in the Bill, and to bear in mind the human side that will lie behind refusals to make alterations which may be necessary to enable families that have lived in these houses to continue to live in them.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 41.—(The Earl of Radnor.)

3.33 p.m.

THE EARL OF WARWICK

For a variety of reasons I would like to support the noble Earl who has just spoken. I think the noble and learned Viscount who answered the Amendment put down by Lord Maugham and myself was most generous to us and, subject to certain qualifications, I shall be much less worried than I was. Much of this, as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, says, seems to hinge on sterilization of future art. We have no judge mentioned. Is it to be the Minister? Is it to relate to the few houses in England of great historic interest that have been built in one age? Most houses have been altered in sub- sequent periods—a bit built by a great grandfather in Edward the Third's reign, someone else making an addition later, interior decorations done in the Stuart period, other alterations made in the Georgian age, and a collection of pictures made in Victorian days, and so on and so forth? That is the true history of all the old English country houses and it cannot be got away from.

It may be the opinion of a great many of us that there is no great movement of art at present and that we must keep the status quo, but that is not to say that in the years to come after this war there may not be a period of British art that will equal anything there has been in our history. It has been traditional always of the charm and character of English country villages and houses, and even of London, that the Englishman's home has been an adaptation to beauty. Not only do we have to put the future of this artistic development before a committee, but we do not even know who the committee is to be. We have got no further than the Minister and the local authority. With the greatest respect in the world to the noble and learned Viscount who answers for the Government I have a suspicion not only of the artistic power of judgment of the local authorities but also of the Minister. How can we be assured that the correct decision will be taken? The whole thing is de gustibus. It is a most difficult and complicated matter.

I would like to support the noble Earl also on a purely moral ground. It is perfectly true that we would like to see these ancient buildings preserved but at the same time we must remember that the pioneer in the wool industry in the Cotswolds built some of the early lovely manors there not because he intended the general public to enjoy them. He built them for the benefit of his children; he built them to live in himself, and after him his children. I admit the right of the nation but surely it is only a secondary right. I maintain that so long as the primary right, the right of the builder and of his heirs exists, the right of the nation must be a very secondary one. I do not know whether the noble Lord would be prepared to agree to an Amendment of that nature. Where you have a long series of stepping stones of artistic development, of artistic documentation of our country's progress, it is a terrifying thing to contemplate removing people.

I think this Bill is calculated to protect those buildings which are not properly looked after; but there are an enormous number of houses which are properly looked after. How much is it going to encourage a man who lives in his house and has always been devoted to it? He is not very keen on forms and is not very tolerant, say, of ill-advised criticisms. How is it going to affect his whole attitude to the charge which he has inherited? I do not think it is going to affect him favourably. He will say: "I have kept up this building, I have not done it any harm, and here is a Bill brought in that orders a lot of things to be done. What is it all about?" I think this will seriously prejudice the sense of responsibility which has existed for hundreds of years. I maintain that the majority of the houses are occupied and it is only a minority that are not properly looked after.

Passing on to one other little aspect of this matter, how does this affect the people who own these properties? I recollect that in the earlier discussion of this Bill my noble friend Lord Maugham, addressing the noble and learned Viscount who has been answering for the Government this afternoon, said that they both of them well knew the difference between freehold and leasehold property. An unrestricted freehold has a value which exceeds a leasehold. We all know that. To what extent do restrictions on freehold as imposed under this clause affect the freehold value of property? Might it not be very arguable for somebody who has purchased my house which, we will say, comes under Clause 40 of this Bill, to say: "I do not think I could pay you the full freehold price because, after all, it is a very restricted freehold. I may be called upon at any time to do this, that, or the other. I am not altogether sure that I ought not to have a little bit off for accepting this liability." I do not think that is a big point, but it is a point which, as compensation does enter into this Bill so much, might be investigated before the Third Reading.

The noble and learned Viscount who suggested an Amendment to take the place of the one Lord Radnor had made, and which the noble Lord, Lord Maugham, and I suggested, I think made a very good one, but he spoke rather as ii the oily alteration to a house which could damage the house was an external one. Of course, a great many of the things which we would wish to preserve if this does go through, or in any case, are inside. There are frescoes, mantelpieces, staircases, and all sort of things, and I do not think it is so simple as the noble and learned Viscount envisaged. Perhaps he will be good enough to remember that when the actual phrasing goes through. I am sorry I have been rather long, but I feel strongly on this and it does impinge on an Amendment which we have already dealt with.

3.42 p.m.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

Before a final decision is taken upon this clause 1, for my part, would like to know whether subsection (3) of Clause 40 applies to the alteration or extension of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. There is a provision there that the Minister shall consult with such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him appropriate as having special knowledge of or interest is buildings of architectural and historic interest with a view of putting them upon a register. If I may say so, it would appear to me of particular importance if it is sought by a local planning authority to extend of alter such buildings, that there should be some really competent body to whom reference can be made as to whether in the public interest such extension or alteration is desirable. I should have thought that there is no one more competent as a knowledgeable curator of a building of historic or architectural interest than the actual owner with all the traditions that are handed down by his forebears and all the natural instinct he has to preserve unimpaired such a building. I happen to be president in my own county of a branch of what is known as The C.P.R.E. (The Council for the Preservation of Rural England) and that county happens to possess quite a considerable number of old country houses and other buildings of historic and architectural interest.

Unless the best of all curators, the owner, is going to find it possible in days to come to live on the premises, how are those buildings, at any rate without some competent authority advising the Minister, going to be preserved in the best interests of the public—at any rate of those who have any aesthetic taste? May I say in passing that there are no people in the British Empire more concerned about the disappearance of these ancient buildings of historic and architectural interest, than those living overseas in our own Dominions and I, for my part, would venture to express the hope that some authoritative body should be available to the Minister when an appeal is made to him to guide him as to whether it is or it is not desirable to allow those buildings to be altered or extended.

I would make reference to one instance. I do not know exactly how Berkeley Castle stands in this connexion, but opposite to me across the estuary of the Severn stands one of the most historic, one of the most interesting and architecturally beautiful buildings in the whole of England, where Edward II was done to death. Only a fortnight ago a large proportion of that estate was sold simply because the present owner could not afford to pay Death Duties without its being put upon the market. No one to-day knows what is going to be the future of that historic building. Surely that is a very good illustration of what may happen unless the owner for the time being finds it possible to live on the premises and with all his knowledge of past history and family tradition, is able to do with it in the matter of extension or alteration as he himself thinks desirable. I do hope that some further consideration may be given by the Government to this appeal.

3.47 p.m.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

I very much want to support my noble friend's Amendment because it seems to me that you cannot legislate for good taste. You cannot send people to heaven by Acts of Parliament though you can send them to the other place. It is really a standard of values and tastes which will preserve our buildings and not legislation, and there has probably never been more interest in the upkeep of ancient buildings by voluntary societies and voluntary effort at preservation than there is to-day. If one is going to do as both Lord Radnor and Lord Warwick suggested—fix forever one particular standard of what is going on at the moment without any chance of growth on to the countryside—then you are not going to succeed in producing anything better in the country than before, but what you are going to do is to prevent a living thing going on. You are going also to prevent what is the only reason for a good many ancient buildings existing at all—people living in them. You are going to prevent them ultimately living there, and you are going to have vast masses of empty shells in due course standing about the countryside being preserved and shellacked over from time to time to prevent their falling in and to see that the roof is kept on. There will be no more use and no more life in them than anything in a museum.

But what really matters is that there is a principle in ownership of estates and lands, in most country houses, and it is a very wise principle, the owner always being brought to grief when he does not observe it; and that is if you overbuild your house to the size of the estate and your pocket it always comes to grief and the family with it. The land suffers, the family suffers and the estate suffers. A great many houses to-day are badly overbuilt in comparison to the land. The land cannot reasonably support them. They are a drain as much on the cottage as on the owner, and a great many of those buildings should come clown or in part at any rate he made smaller. You cannot have it both ways. The rating authorities to-day, if you make a large house smaller, put your rates up at once because they say it is more valuable. Here you are proposing to make it impossible really for a person to go on living in his house because you say "You shall not touch it—you shall not make any major alteration."

If there is going to be any real country life both the manor and the mansion, which are generally fairly historic places, must be .made a living part of a village community. It may be possible without pulling them down to devote a wing to some aspect of village life, which could not probably be done if you are not allowed to make any major alterations. You might be able to have a local industry, you might be able to use it for entertainments or a village club. All that might very owell be prevented if this clause stands part of the Bill.

3.51 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

The noble Lord made out a strong case for one point of view, but there is another aspect to consider. The Amendment proposes simply the omission of the clause. Suppose Parliament were to agree to that course and the clause were omitted, what would occur in such cases is this. We know that, owing mainly to the pressure of taxation, a number of houses of the character now under discussion may come upon the market. The family which has long possessed such a house may be under an obligation, purely for financial reasons, to dispose of a house of historic or architectural interest. The executors, when the next generation comes into possession, may feel constrained to do that. Some new owner comes forward with ample means, purchases the house and, perhaps having more money than historic sense or good taste, pulls it about, destroys its character and, to the scandal of the locality, commits outrages such as have been suffered in many cases, and which may surely be repeated. Then everybody would say, "How is it that in this age Parliament should allow such things, should remain callous and indifferent and see this vandalism going on, and these wealthy millionaires doing this and that to our old historic houses?"

What does the noble Lord who proposed the omission of this clause suggest? I think before the Committee agrees to that omission it ought to know what alternative is proposed to prevent precisely that state of things arising which I have just sketched as possible, and which everybody agrees may be possible. Now Parliament has to legislate, not for the normal case but for the exceptional case, and we are not considering the case of an old family which carefully safeguards its heritage and which gives no cause for complaint to anybody. On the contrary, there is a national gratitude for the way in which they have maintained these ancient possessions of England, which are among its greatest attractions and most valuable heritage. But what we are concerned with is to prevent abuses, and where legitimate changes are proposed in the character of a house we can assume that other people will be quite .well aware that some valueless wing of an old building which makes it far too large had much better be pulled down; because if it cannot be pulled down the family may have to give up living in the house altogether. The county council is well aware of all these facts and is not likely to do anything so unreasonable as to put the owner to that loss and under that penalty. And if the county council were unreasonable there is always provision for an appeal to the Minister, and the Minister is well advised by officers of State Departments, who are most careful and have proved their skill and capacity in dealing with these very matters. Consequently, while on the one hand I am inclined to think that the fears expressed are not likely to he realized, on the other hand if the Amendment is accepted there may come dangers of another kind, the incurring of which everyone would profoundly regret.

3.55 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think it will be agreed that this Amendment of Lord Radnor has raised a very interesting debate, and if we had not got other business to do I should be very willing for my part to see it continued for some time. There was a great deal which was said in support of the Amendment with which I felt the warmest sympathy. For example, it is certainly true that much that: we have in this country of historic and architectural value owes its quality to the fact that changes have been made at different times. Anybody who has ever shown a visitor round the Houses of Parliament omits to say what he ought to say when he goes to Westminster Hall if he does not point out that the walls were built in the time of William Rufus, the windows go back to Richard the Second and the roof is older than Elizabeth. A man who takes an interest in ecclesiastical architecture knows perfectly well how the interest in the finest church buildings depends on the fact that the lady chapel is Early English, the nave is Decorate I and the chancel is that or that. That is quite true, and there is a danger of sterilization, because we are dealing here with the subject of taste, and about taste nobody can be sure. Unless I recollect wrongly, the word "Gothic," which is now applied to church architecture in order to describe some of its greatest splendours, was originally applied, in the time of Queen Anne or thereabouts, as though it were a sort of substitute for Vandal—people thought it to be a most inferior form of architecture and that it was much better to go in for the Renaissance style.

All that I admit, and it certainly is not a matter which any instructed man who is advising the Minister is ever likely to overlook. But as Lord Samuel has said, what would you have? Here is the Town and Country Planning Act of 1932, which has stood, I think, with general approval. It provides in Clause 17 power to make orders for the preservation of ancient buildings, but it contains a limitation which, when you look at it, is really quite absurd. The only power under the Act of 1932 was to make an order to prevent a building being destroyed. You might knock it about as much as you pleased. My noble friend behind me said that the best guardians of many of these houses are the ancient and traditional possessors, but after all, sometimes these houses do pass into quite new hands, and I do not always guarantee that the new purchaser has all the traditions of the old. Is it not quite ridiculous, when Parliament has decided in the interests of the community to enable orders to be made which will prevent the destruction—mind you it is only of buildings of special historic or architectural interest—that you should make no provision for the case in which what is proposed is alteration or extension?

You can injure a building just as much by wicked pulling about, in substitution, as you can by pulling it down, Therefore it does appear to me that while my noble friend has raised a most interesting question—and I am all on the side of admiring the way in which our architecture has developed—at the same time I do not really think that we could possibly contemplate omitting this clause. The working of it is another matter, and I would join with anybody who can prove that this clause is worked in a wooden stupid way, simply attaching value to something as it is without regarding the possibility of its being made better, and not worse, by suitable changes. That is why I am myself much affected by what was suggested by Lord Bledisloe. I know that there are objections, but it seems to me a very interesting proposal when he suggested that the consultation which the Minister is required to have in Clause 40 (3) should also be provided for in the case of the exercise of his duties under Clause 41. I think that is very proper if it can be done. The only difficulty I can see at the moment is whether it is administratively possible.

There is one further point. I think myself that the cases which need to be checked under this Bill are quite as likely to occur in country towns as they are in the countryside. There is great and well justified respect for fine mansions. Nobody is likely to pull about some of those magnificent houses in the countryside—at least I hope not—but consider the provincial towns. In the main street there is a beautiful building which because there is no possibility of controlling it is eviscerated, turned into a cinema or a garage, to the scandal of all people who really feel in their bones some devotion to British tradition and what is best in British architecture. I cannot help feeling that when we review this matter we shall not be sorry that we joined the House of Commons in putting this clause in the Bill and I ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.

4.1 p.m.

LORD LATHAM

I hope this Amendment will be rejected. I again wish to correct the impression in the minds certainly of some of the speakers in favour of the Amendment that this clause is designed to enable a local authority itself to carry out work upon a building. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, definitely assumed in the early part of his speech that a local authority would carry out certain alterations. As I understand it this clause merely adds to the present law the power to control or prohibit alterations or extensions. There is no new principle introduced in this clause as regards powers possessed by local authorities. Local authorities can only act under it by and with the permission of the Minister.

I was glad the noble and learned Viscount referred to the situation in towns and cities, because only a few days ago the London County Council were held up to some modest—I will not say unfair—criticism and rebuke for what they had not done, it was alleged, in Berkeley Square. I then ventured, charging my recollection, to say that it was because the London County Council had not the appropriate powers. Since then I have checked up my information and I find that I was right and that in fact the London County Council had no effective power. That statement is based upon a circular issued by the Ministry of Health in 1935—Circular 305—in which local authorities were told that the exercise of their powers under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, should be limited to preventing what may be reasonably regarded as outrage buildings—the word "outrage" is used—out of keeping with their surroundings, and an offence to the neighbourhood. We were advised in the light of that circular and after consultation with the Minister that we had no powers to enable us to prevent certain things being done in Berkeley Square. Early last year when the Town and Country Planning Bill of that year was under consideration we made representations to the Minister that the situation should be clarified in this respect, but we met with no success.

I hope that those members of your Lordships' House who, if I may say it with every respect, seem to have a jaundiced view of local authorities as a whole, will remember that the domestic administration of this country has been carried on by local government, and carried on very successfully by local government, both in peace and in war. There are no grounds for imagining that if this additional power is given to local authorities, subject to the proviso that it can only be exercised by and with the permission of the Minister, there are likely to be many abuses.

4.5 p.m.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Amendment has produced, as the noble and learned Viscount said, an extremely interesting debate, but in the arguments of those who opposed the Amendment I think there is very little of great substance. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, said there is no new principle in this. The provisions of the 1932 Act dealt only with the destruction of such buildings and this clause deals with alterations. But as I tried to point out when introducing the Amendment, refusal of permission to make alterations may well mean that the individual who lives in a house will not be able to continue to live there. That is in its way a new principle. It must be presumed that if he wants to destroy the house he does not want to live in it, but he may want to alter it in order to be able to live in it. There is therefore rather a new principle. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, pointed out the case of an individual who might buy a historic house and alter it in an outrageous way. That raises the point touched on by the noble and learned Viscount. Who is to say what is outrageous? There are things to-day which no artistic body would allow you to destroy but which when first built were looked on as the most appalling outrages. It may well be that the outrageous alterations of to-day will be looked on one hundred years hence as something that ought to be preserved in the national interest.

There is one other point I would like to make. So far as I can see in this clause cases that may come before the local authority or before the Minister must be judged—the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong—on artistic merit and on no other merit. The whole burden of these two clauses is artistic merit and not the necessities which may compel an owner to put forward sug-

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.15 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 41, to insert the following new clause:

Appeals in respect of design or external appearance of buildings. .Where, in accordance with paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Section twelve of the

gestions for radical alterations to his house. Therefore the human side, as I tried to point out when I moved the Amendment, will necessarily be neglected. I would remind your Lordships once again of what I said and of the remarks of my noble friend the Earl of Portsmouth. There is very definitely a human side. In many cases these houses are the centre of the community and the home of a family who perform an extremely useful function in the national life. It may be made impossible for them to continue to live in the house and the choice may be whether you are going to favour bricks and mortar or human beings. I feel so strongly that I feel compelled to put the matter to a Division.

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

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS.
Simon, V.(L. Chancellor.)	Hampden, V.	Clwyd, L.
	Margesson, V.	Cottesloe, L.
York, L. Abp.	Maugham, V.	Croft, L.
	Mersey, V.	Denman, L.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)	Samuel, V.	Faringdon, L.
Devonshire, D.		Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
Exeter, M.	London, L. Bp.	Hindlip, L.
Reading, M.		Holden, L.
	Addison, L.	Jessel, L.
Cavan, E.	Ailwyn, L.	Latham, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.]	Ammon, L.	Luke, L.
Jersey, E.	Balfour of Burleigh, L.	Meston, L.
Lucan, E.	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)	Southwood, L.
Lytton, E .		Stanmore, L.
Strafford, E.	Bruntisfield, L.	Templemore, L. [Teller.]
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Cecil, L. (V. Craborne.)	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
	Chesham, L.	Wolverton, L.
Astor, V.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Woolton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Abingdon, E.	Bledisloe, V.	Denham, L.
Brooke and Warwick, E.	Long, V.	Hemingford, L.
Portsmouth, E. [Teller.]	Wimborne, V.	Latymer, L.
Radnor, E. [Teller.]		Remnant, L.
Ilchester, E.	Bingley, L.	St. Levan, L.
Onslow, E.

Town and Country Planning Act 1932, provision is made by a planning scheme for enabling the responsible authority to regulate the design or external appearance of buildings, any appeal under that subsection from a decision of the responsible authority shall, if the scheme so provides, lie to the Minister instead of to a court of summary jurisdiction or a special tribunal, and accordingly the said subsection shall have effect as it, after the words summary jurisdiction' there were inserted the words 'or to the Minister'."

The noble and learned Viscount said: I beg to move a new clause to be inserted here dealing with appeals in respect of design or external appearance of buildings. The object of this new clause is to ensure that where, in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932. provision is made by a planning scheme for enabling the responsible authority to regulate the design or external appearance of buildings, any appeal under that subsection from a decision of a responsible authority shall, if the scheme so provides, lie to the Minister. I think it is pretty clear that it is to the Minister that the appeal should go, and not as now arranged, for I believe that now it goes to the magistrates. Amongst other things, this will assist in the maintenance of some sort of standard by which to proceed. Apart from that, I think the Minister and his skilled advisers will deal with this matter more appropriately. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 50, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.18 p.m.

Clause 42:

Extension as respects war period of protection for existing buildings and uses.

(3) Where, at any time during the war period (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) the existing use of any building has been discontinued—

1. (a) by reason of the occurrence to the building of war damage;
2. (b) by reason of possession of the building having been taken in the exercise or purported exercise of emergency powers, or by an authority by whom, at a time at which, and for a purpose for which, possession of the building could have been so taken; or
3. (c) in consequence of any arrangement for the concentration of production approved, or of any order for that purpose made, by the Board of Trade in the exercise or purported exercise of such powers;

no account shall be taken for the purposes of proviso (i) to the definition of "existing use" in Section fifty-three of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932 (which provides that no subsequent use of a building is to be deemed to be an existing use if the existing use has been discontinued for a period of eighteen months) of any time during which the resumption of the existing use of the building is or has been prevented either as mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this subsection or by reason of the refusal by the Minister on appeal of an interim development application for permission to resume that use.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after paragraph (c) in subsection (3), to insert: (d) by reason of the entry of the occupier of the building into whole-time service in the Armed Forces of the Crown or in the Merchant Navy or the Mercantile Marine or in a Civil Defence Force within the meaning of the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1942, or, in the case of a woman, in any of the capacities mentioned in the First Schedule to the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1944; or (e) by reason of such other circumstances as may be prescribed.

The noble and learned Viscount said: There is, I believe, an Amendment by Lord Chesham to this, and I think something might be said for taking the two matters together. The object of the Amendment which I now move, and which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Woolton, is to secure that where the existing use of a building has been discontinued because the occupier has been called up into the Armed Forces, or has volunteered, or has been directed to other employment, compensation rights attaching to the building, as an existing building, are preserved, as they plainly ought to be, and as they are preserved by the subsection as it stands in the cases there mentioned. The new paragraph (d) deals with the cases to which I have referred, and it is clear that often other cases are likely to emerge besides those dealt with which ought, reasonably, to receive similar treatment. I propose that we should add paragraph (e) also to enable the Minister to make regulations to extend subsection (3) to any such cases. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 29, at end insert the said new paragraphs.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD CHESHAM moved to add to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph (e), after "prescribed," the words "including closing of shop or trading premises owing to the inability of the occupier to obtain sufficient stock to enable him to carry on or to his deprivation of adequate access to markets which have prior to the war been available to him." The noble Lord said: I want to say now that I do not consider that either the Government Amendment or my own goes far enough. We have a list of exceptions in subsection (3). The Government now wish to add two more, and I wish to add another. As the noble and learned Viscount has said, there are many other reasons, and there are many other classes of person (the small shopkeeper, for example) who should be excluded. I do not quite like the vagueness of the proposed paragraph (e)—" by reason of such other circumstances as may be prescribed." I am not at all clear who will prescribe them.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Minister.

LORD CHESHAM

Or in what manner they will be prescribed. Anything that I have to say is based on concrete cases of hardship which have arisen not under this Bill, because it is not yet law, but under the Act of 1932. We have had several cases, and my suggestions are based on them. There are people who have been unable to carry on their business owing to lack of trade through war damage in the area. They are not provided for. There are people who have been prevented from carrying on business through lack of trade due to evacuation. There are various other reasons in addition to those already put down of which account should be taken. I notice that in Clause 10 of the Bill, subsection (1) (d), there is an expression which may cover all the exceptions which have been envisaged here. It is "by reason of war circumstances." It is an extremely wide expression, but it is in the Bill in another clause, and I should like to suggest to the Government that they might on the Report stage consider leaving out all these paragraphs lettered (a), (b), (c) and so on and putting in the one phrase "by reason of war circumstances." I do not know whether I have made myself dear, but that will cover everything, in my view, in a better way than will he done by vague prescribed provisions. If the Government are willing to consider that, I shall not press my Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved— In paragraph (e) after ("prescribed") insert the sail words.—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD LATHAM

I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will agree to look at this matter between now and the Report stage. I cannot agree, speaking for one large local authority, that this Committee should seek to make these exceptions as wide as possible, because it roust be remembered that somebody has to pay. I do not know whether the Committee appreciate what this clause is about. This clause is in connexion with what are popularly known in planning circles as nonconforming buildings. Under the Act of 1932, continued by the Act of 1943, if a building which did not conform to the building lines and the planning scheme were pulled down, and a new building were erected within not more than two years, that new building could be put up in precisely the same nonconforming way as the former building. It is proposed in this Bill, and I think quite properly, to extend that period of two years so that the war years should not, as it were, run against it; that is to say, the owners of the building should not be at a disadvantage because of the war years, when it has not been possible to carry-out any rebuilding of a destroyed or demolished building.

I cannot think what kind of hard cases my noble friend Lord Chesham can have had experience of in connexion with this provision. Certainly they cannot have arisen during the war, because nobody has been able to rebuild during the war except under licence and for national purposes, so that there cannot have been any cases of real hardship during the war. In any case Parliament decided that the period should be two years. I think that there is something to be said for widening the scope of the exception, however, but I think that it must be done with reason and with care, and regard must be had to the fact that to the extent that you widen the exceptions you do cast potential compensation upon the local authority, and therefore upon the ratepayers, whose interests are from time to time, even as regards planning, entitled to some consideration.

4.26 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think that the Committee can probably dispose of this matter quickly, because I am very willing to do what is suggested by Lord Latham and by Lord Chesham—namely, to give an assurance that I will have this matter looked at with a view to making sure that a sufficiently wide provision is made. But we have to be careful about this. I do not want to spend time in needless criticism, but my noble friend Lord Chesham will see at once that the test, for example, of "the inability of the occupier to obtain sufficient stock to enable him to carry on" is capable of being interpreted as meaning that he had not enough money.

LORD LATHAM

Or that he could not get into the "black market."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It might be that. Moreover, "deprivation of adequate access to markets" might mean either that there were transport difficulties or that the markets had disappeared by reason of war circumstances. There are all kinds of unexpected developments which might occur and of which it would not be possible to approve, but I will gladly undertake that between now and the Report stage we will consider whether there is anything more that we can say. In cases of this sort, where we all really want to do the fair thing but it is very difficult to visualize in detail exactly what the circumstances are going to be, there is a great deal to be said for adding a paragraph such as (e), "by reason of such other circumstances as may be prescribed," because then the Minister, when he finds a kind of case which ought to be met, is able to make a regulation. Generally speaking, it is better to have these things in an Act of Parliament, but this is not the sort of case in which it is possible to be sure that that is the best way of doing it. If my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment now and let me have my new paragraphs, I will undertake to see that this is studied afresh, so as to be sure that it covers the cases which ought reasonably to be covered.

4.29 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

I shall be pleased to withdraw my Amendment, but I should like to answer Lord Latham's objection that there can be no question of hardship. What I was referring to was the "existing use" of a building, which expires in the normal way after eighteen months. Suppose the building has been empty and not used for a certain purpose for eighteen months, that "existing use" is not considered to exist. The list of exceptions that we are trying to make relate to cases where the existing use is not due to the fault of the owner or of the trader in any way. It has nothing to do with the building. It is a question of existing use. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 37, leave out ("paragraphs (a), (b) or (c)") and insert ("paragraphs (a) to (e)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43 agreed to.

Clause 44 [Provisions as to borrowing for purposes of this Part]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendent is really necessary in view of an Amendment we have made in an earlier clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 53, line 9, after ("authority") insert ("or a county council").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 53, line 9, leave out ("the authority") and insert ("them").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 45 to 48 agreed to.

4.33 p.m.

VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, after Clause 48, to insert:

Provisions for extension of boundaries of certain county and non-county boroughs.

".—(1) Within two years of the coming into force of this Act any county borough or borough which has suffered material damage as a result of enemy action shall have the right to make representations to the Minister stating that without a revision of the boundaries of any such county borough or borough, it is not possible to carry into effect an adequate scheme for the planning and redevelopment of the said county borough or borough.

(2) Upon receiving any such representations the Minister shall transmit a copy thereof to the Minister of Health, and the Minister and the Minister of Health shall each appoint a representative to hold jointly a public local inquiry within the area of the county borough or borough council making the said representations, and Section two hundred and ninety of the Local Government Act, 1933, shall apply to may such inquiry as if the said inquiry were held under that Act.

(3) After considering the report of the persons holding the said inquiry and all representations made thereat, the Minister of Health shall, if he is satisfied that it is not possible for the said county borough or borough council adequately to plan and redevelop their area without a revision of the boundaries of the said area, make an order altering the boundaries of the said county borough or borough in such manner and to such extent as he may think fit in order to enable adequate planning and redevelopment to be carried out.

(4) A county borough or borough council making representations under subsection (1) of this section shall at the same time that the representations are sent to the Minister, send a copy thereof to the council of any county and of any county district which would be affected if effect were to be given to the said representations.

(5) An order made by the Minister of Health under subsection (2) of this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and shall not come into effect until approved by a Resolution passed in both Houses.

(6) The powers conferred in this section shall be exercisable by the Minister of Health notwithstanding any provision in Part VI of the Local Government Act, 1933, to the contrary; and the said powers shall be in addition to the powers conferred by Part VI of the said Act and shall be exercisable without prejudice to the rights conferred by the said Act upon councils ether than the councils of the county boroughs and borough mentioned in subsection (1) of this section.

(7) For the purposes of an order made under this section, there shall be deemed to he incorporated in this Act, Sections one hundred and forty-eight to one hundred and fifty-five inclusive and the Fifth Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1933, and any order made under this section may include such provisions for any one or more of the purposes provided fur in Sections one hundred and fifty, one hundred and fifty-one and one hundred and fifty-two of the said Act as may appear to the Minister of Health to be just.

(8) Any revision or alteration made under this section of the boundaries of any one or more of the county boroughs or borough referred to in subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if the said revision or alteration had been made under the powers conferred by the Local Government Act, 1933."

The noble Viscount said: I move this Amendment at the request of the planing committees of seven cities—Hull, Sunderland, Bristol, Portsmouth, Dover, Great Yarmouth and Plymouth. This Amendment was before another place in three forms. It was first put down by the members of those seven cities; in slightly alternative phraseology it was put forward by independent Back Benchers who took a particular interest in this Bill and who had no particular interest in those seven cities but were convinced of the rightness of the demand; and a third form was put on the Order Paper (although it was not actually discussed) by an ex-Minister of Health who realized the danger to the seven cities if we had to wait for the promised legislation which has been adumbrated. During the debates in which I have taken part here I have spoken not as an expert but as one who has been in direct contact with the question of planning. It is only little by little that the local authorities who have to deal with the problem of planning appreciate the problem before them and its implications. I can assure your Lordships that in the localities themselves there is still disagreement because the whole problem is so vast and many of the issues are new.

The Minister in charge of the Bill on the Third Reading received many congratulations. I want him to be in a position to receive similar congratulations and messages of good will in six months' time, but unless an Amendment such as this is added to the Bill I am confident, from what I have heard from the other cities and also from the city with which I am particularly associated, that we shall he forced to tell him that the Bill which he has passed to help us to plan has not got the necessary power; and far from cheering the Minister, we shall all be condemning him for having failed to incorporate in his Bill the necessary power. I will not deal with the fact that a large number of people still mix up the issues of rehousing and planning. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, the other day explained what was meant by planning. Even in the city with which I am concerned we have on the council people who do not want to plan but who want to rehouse. This is a Bill to introduce modern standards and new principles into the planning of cities. I shall naturally be talking mainly in terms of Plymouth. But I have received sufficient information from the other six cities to know that their problem is exactly the same as ours—the problem of overspill, the problem of an inadequate amount of land in which to house their people.

In Plymouth the problem is more acute than it is in many other places because the Admiralty have indicated their intention of extending and modernizing the dockyard. They propose to take 240 acres which before the war housed 22,000 people. These people have to be dis- placed. We are quite willing to do all we can to assist the Admiralty with the extension of the dockyard but that does create a very serious problem. Plymouth was, I regret to say, an overcrowded city. Our programme visualizes in the next few years—I will not say exactly the number of years, it depends on so many factors, the availability of labour, materials and other things—the housing of 64,000 people. And it is the fact that by our plan we can only rehouse 24,000 within the city boundaries. If our plan goes through and is maintained as far as Plymouth is concerned, there will be an overspill of 40,000 of the population.

We are the first city I believe that is trying an experiment which I think ought to appeal to your Lordships. We are the first urban council who in their planning have deliberately gone out of their way to try and look after agriculture. We got an expert down to examine all the soil and we are proposing that land within the city boundary, which I admit was originally brought into the city in order to house, should be reserved for agriculture because we are advised that it is good agricultural land and that there is other land not so good for food production over the border. We have suggested—and this we have had to do with humility because we were making suggestions for the area outside Plymouth—that there should be zoning for agricultural purposes. We have also suggested that the overspill should go into the villages and hamlets, not that we should acquire one large site and have a sort of satellite city. We have suggested that the character of the neighbourhood should be preserved, that we should prevent sprawl, that districts should be zoned for agriculture. That which produces our problem is our inability, if we try to help agriculture as we want to do, to house within our boundary all the people who have to be housed. Looking ahead I feel that it is in the national interest to try and blend rural and urban interests so that those interests should not be kept so much divorced as they have been in the past. What a snub it will be to other cities if the first time that an urban community tries to protect agriculture it is turned down; if, instead of preserving this land which we are advised is very suitable for food production, we are told that we must cover it with houses.

It is a very serious problem for a city like Plymouth with a population of roughly 200,000 if it is expected to fix its maximum future population at eighty per cent. of what it was before the war; if it is to give up the prospect of growing; if it is to disfranchise twenty per cent. of its citizens—that is what it means—and if they have to live outside. And this is important: if four-fifths of the ratepayers have to carry a burden of past debts the future government and administration of the city will impose an intolerable burden. It may be too much to expect a city to undertake such a scheme as Plymouth proposes if its financial powers are reduced.

The Amendment on the Paper is lengthy, but I venture to suggest that we should not discuss it in detail, but should discuss its purpose. If I can persuade your Lordships and others who support me that this is a right clause to add to the Bill then questions of detail and drafting can be left for amendment. We certainly in Plymouth, and others, have experienced legislation by Private Bill. It is expensive, it is cumbersome and it is slow. We had a borough boundary Extension Bill in Plymouth before the war which cost us £30,000. That sort of thing deters local authorities. We suggest machinery which will be more expeditious, cheaper and less cumbersome. If your Lordships will study the Amendment you will see that it applies only to certain cities—cities where the problem of planning is an urgent one. It is really an emergency problem. That is why we limit the time to two years.

We do not ask that our plea should necessarily be adopted for a boundary extension. We merely ask for an opportunity of stating our needs, of stating the case before an impartial tribunal. There cannot be anything to object to in that. We merely ask for an opportunity to state our problem. The Minister must be satisfied before anything is done that our scheme is a good scheme. The tribunal must be satisfied that our proposals are fair and reasonable. Here is a further safeguard, that both Houses of Parliament have to give their approval. Can there be anything more conservative than this proposal here? If the Minister of Health succeeds in the proposal which he, I belive, has in hand of introducing later on a Bill for a general survey of legislation of local authority boundaries, the experience gained in these seven cases here ought to be of inestimable advantage to him. The tribunals which we suggest should be set up ought to be able to work out principles that should be of great help.

What are the main arguments brought by the Government in another place against our proposal? First of all it was "Wait and see; we are going to deal with all borough boundaries." The Government are two years—three years—late in considering a measure of that character. I agree that it ought to be done. It ought to have been done a year ago, two years ago, three years ago. How long is it going to take before there is public discussion of the White Paper which we are promised, and then before it gets through Parliament? Anybody who has anything to do with local government knows that anything touching the boundaries of local authorities is highly controversial. If it is controversial to ask Parliament to enable seven "blitzed" towns to deal with an urgent problem, how much more controversial is it going to be to pass an omnibus Bill providing for the survey of the boundaries of all local authorities? I wonder whether we realize the congestion that is going to face Parliament when the war is over. What is going to happen on the Continent? Starvation, unemployment. The Houses of Parliament are gong to he busy with all kinds of international as well as domestic and social affairs. The Government have admitted the need for tribunals surveying boundaries. I do venture to urge them and to urge your Lordships not to gamble with the prospect of the planning of these seven cities by waiting.

The next argument which was brought was that loss of population would not necessarily mean loss of rateable value. The Minister of Health made a great point of this. There is great confusion between the rateable value, the assessment value, the capital value of buildings and property, the rate paid per pound and also the rate per head of population. I will only put before your Lordships a comparison of two cities taken quite deliberately in order to show how difficult this problem is. They are Blackpool and Merthyr Tydfil. The rateable value of Blackpool is £1,678,000 and of Merthyr Tydfil £226,000. The rateable value of Blackpool is seven times greater than that of Merthyr Tydfil. What are the rates paid per pound? In Blackpool 10s. in the pound and in Merthyr Tydfil 30s. 6d. In Merthyr Tydfil it is three times that in Blackpool, but the real point is: What is the taxation paid per head? What are the rates paid per head in those two cities? If you take that test—and I suggest that is the right test—you will find that in Blackpool the rate per head is £63s. 6d. and in Merthyr Tydfil it is£419s. That is to say that in Blackpool the ratepayers pay £1 per head more.

There are three facts which are inescapable: One is that a definite sum has to be found to finance a city; the second is that this sum has to be found by the ratepayers, and then—and this is the point I want to put before your Lordships—is the total sum of money which has to be found going to be found by zoo per cent. of our ratepayers or by 80 per cent.? The Minister in charge of the Bill seemed to be quite satisfied that 80 per cent, of the ratepayers could bear the burden provided the rateable value went up. I am going to appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton. He has not a legal mind. I value a legal mind, but I am going to appeal to him as a business man. As a business man would he like to be one of four-fifths of the ratepayers to bear the burden of financing the city or would he not like to he one of five-fifths of the ratepayers? That is to say would he not like to have the other fifth, the other 20 per cent., of the ratepayers to assist him in bearing the burden?

This is a very serious problem because one cannot compel industrialists or shopkeepers to remain in a city, and if the rate per head which they have to bear is unduly high they may go elsewhere. Take, for instance, this question of the dockyard extension. A dockyard is a derated hereditament. Pre-war the acreage of the dockyard was 325 and the rateable value was £41,457. The rateable value in the past of the 240 extra acres, which it is now proposed to include in the dockyard and to convert into a derated hereditament, was £53,000. One cannot juggle with these figures. At the moment, as I have told your Lordships, we are living on a subsidy given by the Treasury. We are very grateful for that help. It is an annual subsidy. We do not know how long that is going to be continued. We do not know when we are going to be able to rebuild our shopping community. It is a question of priority. Obviously the first claim will be for housing, but until we can get our shops built we cannot begin to pay our way. It may be five years or it may be ten years. This is what I want to put before your Lordships, that in the near future there is going to be moved an amendment in the City Council of Plymouth for an alternative scheme. There are always people who are opposed to anything which is new or big in vision; but we are going to have a movement for an alternative scheme because in the opinion of those councillors and aldermen the Government assistance is inadequate.

What a lamentable failure if each of these seven cities is unable to go ahead with their plan which has been universally acclaimed as being good because the powers contained in this Bill are inadequate. Most cities do not have to face this problem. It is only a certain number of cities which, because they are "blitzed," have to consider now whether to recast their lav-out; it is only a certain number of cities which are short of land if they want to carry out modern planning. I venture to urge your Lordships to assist these cities, for whom this Bill, I understand, is largely intended, and to give us sufficient powers to carry out the object and intention of this Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 38, at end insert the said new clause.—(viscount Astor)

4.51 p.m.

LORD DENHAM

In rising to oppose this clause 1 do hope that the noble Viscount opposite will acquit me of any personal desire to postpone, impede, or hinder the grand schemes they are making in Plymouth or any of the other six cities. My objection to this clause goes far deeper than that. Indeed, I would almost venture to suggest that in another place this clause would not strictly he in order. My first point in opposition to the clause is that the noble Viscount has chosen the wrong Bill in which to insert it. There are three main objections which I see to the new clause. In the first place, it tries to deal with the most complicated question of the extension of county boroughs in a Bill which really has no general relevance to the question of the extension of boundaries at all. The noble Viscount has said that only seven cities are affected, but I think that if this new clause is passed, not only will it be a very dangerous precedent but, as I will show in a minute, there are much graver things that will happen, because the whole future of Private Bill legislation is threatened.

My second objection to the clause is this. The Minister of Health on the 3rd August made a very definite statement as to the intention of the Government in dealing with the alteration of boundaries. Let me refer first to what the Minister of Town and Country Planning himself said in another place so recently as the 9th October. He said that the Minister, when asked whether he was in a position to define the attitude of the Government in the matter of local government, said the Government did not consider that a case had been made out for any disruption of the existing structure of local government or for the abandonment of the main features of the county borough system in favour of some form of regional government. He then proceeded to quote what the Minister of Health actually said, which was this: The Government are satisfied that within the general framework of the county and county borough system there is need and scope for improvement, and in particular for amending the machinery of the Local Government Act, 1933, relating to adjustment of status and boundaries. Before putting detailed proposals before Parliament I propose to take advantage of the experience and knowledge of the local government associations, and for that purpose to open discussions with those bodies as soon as may be. My intention would be, in the light of those discussion, to lay before Parliament a general outline of the Government's proposals before submitting actual legislative measures. Now there are two definite promises there: (1) to open discussions with the associations, the Urban District Councils' Association, the Rural District Councils' Associations and other like bodies; and (2) that a White Paper would be laid on which there there could be discussion not only in the country but in both Houses of Parliament. It would almost be breaking faith with what the Minister of Health said on the 3rd August if this new clause were to be added to this Bill.

My third objection is a little more technical. The whole question of county borough extension was the subject of prolonged discussions by the Royal Commission on Local Government, whose recommendations were embodied in the Act of 1926, called the Local Government (County Boroughs and Adjustments) Act, the provisions of which were subsequently embodied in the Local Government Act, 1933. The main principle has always been that so far as the extension of county boroughs is concerned 'here shall not be any extension unless the local authorities concerned agree, and there shall not be any extension of the local authorities' boundaries without the express authority of Parliament. Therefore, a local authority which desires to oppose any proposed extension of boundary has always been able to submit its case to the Private Bill Committees of both Houses, and many an urban district council and rural district council has successfully opposed schemes by borough councils to seize either all or part of their area. What does this new clause propose? It proposes that the order, when made by the Minister of Health, should have no effect unless approved by Resolution of both Houses. But—and this is the gravamen of the charge I bring against the new clause—the very fact that the Minister of Health has made an order at all is bound to weigh heavily against any urban district council or rural district council who may want to come to Parliament and ask Parliament to vote against the Resolution confirming the older. It changes the whole scheme of Private Bill legislation, and the opposing local authority will have the dice loaded against it if the principle of Private Bill legislation is changed in this matter.

So, if I may sum up what I wish to say, this new clause ought not to be accepted by the Government for the three reasons I have given: (1), that it has been included (if I may say so with great respect) in the wrong Bill; (2), that it would be almost a breach of faith after the undertaking given by the Minister of Health in another place; and (3), that it would have a very serious effect upon the future of Private Bill legislation, and must indeed affect the whole future of local government. I hope therefore that the noble and learned Viscount will not accept the new clause.

5.0 p.m.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I am quite unprejudiced in this matter. It is well known to all of us that any suggestion that the boundaries of a district should be extended—such a district as Plymouth, or the cities which the noble Viscount has mentioned—not only will be hotly opposed, but will lead to violent opposition. I start with the conviction that the existing boundaries of Plymouth and of the other six towns, so far as I know their circumstances, have got to be extended if this Bill is to have any real beneficial effect on those particular cities. It is not all the towns or cities that are affected. When a vast number of people have been bombed out and a great number of houses have been destroyed in such a city as Plymouth it is perfectly plain that if these people are to be given suitable accommodation there must be what is described as an overspill which will go beyond the existing boundaries. I have not heard anybody either in this House or outside it suggest that there is anything wrong if it is considered necessary in such cases to have an extension. Then the only question that arises is how the extension should he legally provided for. It is said by my noble friend Lord Denham that the Amendment is out of place in this Bill, but the Bill provides for an overspill and makes it necessary for Plymouth to make such a provision. If that is to be done, and it follows from that that there has to be some extension of the boundary if Plymouth is to carry out this planning scheme, in what Bill should my noble friend Viscount Astor put Ins Amendment? In effect he is being told, "You have got to do this" and the consequence is that the boundary has to be extended. I should have thought that nothing was more reasonable than that he should attempt to get power, speedily and by not too expensive a means, in this Bill.

It is said that the Minister of Health has given a pledge. I do not know what pledge he gave and I do not know how he construes it. We are not altering the law here. We are only hoping to pass an Amendment to a Bill which has to go back to another place, and if the Minister says it would be contrary to his pledge to accept this the whole thing will go by the board. What I imagine the noble Viscount is saying is simply that this Amendment is necessary for his city to carry out the duties which it conceives Parliament is going to put upon it. It cannot be said that this particular Amendment is improper. There are advantages in a Private Bill. I am not against Private Bill legislation where it is necessary, but I cannot see that it is necessary, if the premise is agreed to that an extension of the boundaries is necessary. If noble Lords think it is not necessary that is a reason for opposing the Amendment, but if the view is accepted as correct, that there has got to be an extension of boundaries, that is the main point which has to be determined in a Private Bill.

The noble Viscount has put into the subsections of the proposed clause a number of safeguards which make it certain that no improper extension of boundaries will be permitted. There is to be under subsection (2) a public local inquiry by representatives appointed by the Minister of Health and the Minister acting under this Bill. Then in subsection (3) it is provided that the Minister may make an order. It is for him to say whether he will make an order for the extension if he is satisfied that it is not possible for the county borough or the county council adequately to plan and redevelop their area without revision of the boundaries of the area. If people think there ought not to be an extension they will make representations and perhaps the Minister of Health will not take that view. Provision is made in subsection (4) for making representations and then there comes a subsection to which reference has already been made providing that an order made by the Minister shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and shall not come into effect until approved by a Resolution passed in both Houses. Then there is provision that all sorts of safeguards which are to be found in Sections 148 to 155 and the Fifth Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1933, shall be incorporated in this Bill. I am quite unable to understand how this clause can be strongly objected to on the ground of principle by any fair-minded person who sees that if it is not assented to a grave evil will follow and some of these cities will be unable to plan properly. I beg therefore to support the amendment.

5.6 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There is a certain disadvantage in a series of speeches being made on an Amendment of this kind if the Government view is not stated. I was naturally willing to give way to my noble and learned friend Viscount Maugham, but having heard his speech I am sure he will take it kindly if I say that I rather wish I had pointed out one or two things before he spoke. But he is so fair minded that I am sure he will listen with equal impartiality. He said that he started with a conviction. It is bad to start with a conviction. You should reach a conviction after hearing arguments. He said he did not know what was the promise of the Minister of Health, but it is extremely important that we should know because upon the knowledge of what he promised this proposal was withdrawn in the House of Commons after full debate, and withdrawn by Mr. Storey, who is Member for Sunderland, one of the seven cities concerned. It was withdrawn after discussion which I think was very full and after the Minister had stated very dogmatically what his assurance was, and it was withdrawn by a representative of the "blitzed" cities.

I hope I may be allowed to say before I go further that I share very fully the admiration which we all feel in this House for the zeal and devotion of my noble friend Lord Astor in this matter. It is really perfectly splendid. I was sorry to hear from his speech that he does not think he can carry his city council with him unless he gets this clause or something like it. I hope they will be open to persuasion. The real point is that, however much one may concentrate one's attention on the urgency of the need of a great city like Plymouth, in the matter of boundaries you cannot get any more unless somebody has The shaping of boundaries involves just as important a question for county councils and rural district councils, on behalf of whom my noble friend Lord Denham made his attractive speech, as for towns. To be fair you have to look at it from both sides. I have no doubt that for the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, it is very difficult when, very understandably, he is so terribly in earnest and so terribly eager for the city. It is a most complicated question. There are arguments which may be very validly advanced in favour of the view that where there is going to be movement of a large part of a city's boundaries, because of the damage suffered, into areas outside, a change of boundaries is needed. There may be such cases. It does not follow, unless I entirely misunderstand this matter. The London County Council is not asking to increase the boundary of the County of London though it has got a very great scheme.

There, is not, in fact, any complete or logical connexion between the two though I quite agree in some cases they may be thought more naturally to go together. The provisions of this Bill which give great cities the power to plan to move their populations outside and to acquire land outside. proceed on the assumption that these two things will not march together. Nor need they. It is not true, for example, to say—I think I shall be corrected if I am wrong about this—that the removal outside a city of a portion of its population necessarily reduces its total rateable value.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

Almost inevitably it does.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As we know, long ago when a large part of the population of the City of London moved itself outside the result was that greater and finer buildings were set up, and the rateable value of what was left was increased. I do rot think it is universally true that the rat cable value is reduced. Whether it is true in the case of Plymouth I do not know, and I should hope that as regards Plymouth my noble friend Viscout Astor will be able to overcome the anxieties of his council on that point.

It is a fair argument on his side that it may be the case that rural authorities, in sore cases small authorities, have not got either the experience or the ability at their disposal to deal with these matters within their areas satisfactorily. It is really a mistake, if I may say so with great respect co anyone who thinks otherwise, to believe that because you have a fine plan by which you seek to move people outside it follows as a matter of course that you have to follow that with your boundary. In the case of Plymouth—and I would not say one word to discourage a fine plan—let us understand what appears to be involved. As I understand it, it is proposed not to create one satellite settlement to which a portion of the Plymouth population is to go, but to create half a dozen such settlements in different parts of the county of Devon. And these satellite areas are not to be contiguous to the boundary of Plymouth in all cases. I think in some cases they are to be as much as ten miles away. No doubt, you may say, all that will be thrashed out at a public inquiry, but we must appreciate that what is aimed at in this clause, at least in the case of Plymouth, is to increase the area of Plymouth ten times—well perhaps eight times or something like that. You cannot have discontinuous areas, you must have continuous areas. The plan as I understand it is to draw a circle large enough to include all the satellites and to take a Green Belt in between.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

No.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No Green Belt? I thought, in view of the observations of my noble friend Viscount Astor as to the interest which the good citizens of Plymouth were showing in agriculture, that they were looking forward to the acquisition of a Green Belt. But this is a very big scheme, which I would have thought does require the careful consideration which Parliament itself has always been disposed to give to these questions of alterations of boundaries. The argument which my noble friend advances is that he wants it done quickly, and it is because that is a very important issue that I call attention now to what the Minister of Health has said in the House of Commons. The date on which he spoke was October 9. My noble friend sitting behind me has already quoted something of what was said on that day, but though he read a portion of the Statement he did not read the one which, I think, followed, and which really was the conclusion of the matter. If we were simply leaving the old machinery alone and saying, "As has been in the past so let it be in the future, and we will have this, possibly, slow and creaking inquiry and not attempt to hurry things up at all," that would be another thing. But what the Minister of Health said was this; and I think that my noble friend Lord Woolton has been closely concerned, so he will correct me if I do not state accurately the effect of the Minister's words.

He said it was realized that there must be an overhaul as soon as possible of the machinery by which the shifting of boundaries as between one local government and another was brought about. He said that he had taken into counsel with him the organized representatives of the different classes of local authorities, such as the great organizations of the county councils and the district councils' associa- tions, and so forth. He said, moreover—and this was an interesting revelation—that as a matter of fact he was very much gratified to find what a high degree of unanimity there was as to how improvements should be made. He said that a White Paper was being prepared which would be placed before Parliament as soon as possible. He further said—and I quote his actual words—"It is my earnest hope and belief that the White Paper will be published this side of Christmas." In addition, he said he believed that legislation would follow in the next Session.

The modern method of producing White Papers first and legislation afterwards has its advantages. There is not undue delay, and this I should have thought is a very proper case for the employment of it. The question is whether, in the face of that explanation and assurance, and having regard to the extreme gravity of this matter, not alone to the county of Devon but to all the other counties involved, we should really be well advised to insert in this Bill what my noble friend Viscount Astor now proposes. That declaration was made in the House of Commons after full debate. I turn over the pages of Hansard and I find Mr. Storey saying: The assurance which my right honourable friend has given us"— he was speaking, of course, not for himself alone— has gone a very long way to meeting the worst fears from the point of view which we have put forward to-day. In the hope that the phrase 'at the earliest opportunity next Session,' will not be too elastic, and so as to expedite the passage of the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Well, of course, it is entirely within the power of the House of Lords, if it thinks fit, to reach a separate conclusion. But I would most respectfully suggest that there were very good and solid reasons for the view that was taken in another place, and I would submit to your Lordships that we really ought not to depart from it.

The subject of changing the boundaries of local government areas is no doubt an immensely important subject. It is important in the case of Plymouth and in the case of Sunderland, but surely with a prospect of what I have mentioned being done and done promptly, and by the steps which I have indicated, it would be wrong to put into this Bill these special provisions. I could make some comment on the actual proposals in more detail, but I think that my noble friend Lord Astor has, if I may say so, served the interests of the House by saying that he wanted to raise the question broadly, and I have endeavoured to answer him broadly. My submission—and I trust that I may be supported in this—is that greatly as we do respect and sympathize with my noble friend's efforts in the case of Plymouth, we really ought to follow the same course as was followed in the House of Commons.

5.20 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My name was put down to this Amendment, but I thought that it was no use repeating the arguments which my noble friend Lord Astor put with such force. Consequently I reserved my remarks until I had heard what the noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill was going to say. I suppose that I ought to refer to the two noble Lords in charge of the Bill, because I take it that the noble and learned Viscount is in the role of the professional driver who handles the ribbons down this rather steep hill, while my noble friend the Minister of Reconstruction is in the position of the owner of the coach, whom we are delighted to see on the box seat. The last thing that I want to do is to hurt my noble friend's feelings, but I had hoped that, with his great interest in reconstruction and planning, we might have had just a toot on the horn from him, as the owner, when on this Amendment we reached what is rather a hairpin bend on the road.

My noble and learned friend made great play with the fact that this proposal was withdrawn in another place by Mr. Storey after he had heard the explanation of the Minister of Health. I will tell the Committee quite candidly that I think that Mr. Storey was a great deal too easily satisfied, and I am not at all prepared to consider the matter as closed because of the assurances which were given by the Minister of Health. My noble and learned friend said very truly that in a question of boundary extension nobody can get any more unless somebody gets a little less. I quite agree, and I can accept the validity of that right away; but in this particular case I think we have to consider a little bit about the little more and the little less.

In the particular case of Plymouth there is the question of a very large transfer of Plymouth population which, when it goes outside into the open spaces of the county, will create a great deal of rateable value. Plymouth, I believe, has had two experiences of boundary extension. As the Committee knows, there is always compensation on these occasions. On one occasion, if I recollect rightly, Plymouth took in a fairly large area of land where there was not much rateable value, and on that occasion I believe that Plymouth received compensation and did not have to pay it. In the other case, Plymouth having already overrun its boundaries a good deal, there was a good deal of rateable value, and Plymouth had to pay, or still has to pay, compensation to the extent of about £500,000. I do not think that the position of the county council really deserves quite as much consideration in this matter as the position of Plymouth. The attitude of the county council appears to be that it wants to wait until, through the action of Plymouth, its rateable value has extended into the county area, and the county council wants to profit by that at the expense of Plymouth. Is it quite certain that one person has to get what another person loses? Would not it be reasonable, if it is in the national interest (as I suggest that it is) that this planning scheme of Plymouth should be carried out, that the rateable value should still accrue to Plymouth, whose citizens are creating it? I cannot accept for a moment the doubts thrown by the noble and learned Viscount on the theory that population creates rateable value. It really does. If it were not for that fact, I do not think that we should have had such an eloquent speech from the noble Lord who represents the county councils.

LORD DENHAM

I do not represent the county councils at all, but I happen to have been for twenty years or more the President of the Urban District Councils' Association, which is not the same thing. I was speaking on behalf of the smaller local authorities. I should not have ventured to speak on behalf of the County Councils' Association, although I dare say that they would agree with me.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I accept the correction, but that does not alter the fact that the noble Lord made an extremely good speech and a very eloquent plea from the point of view of people who are anticipating that if Plymouth does not get this extension a good deal of rateable value will come to them. Is not that right?

LORD DENHAM

No. What I am really seeking to do is to try to protect those local authorities in two respects. There are authorities who may not agree to have parts of their districts taken away by Plymouth or any other big town of a similar kind. Secondly, I want to safeguard the rights of the smaller local authorities under the present system of Private Bill legislation before Parliament.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I quite appreciate my noble friend's point, and it is a strong one. It is not the point I was talking about.

LORD DENHAM

I never mentioned rateable value.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My noble friend did not mention rateable value, but I think that the county councils who are troubled by these proposals of Plymouth are thinking of rateable value. My noble friend is not representing the county councils, and I withdraw what I said about that. I thought he was, but I was mistaken. I do not think, however, that it can be denied that the county councils bordering on Plymouth, in the efforts which they have made to counter this proposal, have rateable value very much in mind, and I do not think that it is fair, if this rateable value is created by the citizens of Plymouth, that Plymouth should not derive advantage from it. If it is to be created by the citizens of Plymouth, then justice is on the side of Plymouth and not on the side of the county council. There have to be boundary adjustments at some time, and we have to be fair. I agree that we want to protect the small local authorities, but they cannot all continue to exist for ever in a state of independence, and under this proposal they would have an opportunity of making their case.

My noble and learned friend mentioned the case of the London County Council, but the case of the London County Council is not comparable at all, having regard to the vast population of the London area compared with the small numbers which go outside. In the case of Plymouth, it is a question of losing 40,000 out of 220,000 inhabitants—25 per cent. of the rateable value, or something of that sort—and in that case the difference in magnitude distorts the whole value of the comparison. My noble and learned friend also said that removal does not necessarily reduce rateable value, and that he did not know whether it would in this case. My noble friend Lord Astor does know; he knows the position intimately, and he tells the Committee that it will mean a very serious loss of rateable value to Plymouth. My noble and learned friend spoke in accents of horror of the proposal to create half-a-dozen satellites, some of which were going to be ten miles away from the city, as though that were an appalling proposal. It is in fact one of the chief merits of the plan. He seemed to think it dreadful that these satellites should not be contiguous to the main town of Plymouth.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I hope that my noble friend will allow me to interrupt him and to correct him. He seems sometimes to take a slightly prejudiced view of what I say on these subjects. I said nothing of that kind. I said that before we agreed to .adopt the particular procedure of this clause it was well to realize the sort of case to which it was going to apply. I can well understand that satellites are most excellent arrangements. I do not object at all to their being at a distance from the central city, but in order to judge whether we should adopt this proposal it is well to know that is the nature of this plan and that therefore it involves a very serious invasion of the present county.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I beg my noble and learned friend's pardon if I misrepresented him. I really did not mean to do so. I thought he really was indicating to us that the proposal was one which ought to be most strongly resisted because the satellites were at a little distance from the town and because the surplus population was not to be so contiguous to the town. If that is not what my noble and learned friend said I of course withdraw and apologize. I think the fact that this population has to be decanted somewhere away from the town is the very reason why your Lordships ought to welcome the proposal, and it is the answer to my noble and learned friend's first question. Why is it in this Bill? Because it is a Planning Bill and this is the national plan. This is helping Plymouth to plan in the way which great cities ought to be replanned in the future. Plymouth has acquired in the past, as my noble friend opposite said, 4,000 acres of agricultural land and had there been no war, had there been no change in public opinion, Plymouth would have expanded its boundaries to that extent. Now we have got a chance through the war to do something better and Plymouth under the guidance of my noble friend opposite has had the initiative and the energy to produce this plan which I have yet to learn anybody has said is a bad plan. Do my noble and learned friend and noble Lords on the Front Bench say it is a bad plan? Their whole argument is that it does not fit in with the existing arrangements about local government.

They want us to delay. Why cannot we delay? We cannot delay because the matter is urgent and it is on the plea of urgency that I want to press this amendment on your Lordships. The whole Amendment is based on the plea of urgency. It says: Within two years of the coming into force of tins Act any county borough or borough which has suffered material damage as a result of enemy action shall have the right to make representations to the Minister stating that without a revision of the boundaries of any such county borough or borough, it is not possible to carry into effect an adequate scheme for the planning and redevelopment of the said county borough or borough. It is urgency due to the war. It cannot he allowed to wait on the passing of some large new Local Government Act. The Minister of Health said in another place that he is talking with representatives of the local authorities and that he is going to produce a White Paper. Talking with representatives of local authorities is one thing, producing a White Paper is another thing, and producing a Local Government Act is a third thing and a very different thing. Legislation is not going to be passed next Session. The Minister of Health talks about producing legislation next Session, but he is a very young Minister—

LORD WOOLTON

No, no.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Well, I withdraw that if that is insulting to the Minister of Health, but he has not had an enormous amount of experience of dealing with local authorities and I am entitled to place on record my opinion that that legislation will not pass both Houses of Parliament in the next Session of Parliament There is no reason therefore to prevent this permissive clause going into the Bill. Just look at it. The clause is an emergency measure limited to two years. It leaves complete control under the Minister of Health. It is permissive. It requires the assent of both Houses of Parliament and by some extraordinary reasoning my noble friend behind me made that a fault. I did not follow him in that. I think the fact that it has to have a permissive Resolution of both Houses of Parliament is a great thing. I certainly think the clause ought by all means to find a place in this Bill and if my noble friend opposite goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.

5.35 p.m.

THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY

I rise to support this Amendment because it takes into account, which the Bill does not. I think, the desperate condition that some of the "blitzed" and blighted cities find themselves in. They have already built up over all the area that belongs to them. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and other speakers have put forward what in my opinion were irrefutable arguments for inserting this clause in the Bill as a matter of urgency. The noble Viscount below me told us about that city for which so much been done by himself and his family. I am going to speak on behalf of Portsmouth which, in common with Plymouth and Southampton, suffered so much damage. Perhaps no city has suffered such damage as have these great naval ports. The position of Portsmouth is exceedingly difficult because the major part of the city studs upon Portsea Island. Old Portsmouth was a fortified town surrounded by walls and in the course of time, with dockyard extension and the like, it naturally became overcrowded and remained so for many years. When it was a walled and fortified city there were great restrictions on building in order to preserve a clear field of fire. Outside the ramparts the city could not extend and with the enlargement of the dockyard a great many people came into that small city and had to live within it because there were no facilities outside such a there are to-day. Since the restrictions I have referred to were removed Ports- mouth has extended in all directions and the main land area within the city boundary has already been built over.

Portsmouth is now built up to its boundary with the exception of one small estate of about 200 acres. The old parts of the city remained and in spite of the efforts of an enlightened municipality these gradually carne to be, in Lord Latham's graphic words, overbuilt areas, slum areas, decaying areas, and obsolete areas. Now these are all blended in heaps of rubble. The silver lining to the cloud of suffering endured by the citizens of Portsmouth is the opportunity created to rebuild their city in a fashion worthy of the fortitude of its people. The need to rebuild is acute because a large number of the citizens are at present homeless. The city council is now ready with its plan which has been approved by the Ministries concerned. This plan provides in full measure for all those social amenities which the Minister enunciated as being necessary to an up-to-date city. The pre-war population of Portsmouth was 260,000 and the accepted plans provide for 200,000, so that there is an overspill of 60,000 to be provided for elsewhere. To accommodate this number the city council has already acquired two sites, one situated well outside the boundary, the other at the small town of Waterlooville. It is proposed to build a new town of 35,000 inhabitants at Leigh Park which will have all the arrangements necessary for a happy and healthy community life. At Waterlooville, which will be known to many of your Lordships who drive into Portsmouth, there is already a population of 15,000 largely dependent upon Portsmouth for their living.

That is how the matter now stands. Portsmouth is an outstanding example of "blitz" and blight and it is ready with an approved plan with which it cannot proceed, urgent as the need is, because financially the city authorities cannot see their way clear ahead. You cannot ask a city to rebuild itself on modern lines and at the same time develop two satellite towns for its surplus population unless those towns are enclosed within the city area so as to secure the financial future of the city. That cannot be done if Portsmouth has to get rid of thirty per cent. of its population and settle them in districts where the rates go to other authorities. If that is to be the case you cannot ask Portsmouth to carry out its plan. The need is urgent and unless the city can see its way ahead financially how can you expect the city authorities to proceed? They cannot do so.

This Bill is presented to the House with a plea for urgency. Conditions as they stand prevent this urgent situation being dealt with in these special cases. The noble Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, said that you have to take away from one and give to another. But this is a question of seven particularly afflicted cities. Of course you have to take away from the people who are not so afflicted and give it to those who have borne the affliction. You do that in the case of everything. If you pension a man you take the money out of somebody's pocket to give it to him. This Amendment does provide a means of dealing with a very urgent situation. It shows how the matter can be dealt with and the means of doing so, and I sincerely hope your Lordships will accept it.

5.41 p.m.

LORD LATHAM

There will be few of us who will not be appreciative of the difficulties facing the "blitzed" cities, and I especially so, because one of them, Norwich, is my native city. I am as acutely aware of the extent of the damage that has been done to that city as I am of the extent of the damage that has been done to other cities, including the city of Plymouth. But I really doubt whether this is the best way of solving this problem. Heavy as may be the load cast upon the "blitzed" cities, that of itself is really not a reason why you should, without proper consideration, deal with the alteration of local government boundaries. Nor is it proper if you are to get a tidy set-up of local government in this country—and nothing is more necessary than that we should get it—that you should proceed to adjust boundaries by reference to seven particular cities. I observe also that the clause is to be limited to county and non-county boroughs. It is true that the seven cities referred to are county boroughs. As the result of the flying bomb activities in the last few months there are many urban district councils in or near bomb alley which have suffered severe damage and have large areas of devastation, but, under this Amendment, they would have no claim to have their boundaries adjusted.

I do not wish to go in detail into the finance of moving people from one district to another. We are not without some experience of moving people from London. Courageous as we may have been in many respects, we have never yet had the courage to ask that because we moved them to Dagenham we should bring Dagenham within the area of the County of London. I do venture to offer this comment, that whilst it may well be, on a long view, that taking people from one area to another results in the receiving area getting rateable value, it cannot be contended, from our experience, that it is profitable to the receiving area for many years. I remember before I was on the County Council, but when I was a member of the Hendon Borough Council, the building of the Watling Estate by the London County Council. They brought some 20,000 people to Hendon. It was not profitable to Hendon. One of the first results was that it doubled their education rate. On the footing, as was the case, that the assessable value of the average house on the Watling Estate—and there were between 4,000 and 5,000—was £26, and on the footing that the rate was about 10s. in the pound (which was the case at that time), the rate income from each of those houses was £13 a year. So if there were two children in a house going to school the education authority of Hendon spent the whole of that £13 on their education with no contribution at all to any of the other services—the maintenance of roads, the lighting of streets, the provision of medical inspection, the provision of clinics, and all that kind of thing. To those services there was no contribution at all; and it used to be the standing complaint of one area of Hendon that it was paying for the support of the Watling Estate in the other area—and there was some justification for that statement, although not always for the epithets accompanying it.

So when you are judging whether the coming of a population to an area creates rateable value—which obviously it does—you must take into account, in measuring that rateable value, what the social services will cost you to provide for the additional population. I myself really think—and Lord Astor will I am sure admit this; I indicated it to him privately—that this Bill not the appropriate Bill for dealing with the adjustment of boundaries. The adjustment of boundaries is a matter of local government, and if there is to be any adjustment—as I hope there will be from the pronouncement of the Minister of Health—it will have to be by amending the existing law of local government and not by the inclusion of a clause of this kind in this Bill.

I do beg my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh to remember this, as I am sure he will, that it is no good having this clause or any other clause in this Bill or any other Bill unless you can get the general consent of the various authorities, especially those who have got to concede territory. It is easy to get the consent of those who are to receive it. It is less easy to get the consent of those who are to concede it. I hope that within a short time the Minister of Health will be able to bring into existence an effective, fairly speedy machine, which will permit of a general adjustment of local government boundaries which is so urgently necessary for the proper functioning of local government. I much regret that on this occasion I cannot support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Viscount Astor.

5.49 p.m.

LORE WOOLTON

I would like, if I may, to say a few words. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, said he would like to hear, I think he said, a "toot" from me. I do not know that I am capable of anything more than a "toot" at the moment. I have been so interested in this problem that I would like to tell you the conclusions at which I have arrived. I like, whenever it is possible—because it does your credit good and it makes you feel better—to be on the side of the angels, and therefore I always like to support Lord Astor when I can, as it seems to me that he almost invariably is on the side of the angels. If he will forgive ray talking of a private conversation, he came to see me one day some time ago and he told me of this position regarding Plymouth. I have heard that one story is good until another is told, and the truth is that I was carried away by the sincerity of the noble Viscount and by his obvious desire (which I share) to get this Plymouth plan through, and I committed myself to paper quite extensively on his behalf. Then I heard the other side of the story. I have come to the conclusion that the noble Viscount is probably wrong, and I have come to that conclusion for one or two reasons.

Let us be quite clear about this. We are not discussing whether the Plymouth plan is a good plan: that is all right. What we are discussing, I think, is whether the noble Viscount is going to be able to persuade the Corporation of Plymouth to carry this plan out if they cannot go and take in a lot of other places that do not want to he taken in. Now those places have a right to be heard. They have made considerable protests about this enforced extension of Plymouth. This is precisely the situation that is happening in a very large number of places in this country at the present time. County boroughs have decided that it would be a very useful thing for them to take in rural district councils. Rural districts are protesting against it, and it is because His Majesty's Government have had these considerable demands of local authorities to be allowed to grow bigger, sometimes, as in the case of Plymouth, for the most excellent reasons and sometimes for reasons that are not quite so good, that my right honourable friend Mr. Willink, after a long consultation with his colleagues, decided that this was an issue that we had better not face in a patchwork manner. I am sure that that fact at any rate will appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. That we should have national planning in arranging boundaries is surely a good thing. That is what my right honourable friend proposes.

The issue that you are faced with is whether the urgency of the replanning of Plymouth and the other places mentioned is so great that it is going to be held up. But all virtue does not rest on your side. We too are anxious about this; we are anxious that these places should be replanned, we are anxious that there should be no delay. I hesitate always, and I always shall, to make any promises about what will happen to a White Paper. Once is enough. This I can say: I have seen the White Paper. I can say that my right honourable friend is most anxious to get it through his colleagues in the Cabinet (in which I shall help him) and to get it published this year. He is also very anxious that legislation should be forthcoming with great speed, and I do not think it will be heavily contested legislation. I have one other thing to say. When that Boundary Commission is formed it is our intention, and I give you this assurance, that these particular towns in which you are so interested shall have preference; that the Boundary Commission shall be instructed to deal with them first. But let us deal with this great question of local government as a whole. Do not let us deal with it in a patchwork manner, and I believe in point of fact that the amount of delay that will be occasioned will be very small. I say again that I should regret to find myself going into another Lobby from Lord Astor, but in view of the assurances that the Government have given in another place, and which my noble and learned friend and I have given here, I hope we shall not go into any Lobbies at all.

5.55 p.m.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I find myself in a very difficult position. When in another place on a Government statement of policy a promise of future legislation was made, those who put forward a somewhat similar Amendment to this withdrew it. My difficulty is that the seven cities concerned have all considered that promise and have the fullest desire and hope that the Minister will carry his promise into effect; but they are faced with the fact that they have to take commitments, that however good the intentions of the Government may be other things may happen, legislation may be held up. And it was after consideration of the statement in another place that the planning committees of all these seven cities unanimously asked me to move this Amendment.

I am very sorry in some way that so much of the debate has turned on Plymouth. I explained that it was easier for me to illustrate the matter by the case of Plymouth, though I had materials from the other places. The most reverend Prelate the Archbishop of York was going to speak on behalf of one of the northern cities, but unfortunately was unable to do so, but I am glad to say that the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, spoke on behalf of another city. We do not in any way question the good intentions of the Minister of Health; but I believe there is a White Paper about land: was not that intended to be implemented by legislation? The debate to-day has indicated that there is a certain amount of controversy associated with boundary revision. Publication of a white Paper, however good the intentions of the Government may be, does not necessarily mean that we shall immediately have a Statute, and it is a Statute, not a promise, which these local authorities require if they are to take commitments. I have explained that whenever I have taken part in this debate I have tried to speak from the point of view of someone who is a member of a local authority trying to plan. It is all very well for noble Lords to tell us that we shall not lose anything. All the men who are responsible in these cities take an entirely different view from the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, spoke on behalf of the London County Council, and so did a noble Lord opposite. But the problems of a provincial city stand in an entirely different category from those of London.

LORD LATHAM

I did not speak on behalf of the London County Council. I expressed, as I am entitled to do, my own personal view in your Lordships' House.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I am very sorry. Well, some noble Lord opposite quoted the case of London. In the case of London, with its millions of population, if a few people are taken from the poorer districts that is entirely different from the case of a city with 200,000 or 300,000 inhabitants, which loses something like 20 per cent, of its population. So I do not think it is quite fair to put forward what happens in London in order to negative a proposal from a provincial city. What I want to emphasize is that if you extend the boundary before you carry out the development you do not have to pay compensation, whereas if you try to develop and then extend the boundary afterwards you have to pay heavy compensation. And it is because the city treasurers of these cities are compelled to visualize an extension of boundary that they have urged us to press this Amendment. I am in the hands of your Lordships. If it is obvious that there is going to be an overwhelming majority against us I do not think it is worth while pressing the Amendment to a Division. But I do venture to tell the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, who is interested in reconstruction and replanning, that it would be a calamity if the plans, which are admittedly good plans, cannot be implemented because adequate legislation does not follow.

6.0 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

As the noble Viscount has said that he is in some doubt whether to go to a Division I would venture to urge him not to go to a Division on this occasion. If he did it would put many of us in considerable difficulty. For my own part I have been advocating the urgency of an adjustment of boundaries to enable great cities to plan for an area which will fulfil the needs of present-day life, and I have also been as active as I could in protesting against delay and in urging that, to use the shocking jargon which has come into use, a great city ought not to "decant" the "overspill" into the "sprawl." For the Plymouth plan, which I have studied, I have the greatest admiration, and I would not like it to be thought that any vote of mine was given in hostility or was detrimental to that plan, but I think the arguments of Lord Latham and others are conclusive that this is not the way to achieve the end in view. The Government have once more hoisted the White Paper and perhaps they might be allowed to retreat under its cover.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

The Government have really granted our case—namely, that there ought to be revision of boundaries. I have the noble Lord's promise and I earnestly hope he will see that it is implemented. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.