TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.

HL Deb 09 November 1944 vol 133 cc1008-76

12.14 p.m.

House again in Committee (according to Order):

[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON moved, after Clause 48, to insert:

Provisions as to ecclesiastical property.

"( ).—(1)Where the fee simple in any ecclesiastical property is in abeyance it shall treated for the purposes of a compulsory purchase of the property authorized under this Part of this Act as vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and any notice to treat shall be served, or be deemed to have been served, accordingly.

(2)Where under this Act any notice is required to be served on an owner of land, and the and is ecclesiastical property, a like notice shall be served on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

(3) In this Act the expression 'ecclesiastical property' means land belonging to any ecclesiastical benefice or being or forming part of a church subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop of any diocese or The site of such a church, or being or forming part of a burial ground subject to such jurisdiction."

The right reverend Prelate said: The new clause which I propose relates to ecclesiastical property of the Church of England—that is, the site of a church or consecrated burial ground, or the site of a parsonage, or glebe belonging to the benefice. The definition of "owner" in Clause 58 of the Bill is that an owner is one "who is for the time being entitled to dispose of the fee simple of the building or land." There is a sense in which an incumbent is the owner of these ecclesiastical properties, but he can dispose of them only under certain statutory provisions, and the guardian of those statutory provisions is the Ecclesiastical Commission. It appears right, therefore, that notice should be served both upon the Ecclesiastical Commission and upon the incumbent of the benefice, as they are both directly concerned. That is secured by subsection (2) of this new clause.

There is, however, another case which may arise, where the incumbency is vacant for the time being; and at present, owing to war conditions, some benefices are being kept vacant for a considerable time. In that case there would be nobody to protect the interests of the benefice or to give a discharge as temporary owner of the ecclesiastical property. Subsection (1) of the new clause, therefore, secures that where there is no incumbent the property shall be regarded for the purposes of this Bill as being vested in the Ecclesiastical Commission. In other words, it clears the way for the appropriate action in relation to ecclesiastical property. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 52, line 38, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON)

I would advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 49 [Notification of purchases of war damaged land to War Damage Commission]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert at the end of subsection (1): Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a notice to treat deemed by virtue of the Sixth Schedule to this Act to have been served, but when the purchasing authority under a purchase order providing for expedited completion notify the fact that the order has become operative to the proper officer of a council mentioned in Section sixteen of this Act for the purpose of the registration of the order in the register of local land charges, or, if the purchasing authority are such a council, when the order is so registered by their proper officer, they shall notify the Commission of that action having been taken.

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is really the transfer of a provision which is now to be found in the Sixth Schedule, and is therefore merely a rearrangement. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 3, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 50:

Service of Notice.

50. Any notice or other document required or authorized to be served or given under this Act may be served or given either— (f) if it is not practicable after reasonable inquiry to ascertain the name or address of a person on whom it should be served or to whom it should be given as being a person having an interest in land, by addressing it to him by the description of "owner" of the land (describing it) to which the notice or other document relates, and by delivering it to some parson on the land or, if there is no person thereon to whom it can be delivered, by affixing it, or a copy of it, to some conspicuous part of the land; or (g) where it is a notice or other document that should be served on or given to a person as being an occupier of land, by addressing it to him by the description of "occupier" of the land (describing it) to which the notice or other document relates, and either posting it in a prepaid registered letter addressed as aforesaid and marked in such manner as may be prescribed for securing that it shall be plainly identifiable as a communication of importance or delivering it in a letter addressed and marked as aforesaid to some person on the land.

12.21 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out paragraphs (f) and (g), and insert: Provided that a notice or other document that is required or authorized to be served on or given to a person as having an interest in, or being an occupier of, any premises shall be deemed to be duly served on that person;—

1. (i) where he is a person having an interest and his name cannot be ascertained after reasonable inquiry, or where he is an occupier, if it is addressed to him by the description of the owner' or 'the occupier' as the case may be, of the premises (describing them) and delivered, left or sent as mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this section;
2. (ii) where he is a person having an interest and his address cannot be ascertained after reasonable inquiry, or where he is an occupier, if the notice or other document (addressed to him either by name or in accordance with paragraph (i) of this proviso, and marked in such manner as may he prescribed for securing that it shall be plainly identifiable as a communication of importance) is sent in a prepaid registered letter to those premises and is not returned to the authority sending it, or is delivered to some person on those premises, or is affixed conspicuously to some object on those premises;

and where a notice or other document is required to he served on or given to all persons having interests in, or being occupiers of, premises comprised in any land, and any of that land appears to the authority required to serve or give the notice or other document to be unoccupied, it shall be deemed to be duly served on all persons having interests in, and of all occupiers (if any) of, premises comprised in the land so appearing to the authority (other than an owner who in accordance with the provisions of this Act in that behalf has furnished the authority with an address for service of the notice on him) if it is addressed to 'the owners and any occupiers' of the land so appearing (describing it) and marked as aforesaid and is affixed conspicuously to some object on that land.

The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment deals with an important matter, although in one sense it is a matter of detail. It arises, as the Committee will see, in connexion with the clause which provides the method of notification. There is obviously a special difficulty in some of these cases when we are dealing with "blitzed" land, because there will be cases where it will be extremely difficult to find the interests concerned. There is the further difficulty that in some cases the effect of the war damage will have been to obliterate boundaries, and it will be difficult to know who is the person to whom the intentions of the authority are to be communicated. There is only one way to meet that, and it is to provide that in necessary cases the notice shall be put on the land. That is the method which is regularly followed in many branches of the law. This draft, which has been very carefully prepared, will be found to deal with the matter quite satisfactorily. I need not read it through, for it is one of the Amendments which convey their own meaning by being read. If we kept paragraphs (f) and (g) as they are now in the Bill that really would lead to some very capricious results, and the attempt we have made here—I think it is a successful one—is to provide a better and more logical machinery. I do not think anything more can be done than what is provided for here, and of course the cost of notice on the ground will only arise where you cannot find the owner.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 34, leave out paragraphs (f) and (g), and insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD AMMON

May I ask the Lord Chancellor's advice on this matter? I have an Amendment following this and the point it deals with seems to me to be already met in the concluding words of this Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I had noticed that my noble friend had his Amendment down. Indeed the same point had been raised in the Commons and a promise had been made to meet it. It is met in the Government Amendment and the only note I had written down on Lord Amnion's Amendment was "Government Amendment covers this." I feel no doubt that that is so.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 51:

Definition of "local planning authority"; and joint committees.

51.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, in this Act the expression a "local planning authority" means such a council as is mentioned in subsection (1) of Section two of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The first Amendment on this clause is a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 9, leave out ("Subject to the provisions of this section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (1), to insert: (2) Subsection (2) of Section two of the said Act (which empowers a county district council to relinquish any of its powers and duties under that Act to the county council) shall apply as if the powers and duties of a county district council under Section one of this Act were powers and duties under that Act, and—

1. (a) in relation to an application under the said Section one made by a county council, references in that section to a local planning authority and to the area of a local planning authority shall he construed respectively as references to the county council and to the area of the local planning authority by whom the power of making the application has been relinquished to the county council;
2. (b) the reference in paragraph (b) of subsection (i) of Section two of this Act to an order made on the application of the local planning authority therein referred to shall include a reference to an order made on the application of a county council to whom that authority has relinquished the power of making the application; and
3. (c) the references in subsection (5) of Section two of this Act to the authority on whose application an order was made shall, where the order was made on the application of a county council, be construed as a reference to the local planning authority by whom the power of making the application was relinquished to the county council."

The noble and learned Viscount said: In moving this Amendment I trust it will not be opposed in any quarter. The County Councils' Association have asked for a provision under which the powers of the local planning authority to apply to the Minister for an order under Clause 1 declaring land in an area of extensive war damage and associated areas to be subject to compulsory purchase, would be relinquished to a county council. That seems to be a desirable provision.

Amendment moved— Page 56, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 56, line 23, leave out the second ("the") and insert ("all local planning authorities being")

Page 56, line 40, leave out ("the") and insert ("local planning authorities being")

Page 56, line 42, after ("authority") insert ("county council")

Page 56, line 45, after ("authority") insert ("of the authority by whom the power of making the application has been relinquished to the county council")

Page 56, line 45, leave out ("of the constituent authorities") and insert ("local planning authority being a constituent authority")

Page 57, line 5, leave out ("or") and insert ("of the authority by whom the said power has been relinquished as aforesaid or of a local planning authority being")

Page 57, line 13, after ("authority") insert ("of a county council to whom the power of making such an application has been relinquished by that authority").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after Clause 51:

Provisions as to London.

" .Where an order has been made, on an application under subsection (1) of Section 1 of this Act, as respects land in a metropolitan borough, or authorization of the compulsory purchase of any such land has been given under any of the provisions of this Part of this Act, the Minister may, if an application in that behalf is made to him by the London County Council, by order direct that notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of the last preceding section the council of that metropolitan borough shall, as respects all or any of the land, as may be specified in the application, he the local planning authority for the purposes of such of the provisions of this Part of this Act as may be so specified, and that the said provisions shall apply as if the application under subsection (1) of Section 1 of this Act had been made by the council of the metropolitan borough, or the authorization had been given to that council, as the case may be.

An order under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order of the Minister made in accordance with an application in that behalf by the London County Council."

The noble Lord said: This, of course, is an important matter. The clause gives effect to an agreement reached between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs, and it is to enable a metropolitan borough council to become the local planning authority for the purpose of the acquisition and development of land, whether "blitzed" or blighted, in the metropolitan boroughs so far as may be agreed with the London County Council. It is just a co-operative clause.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 15, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LATHAN

I should like to commend to your Lordships this new clause, which will enable a wider measure of cooperation to be exercised between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs in regard to replanning and re-development than otherwise would have been the case. I should also like on behalf of the County Council and metropolitan boroughs to express my thanks to the Minister for the care he has taken in framing the clause and, if it would be in order, to extend the same thanks to the officers of his Ministry.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

12.29 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after Clause 51, to insert as a new clause: In exercising the powers given to him under the Town and Country Planning Acts, including this Act, the Minister shall have regard to the distribution of industry and population and the social disadvantages and strategic dangers of congested or unduly extended building development, and to the necessity of securing a proper balance of population as between one area and another, and the decentralization of excessive concentrations of population and industry to the smaller towns.

The noble Lord said: I should like to make clear that I am not seeking by this Amendment to introduce any new principle into the Bill. The Government of course have already accepted the main ideas of the Barlow Report, which are decongestion of the great cities and a better balance of industrial population; and indeed under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1943, the Minister is already charged with the task of guiding the formulation by local authorities of planning schemes which will adequately reflect national policy for urban and rural development. So I very much hope that my noble friend will think that mere is no harm in putting in this clause, which does reflect the policy of national planning to which the Government are already committed. In the sincere and earnest and, may I say, confident hope that the Government will accept this clause, I say no more. I beg to move,

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 15, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I strongly support the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Balfour has just moved, and I sincerely hope the Government will accept it. I have very little to add to what my noble friend has said, but I think there is one thing which is overwhelmingly in favour of the Amendment. As the Bill stands, there is little or nothing in it to justify its title. It may be a good Bill, it may be a bad Bill; it may be necessary, it may be urgently required; but it is very difficult to see how it can properly be called a Town and Country Planning Bill. If the new clause which my noble friend Lord Balfour has proposed be inserted it would go a long way to justify the title of the Bill, and for that reason, if for no other, I hope the Government will accept it.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I would like to support the Amendment for exactly the same reason. Although the Bill may not be entirely town and country planning it will be known as the Town and Country Planning Bill and a hint of planning in such a Bill is not a bad thing.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I would also like to support the Amendment. It seems to me that we have to remember that there may be people hereafter who have forgotten all that has been said both in the other place and in this House, and it is just as well that they should be reminded throughout of the principles which should guide the Minister at some future date.

THE MINISTER OF RECONSTRUCTION (LORD WOOLTON)

I wonder whether this is really wise. The noble Earl is not quite fair to the Bill when he indicates that, whether it is a good Bill or a bad one, it does not deal with planning. If he will be good enough to look at the introduction, he will see that Clauses 28 to 43 are explicitly stated as being planning provisions. That is by the way. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, knows quite well that with the sentiments that he expresses in his Amendment, I find myself in complete accord, and so, indeed, does this House, because on a previous Motion on Land Control—when you will remember we had the various "D's"—decontrol, decongestion (I have forgotten what the other one was)—we did unanimously adopt it. We agreed on that and, therefore, there is no issue between us as to whether we are all in accord. But I ask you: Is it really wise to put this clause in this Bill at this place telling the Minister what his powers are—"The Minister shall have regard" to these particular things. You observe that it is limiting. I do not know why the noble Lord omitted to mention two most important factors—namely, agriculture on the one hand and transport on the other, both of which I should have thought were most important provisions for the Minister to have in mind.

I object to the clause because it is limiting. I object to it because it seems to me to be unnecessary to put in this Bill a clause which appears to me just to tell the Minister to do the things which he was appointed to do, and then to proceed at this stage to define what he was appointed to do and to define it inadequately. Moreover, constantly those who have been interested in town and country planning have regarded this as something which was a growing thing, and here we are proposing quite precisely to define it with limitations in this clause. It is for those reasons that I wish the noble Lord would not press this Amendment. It certainly is not because I do not want the Minister to have these things in mind. I go further and say that if he is doing his job properly he will constantly have these and other things in mind. I see no reason at all for introducing a clause in this Bill either defining or limiting his functions.

LORD LATHAM

I am a little disturbed about this clause from another point of view and that is as to whether the inclusion of this clause within the Bill might net lead to this, that an appeal from an order made by the Minister to a court—and there is power in the Bill to appeal against the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order within 28 days of its being confirmed—might incur the risk of the court taking the view that, in exercising his power to confirm the compulsory purchase order, the Minister had not taken into account the considerations specified in this proposed new clause.

If I may say so with every respect, we have seen some extraordinary decisions as regards the exercise of powers by Ministers—notably in regard to the acquisition of land for housing purposes. There was a decision some few years ago which held up for over two years the effective acquisition of land for housing purposes because the court, quite properly within its power and jurisdiction, took a certain view; and I am a little disturbed that some such danger might arise from the inclusion of this clause. With its affirmation of faith I entirely agree. I am not quite persuaded that it is a wise thing to incorporate affirmations of faith in a clause in a detailed machinery Bill of this kind, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount may be able to assure the House on the point I have made.

12.37 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

The observations which have just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, are very much in line with my own opinions on this clause. It seems on the face of it a very unobjectionable clause, and in fact very advisable as a declaration, but the more one considers it the more one has to take into account its implications which do not, perhaps, at first sight appear on the surface. Let me say generally with regard to the objects in view in the clause that I, like the noble Lord, Lord Latham, am entirely in agreement with them. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, did me a little injustice in a recent debate in declaring that I was quite uninterested in national planning and cared only for little bits of useful planning here and there and in saving portions of the coastline. In another speech he said that I was the only member of the House who did not think that the existing cities were too big—that I was not in favour of decongestion of overcrowded populations. That is, of course, an entire misrepresentation, or it would be more polite to say a misapprehension of the position—which I have very frequently, perhaps too frequently, presented to your Lordships.

What I said in regard to the great cities was, that while in their present form and arrangement they were undoubtedly open to the gravest objection and animadversion, it might be that in the future they would be decentralized, reorganized and replanned in such a way as no longer to make it excessive to have a city of two or three million. The London plan, for example, for which the largest credit is due to the London County Council, and plans such as that of Plymouth which was mentioned yesterday, are such as would entirely transform the whole character of our large towns and might remove completely the objection to great conglomera- tion of populations of this kind. It might be that in future the public would approve and prefer to have cities of that character rather than small towns that did not present the same advantages from industrial and other economic standpoints.

Having made it clear that the purposes in view in this clause are, in my opinion, excellent, one has to remember, as has -been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Wool-ton, that the declaration leaves out certain very important factors and in particular the interests of agriculture and the improvement of transport. The character of our cities now depends almost entirely upon the development of proper means of transport. Unless we had tube railways such conglomerations as we have now in London would be impossible. If you have an immensely improved system of tube railways and also surface transport, you may entirely change the character of your towns. We are told now that a man is offered the choice either of living near his work and having a flat, or living a long way from his work with perhaps an hour's journey each way and having a family house. But if transport is improved he might go to the same district and have a proper family house and his journey would take not an hour but possibly twenty minutes. That would transform the whole situation. For that reason transport is intimately connected with all questions of planning. No reference is made to transport and indeed the Minister of Planning is not the Minister of Transport.

Similarly, many of these questions of planning affect not only one Ministry but several Ministries. The allocation of industry, which is here referred to, is something which must be considered, under present Ministerial arrangements, by the Board of Trade. Is the Minister of Planning the person to say whether or not the cotton industry should be developed in Lancashire or whether it should go to other places? Is he the person to say what should be the future development of the coal mines as regards districts? Further, what strategic considerations should be borne in mind in planning new cities or satellite towns? All these are really matters for the Cabinet and for a Committee or a group of Ministers, including the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Agriculture and, of course, the Minister of Town and Country Planning. That is the present lay-out of the Ministerial system. There is such a Committee of Ministers- now presided over by the Minister of Reconstruction. He also does not appear in this clause.

In creating a new Ministry of Town and Country Planning we were in danger of creating a very serious complication in the governing machine and of creating Ministers who might easily be brought into conflict with many important colleagues. When I mentioned Ministers just now I should have mentioned also the Minister of Health, who is concerned with housing. These Ministers all have their own points of view and are not to be overridden by a Departmental Minister on the same level as this—namely, the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Consequently we have to have a Cabinet Committee presided over by a Minister, I will not say of senior rank, but of wider scope and larger authority like the present Minister of Reconstruction. A declaratory clause in this particular Town and Country Planning Bill which deals with matters affecting all these other Departments, seems to me, on the whole, to be undesirable. Consequently I find myself in agreement with the Government and with the noble Lord, Lord Latham, in thinking that while the purposes of this clause are excellent, the procedure which it proposes is open to very serious objection.

12.45 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I need not tell your Lordships I am very disappointed with the reception which this clause has met with. I will say a word first in reply to my noble friend opposite Lord Samuel. I would like to say that I think, if I may say so with great respect, it was very wise on his part to take the opportunity which he has done to remove misconceptions which, again with great respect I say, were due to his own words in the debate that I made reference to and to which he has taken exception. It is perfectly true my noble friend said that he thought London, for instance, would be quite a nice place when my noble friend Lord Latham had done with it. The real point at issue between my noble friend Lord Samuel and me is that my noble friend is not willing to lend a hand in preventing London getting any bigger. That is the fundamental issue of policy. That is why I say he is not interested in national planning. It is a fundamental issue. However successful Lord Latham is in beautifying and cleaning up London, it still is against the national interest that London should go on getting bigger and bigger. That I conceive to be the real difference between those of us who are in favour of national planning and those who are not.

Lord Samuel also said that we were in danger when we set up a Ministry of Planning of bringing about overlapping and—I am not using his exact words—the possibility of difficulties between different Ministries. He said there is a Cabinet Committee now sitting to co-ordinate these differences. That is perfectly true; but what disturbs me about the position is that that Cabinet Committee, as far as I know, is of an ephemeral and transient character and one of the questions I put to the Leader of the House, to which I hope we are going to have an answer on Third Reading, is: What is the permanent machinery which is necessary to co-ordinate the development of all these different Departments? I think my noble friend Lord Samuel is now arguing against the setting up of a Minister of Planning because a Minister of Planning, without that co-ordination, is going to be in, and is in, an impossible position. The Minister of Planning, if he cannot do what my Amendment suggests he ought to do, ought never to have been created. There ought to have been a permanent Central Planning Authority which would have been an inter-departmental body. I did my best to argue that at the time, but I was defeated very largely by the influence a' the noble Viscount opposite who had a great deal to do with the setting up of the Ministry of Planning. Without such permanent inter-departmental arrangements this is going to prove a very great mistake.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

May I interrupt at this stage to say that I entirely support my noble friend's plea to the Government that on Third Reading they should make it clear to the House, and to the public, what constitution they have in mind for the Central Planning Authority? As for myself I would say that from the beginning I have on every occasion urged that there should be at one and the same time a Ministry of Planning dealing with a number of extremely important and specific questions which could only be handled by a Minister of Planning, and at a different level a Cabinet Committee which should be a permanent Standing Committee presided over by a senior member of the Government to co-ordinate the various Departments which are concerned. Indeed I have suggested on more than one occasion that the right model would be the Committee of Imperial Defence presided over by the Prime Minister himself, or by the Deputy Prime Minister. After the war I certainly think that should be a permanent character of our central administration. I apologize to my noble friend for having interrupted him at such length.

LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH

I am grateful to my noble friend for having given that exposition and for having gone so far in agreement with my views, though he is not in complete agreement. If he would confess that he would like to stop the growth of London we should be completely ad idem; but I see he does not rise to that fly.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

It depends on the meaning of London. If it is to he the same London as now I agree there is a great deal to be said for avoiding congestion, but I do not want to tie the next generation to certain boundary lines when circumstances may render those boundary lines the wrong ones.

LORD LATHAM

I ask the noble Lord not to acid to the problems of London by collecting confessions.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am grateful to my noble friend for going some way to meet me, but I am still unrepentant and I still think that however much you may improve London it is already big enough. My noble friend opposite spoke about transport and said that everything depended on transport; that if transport could be improved that would revolutionize the whole situation.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

It was said in the time of Queen Elizabeth that London was impossibly large.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

But they had not tube railways in Elizabethan days. We have tube railways and the tube railway authorities themselves have said that they cannot improve on the present situation. They can go on extending the railways, but they have told us that at peak periods there will always be straphangers. Mr. Frank Pick gave evidence before a Committee—I I cannot name the Committee but I am positive of the fact—that at the peak hours there will always be undue congestion and there will always be straphangers. This is not a thing we can remedy by the extension of tube railways. We can, of course, make them longer, and my noble friend opposite seems to want people to have longer journeys. There have been great improvements in the efficiency of the tube and there have been great improvements in sporting guns. Since the days of the muzzle loader we have greatly improved them, and I think the double-barrel ejector gun is as perfect a sporting weapon as you can get. But I do not think, however much you may improve the tubes, you are going to get that pitch of improvement which will reconcile my noble friend opposite to a bigger London. Perhaps I am getting rather far from my Amendment, but it is not entirely my fault, and I think I was entitled to reply to what was said on that subject.

Now I will turn to what was said by my noble friend in charge of the Bill. He quite agrees with the sentiment of my Amendment but one of his objections is that it is' limited and that I have not said anything about transport and agriculture. There is a Minister of Transport and a Minister of Agriculture, and quite clearly if I had said anything about transport and agriculture that would give him an excellent reason for saying the clause was unacceptable. He was rather inclined to say it was too limited, but I have tried to elaborate the functions which the Minister of Planning really has to carry out. Finally, I beg my noble friend to reconsider his refusal. It is no use blinking the fact that there is a grave suspicion of Government planning policy in a very large section of the population. There has been so much hesitation, so much delay, so much failure to implement promises, that the public do not know where they stand. They do not know whether the Government mean business or not. It is common knowledge that there are a large number of people in high places in this country in the Government and out of it who do not believe in national planning. This hesitation, this refusal to accept what is really an innocuous clause, can do nothing but add to this suspicion and make people doubt whether the Government really are in earnest about this planning business. I cannot press the matter to a Division, but if my noble friend cannot accept the Amendment now I still beg him for everybody's sake, for the sake of the Government most of all, to think the matter over between now and the next stage and sec if a better form of words can be devised to affirm in some positive way the Government's faith in national planning.

12.57 p.m.

LORD JESSEL

I want to make one or two points about this matter. My noble friend Lord Balfour referred to Mr. Frank Pick's evidence about the extension of the tubes and he also talked about double-barrel guns. Surely some of the tubes could be duplicated. There is another important point about transport. We have heard something about the L.C.C. plan, which is a very good plan, and I should like to thank them for the concessions made to the borough councils. But when we are talking about urban development surely we must remember that probably by the use of the aeroplane some of our transport difficulties may be solved. The noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, pointed out some time ago that when motor cars started they were very few in number, but that number has greatly increased. Now, of course, owing to war conditions there are not so many motor cars on the roads, but before the war the number of private cars in London was one of the reasons for the great congestion of the streets. When I think of the question of planning there comes to my mind the question what is to be the future of the aeroplane in assisting transport in this great city. I hope that when these questions are gone into this consideration may be borne in mind.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Does the noble Lord suggest that suburban traffic is going to be carried by aeroplane?

LORD JESSEL

I do not say that at all, but I do say that although motor cars are not so generally used now owing to the shortage of petrol they will be greatly increased after the war, and I think there is no doubt that the aeroplane will help to solve the transport problem at distances from ten to fifteen miles out of London to a greater extent in the future than in the past.

12.59 p.m.

LORD HEMINGFORD

I would like to support the appeal of my noble friend Lord Balfour that this proposal should be reconsidered. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, in his first reply, said it was inadvisable to define the duties of the Minister in this clause. I quite agree, but it is not proposed to define his duties. You do not define a man's duty to his neighbour by saying he has to be careful not to tread upon his neighbour's toes. Defining means something which is inclusive. A mere reminder of certain things which are the duty of the Minister is quite another matter.

I would like to say a word also with regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said. He seems to me to have given away the whole case against my noble friend's proposal. He suggested that these words might cause trouble because, if the matter came before a court, the court might come to the conclusion that the Minister did not take these things into consideration. Well, that is the very object, surely, which we have in view—to see that the Minister should not carry out this work without having these particular matters in consideration. Some of us, I am afraid, may have what 50311C people might call nasty, suspicious minds, and we are a little inclined to think that a Minister, occasionally, some time after the discussions in the two Houses have been forgotten, may himself forget some of the things with which he was charged, or which he was advised to do in the course of debates. I think that it is most advisable for that reason that these words should go in there, and if there is an appeal the main ground of which may be that the Minister has offended by not taking these matters into consideration the court should then have an opportunity of saving so.

LORD LATHAM

The noble Lord who has just spoken has, I think, entirely misunderstood what I said. May I first of all deal with the first part of his remarks? The words of this clause are almost mandatory upon the Minister. The clause says that in exercising the powers given to him "the Minister shall have regard". My point is that whether the Minister has had regard to these factors or not it would be unfortunate if that question should come within the jurisdiction of a court for a court to determine to what factors the Minister, in making an order under this Act, had had regard. That would I think be most unfortunate. It might be likely to lead to delay, and, in certain circumstances, new legislation might be required to remedy the state of affairs which might exist. I am not a lawyer myself, but I believe there is a legal dictum to the effect that "to specify is to limit." This clause has that additional defect.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I do not think that there is any very great weight, if I may say so without disrespect, in the point that the courts would be worried with evidence as to what the Minister really had or had not had regard to. Prima facie, the presumption would be that he had complied with all his statutory duties, unless in some way or other he had furnished evidence to the contrary—for instance, by writing a letter to show there was something he had declined to take into consideration which it was his duty to consider. I think that there is not very great weight in the argument which has been put forward in this connexion. I would venture to ask is there no way in which the Government can make some declaration, or some statement—not necessarily here, but somewhere else in the Bill—to show the general nature of the matters which the Minister ought to consider for the purpose of dealing satisfactorily with the matters that come before him?. If there is some way of putting that in—if it were put in in a preamble it would be good enough for my purpose—I shall be very glad if it can be done.

LORD WOOLTON

That is a point to which I have given consideration. I have discussed this clause very fully with a natural desire to put it in, but I am advised against accepting the proposal to insert it. The question that occurred to my mind was: could we put it somewhere else? I think the noble Lord does not really want to insist on having the clause in here; I am quite certain that he does not want the precise wording which he has advocated, if some other wording will indicate that the Government has the principle in mind. I am very willing indeed to consult with the Minister and with the Law Officers to see if we can meet the suggestion that has just fallen from the lips of my noble friend Viscount Maugham.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

In view of the undertaking which my noble friend Lord Woolton has just given, and for which I am very grateful, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1.6 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The next amendment need not, I think, take us very long, but one never knows. I did not think that we should have to spend much time over the last one, but sometimes storms spring up unexpectedly. I think that I had better read in full the new clause which I propose to insert after Clause 51. It states: A local planning authority may with the approval of the Minister and subject to any regulations made by him make arrangements with an authorized association within the meaning of Section thirty-five of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, for such association to acquire land carry out any development or redevelopment or do such works as the authority could themselves do under the provisions of this Act, and the Minister may in such case by order transfer to such association such of the powers of the authority as may be requisite and may make to the association any grants which would otherwise have been payable to the authority and the authority may make such payments to the association as the Minister may from time to time approve. I think your Lordships all know what a housing association is. It is a form of either a non-profit-making organization or of an organization making a limited profit. It is a useful half-way house, if I may so put it, between full-blown private enterprise and operations of an entirely Governmental or local authority character such as my noble friends on the other side of the House favour. It does seem to me that this particular instrument might be useful, particularly in the case where there is need to set up some new community, to make a new town somewhere, or some large-scale industrial and residential extension to country towns. It would provide in a case where a local authority is purchasing a very large block an alternative to local authority ownership. With great respect to local authorities it is not a bad thing to have alternative ownership. Equally it may be no bad thing to have alternative ownership to private ownership. I consider that this suggestion has a great deal to commend it. Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, which is the one referred to, has specific reference to garden cities and it does appear that it might be very convenient to add these in this Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 15, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, on the proposal which he now makes. This clause leaves initiative with the local authority, and is, in general, a most desirable arrangement if it is within the financial structure of the Bill, as I hope it may be found to be.

LORD LATHAM

That is the only point that I wish to raise. I speak with some knowledge of the difficulties, having regard to the terms of the Financial Resolution passed in another place. The formulation of the new clause which I might conveniently refer to as "the London clause" gave the Minister and the draftsmen great difficulties, in order that a metropolitan borough council undertaking development under this Bill should be entitled to the grant payable under Clause 5. With all respect, I do not think that under the Financial Resolution there is power to say that the grant which would otherwise have gone to a local planning authority under the Bill may be diverted, even with the local planning authority's consent, or indeed at its instance, to an association such as is here contemplated. I have a great regard for many associations of this kind, and the London County Council has done what it could to encourage their efforts, but I gravely doubt whether this proposal would come within the terms of the Financial Resolution.

LORD HEMINGFORD

There is a great deal in that. I think that there is very considerable doubt whether it would come within the terms of the Financial Resolution. I am a newcomer here, and I speak, therefore, with very great diffidence on this matter, but my impression is that this is a matter which must really be decided in another place and not here. We all know, of course, that this House constantly passes Amendments which in another place are found to infringe the privileges of the Commons. If the Commons agree with the Amendments, they waive their privilege. In this case I gather that Lord Latham's only objection is this difficulty regarding the Financial Resolution, and I suggest that in those circumstances there is no reason why, if the Committee so desire, we should not make this Amendment, and leave it to the House of Commons to deal with the question of the Financial Resolution.

1.13 p.m.

LORD WOOLTON

This raises a question of principle, because the Amendment proposes to transfer powers from a local planning authority, in elected body, to a non-elected body by Ministerial order. It would seem that the electorate have a right to demand that whatever arrangements the elected body may make for carrying out specific development by a private body, the statutory powers ought to remain with the elected body. The underlying assumption of the Amendment is that in some circumstances an authorized association would carry out development better than a local authority. It is doubtful whether there is any evidence to sup fort that assumption, but that is by the way. In any case it is surely unnecessary for this purpose that the powers of the local planning authority under the Bill should be conferred on the authorized association and a direct grant paid to the association. The grant under the Bill is only in respect of the acquisition and clearing of land, and therefore, even assuming that it is desired that an authorized association should carry out the actual development, could not the same result be obtained by the local planning authority acquiring and clearing the land and then leasing it to the authorized association at a proper rent? I am sorry, but I am advised not to accept this Amendment.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

Would not the Government consider the matter between now and the Report stage and suggest some alternative? It might be as well to have on the face of the Bill some reference to this matter, so that the people who are affected will know where they stand under the law. If a differently worded clause could be brought forward by the Government on the Report stage, carrying out what I think is the object of us all but free from any objections which might be raised to this Amendment, think it would be welcome.

LORD WOOLTON

Would not the leasing of the land to the housing association have the same result?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I should like to say one word before the matter is disposed of. I derive some satisfaction from the fact that nobody—not even noble Lords opposite—offered any objection to the principle which I am seeking to insert in the Bill. I was not aware that there would be a technical difficulty, because I have here the Housing Act, 1936, and I thought that this arrangement was very similar to the arrangements made for housing associations there. I am sure, however, that my noble friend is right in saying that there are technical difficulties, but I would ask him to do what my noble friend opposite has suggested, and allow us to have some consultations to see whether we cannot put something into the Bill at a later stage. This principle of housing associations is very well established in our legislation, both in Town and Country Planning and in Housing Acts. I think that the Committee is in favour of it, and that with a little good will machinery might be devised. Is the noble Lord willing to take that course?

LORD WOOLTON

I shall be very glad to have a consultation.

LORD LATHAM

I hope that if consultations are to take place the noble Lord will bring into those consultations representatives of the local authorities.

LORD WOOLTON

There will not be much time.

LORD LATHAM

It is proposed to cast a duty on the local authorities. There is' no difficulty with regard to housing associations at the present time.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

I suggest that this is a convenient time to adjourn for the luncheon interval, and that we should resume the sitting at a quarter past two o'clock.

House resumed.

House adjourned at seventeen minutes past one o'clock and resumed at a quarter past two o'clock.

House again in Committee on the Town and Country Planning Bill:

[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 52:

Assessment of compensation in connexion with acquisition of land for public purposes by reference to 1939 prices.

52.—(1) Compensation for the compulsory purchase of an interest in land by a Government Department or a local or public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, compensation to be estimated in connexion with such a purchase for damage sustained by reason of the severing of land the subject thereof from other land held therewith or otherwise injuriously affecting such other land, and compensation under Section sixty-eight of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, in respect of land injuriously affected by the execution of works on land acquired by such a department or authority, shall, except in the case of compensation assessed on the basis specified in rule (5) of the rules set out in Section two of the said Act, be assessed subject to the rule following, that is to say—

The value of any interest in land purchased pursuant to a notice to treat served at any time within the period of five years from the commencement of this Act, the amount of any damage sustained by reason of severance or other injurious affection compensation for which is to be estimated in connexion with a purchase of an interest in land pursuant to such a notice, and the amount of any damage sustained by reason of other land being injuriously affected by the execution of works which either is sustained or the amount of which falls to be ascertained at any time within that period, shall be ascertained by reference to prices current at the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, on the assumption that the interest had at that date been subsisting as it was in fact subsisting at the time of service of the notice to treat, and that the land in which the interest subsisted, and any such other land, had been at that date in the state in which it in fact wag at the time of service of the notice to treat.

LORD WOOLTON

The first Amendment on this clause is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Par 57, line 31, after ("Act") insert ("of 1919").—(Lord Woolton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

2.17 p.m.

LORD AMMON moved, in the second paragraph of subsection (1), to leave out "within the period of five years from the commencement" and insert "before the expiration of the period of five years from the date appointed in pursuance of subsection (1) of Section one." The noble Lord said: This is a short point but one of considerable importance. This clause deals with the assessment of compensation in connexion with the acquisition of land for public purposes by reference to 1939 prices. The rule which is set out in subsection (1) is limited by the words "pursuant to a notice to treat served at any time within the period of five years from the commencement of this Act." Although it is true that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an authority from putting forward an application for a declaratory notice immediately the Bill is passed, nevertheless there are a number of difficulties, notably the machinery which has to be set in motion, which will make it in some cases almost impossible, especially where there has been a tremendous amount of damage and demolition caused by bombs.

I might call your Lordships' attention to the fact that there will have to be the preparation of a scheme, including consultation with various interests, publication of notice of intention to apply for a declaratory order, application to the Minister, advertisements of the application, consideration of objections, and probably a local inquiry before the declaratory order is obtained. And even after that a compulsory purchase order has to be made and there will be the confirmation thereof by the Minister, advertisements issued and objections invited, and further applications for declaratory orders may be made within the period of five years from the appointed day. It will obviously not be possible for authorities to tackle all these schemes at once. What I am urging is that in those conditions it may be quite impossible for the authorities to get through all the necessary work and machinery within the limits imposed by this subsection, and it will help us to a certain extent if the date can be extended to five years from the appointed day. That will allow a little more latitude and probably make the working of the Bill easier.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 34, leave out from ("time") to ("of") in line 35 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Ammon.)

LORD WOOLTON

I am afraid I cannot accept this. As I understand it, there are two points at issue here. The point that the noble Lord has just dealt with is a very fair one; it is that there may be quite a long period after the time of the appointed day before this land can be purchased. The 1939 standard has been a very difficult issue for all parties to agree upon.

LORD AMMON

May I interrupt? It is not after the appointed day, it is after the passing of the Act.

LORD WOOLTON

I was just going to deal with that point. I am afraid I shall have to ask your Lordships' consideration this afternoon because as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, said yesterday, you have had a most excellent steersman and driver on this coach while I am a person who only toots occasionally behind. I am afraid that for the next hour or two we are deprived of the services of our most excellent steersman but I will endeavour to explain the provision as I see it. The provision under which the compulsory purchase of land can be made at 1939 prices was fixed for a period of five years. That period was fixed because we felt that during that time there was not likely to he any free market in land. It was very difficult to find what would be the proper price for the purchase of such land and so we have said that for this period of five years we will take the 1939 price. On that we have, not without difficulty, entered into a general agreement. What the noble Lord is proposing here is that there shall in fact be an extension of that time because of the difficulties that will arise owing to the local authorities finding it difficult to make their plans and so on. I am bound to say that to do that would in fact be extending the time in which the 1939 prices would be operated, and that is a matter which would be outside the agreement into which we have entered with all parties. I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD LATHAM

I am struck by the Government in this House being estopped by an agreement. It is a curious thing that the local authorities who will have to pay the money were not invited to become parties to that agreement. It will be the local authorities who will have to pay the money. The facts are these: When the Bill was first introduced the whole A the procedure dealing with war-damaged areas was to be limited for a period of five years from the passing of the Act, and it was pointed out that if that were the case the effective period that would be available to local authorities would be much shorter, because they really could not get on with the job, and the local authorities' submissions and the submissions of others in that behalf had the result that as regards the first clauses of the Bill the time was to run not from the enactment of the legislation but from the appointed clay. It seemed to me to follow that if that alteration were made there should be a similar alteration as regards the application of the 1939 price. I do not know to what general outside consideration the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, refers when he says: "Some have said" (presumably he means the Government) "that for this period of five years we will take the 1939 price."

If the Bill stands as it is the local authorities will have a shorter effective period than five years in which they will have the benefit, if any, of this limitation upon the price to be paid not only for land acquired under this Bill but for land for all statutory purposes, and whilst it would be the case that if the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ammon were accepted, in actual time the limitation would apply for longer than five years, in practice it would be effective for much less than five years because of the wastage of time before the local authorities are in a position to operate it. In those circumstances I hope the noble Lord may find himself able, on behalf of the Government, to reconsider the situation.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

Your Lordships must consider that the time mentioned is only a time within which a notice to treat has got to be served. It does not affect all the negotiations that may take place after the notice to treat. It seems to me that the effect of leaving the clause as it stands is only this, that it is possible within a few cases there will be a large number of notices to treat served just before the expiration of the five years. But if as a matter of fact it does turn out in the course of the third or fourth year, or the fifth year, after this Bill has come into force, that there is some congestion, and so on, we all know this measure is not a final Act and there could easily be introduced another Act extending the period for a year.

LORD AMMON

The point the noble Viscount has raised is of course accurate as far as the statement is concerned. I can think of several authorities with tremendous areas that have been badly bombed, all of which will require separate negotiations and separate treatment, which will mean a lot of delay. If these are taken up just before the expiry of the five years the possibilities are that they will never get them through, and to wait on the possibility of fresh legislation certainly looks as if it is going to hold up the thing indefinitely. Although this may not mean very much to put the date as the appointed day, it will mean a little extension that might be very valuable.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

2.29 p.m.

LORD LATHAM moved to insert at the end of subsection (1): Provided that it shall be a direction to the arbitrator that he shall ascertain whether the person claiming compensation in respect of any interest purchased that interest as at a date later than the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and if he did so, whether the price then paid for that interest was lower than the value of that interest as ascertained in accordance with Rules 2 to 4 of the Rules set out in the said Section two by reference to prices current at the said thirty-first day of March, and, if the price was lower than as aforesaid, the arbitrator in assessing the compensation to be paid in respect of that interest shall not award any sum greater than the price so paid unless that person proves to the satisfaction of the arbitrator that the interest was purchased by that person in connexion with the occupation or use of land by himself or a member of his family or a person employed by him.

The noble Lord said: This proposed Amendment, formidable as it may appear on the Paper, is designed to achieve a purpose which I venture to think will meet with the approval of your Lordships—that is, to prevent speculation. The Amendment is drawn sufficiently widely to include within the benefits of the legislation now before us persons who, whether for themselves or members of their family, are interested in land or interests which under the Bill will be purchased. But there is a grave danger in some districts—a danger which I fear is daily increasing—that the provisions of the Bill may operate for the benefit of speculators. It is with the intention of preventing that, so far as is humanly possible, that this Amendment is submitted by me. I would say that a similar Amendment was moved in another place and the Attorney-General then stated that the matter would be looked at with a view to something being suggested at a later stage. So far as I know nothing has been suggested and I am not aware that anything is likely to be suggested. I therefore beg to move the Amendment on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 4, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Latham.)

LORD CHESHAM

It was not my intention to intervene on this, but for once I am delighted to find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Latham, about the compensation clauses. The attitude that I had decided to adopt was to state, as I have stated before, that we accepted the compensation clauses as proposed by the Government, not with any satisfaction, but as they had been fully debated in another place I did not think there was any object in trying to amend them here. But this Amendment does go a long way to achieve an object which I have very much in mind, and that is to stop the speculator. If a speculator has bought land or property at what I might call knock-out prices—a price well below ordinary market values and well below the 1939 values—this Amendment will be very useful. Nevertheless, it fails to deal with another class of owner who has been more or less compelled to find a home for himself and to buy land above the 1939 prices. The whole of these compensation clauses are going to hit the property owner. We accept it as just another burden that we have to bear, but if the Government could see their way to accept this Amendment I think it would go a good distance to stop the speculator from obtaining a profit through disasters and calamities due to the war. I hope therefore that the Government will be able to accept it.

2.33 p.m.

LORD WOOLTON

I can tell the noble Lord that the Attorney-General certainly fulfilled his undertaking to give this matter consideration. He, the Lord Chancellor and I spent quite a long time last Friday afternoon considering this Amendment and honestly attempting to see what we could do to meet the situation to which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has referred. We were not able to do so, not because of any opposition to the principle, but because of the enormous number of difficulties that arose when we got to tae drafting of something that would be adequate and equitable. Probably, as a result of the frequent warnings the Government has given since 1940 on the subject of the 1939 prices, the element of speculation has been considerably less than it otherwise would have been. To deal with this problem adequately and fairly seemed to us to involve a complicated code which would put a great deal of extra work on to the administrative machine and on to the arbitrators, without, when we had done it, leaving a loophole to the most astute and dishonest people who certainly would be able to find a loophole with the same ingenuity displayed by people who are tax evaders.

One very important factor which the Amendment disregards is the temporary depression in prices owing to the impossibility of building during the war. It is well known that no compensation is paid under the War Damage Act for the loss incurred during the period when the property destroyed cannot be rebuilt. An owner of "blitzed" property, desiring to sell it during the war to a purchaser, would probably be doing something that cannot give a return until some very uncertain date in the future. It would be quite unfair not to take this into account at a later date when building is possible or at au rate at a date much nearer to the time when building is possible. In such a case the original owner has passed on to the purchaser the loss which otherwise would have fallen on him. As to the mechanics of the procedure, we should have to provide for the case where the local authority buys part only of the speculator's purchase. It may be that part of what is not bought has already been sold and there would be a rather elaborate valuation procedure for fixing the amount of the original purchase which is to be attributed to the interest required. If the interest is leasehold it will have diminished in value by the time of the notice to treat, and if it is a reversion then it will have increased and new interests may have been created.

The Amendment takes a simple case where the interest to be acquired has been purchased and nothing has happened in the interval. The man who has sold and realized his profit is clearly outside the Amendment. The adoption of the Amendment would invite collusive trans- fers and it would be very difficult to detect and bring on to the scene at the date of the notice to treat someone who had, on the face of it, bought at the 1939 price or thereabouts. I know it is always difficult to make a case on the grounds of administration against a principle with which people find themselves in general agreement, but the Law Officers of the Crown, as I have indicated, have shown their anxiety by meeting together to try to cover the case. They have come to the conclusion that not only the form of drafting which the noble Lord has submitted, but any form of drafting they themselves have been able to suggest, would not be likely to be effective. The Government have consoled themselves somewhat by believing that the amount of speculation is rather small as the result of the warnings previously given and we do not advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment. I will say this, if I may—not with a view to postponing decision—that if after further consultation between the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor and myself we can find a way of dealing with this problem we will most certainly bring it before your Lordships on the Report stage.

2.40 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

This is a clause which superficially is extremely attractive and it goes without saying that we should all be glad to achieve the object which my noble friend opposite has in view not to allow the speculator to get away with his ill-gotten gains. I waited with some anxiety to hear what the reply of my noble friend would be to the proposal. Having heard it I am bound to say that I found it very convincing. The real fact is that you cannot distinguish between a speculative purchase and a purchase for investment. I can illustrate it quite simply by the purchase of quite another class of property, say stocks and shares. It might easily be that a most respectable investor—for example, some trust which deals in a class of investment which fluctuates on the Stock Exchange—might make an investment intended to be permanent but it might happen that there was such a rise in price as did not seem to be justified by circumstances. It would be quite legitimate to sell and take the profit. That trust would not thereby be transformed into a speculation. As my noble friend said—he did not put it in these words but I think it is what he meant—the machinery set up would cause a great deal of trouble to the righteous without really catching the evildoers. Consequently I hope my noble friend opposite will not press these Amendments. The difficulties illustrated by the purchase of part of a holding by a local authority are, I think, really insuperable.

2.42 p.m.

LORD LATHAM

The arguments used in the earlier part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and those used by my noble friend Lord Balfour were precisely the kind of arguments which years ago were put forward to justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer in not taking certain steps to prevent tax evasion, but since then various Chancellors of the Exchequer aided and assisted by wise and capable Law officers of the Crown have within the last ten years very substantially narrowed the field of operations open to tax evaders. I really think it ought not to be regarded as beyond the wit of the Law Officers, especially the Law Officers., of this Government of all the talents, to protect the public interest from the depredations of speculators.

I find no evidence to support the optimistic view of the noble Lord that speculation is of a rather minimum order. I think there has been a considerable growth of speculation in the past few months, especially since the ban was lifted from the coastal areas. One of the pleas put forward to support the plea that the 1939 ceiling should not remain a ceiling notwithstanding the assurance of the Government, was that in the coastal areas which were subject to a ban, and subject to other very serious disabilities arising from the war, prices were depressed below the 1939 standard. That was one of the main reasons put forward for the variation from the ceiling to the standard. Now I think it is known to everyone that since the ban has been lifted prices have risen and speculation, I will not say is rife, but is active. I do think there is a case for the Government to look at the matter again and in view of the assurances given I am very willing to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

2.45 p.m.

THE EARL OF WARWICK moved to insert in subsection (1): Provided that where since the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, an interest in land or part thereof has been valued for Estate Duty purposes at a figure higher than the value ascertained as aforesaid, the value for Estate Duty purposes shall be deemed to be the value of the interest in land or part thereof purchased pursuant to a notice to treat served at any time within the period of five years from the commencement of this Act.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to prevent an injustice occurring to the owner of land which is valued by the arbitrator under Clause 52 for compulsory purchase at a lower price than by the Inland Revenue for Death Duties should those Duties have been assessed after March 31, 1939. Under the present law, as your Lordships no doubt are aware, land is valued for the purpose of Death Duties at the current market price, which in a good many cases has risen since March, 1939. I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that it will continue to rise. It is very well known that the Inland Revenue have had considerable difficulties in dealing fairly with the taxpayer over the question of Death Duties. Valuations of this nature have been very high and I do not think that your Lordships would wish to let an inoffensive party be aggrieved in a case where land is purchased and where Death Duties have been paid since March, 1939.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 4, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Warwick.)

LORD AMMON

Am I right in understanding that the value to be paid is the value for Estate Duties? If that is higher than the ordinary market price I am concerned to know why the local authority should be called upon to pay that.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I think the answer to that question is that it would be an obvious injustice, if Death Duties had been paid on a certain price which happens to be more than the 1939 price, that when the local authority makes a compulsory purchase the purchase price should be based on the 1939 price. We have great sympathy with the desire to get what would be an injustice removed and my recollection is that in another place the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer made a promise to deal with it. There is probably, I think, somewhere towards the end of the Amendment Paper, an Amendment to deal with it.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

May I say that I associate myself with what has been said by my noble friend Lord Balfour?

LORD WOOLTON

May I have your Lordships' permission to read what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in another place when this same issue was raised? His statement was made on October 25 and is to be found in Columns 294, and 205 of Hansard. An Amendment in similar terms to this one had been moved and that Amendment was subsequently withdrawn after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his statement. Although the statement is somewhat long, I hope your Lordships will allow me to read it because it is so important These were the words of my right honourable friend: I recognize the anomaly of an assessment, at more than 1939 values, of an interest which has passed on death and which is subsequently acquired by a local authority at a lower basis of compensation than that on which Estate Duty has been levied. But I do not think the Amendment is one that it would be proper to accept, because acceptance would mean that the local or other public authority which had to pay compensation, would be bound by something quite irrelevant, by something which had been done by some other authority operating under a different code of law. So I cannot accept the Amendment, but what I can and will do is this: I will give an assurance, on behalf of the Government that when such a case does arise, if, after Estate Duty has been assessed, there is subsequent acquisition, and the price at which the property or interest is assessed is less than the value taken for the purpose of Estate Duty, then I will provide for the reopening of that assessment, so as to get rid of soy inconsistency between the value on which the taxing authority has proceeded and the value under this Bill for the purposes of acquisition. I have only two points that I must safeguard in that connexion. The first is that I think it will be essential so to frame the appropriate arrangement, which will have to be embodied in the next Finance Bill, as to apply only in cases where there is continuity If ownership. If the interest has been played about with, so to speak, in the interval between the two transactions, so that it cannot be identified, then the relief I am proposing may not be possible. The other point that must be safeguarded is that the interest which has to be dealt with must be substantially the same in the two cases. For instance, a reversionary interest at the date of death is one thing, and two or three years later it is something different. I, therefore, propose to bring before the House in due course an Amendment which will substantially get rid of any inconsistency between the basis of valuation for Estate Duty and the kind of case which my honourable friend has in mind. I hope that the undertaking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given will dispose of the anomaly to which my noble friend has drawn attention and that he will be prepared to rest himself on the assurance of the Government.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Am I not right in thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer actually said that the Inland Revenue itself proceeded on that basis in cases which had actually occurred? I happened to be in another place on the occasion of that debate and my recollection is that that is what was said and that his instructions were that such cases should be sympathetically treated.

LORD WOOLTON

Thank you very much.

THE EARL OF WARWICK

I was aware of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I thought the injustice in the situation was important enough to be brought up here. In view of what has been said on behalf of the Government I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD WOOLTON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "and" ["and to dwelling-houses"] in order, after apply, to insert "and to agricultural holdings." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment, dealing with agricultural crops, is that, unless such an Amendment were made, the Government when they found themselves acquiring land and having to pay for agricultural crops, would have to try to revert the value of those crops back to the 1939 basis, and that would obviously be something extremely difficult to do and not at all in harmony with the purpose of the Bill.

Amendments moved—

Page 58, line 7, leave out ("and")

Page 58, line 9, after ("apply") insert ("and to agricultural holdings").—(Lord Woolton.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 53:

Supplement to compensation in case of owner-occupiers.

53.—(1) Where the person entitled to compensation assessed subject to the rule set out in subsection (1) of the last preceding section for the purchase of an interest in land consisting of or comprising a building (not being agricultural property) or consisting of or comprising agricultural property (that is to say, agricultural land or agricultural buildings as defined in Section two or the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, or a farmhouse) is an owner-occupier, he shall be entitled to receive from the purchasing authority, as a supplement to that compensation, such sum, if any, not exceeding the maximum hereinafter specified, as may be reasonable having regard to the extent to which, in all the circumstances of his occupation, he is affected by the purchase of the interest.

(3) The maximum for the sum which may be paid under this section in respect of an interest in land as consisting of or comprising agricultural property shall he the amount (if any) by which—

1. (a) the value of the interest in the agricultural property ascertained by reference to prices current at the said thirty-first day of March, falls short of
2. (b) the value of the interest in the agricultural property ascertained by reference to prices thirty per cent. greater than those current at that date and on the assumption that that property had been at that date subject to a permanent restriction to use as agricultural property within the meaning of this section.

(5) The person entitled to compensation for the purchase of an interest in land consisting of or comprising a building or agricultural property shall be deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to be an owner-occupier if any of the following conditions are satisfied, and not otherwise, that is to say— (a) if he is in occupation of the building or property at the time of service of the notice to treat;

(6) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection—

1. (a) references to the person entitled to compensation shall, where that person holds as trustee or otherwise for the benefit of another or subject to the directions of another, be construed subject to such adaptations as may he prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor;
2. (b) references to occupation of a building or property include references to occupation of a part thereof;
3. (c) a person shall be treated as in occupation of a building or property if it is in the occupation of a person in his employment for the purposes of that employment;

2.55 p.m.

LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "entitled," where that word occurs for the second time, to insert "in respect of one building or property and one only of which he is the owner-occupier for the purposes of any business carried on by him and one building or property and one only of which he is owner-occupier for the purposes of residence." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to bring the provisions of the Bill into some proper relationship as regards owner-occupiers with the generally accepted view of an owner-occupier. When the Bill was first introduced in another place the additional sum proposed to be paid over and above the 1939 standard was limited to occupiers of residential property within the limits of the Rent Restrictions Acts and to agricultural land and agricultural holdings. As a result of much coming and going in another place, all sorts of agreements apparently having been come to—some of which were kept—the term "owner-occupier" has been extended out of all recognition as compared with what had been generally accepted not only by lawyers but by the public. As the clause now stands it brings in property which can by no stretch of imagination be said to belong to owneroccupiers—property which has in fact been taken by the investing public and is held as an investment.

My Amendment will have the effect of really, and I think satisfactorily, protecting the actual owner-occupier, inasmuch as it would apply the provisions as regards supplements to him in respect of one residential property and one business property. This, I submit, quite fairly and equitably discharges the obligation of the nation towards the person generally known as the owner-occupier. I think it would be difficult to maintain that when the convenient term "owner-occupier" has been used in the past and quite recently, it was thought to include a multiple property owner of blocks of offices and other property of that character. What was always in mind was the small man—the "widow and orphan" have been abandoned in favour of the "small man." My Amendment will protect the genuine small man without conferring uncovenanted benefits upon the multiple property owner who in fact is an investor in property, although it may be that in the many shops and stores owned by the company in which he has invested a business is carried on.

Moreover, I wish to point out an administrative difficulty which will issue from the provisions of the Bill if it remains unaltered. Clause 53 (1) directs the arbitrator to have regard" to the extent to which, in all the circumstances of his" (the owner-occupier's) "occupation, he is affected by the purchase of the interest" Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us exactly what that means. Does it mean putting the owner-occupier on a means test? What are the circumstances of the occupation and the extent to which it has been fixed?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Will the noble Lord give us the reference?

LORD LATHAM

Clause 53 (1), line 25. Those words were almost repeated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking in the House of Commons on October 19, when he said: When we had to extend the scope of our provisior."— I like the suggestion of compulsion— to cover the further classes of owners of shops, cinemas and factories and what not"— most appropriate words!— we had to adopt— I leave out one or two words— a somewhat different course, and we have proceeded by way of a maximum, leaving the discretion to the appropriate authority to award a supplemental compensation, within the maximum, according to the circumstances of the applicant. Those last are the material words. This is to be determined by reference to the circumstances of the individual applicant. For instance, is somebody representing the board of a multiple store to come along and urge, on grounds of poverty or distress or otherwise, that his concern really should be treated in a favourable way an I that it should be permitted to have this supplement up to the maximum? What do the words "according to the circumstances of the applicant" mean? This, it seems to me, is a novel extension, or a potential novel extension, of the means test. Perhaps the noble Lord will throw some light on it, because the local authorities are very apprehensive that the machinery for ascertaining this supplement may become so confused and complicated as not to be understood by mortal man. Going back to the purpose of my Amendment, may I say that it is to protect the real owner- occupier and not to gather under his folds, as it were, property owners who by no reasonable interpretation of the accepted meaning of owner-occupier could be so regarded? I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 21, after ("entitled") insert the said words.—(Lord Latham.)

3.2 p.m.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word on this Amendment. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has put it forward seriously. The suggestion that a man can only have a business in one building, or can only occupy one house, is manifestly untrue. Take first the case of a dwelling-house. As we all know, there are large numbers of people in this country who, quite bona fide, occupy two houses. They may have one in the country, where they have very important interests and also work to do, and another in London, where they also have work to do. It is impossible to say that one is a dwelling-house and the other is not. Take another case, a case which the noble Lord himself mentioned, that of the financial business concern—a bank for example. Would the noble Lord really suggest that one branch was a genuine place of business and that none of the others were genuine places of business but mere investments? I do not think that that is a suggestion which could possibly be upheld.

LORD LATHAM

That was the accepted view of the owner-occupier with regard to persons having two houses. May I remind the noble Viscount that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who have not got a single house?

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

That is utterly irrelevant. The only definition of an owner-occupier is a person who occupies a house belonging to him. If such persons genuinely occupy one house or two houses they are, equally, owner-occupiers. If they have a house which they do not occupy but let to somebody else they are not owner-occupiers. That is the clear definition of the term. The noble Lord also referred to the last words of subsection (1) of Clause 53: he shall be entitled to receive from the purchasing authority, as a supplement to that compensation, such sum, if any, not exceeding the maximum hereinafter specified, as may be reasonable having regard to the extent to which, in all the circumstances of his occupation, he is affected by the purchase of the interest. I do not pretend to be a legal expert, and the noble Lord may very likely disagree with what I say, but I should have thought that it was clear that, as between two houses, in one case the owner does suffer a greater loss. For instance, he may be more injured in his business. There may be other circumstances which make the loss to him greater. In that case it is natural that the community should make up to him a rather higher scale of compensation than he would otherwise have. It is an elastic provision to allow maximum justice to be done in individual cases. In view of what I have said I am afraid that it is necessary for the Government to resist this Amendment.

On Quesiton, Amendment negatived.

3.6 p.m.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (3), to leave out "subject to a permanent restriction to use as." The noble Earl said: In Clause 53 there are two separate definitions of agricultural land. One is in subsection (1), which refers to land consisting of or comprising agricultural property (that is to say agricultural land or agricultural buildings as defined in Section two of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, or a farmhouse). Subsection (3) deals with the price which may be paid for agricultural land, and in paragraph (b) you find, at the end, these words: on the assumption that that property had been at that date subject to a permanent restriction to use as agricultural property within the meaning of this section. I find it a little difficult to know exactly what is meant by the words "a permanent restriction to use as agricultural property." Presumably they must mean that land which is planned in some planning scheme as a permanent open space, either private or public, in which case it is not available, probably, for the purpose of this Bill, and, therefore, not a subject for compensation at all.

I cannot see why we should not take the definition of agricultural land which is in subsection (1). I therefore move that these words "subject to a permanent restriction to use as" should come out.

The relevant passage in subsection (b) would then read: on the assumption that that property had been at that date agricultural property within the meaning of this section. I think that that would make it quite clear, and there could then be no element other than agricultural in any valuation. Further, it will remove, so far as I can see, a somewhat anomalous position in that as the Bill stands now we have two separate definitions of agricultural land. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 10, leave out ("subject to a permanent restriction to use as").—(The Earl of Radnor.)

LORD WOOLTON

I think that there is really a misunderstanding here and, with respect, that the noble Lord's Amendment is misconceived. The wording of the clause is "on the assumption that that property had been at that date subject to a permanent restriction." What is the position regarding agricultural land when it comes on to the market? It is this: that it has inside its value two different and separate values. There is the value of that land as agricultural land, and there is the potential building development value in that land. Those two things make up the total price. Obviously, the building development value is something that varies quite considerably, and what we are proposing here is that we shall take as a basis the value of this land if it had no development value in it, but was restricted to agricultural land. Then, over and above that, there comes the question of the payment of a supplement. The whole idea of the payment of a supplement is because it is on agricultural land. What we are proposing is that we should pay the supplement on the agricultural value of the land, and not on the development value of the land. I hope that I have made the position clear, and that the noble Earl will not think that there is any confusion.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I entirely agree, and I approve of the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, but I still do not quite understand what land will be covered by this, because the permanent restriction of land as agricultural land means that the land is planned as an open space, and therefore not available for the purpose of development.

LORD WOOLTON

Surely the land which is now going to be planned as an open space may have a development value in it?

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Yes.

LORD WOOLTON

Does not that answer your question?

THE EARL OF RADNOR

You are endeavouring to eliminate the development value from any question of compensation, and yet pay the supplement on the agricultural value?

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I think that that is right.

LORD WOOLTON

I think that the operative word is "assumption."

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.11 p.m.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (5), after "he," to insert "or any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age or his father or mother." The noble and learned Viscount said: The Amendment which stands in my name and in that of my noble friend Lord Warwick is a simple one, but it requires just a little explanation. As the Committee know, under the compromise arrangement which is embodied in the Bill there is to be a maximum extra payment to be given to an owner-occupier of land, and in the clause with which I am dealing, which is Clause 53 (5), there is a kind of definition of who is to be deemed to be an owner-occupier. In paragraph (a) of that subsection the first sort of owner-occupier who is mentioned is a man who "is in occupation of the building or property at the time of service of the notice to treat." What occurs to me, and what I want to put before the Committee, is that a man may be the owner and may have put into what may not be a very expensive house in the normal case his son or his daughter or his father or mother. That is not a very uncommon thing for a man to do who is in a position to do it, especially if his father or mother has no substantial means, or if for some reason or other his son or daughter can very conveniently occupy the premises.

The curious fact is that "occupier" is a very difficult word to define. I was prepared to cite some legal authorities to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor had he been here, but I shall abstain from doing so unless invited to do so by my noble friend Lord Woolton. The position is that if the owner puts (to take one person only) his mother into such a house as we are now considering, she may be in the position of a caretaker, and in that case the owner is the owner-occupier, because he is occupying the house by his caretaker. On the other hand, he may entirely disregard the provisions of this Bill, because he will be acting long before the Bill was introduced, and he may put his mother into the house with a promise that she shall be allowed to occupy the premises for the rest of her life. She will not then be either his agent or his caretaker. In that event, although there is no real difference between the two cases which I have just mentioned, the additional 30 per cent. will not be payable.

I venture to submit to the Committee that from the point of view of justice such an owner is every bit as much entitled to the additional sum, when he has put one of his near relatives into the house under conditions in which it cannot be said that that relative is there either as his caretaker or as his agent, as if the relative were in fact his caretaker. I agree that the arbitrator would be entitled to make use, in his discretion, of the provision which has already been referred to which empowers him to consider, with regard to the amount specified, whether it was reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. It is one of the circumstances which the arbitrator may consider, but I suggest that members of the family in the position which I have mentioned are entitled to the same consideration as the owner himself. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 30, after ("he") insert ("or any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age or his father or mother").—(Viscount Maugham.)

THE EARL OF WARWICK

If I may add a word, I think that this might be carried a little further. Some of your Lordships may have had experience of trusts and legacies entailing an obligation on some-one to find suitable accommodation for members of his family. I had hoped at one time that this provision could be extended to include some kinds of dependants, because often it is not only a man's family for whom he is charged with providing a house. Perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, replies, he might care to give favourable consideration to this and see how it could be managed. There is the case of the old nurse or other retainer over a certain age. There are many cases which demand consideration, and in supporting the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, I would draw the attention of the noble Lord who is going to reply to the fact that this might be made a little wider.

3.18 p.m.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

The object of this Amendment which has been put down by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, and the noble Earl, Lord Warwick, is obviously in itself a very desirable one. It shows a very proper sentiment for the relationship towards one's parents and one's children, and a desire to help them in any way that is possible; but actually I think that it is perhaps, if they will allow me to say so, rather an undue extension of the term "owner-occupier." The noble Lord, Lord Latham, has taken me to task for saying that a man could be described as an owner-occupier of two houses. This is going a little further. This is the case of a man who owns two houses, lives in one himself and hands the other over to one of his near relations. In fact, as it is drafted this goes even further, and it would, I think, include cases where the child or parent in question was paying a rent to the owner of the house. I am certain that that is not the intention, but I understand that it might include such cases. But even if it does not include those, and is really meant merely to cover cases where the house is provided rent free, surely the object might be attained if the owner took other steps in order to give the relative in question a legal right to occupation. He might give the house to his son, if he wished, or he might alternatively settle the house on his son or make some other arrangement with him.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

Then he is not the owner.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

My point is that if he wants to make proper provision for his parents or his children he has other means by which he can do it, and in that case, as he has other means of fulfilling this very desirable duty on his part, I hardly think there would be justification for giving him increased compensation because he did not take one of these two courses but preferred to adopt a third. I sympathize very much with the object which the noble Lords have in view, but I think—and I am sure it is the view of the Government—that the Amendment would be an undue extension of the meaning of "owner-occupier."

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

Would it be called an undue extension where, in such a case as Lord Warwick has mentioned, the owner is by trust law bound to provide these houses under the deed of settlement?

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

This matter has really got a little more in it than my noble friend the Leader of the House at the moment realizes. First may I say something about the nurse referred to by Lord Warwick? I have left the nurse out of the Amendment for the reason that the man who puts a nurse in possession of one of his little cottages for the rest of her life is in almost every case treating her as his caretaker. She is put there without any definite promise; in nine cases out of ten she has no right to be there, she is there at will. In those cases already the owner of the house is the owner-occupier and is entitled to the benefit of this additional sum. It was explained in another place by the Minister that the occupation for this purpose would, I think I may say always, or at any rate in most cases, be determined by the occupation for the purposes of the Rating Acts. There were many references to the question whether in these circumstances a person was an occupier or not. Therefore in the case of a person who is a caretaker for the owner there is no difficulty because the Act already applies. Such Van owner is an owner-occupier; he occupies by his caretaker.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

If the noble Viscount will look at the Amendment Paper he will see that there is a Government Amendment lower down to subsection 6 (c), which paragraph reads: a person shall be treated as in occupation of a building or property if it is in the occupation of a person in his employment for the purposes of that employment. To that there is an Amendment in the name of Lord Woolton adding: so however that a person stall not be treated under this paragraph as in occupation of a building or property by virtue of any occupation thereof by a person employed by him as caretaker of that building or property. Therefore the fact that he is a caretaker would not, if the House accepts that Amendment, be a relevant argument with regard to the present discussion.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I am to blame; I am afraid I had not seen that. But I venture to think that the House ought to be chary of accepting it without some further information. Do I understand that it would have this effect, that if a man is at the date of the notice to treat away from his house for some reason, and is occupying it by a caretaker, then he is not an owner-occupier? I thought it was well understood that that was not going to be the case.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

It is a little difficult for me to argue an Amendment Which is not yet before the Committee. Would it not be possible to leave that until the Amendment comes on? If the noble and learned Viscount would do that then he could consider the Government reply and, if he is not satisfied, it is always open to him to return to the attack on the Report stage. I think that is the only way in which it can be dealt with.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I am some-what taken aback by what I have just heard, and I think I had better take the course which the Leader of the House suggests.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Does the noble and learned Viscount withdraw?

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LATHAM

had on the Paper an Amendment in paragraph (a) of subsection (5), to leave out "time of service of the notice to treat" and insert "date of the first publication of the intention to make an application for an order under Section one of this Act, or the making of the compulsory purchase order as respects land not included in an order under the said Section one or the date of other authorization of the purchase as the case may be." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to prevent property owners who at a given date do not qualify, even within the widely extended and ample qualifications as owner-occupiers, do not take steps to qualify, having knowledge that compulsory acquisition of the property was impending. I think that the Amendment in the name of Lord Woolton on page 60, line 32, would meet the point perhaps less specifically than would my Amendment. Subject, therefore, to my being free to raise the matter on the Report stage if the noble Lord's Amendment be not carried, I do not propose to move now.

3.28 p.m.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, in subsection (5), after paragraph (a), to insert: (b) if he can establish that he purchased the building or property for his personal occupation or for the occupation of any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age or of his father or mother. The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is of a somewhat different kind, because it applies to a more general amendment of subsection (5). The point is this. The benefit of the 30 per cent., or some portion of it, is to be established prima facie by proof that a man is in occupation at the time of the notice to treat. My submission to your Lordships is that he is just as much entitled to the benefit in question if he proves that he took possession of the property for his personal occupation or for the occupation of a relative when he purchased. The whole point of the benefit for the owner-occupier is that you rule out the people who bought for speculation, and, because you cannot distinguish between speculation and investment, you rule out the people who bought for investment, hoping at some date or other to make something out of it or being quite content to let it for the rest of their lives at a rent.

The people I am pleading for are the people who bought for occupation, and who have been compelled by some circumstance beyond their control in many cases to go elsewhere. They may have gone into the service of the Crown, into some civil, military or other like employment, or they may have been compelled to earn their money by going to another part of the country. Then they have ceased to be in occupation at the time of the service of the notice to treat, but they are just as much genuine purchasers for occupation as people who have been so fortunate as to be able to continue in occupation till the date when the notice to treat was served. For my part I cannot see in justice that there is any difference whatever between those two cases. We have got rid of the purchase for speculation; we have got rid of the purchase for investment. We are taking the cases of people who have bought for occupation, in which I shall include occupation for a member of their family, and, that being so, they ought to get the benefit of the 30 per cent. or such part of it as the arbitrator thinks fit. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 31, at end insert the said paragraph (b).—(Viscount Maugham.)

LORD WOOLTON

I think it is clear—at least I hope it is clear; when I am dealing with legal provisions in this Bill I hesitate to say that anything is clear; but the intention certainly was that in so far as a person has bought a house with the intention of occupying it then he is covered for his personal possession, but not in so far as his family is concerned. If he has bought the house with the intention that his daughter should occupy it, then he is in fact an investor in property and comes under that heading. The clause as it now stands covers this case, I am advised, that if such a purchaser retained his right to resume occupation or, dealing with the war situation, if the area proved to be not so safe as it was supposed and the man had to leave because of the danger of the position, and so went away, he still has a right under paragraph (d) at line 40 in this clause to get the benefits. I hesitate very much to put a contrary view to that expressed by the noble and learned Viscount as to the proper interpretation of a clause; but that was certainly the intention of it. I invite him to consider whether, in so far as the owner-occupier is concerned, this clause does not meet it. I agree at once that it does not meet it in so far as members of his family are concerned—but that is a point I could not concede.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I will be content if the noble Lord will further con- sider the question of the actual owner. If he tells me he cannot help me on the question of the family I would say no more about it. I thought it a right point to bring to the attention of the Government. Speaking quite frankly I am not sure as to the effect of paragraph (d) of this subsection. Its construction is perhaps easier to understand by people who have had more experience of the law than I have. As I do not want to discuss it at length here and take your Lordships through my doubts, I would say that if he will see that the question is further considered as to whether paragraph (d) does cover the case of an owner who enters into occupation of the premises when he buys or buys for occupation and then becomes unable to occupy so that at the date of the notice to treat he is not in possession, then I shall be content.

LORD WOOLTON

And had the intention of coming back to the property?

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I do not think paragraph (d) says anything about the intention of coming back. He bought for occupation. He has left owing to circumstances beyond his control. Then comes the date of the notice to treat when he may have no immediate intention because he is engaged in business somewhere—it may be a hundred miles away—and he cannot at once go back.

LORD WOOLTON

He has five years.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

Paragraph (d) says: the title under which the building or property is held at that time is such that he then has the right to enter into occupation thereof or will be in a position to obtain that right within five years from that time. I am not sure what "that time" means here. All I was saying was that there is nothing about intention. There is something in paragraph (d) about his having the right to enter into occupation or being in a position to obtain that right "within five years from that time," whatever "that time" may mean.

LORD LATHAM

If the noble and learned Viscount will pardon me, is not the matter of intention dealt with in (d) (ii) at the top of page 60?

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I beg the pardon of the Committee. I had forgotten that for the moment, though it was in my mind five minutes ago: it was at that time his intention…to enter into occupation…within the said five years. It is rather obscure to me, but I think I had better leave it in the form which I first suggested, having regard to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Woolton, and ask him to look into it and see whether he is satisfied that it does carry cut substantially what he says.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.40 p.m.

LORD WOOLTON moved, in subsection (5) (c), after "enactment," to insert "or by an authority by whom and in circumstances in which, possession thereof could have been so taken." The noble Lord said: Among the persons who are to be treated as owner-occupiers for the purpose of Clause 53 are persons who were in occupation but who then were displaced in consequence of possession being taken from them under statutory powers, mostly by requisition under Defence Regulations. Quite frequently it has happened that where premises have been required for war purposes the occupier has agreed to go out under an arrangement with the authority concerned without statutory powers having actually to be exercised, but in fact with a clear knowledge that if he did not agree to go out the statutory powers would be exercised. In fact he has not put the Government to the trouble of exercising them. Such cases are on all fours with those in which statutory powers were actually exercised and we think they should be covered. In Clause 42 a similar protection is given to persons from whom possession has been taken for war purposes. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 37, after ("enactment") insert ("or by an authority by mhom and in circumstances in which, possession thereof could have been so taken").—(Lord Woolton.)

THE EARL OF WARWICK

If the powers which the noble Lord mentioned in the last Amendment are applicable then Lord Maugham's Amendment surely also must be applicable to the circumstances the noble Lord is now dealing with. I rather feel that what is sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander, and that a little more consideration should he given to Lord Maugham's Amendment if those to whom the noble Lord has referred are to have special treatment.

LORD WOOLTON

I am sorry if I have been dense but I do not see the application of the five years to this. What this is seeking to do is to put the person who could have been turned out by statutory powers but did not trouble the Crown to exercise them in precisely the same position as he would have been in if the statutory powers had been exercised.

THE EARL OF WARWICK

Proving his occupation.

LORD WOOLTON

Yes.

THE EARL OF WARWICK

He can in any case prove his occupation under (d), can he not?

LORD LATHAM

The noble Lord's Amendment only puts those who have been dispossessed other than by enactment in the same position as others who have been dispossessed by such and seems to add certain other circumstances in which they may have been dispossessed and therefore should be given the same right.

LORD WOOLTON

That is all it is.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.45 p.m.

LORD LATHAM moved to insert in paragraph (b) of subsection (6), "except where that part is occupied wholly or mainly in connexion with the management, supervision or control of the building or property as a whole." The noble Lord said: It would help those of us who are greatly perturbed about the extension of the rights of the owner-occupier if the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, could assure us that there was no agreement to include within owner-occupiers the unborn and the dead.

LORD WOOLTON

That was the intention.

LORD LATHAM

That seems to be the only limitation imposed. My next Amendment deals with the same kind of question and I do not know if I might deal with them both together.

LORD WOOLTON

I would rather they were dealt with separately.

LORD LATHAM

As regards the first I ask that these words should be inserted: except where that part is occupied wholly or mainly in connexion with the management, supervision or control of the building or property as a whole. The purpose of the Amendment is this. Where a part of a building is used for a subsidiary purpose the occupier should be not merely regarded as the owner of a building coming within the definition of owner-occupier. A number of cases come to one's mind. A caretaker is dealt with later on. He may be a caretaker of blocks of flats or dwellings in the employ of a business of estate management and may reside at the block of flats. I hope your Lordships will take the view that the exclusion of that type of building from the benefit of this provision is a proper thing in order to safeguard the public purse. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Latham.)

LORD WOOLTON

Will the noble Lord be satisfied if I accept the principle and not the drafting of this Amendment? I am in entire accord with the principle but I am advised that the drafting of the Amendment needs consideration. It ought to be made clear that a building the whole of which or the bulk of which is really occupied by its owner should not be taken outside of Clause 53 merely on the ground that a part of it is used for management purposes.

LORD LATHAM

I certainly accept the suggestion. I am not responsible for the chaffing. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LATHAM moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (6), to leave out "for the purposes of that employment" and insert "as part of the conditions of his employment and the occupation is essential to the business carried on by the first-mentioned person." The noble Lord said: This deals with another aspect of the matter—namely, that of a person whose employment and occupation is essential to the business carried on. What we are disturbed about is this. You have a building, a store or a shop, which is a branch of a business. The business is carried on on the lower floor and above, for reasons of convenience or otherwise, the manager may live. The heredita- ment in which the manager lives may be separately rated. The fact that the manager resides over the company's premises without any separation of the two parts should not be held to mean that the whole building is in the occupation of the owner—that is to say, the branch shop and the fiat above. The purpose of this Amendment is to avoid such an extension of the conditions applying to owner-occupiers. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 19, leave out from the first ("employment") to the end of the line and insert the said new words.—(Lord Latham.)

LORD WOOLTON

I would like to accept the provision that the noble Lord indicated in his remarks because it seems to me to fall entirely within our intention, but if one takes the language of the drafting of the noble Lord's Amendment then I am advised that it goes very much further than we could approve. Take a farm for instance. A servant is living in a house that has been provided by the farmer for the purpose. In the event of the authority deciding to take that house then the farmer in order to carry on his business would be under an obligation to provide another house for the man who was dispossessed. It is proper therefore that such a person should get the benefit of the clause. I do not think the Amendment the noble Lord has moved would make that possible. That seems to be inequitable. On the other hand, the case he has propounded seems to me to be inequitable the other way. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, but if your Lordships will let me think about it I will see if we can get something which will cover the point I want to cover and exclude the point which the noble Lord wants to exclude.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I cannot help thinking there is great objection on a question of law to making the occupation "essential to the business carried on by the first-mentioned person." Why should it be essential? If it is the ordinary thing that any decent employer may do, though it may not be essential to his business it may be done in the ordinary course of business. I think the Amendment is most unwise, if I may say so.

LORD LATHAM

It was not the intention that the Amendment should operate unfairly in the case of the farm labourer and his cottage. In view of what the noble Lord has been good enough to say, I willingly withdraw.

Amerdment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.52 p.m.

LORD WOOLTON moved to add to paragraph (c) of subsection (6) "so however that a person shall not be treated under his paragraph as in occupation of a building or property by virile of any occupation thereof by a person employed by him as caretaker of that building or property." The noble Lord said: It was pointed out in another place that the provision in Clause 53 might have the effect that an owner who does not occupy and has no intention of occupying property might be treated as an owner-occupier if he installed a caretaker pending letting. This would be outside the intention of the provision, which is intended to meet the case of occupation by an employee which is necessary in connexion with some business of the owner, as for example the case just mentioned of farm land and occupation of a cottage on it by a farm hand. This Amendment rules out the caretaker. The wording I am advised has had to be somewhat precise in order not to exclude, for instance, premises occupied by a watchman where the watchman's job is not to look after his own cottage but to look after business premises.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 19, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Woolton.)

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I am not quite clear how far this is to extend. Does it mean that occupation by a caretaker normally is not to be occupation of the owner? He is in occupation for the purposes of paying rates. He is rated and he is liable for all the liabilities in connexion with the house, but he happens at the moment not to be able to reside there himself and he has put in a caretaker in possession of the property. Is such a person not an owner-occupier? I am not quite sure how far it goes. It is an Amendment proposed, as I understand it, to deal with a very limited case (is it not?) with regard to occupation pending a letting.

LORD WOOLTON

Yes, I am quite clear as to the intention. It really is to draw the distinction between the investor and the owner-occupier. It is intended to avoid the possibility of a person who is a property owner saying "Well, I will put in a caretaker and that will enable me to claim that I intend to reside there and to get the consequent benefits that are limited to the owner-occupier and which exclude the investor in property." That is the sole purpose of the Amendment.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I must confess I am extremely doubtful whether it will not have an effect which is considerably more extensive than that. The real trouble is that the place where it comes in is so awkward. Paragraph (c) says a person shall be treated as in occupation of a building if it is in the occupation of a person in his employment for the purposes of that employment. I think the illustration was given in another place of a bank manager occupying premises over a bank, which is very common in some parts of the country. It is proposed by this Amendment that a person shall not be treated as in occupation of a building by virtue of any occupation by a person employed by him as a caretaker of that building. Would it have the same effect if we said "not being a mere caretaker in his employment for the purpose of that employment"? If that is what it means, why not say so? I understood the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, to say on my Amendment a few minutes ago that no occupation by a caretaker of a building quite apart from his being in occupation by virtue of his ordinary duties should entitle the owner to say," It is my occupation because I have put in a caretaker there while I am elsewhere." I am looking at this Amendment with some suspicion because I am afraid it might mean what I think he thought it meant.

LORD AMMON

May I draw the attention of the noble and learned Viscount to a statement made by the Attorney-General on this point in another place on October 26. His statement was reported in column 413 of Hansard, The Attorney-General said: It is not intended, for instance, if a man had twenty houses that by putting a caretaker in each he would be able to say he was in occupation of them all. So if my honourable friend will accept this assurance, we will look at that. It may require words which can be put in in another place. I am more or less raising this point in the next Amendment.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Could we not insert the word "solely"? so, however, that a person shall not be treated under this paragraph as in occupation of a building or property solely by virtue of any occupation thereof, and so on. It is perfectly clear that if I have two houses, a country house and a town house, and if while I am in the town house I put a caretaker in charge of the country house, it would be disastrous that by reason of the employment of that caretaker I should lose the protection of the Bill.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I think the word "merely" would be preferable to "solely."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have only just returned to the House and have not followed the course of this debate, but I desire to point out that all experience seems to show that however good a suggestion may seem to be on the spur of the moment, there may, nevertheless, be something involved in it which was not considered at the moment. I do not want to increase the matters which have to be considered on Report, but if it would be of any service to the House I would undertake personally to see that the phrasing is looked into, and perhaps my noble friends would help in that respect. I do not want to alter the Bill unless I am quite sure what the effect of the alteration would be.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

The real question about which my noble friend and I are concerned is the following. As I understand it, a man may be an owner-occupier none the less because he has a caretaker in the house. That is the commonest possible situation. The person who pays the rates in nine cases out of ten has put in a caretaker because he cannot occupy the house at that moment. Therefore at the date of the notice to treat he may not be in physical possession of his country house because, let us say, he is attending the debates here in your Lordships' House.

LORD WOOLTON

He is covered for five years.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I am suggesting that such a person is prima facie the owner-occupier of that house, and unless something is put in the Bill to show that he is not, the law says that the man may occupy the house or his caretaker may occupy it, if he is no more than a caretaker, and that would be occupation. I understand, from reading the debate in another place, that that was not denied. When we come to this clause I quite understand that it is desired to say that in the case of a person who is in occupation of a house by reason of his duties in connexion with his employment—I have lost the exact words for the moment—the owner of the property then is not the owner-occupier. A man may have been put in simply because he is the fireman who is looking after the house and protecting it against fire. I do not in the least object to the Amendment if that is all that it implies, but it leaves the other wider consideration untouched as to the effect of the employment of a caretaker, as I understand it.

LORD AMMON

With a view to short-circuiting the debate, I would say that I should be very glad if the noble Viscount (the Lord Chancellor) would look into the matter, and if he would also take into consideration the next Amendment which stands in my name and which is bound up with it. I would remind the Committee that the Attorney-General promised to consider this point. If the noble Viscount will consider it, there will be no need for me to move my Amendment.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

It is very difficult to consider subsequent Amendments. I quite see the relevance of what the noble Lord says, and if he carries his Amendment the whole position would be changed, but it has not yet been established that the Committee approve of it, and therefore one is obliged, in considering Amendments as they come, to regard subsequent Amendments as not yet having been carried.

LORD LATHAM

I have some trepidation in intervening in this debate because the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, is an eminent lawyer. But when he talks of the owner of two houses in one of which he has to put a caretaker because he himself has to be in London, I do not think it is the case that under the proposed Amendment such a person would be disqualified. The point we are seeking to arrive at is that the person in question shall not be able to say that he has the intention of occupy- ing twenty houses because he has twenty houses in which he has put twenty caretakers. The case referred to by the noble and learned Viscount is amply covered.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I hesitate again to intervene because I may not have understood the full effect of the debate. But generally it appears that as we all want to save time we had better make this Amendment on the undertaking that the Government will look into the matter, and if it appears, on reading the report of what has been said, that there is a gap or a mistake, we will undertake to rectify it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMMON

I will not move my Amendment to insert "other than in the capacity of caretaker or a similar character" after "employment" in paragraph (c) of subsection (6), on the understanding that the question it raises will be considered by the Government.

4.9 p.m.

LORD HEMINGFORD moved, at the end of paragraph (c) in subsection 6, to insert "or is in the occupation of a tenant to whom he has let the building or property on terms binding the tenant to hold and use it for the purpose of benefiting the landlord and in a manner dictated by the landlord." The noble Lord said: I trust this Amendment will not give rise to the difficulties which we have encountered in dealing with the previous Amendment. It is very simple and deals with a point which I referred to on the Second Reading of the Bill. May I just try to explain it? Very briefly, we may take an example of two cases. Owner A has a number of licensed premises and sells his goods at each house through the agency of a manager whom he puts in. The house, in these circumstances, is an owner-occupied house, and he gets the benefit of this 30 per cent. The other alternative, in my opinion, and in the opinion of a great many, the preferable one from the point of view of those who are served by these houses, is that the owner lets the house to a tenant under a lease by which that tenant is bound to sell these goods, and to use the house for the purpose of the sale of these goods. If that is -he case he is a landlord and not an owner-occupier, and, therefore, he does not get the benefit of this extra 30 per cent.

It does seem to me an anomaly that one should get it and the other should not. But I would add still further to that that the one who at present does not get it is the one whom it is most desirable should get it. I hope that this matter has already received attention, and that the noble and learned Viscount will be able to tell me that this Amendment will be accepted. I trust that in this case there will not be even the difficulty of an alteration in wording being required.

Amendment proposed: Page 60, line 19, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hemingford.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a difficult case. I remember very well the matter being explained to the House on the Second Reading. Those who advise me have been examining it closely, and I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, has been good enough privately to submit to us proposed alternative words in the hope of finding a clearly defined solution. Frankly, we have not found one, and I doubt very much whether it can be done. It is quite true that there are the two ways in which a brewing company who own a lot of houses may secure the sale of their beer on the licensed premises, and one may have a preference for one way rather than the other. But I think that we must leave this matter to work itself out. Lord Hemingford has not suggested a way in which it can be worked out it seems to me. Frankly, we have not been able to find a formula—and I do not think that my noble friend has been successful in finding one either—which would limit the concession to the case of the tied house. It is a very difficult thing to do. Therefore, I am afraid that I am unable to agree that we should make this change in the Bill.

LORD HEMINGFORD

I had hoped that even if it did apply to some other case than that of a brewer, in such a case it would be as desirable as if it were the case of a brewer. It never occurred to me that it would be necessary, in order to get this accepted, to have it limited to the case of a brewer. There might well be other goods sold in the same way, and I should have hoped, therefore, that that would meet the case. I think I am right in saying that—for the reason I have just given—in suggesting an alternative formula, I refrained from suggesting one which is specially limited to breweries, persons carrying on a brewery business, or a wine and spirit business. I do not think I did submit that one. Therefore, if the noble and learned Viscount cannot see his way to accept any of those which I have already submitted, I shall venture to hope that between now and the Report stage he will give consideration to one limited to licensed houses, if I put that down before the Report stage.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Does the noble Lord withdraw his Amendment?

LORD HEMINGFORD

In the circumstances, if I am to take it that the Amendment will not be accepted in its present form, I will do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD WOOLTON moved to add to subsection (6): (e) no regard shall be had to occupation or intended occupation of a building or property entered into, or intended to be entered into, with a view to rendering a sum payable under this section in a case in which it would not otherwise have been payable.

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this is to exclude benefit to a person who enters into occupation of a place solely for the purpose of ensuring that he shall come under the heading of owner-occupier. I hope that your Lordships will accept this.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 32, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Woolton.)

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

I entirely share the aim which Lord Woolton has put forward in this Amendment. Having tried not only to read but to understand this Bill, and having listened to noble and learned Lords throughout the Second Reading, it seems to me that the whole Bill is designed so that both landlords and local authorities should be butchered to make a lawyer's holiday, and I think that this particular Amendment in its present form is going to be the most litigious of all.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 54:

Supplement to compensation in case of improvements.

54. Where compensation assessed subject to the rule set out in subsection (1) of Section fifty-two of this Act (Assessment of compensation.) is for the purchase of an interest in land which, after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and before the time of service of the notice to treat, has been improved in the interests of the war effort or under instructions from, or with the licence or permission of, a Government Department, by the erection thereon of a building or by improvments made to a building or to agricultural land comprised therein, the person entitled to the compensation shall be entitled to receive from the purchasing authority, as a supplement to that compensation, such sum, if any, by way of addition to the value, ascertained by reference to prices current at the said thirty-first day of March, of the purchased interest in the land so far as attributable to the improvements, as may be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, including in particular the cost of the improvements, any provision which may have been made for the payment of any of the cost thereof out of public moneys, and any recovery of any of the cost thereof by reason of increased returns or increased prices in respect of, or of products of, work done on the improved land.

4.17 p.m.

LORD WOOLTON moved to omit the words "in the interests of the war effort or under instructions from, or with the licence or permission of, a Government Department." The noble Lord said: Clause 54 as it stands would limit the benefit of the supplement to compensation which may be given in respect of improvements "in the interests of the war effort or under instructions from or with the licence or permission of a Government Department." It was re-presented to us in another place that this limitation might become quite inapt in the course of the next five years during which the 1939 prices standard will be operative. Further, it was said that, even as regards improvements made during the war, the limitation was likely to be somewhat capricious. How can you possibly justify paying for a pigsty put up under Government control and refuse to pay for a pigsty, which may be a better pigsty, which a man has erected by using his own employees, and without bothering a Government Department to give him permission to do it, or even without bothering a Government Department to order him to do it?

The purpose of the limitation is to prevent the payment of supplement in respect of improvements of a kind which have not been undertaken in the interests of the war effort or which may be in the nature of luxury building. A promise was given in another place that this would be reconsidered, but it has proved impossible to devise a satisfactory formula in substitution of the words in the Bill. Further, having regard to the measure of control of building which has been enforced for some long time past it is unlikely that any considerable improvements of a luxury nature would form the basis of claim for such a supplement. The position is therefore that a limitation which is indefensible appears in the Bill for the purpose of excluding a number of cases likely to be very small indeed in proportion to the number of cases which would be wrongly excluded by the limitation, and that no reasonable substitute can be found. In these circumstances we propose that the limitation should be omitted.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 42, leave out from ("improved") ("by") in line 44.—(Lord Woolton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD WOOLTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "recovery of any of the cost thereof by reason of." The noble Lord said: Clause 54 as it stands directs the arbitrator, in considering whether to award a supplement in respect of improvements, to have regard, amongst other things, to any recovery of any of the cost thereof by reason of increased returns or increased prices in respect of, or of products of, work done on the improved land. The main purpose of this provision was to secure that an owner who has been a put, or has put himself, in a position to recover the whole or part of the capital cost of improvements out of the proceeds of the use of the improvements, by charging prices which include an element aimed at that object in addition to aiming at getting a reasonable income return on his investment, should not qualify for a supplement in so far as his capital expenditure has been replaced. It was, however, pointed out in another place that the existing wording did not sufficiently distinguish between the replacement of capital and the reasonable income return, and the wording proposed in this Amendment and in another which I shall subsequently move is intended to make the position clear.

Amendment moved— Page 61 line 8, leave out from the first ("any") to ("increased").—(Lord Woolton.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I should like to thank my noble friend for these two Government Amendments. I know that they are in fulfillment of a pledge given in another place, and they will be greatly welcomed by the agricultural community.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD WOOLTON

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 10, at end insert ("in so far as it appears that the increase was intended to make provision for recovery of capital applied in making the improvements apart from provision for depreciation").—(Lord Woolton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 55 [Supplemental provisions relating to the two preceding sections]:

LORD WOOLTON

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 61, line 18, leave out from ("1919") to the end of line 19.—(Lord Woolton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD WOOLTON

I beg to move to leave out subsection (6). This is really drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 16, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Woolton).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.

4.22 p.m.

LORD WOOLTON moved, after Clause 55, to insert:

Ascertainment of compensation for purchase of land valued under the War Damage Act, 1943.

—(1) The provisions of the Eighth Schedule to this Act shall have effect as to the ascertainment of the compensation for the compulsory purchase of an interest in the whole of the land in a hereditament within the meaning of the War Damage Act, 1943, the value of which is required by that Act to be ascertained by reference to its state after war damage.

"(2) In this section, and in the Eighth Schedule to this Act, references to the compensation for the compulsory purchase of an interest shall be construed as references to the compensation payable apart from any supplement under Section fifty-three or fifty-four of this Act."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 62, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Woolton.)

LORD LATHAM

I wish to say that in not opposing this proposed new clause we shall not be prejudiced, I hope, with regard to our Amendment, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ammon, to the Eighth Schedule.

LORD WOOLTON

I agree.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 56 and 57 agreed to.

LORD WOOLTON moved to insert after Clause 57:

Powers of official arbitrator on references to him.

". An official arbitrator appointed in-accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, to whose determination any matter is referred under this Act shall have the like powers with respect to procedure, costs and the statement of special cases as he has under that Act, except in so far as is otherwise provided by this Act."

The noble Lord said: Under the Bill, a number of matters on which dispute may arise are to be referred to the determination of an official arbitrator, and this new clause is a necessary part of the machinery to enable him to discharge his functions.

Amendment moved— Page 63, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Woolton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 58:

Interpretation.

58.—(1) In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say—

LORD DARYNGTON

I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the Bishop of London to insert a definition in subsection (1).

Amendment moved— Page 63, line 24, at end insert (" 'ecclesiastical property' has the meaning assigned to it by the section (Provisions as to ecclesiastical property) of this Act").—(Lord Daryngton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD WOOLTON

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 64, line 3o, at end insert: ("(3) Words in this Act importing a reference to service of a notice to treat shall be construed as including a reference to the constructive service of such a notice which, by virtue of the Sixth Schedule to this Act or of any other enactment, is to be deemed to be served.")—(Lord Woolton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

4.26 p.m.

First Schedule [Procedure for dealing with objections]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The first Amendment is to leave out the three words "to the Minister." They are really being lest out because they are unnecessary. I beg to move

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 20, leave out ("to the Minister").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MESTON moved to leave out paragraphs 2 to 6 and insert: 2. If no objection is duly made by any of the persons upon whom notices are required to be served, or if all objections so made are withdrawn, the Minister may, if he thinks fit, confirm the order with or without modification, but in any other case he shall, before confirming the order, cause a public local inquiry to be held, and shall consider any objection not withdrawn and the report of the person who held the inquiry, and may then confirm the order either with or without modification: Provided that the Minister may confirm the order without causing a public local inquiry to be held if he is satisfied that every objection duly made relates exclusively to matters which can be dealt with by the arbitrator by whom compensation is to be assessed.

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to restore to an objector his right of public local inquiry by the Minister to hear and determine an objection. The First Schedule to the Bill as at present drafted materially restricts the right of an objector to the holding of a public local inquiry; in fact, the Minister is given what amounts to unfettered discretion to decide whether or not a public local inquiry should be held at all to hear an objection. The Amendment substantially follows the procedure laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932. It is submitted that the amended procedure is in practice as speedy and simple as the procedure in the First Schedule to this Bill. The amended procedure is much fairer to objectors in every way, as it enables the whole matter once and for all to be discussed publicly at a local inquiry.

So far as expense is concerned, there is very little if any extra expense incurred by the amended procedure. I would draw the Committee's attention in particular to sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 3 of the First Schedule, which provides in terms that in so far as the Minister is satisfied, "after considering the grounds of the objection" that the case of an objection to an order authorizing a compulsory purchase of land as to which an order under Section one of this Act is in force, that the objection is made on the ground that the purchase is unnecessary or inexpedient the Minister may treat the objection as irrelevant.

I should then like to turn to paragraph 6 of the First Schedule, which provides: Notwithstanding anything in paragraphs 2 to 5 of this Schedule, if it appears to the Minister that the matters to which the objection relates are such as to require investigation by public local inquiry before he decides as aforesaid, he shall cause such an inquiry to be held. The Committee will observe that everything seems to turn on whether the Minister is satisfied or whether something appears to the Minister to be the case. Let me put the matter in this way. There is a great deal of consideration in this Bill for the surgeon who is going to do the operation, but not the same consideration for the patient who, in his capacity as taxpayer and ratepayer, is going to undergo the operation, and incidentally is also going to pay the surgeon his fee. I believe I am correct in saying that on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place the Minister expressed himself as in favour of a public inquiry as a matter of right. However, since then the First Schedule has been introduced into the Bill.

There may be an idea in the minds of certain people in the country that public local inquiries are a waste of time and are of no value to anybody except the lawyers who stir them up and appear at them. That matter can easily be rectified, because the Minister can provide by regulation that no barrister or solicitor shall have any right of audience at one of these inquiries.

LORD LATHAM

That would be planning with a vengeance!

LORD MESTON

What I want is not to protect a perquisite of the legal profession, but to protect the right of the individual whose property is taken to the holding of a public local inquiry where everything can be discussed in public, instead of, as under the First Schedule, having a procedure whereby there is a long subterranean correspondence between the objector and somebody in the Ministry who, we can be quite sure, is not the Minister himself but somebody in a subordinate position. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 25, leave out paragraphs 2 to 6 and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Meston.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

With some of the general principles which my noble friend has enunciated, I might not disagree, but I think he is not looking at this First Schedule quite in the right way. It does not deny anybody reasonable rights at all, but it is a procedure which is more flexible than the present extremely rigid procedure under which, as he very truly says, a local public inquiry has to be held willy-nilly. That is the difference. I noticed that my noble friend, on the Second Reading, when he called attention to this point, spoke as though the provision in paragraph 3 (b) of the Schedule gave the Minister what he called enormous and unlimited power and discretion, a power and discretion which even the Emperor Nero would have envied. If the Minister were within sight I might have observed him lolling on Nero's throne, but in fact that does not describe it at all, because I think my noble friend overlooked the fact that the provision which he thought was equal to throwing the Christians to the lions, only applies where a Clause 1 order has been made. Before a Clause 1 order could ever be made the need and desirability of the purchase has been established by a very full procedure. Therefore I do not think there is the slightest possibility of Nero being included in the present Government: I cannot of course speak with confidence about the future.

The other case which he apparently has not quite provided for is this. Under paragraph 4 of the Schedule the Minister need not investigate an objection further if he is satisfied that he is sufficiently informed about the matter as to which the objection relates to be able to come to a decision on it. It is not any dislike of publicity; certainly there is no desire to deprive any opposition of its reasonable rights. But we cannot altogether shut our eyes to the fact that there might be what we may call a professional objector, a gentleman who is entitled to his opinion but whose attitude is represented by that of the criminal who, asked if he objected to any member of the jury, said, "I object to the lot." That is not a good reason against a public inquiry—a person who in an imaginary case might oppose every project of the particular city council on the ground that "These fellows are already spending too much money." I do not think it is an unreasonable thing to have a more flexible procedure which does permit certain classes of case to be dealt with by the Minister without this extremely elaborate procedure. I must, in all candour, tell my noble friend that I do not subscribe to his proposition that it would be a good plan to exclude barristers and lawyers from local inquiries, for I think it is in the interests of both sides that the matter should be put forward with professional help. For these reasons I hope he will not persist in this proposal, because I think the view of Parliament would be that the more flexible procedure of the First Schedule is, within limits, better than a return to the old and more rigid procedure.

LORD MESTON

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his courtesy in explaining the position. I am afraid I still remain dissatisfied with the First Schedule. I think that a public local inquiry as laid down in the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, would be more open and more satisfactory; but as I am not likely to get any support I must ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule [Procedure for authorizing compulsory purchase]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a drafting Amendment to conform with the wording of a previous paragraph.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 45, leave out ("statement") and insert ("request").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Third Schedule [Procedure for authorizing compulsory purchase of statutory undertakers' land]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a drafting Amendment consequent on the changes made in the Commons.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 7, leave out ("Department") and insert ("Minister").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is drafting; it corresponds to an Amendment we made earlier in the Schedule.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 32, leave out ("to the Minister").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fourth Schedule: