TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.

HL Deb 14 November 1944 vol 133 cc1103-71

12.10 p.m.

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 1:

Designation of areas of extensive war damage, and of land needed for re-location of population and industries of such areas. (12) Where an authority who have published a notice under subsection (4) of this section as a preliminary to an application made by them for an order under this section are required by virtue of subsection (7) (9) or (11) of this section to publish any notice, they shall serve the notice on any owner of any of the land designated by the application who at any time after the publication of the notice under subsection (4) of this section has sent to the authority a request in writing that he should be so served specifying an address for service.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON) moved, in subsection (12), to substitute "a like" for "the" ["the notice on any owner"]. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, it may save time if I observe that though there appear to be a great number of Amendments on Report most of them are for the purpose of securing the best possible language in the Bill, and others of them express the result of an agreement which has happily been reached since the Committee stage. The object of the first Amendment, which is merely a drafting Amendment, is to assimilate the wording to that of other passages in the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 39, leave out ("the") and insert ("a like").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, subsection (12) confers a right on owners of land affected by an application for an order under Clause 1 to receive certain notices where they so request and furnish an address for service. This Amendment is aimed at securing that particulars of the owner's interest should be sent with such a request.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 43, at end insert ("and giving the prescribed particulars of his interest").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [Power to purchase land for development of areas of extensive war damage, or needed for re-location of population and industries of such areas]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the next Amendment is really consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 36, after ("Act") insert ("or under subsection (2) of this section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 [Grants towards lean charges in respect of acquisition and clearing of land for dealing with war damage]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the Amendment on this clause is simply transferring subsection (4) and is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 29, transfer subsection (4) to end of line 10 on page 11.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6 [Contributions of local planning authorities towards expenses of highway authorities under this Part, and grants in respect of such contributions]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the first two Amendments down on the Paper to this clause are drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 11, line 16, leave out from the first ("of") to ("an") in line 17

Page 11,line 18, after ("damage") insert ("the whole or any part of which is comprised in the area of the local planning authority,"). —(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the next two Amendments are also drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 11, line 22, leave out ("a part of their area") and insert ("an area of extensive war damage;")

Page 11,line 27, leave out from ("such") to end of line 28 and insert ("art area of extensive war damage as aforesaid").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 9 [Power to purchase land for purposes relating to redevelopment of areas of bad lay-out]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the Amendments which Lave been put down to this clause are also drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 15, line 36, leave out from ("to") to ("an") in line 37

Page 15,line 37, at end insert ("the whole or any part of which is comprised in the area of a local planning authority")

Page 15,line 40, leave out from the first ("of") to ("an") and insert ("such")— (The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 10:

Power to purchase land for certain planning purposes.

(3) A local planning authority may be authorized in manner aforesaid to purchase compulsorily land in the area of the authority as to which the Minister is satisfied that by reason of the land being derelict and not likely otherwise to be brought into use, it is expedient that it should be acquired by the authority with a view to securing that it is brought into use.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "and not likely otherwise to be brought into use" and insert "likely otherwise to remain so for a considerable period." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, This is the first Amendment on Report which is of some substance though it is really a drafting Amendment to meet an undertaking given on a suggestion made by Lord Maugham in the Committee stage. I think the wording as we have it now is an improvement.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 17, leave out from ("derelict") to ("it") and insert ("and likely otherwise to remain so for a considerable period").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11:

Obligation to purchase war-damaged land where development permission refused.

11.—(1) Where, as respects buildings of any description, the Treasury have certified for the purposes of this section that, having regard to the availability of labour and material, the making good of war damage has become practicable, and an interim development application is made after the time so certified as respects land which has been rendered, and remains, incapable of reasonably beneficial use in consequence of war damage to buildings or works thereon, being land which before the occurrence of the damage comprised buildings of the description in question, then if—

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out ", as respects buildings of any description." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I think I had better give a short explanation of this Amendment. Under Clause 11 the obligation of the local planning authority in certain circumstances to purchase a war damaged property if planning permission for its reinstatement or development is refused, is dependent, among other things, on the issue by the Treasury of a certificate that, as respects buildings of a particular description, the making good of war damage has become practicable. The Amendment I am now moving, together with the one that is just following, meets two points of difficulty which arise under the clause as drafted.

The first difficulty is this. Under the clause as drafted the Treasury can only certify at a time when the making good of war damage to buildings of any description has become practicable in the case of all damage to all such buildings. The circumstances of individual buildings vary, but if the Amendment is made the Treasury will be able to give a certificate when the making good of war damage has become practicable in most cases, even though there may be a few cases where, owing to the extensiveness of the damage or a shortage of some special materials required, the damage cannot yet be made good. That is the first point. The second point of difficulty which the Amendment removes is this. The Amendment makes it clear that classes of buildings can be defined for the purposes of the certificate not only by reference to their nature—for example, houses, factories, etc.—but also by reference to their situation or other circumstances. For instance, it may be that the labour situation will be easier in one part of the country than in another. The Amendment provides for the granting of a certificate for the part of the country where the labour situation is easier. That is the purport of the Amendment and I commend it to your Lordships.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 34, leave out (", as respects buildings of any description").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, this Amendment is really consequential upon the Amendment which I have just explained to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 37, leave out ("become practicable") and insert ("in general become practicable in the case of buildings of any description (whether defined by reference to character or situation or other circumstances),").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 20, leave out (", or to remain,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the next Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 23, leave out (", or is,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, this is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 26, at end insert (", and shad be deemed to remain incapable of reasonably beneficial use so long as it is in such a state as aforesaid").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12:

Power to authorize purchase by local planning authority for area where land is, in lieu of by another authority.

12.—(1) Any authorization of the compulsory purchase of land outside the area of a local planning authority which under the preceding provisions of this Act could be given to that authority may in lieu of being given to that authority be given, in the like manner and subject to the like conditions, to the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated.

(2) Without prejudice to any other power in that behalf, a local planning authority may, with the consent of the Minister, acquire by agreement any land which they could be authorized under this section to purchase compulsorily.

12.23 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), after "authority," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "(in this section referred to as 'the promoting authority')." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, now I come to a series of Amendments to Clause 12 which reduce to writing and put in proper form agreements which have been reached since the Committee stage as the result of consultations with representatives of the London County Council. There are three Amendments following the one which I am now moving. They give effect to the promise made to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, that if he would withdraw an Amendment which he moved consultations should take place on the matter. The case for the Amendment is, briefly, that an authority proposing redevelopment have a responsibility to persons displaced to overspill areas. If, however, under the provisions of Clause 12 the "area authority" and not the "promoting authority" are authorized to acquire the land for the overspill, the promoting authority cannot be certain of discharging their responsibilities to the displaced population unless they retain the right to a voice in the development of the overspill area. Your Lordships will, I am sure, remember the point which was very clearly made on the Committee stage. There are three matters material to the promoting authority in regard to the acquisition and development of the overspill area. First, in what manner the area is to be laid out; for example, if it were laid out without sufficient provision for communal and recreation facilities the promoting authority would be exposed to serious complaints from their displaced population. Secondly, that the development should be carried out sufficiently rapidly to enable redevelopment by the promoting authority to proceed without interruption. Thirdly, that the accommodation provided in the overspill area should be available in sufficient amount for population from the area of the promoting authority. I think I need not say more because there is agreement. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 37, after ("authority") insert ("(in this section referred to as 'the promoting authority')").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the next Amendment is necessary in connexion with this agreement. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 38, leave out ("that") and insert ("the promoting").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert, after subsection (1): (in this section referred to as 'the area authority').

(2) The area authority may, in connexion with the giving to them of an authorization under this section, enter into an agreement with the promoting authority containing any terms approved by the Minister as to any matters relating to the carrying out of the purpose for which the purchase in question may be authorized, and in particular, in the case of a purchase for the purpose of providing for re-location of population or industry in the course of the redevelopment of a part of the area of the promoting authority, as to the lay-out and manner of use of the land to be purchased and as to rendering accommodation provided therein available for persons or undertakings from the area of the promoting authority.

(3) Before giving an authorization to the area authority under this section the Minister shall consult the promoting authority, and shall afford them an opportunity of negotiating with the area authority for such an agreement as aforesaid; and, if thereafter it appears to the Minister that the authorization should be given to the area authority but no such agreement has been made, he may as a condition of giving it require the area authority to give to the promoting authority an undertaking to observe such terms as to any of the matters aforesaid as appear to him to be expedient.

(4) The terms of an agreement entered into or undertaking given under this section may be varied from time to time by agreement made between the promoting authority and the area authority with the approval of the Minister, and may at the instance of either of those authorities be varied by the Minister after consultation with the other; and any direction or decision which the Minister has power to give under any enactment shall have effect notwithstanding that it may be inconsistent with anything that would otherwise have been required by virtue of any such terms:

Provided that, before giving a direction or decision appearing to the Minister to involve any such inconsistency, he shall consult the promoting authority."

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this also is a further carrying out of this scheme. It is a more elaborate Amendment, but I hardly think your Lordships want a further explanation.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 4o, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert: ( ) The Minister may give his consent to the acquisition by agreement by the area authority of any land for the compulsory purchase of which by them an authorization could be given under this section, subject as is provided by this section as regards such an authorization, and accordingly references in subsections (2) and (3) of this section to an authorization shall include references to such consent, and the area authority may, without prejudice to any other power in that behalf, acquire by agreement any land as to which such consent is given.

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment provides for the same arrangements between the promoting authority and the area authority where land is acquired by the area authority by agreement as would be necesary in the case of a compulsory purchase. I think your Lordships will agree that this is a very satisfactory arrangement and we are greatly obliged to the representatives of the London County Council for their assistance. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 41, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14 [Provisions as to purchase and appropriation of open spaces, etc.]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, these Amendments deal with the Green Belt about which some anxiety was expressed. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 25, line 9, leave out (", or forming") and insert ("land to which this subsection applies, that is to say, land which is, or forms")

Page 25,line 12, at end insert (", other than land being Green Belt land as defined in the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act, 1938")

Page 25,line 39, at end insert (", or have been authorized in accordance with the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act, 1938, to appropriate for the purposes of this Part of this Act land being Green Belt land as defined in that Act.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after subsection (6): ( ) Section one hundred and sixty-three of the Local Government Act, 1933, and Section one hundred and six of the London Government Act, 1939 (which contain general provisions, extending respectively to England and Wales exclusive of London, and to London, as to the appropriation by local authorities of land belonging to them) shall not apply to land to which subsection (2) of this section applies which is for the time being held by a local planning authority. ( ) In the case of an appropriation under this section of land acquired under any enactment incorporating the Lands Clauses Acts, or acquired under any order made under any enactment and incorporating those Acts, any work executed on the land after the appropriation has been effected shall, for the purposes of Section sixty-eight of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, be deemed to have been authorized by the enactment or order under which the land was acquired. ( ) On an appropriation of land under this section there shall be made in the accounts of the authority, in the case of an authority for an area elsewhere than in London, such adjustment as the Minister of Health may direct, or, in the case of an authority for an area in London, such adjustment as may be necessary.

The noble and learned Viscount. said: My Lords, perhaps I should remind your Lordships that this was an ill-starred subsection because when it was proposed to set up machinery the machinery was found on inspection to be so revolting that it was desired that the matter could be expressed differently. I warned the Committee that it could be done but that it would take more print and more paper. Here it is and I beg to move the insertion of the new subsections.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 11, at end insert the said new subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19:

Disposal or appropriation by local planning authority of land held by them for purposes of this Part. (5) The consent of the Minister to a sale by a local planning authority under this section of the freehold in any land, or to a lease by them thereunder of any land for a term of more than ninety-nine years, shall not be given unless he is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances which render the disposal of the land in that manner expedient as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section. In this subsection the expression "preservation," in relation to a building, means the preservation thereof either in its existing state or subject only to such alterations or extensions as will not seriously affect its character.

12.28 p.m.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "exceptional."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment raises a matter which I have brought before your Lordships on two previous occasions. I cannot myself understand why the Minister is averse from having power to allow the local planning authorities to dispose of land by giving a freehold tenure unless he is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances. I want to strike out "exceptional" and that will give him more power, not less. I am trying to make it workable. What occurs to me is this. Already the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has told your Lordships that in Plymouth there are a number of people who want to have some land which is part of the property which is to be developed and they will desire to have freehold. If you have a lease even for 99 years there will be all sorts of provisions contained in it Which will tend to hamper the power of the lessee to deal with the land as he thinks fit.

And, of course, the buildings may need alteration and extension, and the man who is going to spend, perhaps, a very large sum of money on land which is being sold by the local planning authority with the consent of the Minister does not want to be hampered by, it may be, some bureaucratic ideas which are very far from being those which are held by those gentlemen who, it may be, are commencing a business or some other important concern in the district. The insertion of the word "exceptional" will mean that the Minister is going to be in trouble if all the local planning authorities in the country take the same view and say: "Buildings are of such and such a character; we want to have power to grant freehold interest to the person who comes along to promote the business and to take the premises." As Viscount Astor pointed out, it is quite possible that many people with means of developing perhaps an important business on the land will go elsewhere, because they cannot get the freehold under this Act unless they show that there are exceptional circumstances. They may not be able to show that; they may be able only to show circumstances which render it most desirable that freehold should he granted. I would add that such a man as I have been speaking of will be likely to go elsewhere and take land on which he can acquire freehold interest without the necessity of showing that the circumstances are exceptional.

On the one hand, my Amendment is all in favour of the local planning authority, and, on the other hand, of the Minister. If the Minister happened to think that he ought not ever to grant freeholds—for some reason which I do not in the least understand—or if he were to think it was only in a very exceptional case that he ought to do so, he is at liberty to say "I will not grant my permission." It is left to him, it is entirely in his discretion, and he has to be satisfied. But I cannot conceive why he should be strongly averse from granting freehold interest. What is wrong with freehold interest? Nearly all the important build- ings in England are being put up on freehold property, and although I agree, on consideration, that there are a number of classes of houses in which it is better, perhaps, that there should be a leasehold granted to the person who is going to build rather than to the person of whom I am thinking, who is going to spend a very large sum of money on the property, and wants some security and length of tenure, I cannot understand why there should be any reason for objecting to freehold interest being acquired under somewhat special, though not perhaps exceptional, circumstances.

I must add this. Lord Latham pointed out that local authorities all over the country, including the London County Council, which is around us so to speak, have already acquired very large areas of property of which they are the freehold owners. So far from leading me to think that that shows that they ought to acquire more land, it leads me to the feeling that they have quite enough already. I do not think the House should accept the view that all freehold property in the country ought to be in the hands of local authorities. And I would point out that the position will get worse and worse as years go by, if the view of the Minister under this Act is going to be that he must hardly ever consent to land being disposed of, even at the request of the local planning authority, to a person who is going to acquire a freehold interest. It seems to me quite wrong. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 17, leave out ("exceptional.") —(Viscount Maugham.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word about this. I do not think that it is a question upon which any of us are likely to get over-heated. On balance, the Government take the view that it is better to retain this word "exceptional". In the first place, it was debated, as I understand, at quite considerable length in another place, and that was the view which was taken there. While we are making very abundant changes in the Bill, I do not think that we should make changes unless there is really good reason for doing so. I note that the noble and learned Viscount with his usual candour pointed out that circumstances might be somewhat special. It would be rather difficult I think to draw the line between "somewhat special" and "exceptional". The point is that this land is land which has been acquired by a local planning authority for the purpose of planning in connexion with a scheme, and it is highly desirable that, unless the circumstances are quite exceptional, the authority should not part altogether with the fee simple of the land which, subject to the possibility of imposing certain covenants, would really mean that it would no longer be under their immediate planning control. Surely that would be wrong.

Generally speaking, you would expect land acquired for the purpose of planning to remain in the authority's own hands, or, if it does not, that it would be the subject of a short lease. That is really the argument, and I think it is an argument which will appeal to all good planners in this House. I may say that in taking this view the Government are showing their faithfulness to the Uthwatt Report, because the Uthwatt Report recommended that once any interest in land had passed into public ownership it should be disposed of by way of lease only. The Uthwatt Committee did not contemplate at all the sale of the freehold. That seemed to us to be unnecessarily and unwisely stiff, and so the Bill as drafted provided that the Minister might give his consent in exceptional circumstances; but it is not desirable, in our submission, to make the giving of consent to the sale of land by a local authority to a private owner a matter of course. It comes down to a question of whether we wish to retain a particular adjective or not. I submit that the House should not accept this Amendment.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, it is difficult for anybody to be quite certain who are reasonable men, but I have a very strong view myself as to what is good reason here. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack suggests that because this land is covered by a planning scheme the local planning authority who are in charge of the scheme should not have power to request the Minister to allow them to grant freeholds to people who are going to spend large sums of money unless it can be shown that there are exceptional circumstances. But why? I am not saying that people are entitled to these things; I am merely trying to give power to the local planning authority and to the Minister to grant freehold in appropriate cases. It is my strong view that reasonable men would think that this is a reasonable suggestion, but if I can derive no support in this House for my view of what is good reason in such a case as this, my proposal must go.

I am a little comforted by the thought that this is only one of the many cases in which this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will probably have to be amended in the course of the next two years or so, and it may be that by that time the people in charge of these matters will discover that the present provision is not a reasonable one. I should like to acid that I do not understand why the Uthwatt Report should be dragged into this matter, because I think that the view which most people formed was that that Report was very largely defective in this very particular—namely, that the whole of the freehold land embodied in the scheme was going to be handed over to bureaucratic control. Most reasonable people objected to that provision. However, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.43 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the next Amendment meets an undertaking which I gave to my noble friend Lord Ammon on the Committee stage. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 5, after ("by") insert ("an arbitrator agreed between the Minister and the authority, or, in default of agreement, by"). —(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (8) in the definition of "preservation," to leave out "will not seriously affect" and insert "can be carried out without serious detriment to." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, in the Committee stage it was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and by others, that it is not always desirable that a "listed" building should be preserved for ever in its existing state, and I venture to express my warm agreement with that proposition. Many buildings owe much of their beauty to the fact that they have been added to and altered from time to time. The object of this provision should not be to prevent any alteration to a building, but to prevent any alteration which would spoil the building. There is, however, one case which is not properly met by these words, and that is the case of a building which is of special value from the public point of view not for architectural but for historic reasons. I think that if anybody tried to lay hands on Milton's cottage, for example, even though they were able to prove that they wanted to introduce some superior system of doing this or that, a great many people would object and would feel that its historic value depended on keeping it as it is. I think that that is met by the words "without serious detriment to." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 37, leave Out ("will not seriously affect") and insert ("can be carried out without serious detriment to").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20:

Power of planning authority to carry out development of land held by them for purposes of this Part. (3) The Minister shall not give his consent for the purposes of the last preceding subsection as respects any operation if it appears to him that a person other than the local planning authority is able and willing to carry it out at such time and in such manner as may be requisite for meeting the purpose for which it is needed if the land in question is made available to hint on such terms as may be agreed by the Minister and the authority to be appropriate: Provided that the limitation imposed by this subsection shall not have effect in the case of subsequent operations forming part of a project for the initiation of which the authority have incurred expenditure if those operations ought in the opinion of the Minister to be carried out by them in order to enable them to balance their expenditure in connexion with the project as a whole.

12.46 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "needed" down to and including "appropriate" and insert: on the assumption that the land in question will be made available to him on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed between the authority and him, or, in the event of their disagreeing, on such terms and subject to such conditions as would be applicable under the last preceding section on the authority being required thereunder to offer to dispose of it to him.

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is a very difficult part of the Bill. Your Lordships may remember that there was a good deal of discussion on it, and finally it was agreed that all the suggestions on the Paper should be withdrawn, and that we should do our best to find a better form of words. I venture to think that the present form of words is the best which can be found, although I am not blind to the difficulties. The situation with which the Amendment deals is one where the Minister is considering, under Clause 20 (3), whether a person, other than the local planning authority, is "able and willing" to carry out certain developments for the carrying out of which on land belonging to it the local authority itself seeks the Minister's consent. It will be remembered that in the case of development which would be outside the province of the authority apart from this Bill, there is the question of whether some person is "able and willing" to carry it out.

Obviously, before a person other than the authority could be said to be "able and willing" to carry out the development, he must be visualized as having made some assumption or other as to the terms on which the land is likely to be made available to him. He must make an assumption, or nothing can happen. The purpose of this Amendment is to state what the assumption in question is to be taken to be, and, as your Lordships will see, the assumption postulated is that the person in question will be able to get the land satisfactorily by negotiation, or will at the worst be able to get it on the terms on which the local authority can be required by the Minister, under Clause 19 (7), to dispose of the land. I think that that is full market price.

The objection which was particularly taken to the words in the Bill was that they seemed to contemplate intervention by the Minister in negotiations between the authority and the person claiming to obtain a lease of the land. That was not our intention, though the words as they stood seemed to suggest it. It will be seen that in the revised wording we have avoided that objection. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 35, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 37 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Lords, there is a point arising on this Amendment about which I should like to put a question to the noble and learned Viscount. The Amendment says: "subject to such conditions as would be applicable under the last preceding section." We have just agreed to an Amendment inserting in "the last preceding section" an arbitrator appointed by agreement between the Minister and the authority. Is that also to apply in this case? It seems to me that it probably would, but there is a third party who ought to have some say in the appointment of the arbitrator, and that is the person who wishes to purchase the land from the local authority. The position is not quite clear.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I had not myself noticed that. These things can be very complicated. The answer which is suggested to me by those who have studied this Bill officially is this: the words to which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, refers come at the end of the Amendment: on such terms and subject to such conditions as would be applicable under the last preceding section on the authority being required thereunder to offer to dispose of it to him. It is quite true, as the noble Earl has just pointed out, that that does include the possibility of the hypothesis of an official arbitrator, but really we are applying here what may be called an abstract test, and we are only concerned in this Amendment to arrive at terms such as an arbitrator would arrive at. There will not be an arbitrator appointed, but it is part of the necessary assumption. My noble friend will see, therefore, that it does not really militate against the proposal which is made.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Lords, I do not mind the official arbitrator, but if an arbitrator is likely to be called in here I did not think that he should be an arbitrator appointed by the Minister and the authority without the person who wishes to purchase the land being consulted.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I quite follow that.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

If it is said that an arbitrator is not likely to be called in, I accept that, of course.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The answer really is, if my noble friend will follow me, that we are here making an assumption. It is not that something does happen. It is merely assuming that, in the case of no agreement, the matter is arrived at by arbitration. It does not really matter for that purpose how you describe the arbitration. The arbitration does not really occur. It is merely a way of arriving at a suitable figure as an assumption, and I think on that basis nobody is going to be hurt. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next is a drafting Amendment, to clarify the meaning. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 8, leave out ("aforesaid") and insert ("is mentioned in the said subsection (1),").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (6), to insert: (7) A local planning authority may, with the consent of the Minister, enter into arrangements with an authorized association, as defined in Section thirty-five of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, for the carrying out by the association of any operation which, apart from the arrangements, the local planning authority would have power under this section to carry out, on such terms (including terms as to the making of payments or loans by the authority to the association) as may be specified in the arrangements: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorizing such an association to carry out any operation which they would not have power to carry out apart from this subsection.

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment implements a promise given by my noble friend Lord Woolton in the debate on an Amendment which was moved by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh in Committee. Lord Balfour's Amendment provided for a transfer of the powers of the local planning authority to an authorized association and for the direct payment of grants to such an association. The definition of "authorized association" is, as your Lordships will remember, to be found in the earlier Act. The provision in this form would give rise to difficulties both of principle and of practice. The Amendment now to be moved avoids them by leaving the responsibilities for the exercise of powers under the Bill with the local planning authority, but giving that authority power to make arrangements for actual development to be carried out by an authorized association. I hope my noble friend will feel that this does meet the substance of his desire. It is certainly a much greater advance than at the Committee stage. It is to be observed that the consent of the Minister is required to the arrangements made and that the powers of the clause are permissive.

Then there was another point. My noble friend, Lord Latham asked, in the course of the discussion on my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Amendment, that local authorities should be consulted. Formal consultation has not been possible in the time available but the associations of local authorities have been informed of the proposed Amendment and have raised no objection. The London County Council have agreed to it, and I think therefore we may take it that the Amendment in this form will be accepted by the local authorities concerned. I hope my noble friend will see his way to approve the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 15, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I would like to say one word. I am very grateful to both the noble Lords who have been concerned, particularly to my noble friend in whose name the Amendment stands. I think this does meet the substantive point. I quite agree that you could not transfer the powers of the local authority to the housing association, and I think it was unduly widely drawn. As it stands it does put the housing association in the same relation to this Bill as it is to the previous Town and Country Planning Act. I think that is all that we could expect. I am very grateful to my noble friend, and I shall not later move the Amendment that stands in my name.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22 [Authorization of development on land acquired for purposes of this Part notwithstanding interference with easements, etc.]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 29, leave out ("or, in a case where such consent") and insert ("or if consent").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 30, leave out ("without such consent").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23 [Power to extinguish highways over land acquired]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (2), to insert: ( ) Where the Minister is satisfied that the construction or improvement of a road is or will be needed in consequence of the extinguishments under this section of a public right of way, the provisions of Section three of this Act shall have effect as they have effect where the Minister is satisfied that the construction or improvement of a road is needed as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section.

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is proposed in order to meet a promise given in Committee in another place, when the Amendment was moved at the instance of the County Councils' Association. The object of the Amendment is to enable a local highway authority to purchase land compulsorily for the construction or improvement of a road which is needed in consequence of the stopping up of a highway under the clause. It would often be quite impracticable to stop up a highway which in its present position prevents necessary development being carried out unless a new highway is provided to replace it. Where highways are stopped up under planning schemes provision is almost always made for the acquisition of land for a new highway in substitution. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 18, at end insert the new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26 [Extension and modification of powers and duties of statutory undertakers]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

We come now to some drafting changes which I can go through rapidly.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 42, leave out ("copy of the") and insert ("like").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28 [Authorization of use and development of consecrated land and burial grounds notwithstanding restrictions]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendments made—

Page 42, line 33, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").

Page 43, line 46, leave out the first ("on") and insert ("at").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

12.58 p.m.

Clause 42 [Designation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after subsection (2): (3) As soon as may be after inclusion of any building in a list under this section, whether on the compilation or approval of the list or by the amendment thereof, or as soon as may be after any such list has been amended by the exclusion of any building therefrom, the Minister shall serve a notice on every owner and occupier of the building stating that the building has been included in, or excluded from, the list, as the case may be.

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment requires notice to be served on the owner and occupier of a building as soon as may be after it has been listed under the clause. My noble friend Lord Radnor and others will remember the little discussion we had about this matter, and I hope this really meets what is wanted. I myself do agree that it is not right and fair to leave the owner of a building of historic or architectural interest without any notice that he has been put on the list. I think the right thing to do is to let him know as soon as he is put on the list, because there is no question at all of an inquiry or challenge at that date. It is merely that he should know where he stands. The Amendment proposed in this case was the one moved by the noble Earl, Lord Warwick, to require notice to be given to the owner and occupier before the building is listed. It remedies a defect in the Bill to which I think amongst others Lord Latham drew attention. I will not say more unless there is a debate about it. I hope it will meet the point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 53, line 41, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Notice has been handed in by my noble friend Lord Warwick of two Amendments in manuscript which necessarily are not on the Paper. It is entirely in order to move them. The Earl of Warwick proposes first an Amendment to Lord Woolton's Amendment to Clause 42, page 53, line 41, which I have just moved, as follows: line 1 of the Amendment, leave out ("as soon as may be after") and insert ("Before"), line 3, leave out from ("thereof") to ("the") in line 4, and insert ("and before").

THE EARL OF WARWICK

My Lords, I am very sorry and I apologize to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for the fact that this Amendment is so late.

LORD SOUTHWOOD

Has not the Lord Chancellor's Amendment been already agreed to?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am afraid that if strict rules of order were observed the noble Earl, Lord Warwick, could not move this Amendment, because I have already put to the House my own Amendment and it has been agreed to. But in the nature of things I have to do this rather roughly, and I do not think it would be consistent with our invariable sense of fairness if we did not allow the noble Earl to move his Amendment.

THE EARL OF WARWICK

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. There is a very good purpose behind this Amendment to substitute "Before" for "As soon as may be after." Apart from the ordinary simple justice of being told about something that is going to happen before it has happened, there is a very good business reason for it, and this was drawn to my attention by an honourable Member in another place who happened to have a case in point. There is a tremendous number of borderline houses—houses which might be of architectural or historic interest or might not; the question is very open. It might well happen that a man might buy a house of historic interest intending to use it as a place of business. If the local opinion did not want him there, it would be very easy to bring up an argument which might just tilt the scale and make it a listed house, and that would then very seriously affect his position. The case in point which my friend sent to me was actually in his own constituency, where a building had been purchased with a view to turning it into a hotel after the war. It is not a listed building. It might be "listable," and of course it makes an enormous difference to that man, as I think your Lordships will agree. If the proposed subsection as it stands is passed the house is listed without the owner being able to put forward any arguments at all—which is always a very much weaker position than being told three or four weeks beforehand that, unless you have any objection, it is the intention of the Minister to list you, so that you may prepare your case and put forward the good reasons which you have against being listed. I think there are quite serious grounds for accepting this Amendment to the Lord Chancellor's Amendment. I cannot see what objection there can be to it except the very small amount of trouble entailed for the civil servant dealing with this question, and I cannot see that any evil could come out of my suggested alteration.

Amendment moved— At the beginning of the new subsection (3), leave out ("As soon as may be after") and insert ("Before").—(The Earl of Warwick.)

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Lords, I would like to support this Amendment because it seems to me that this is a case where justice would be done if the Government would accept it. Justice will not be done if you put a man's house on the list and tell him afterwards there is nothing he can do about it. If you tell him before, it is true there is still nothing he can do about it, but he can at least talk about it and he will go away with a feeling that justice seems to have been done; whereas if he has no chance of saying anything beforehand he may go away with a grievance.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. I did not know that it was going to be moved, but I happened to see in the Sunday papers a reference to an Act in which those words "As soon as may be after" were used, and a case was quoted where "As soon as may be" actually meant in that instance twenty years afterwards. I cannot quote it because I did know this Amendment was going to be moved. It worries me to think that an owner may find his building included on this list for a considerable time without his knowledge, and it may be that only if he attempts to alter the house or in some way break the law does he learn that his house is included in the list and that he will incur very serious penalties under this Bill. I do not know that it should be difficult to work. It surely would be possible to ascertain the owner of the house, and I do not see why it should not be ascertained when notice is required.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not agree to this Amendment. In point of fact the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor extends the rights of owners of buildings likely to be listed. The penalty for not complying with a notice is in no sense affected by this Amendment. As the Bill was first presented there was no machinery for informing an owner that he was on the list, yet the owner was himself required to give notice to the local authority of an intention to do something. It was pointed out in your Lordships' House that the owner should have notice that he had been put upon the list, and this Amendment of the Lord Chancellor does that and nothing more. It casts no greater obligation upon the owner than the Bill did originally, and I do think that administratively Lord Warwick's Amendment would be impossible to carry out. There will be, I imagine, hundreds and hundreds of buildings where there will he no possibility of anyone desiring to alter, extend or demolish. Those buildings will be upon the list. It is not correct, by the way, to say that the owner cannot do anything about it. The time when the owner is entitled to do something about it is when he wants either to demolish, alter or extend. He then gives notice to the local authority.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

When I said the owner can do nothing about it I meant that he can do nothing about the question whether his house is on the list or not.

LORD LATHAM

I am coining to that point. He can do nothing because he is not required to do anything until he wishes either to demolish, alter or extend. But it seems to me that one would be seeking to argue the question in vacuo if at the time the building was put upon the list the whole question of whether it should be on the list should be discussed between the owner and the Minister. Such questions can only be really satisfactorily dealt with when you are considering what the owner proposes to do to the particular building. By that time you will have concrete proposals—whether the owner proposes to demolish it or he proposes to change it by alteration or extension into an hotel, or that he proposes to do something else. It is only then, it seems to me, that you can really satisfactorily argue the matter from the historical or architectural point of view. I think to amend this proposal in the way of giving notice of intention will make the whole thing unworkable.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, I wish to support the Amendment of my noble friend the Earl of Warwick and in doing so I want to point out what a state of confusion these regulations are in with regard to buildings of the character we are discussing. There will now be three or four Acts of Parliament all dealing with the matter. One curious feature of the whole thing is this, that Clause 43 of this Bill is not in any way limited to the buildings upon the list which can be compiled or improved under Clause 42, so that it would be said that you cannot give notice to some curious creature who is the owner of one of these magnificent buildings and wants to pull them down because he might pull the buildings down before the order was made. Not a bit of it. It has nothing to do with the list if it is a question of demolition because under Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, there may be prohibition as to the demolition of any building of special architectural or historic interest. The demolition, therefore, is provided for.

The point of the list, which is very hard and not very logical, is that under Clause 43 (3) there is a special provision as regards not only demolishing a building which is included in the list but also a building which it is proposed to alter or extend in a way that would seriously affect the character of the building. That is the point which arises over the list. I quite appreciate what my noble friend Lord Radnor says in reference to the objection of people who go on the list without being told that they are going to be there and without their being able to say: "Although you think this is a magnificent building I can show you that the Tudor part of it was built by my father and the Elizabethan part by my grandfather and you are quite wrong in thinking that it has any historical or other interest." I cannot help thinking that before long Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and other sections which I have not before me at the moment, and the clauses of this Bill, will have to be reconsidered and cast into a really logical form so that we may know where we are. At present the real point we are considering is whether it is just that the owner of a building should be put upon the special list made under Clause 42 with the result that subsection (3) of Clause 43 will apply to him and will put him in a very difficult position. I hope your Lordships will agree that he ought to be told and that therefore the word "Before" ought to be substituted for the other words.

THE MINISTER OF RECONSTRUCTION (LORD WOOLTON)

My Lords, I think it would probably be convenient if we were to adjourn now until a quarter past two. We will then resume consideration of this matter.

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

2.20 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am sorry to have kept your Lordships waiting, but I have been engaged in meditation with the assistance of those who instruct me and I think I now understand the pros and cons of this matter better. I cannot think that the point when it is thrashed out is a very important one. The reason why the Government would like to keep the Bill in this respect as it would be under the noble Lord, Lord Woolton's Amendment I will briefly state. As we all know, there were provisions in the Act of 1932 on this subject but it is only in this Bill that we get the creation of a list. That is a new device, a list made by the Minister and made as the result of consultation with those experts who by common consent are well qualified to advise on the subject as to whether a building is a building deserving of being listed as of historical or architectural value.

We have proposed that the notice that a particular building has been put on the list should be served on the owner as soon as possible after the building is so listed. My noble friend the Earl of Warwick desires as an Amendment to provide that the owner be given notice that the building is going to be listed before it is listed. Let us consider in a moment if there is any disadvantage as to that—I am afraid I think there is—but first let us see exactly what happens by preserving the arrangement the Government propose. What is the effect of putting a building on the list? The effect is not to raise some issue between the owner and the Minister as to whether that is right, though no doubt if the owner makes representations to the Department the Minister would be concerned to correct this list if it appeared on second thoughts to be the right thing to do. But nothing very dreadful happens because a building is put on the list. What happens is this: the building having been put on a list, and notice having been given to the owner, the owner cannot make alterations in the listed building which will have the effect of altering its character without an interval of two months. That really is all. At least, there is one other thing which ought to be mentioned for completeness—but that is all so far as the owner is concerned.

I repeat that if, after notice being given to the owner, he considers that the listing of his building was wrong, that it did not deserve to be so marked with an asterisk, then the Minister under Section 42 (1) of the Bill may amend the list; and, of course, he may desire to do so after consulting his advisers. There is therefore not any substantial difference between the two things—apart from a point which I will mention in a moment—because, when rightly understood, the listing of a building does not produce any deleterious effect at all. If we were to adopt the alternative view, and give the owner his notice before the building is listed, then this difficulty would arise. Manifestly, it would become the case that the owner would have a perfectly unrestricted use of his building until he was stopped The building would not have been listed, he would only have had notice that it was going to be listed. He would be at liberty to deal with the building without any restriction unless and until some restriction was put upon him.

An it stance in this connexion is well known to some people who have taken in interest in this subject. In the High Street of a country town in the West of England there was a beautiful Queen Anne house which was acquired by a large enterprise, which I will not name. Before anything could be done to stop it, the whole value of the building had gone. It had been gutted and turned into what was, no doubt, a most admirable shop. We want to stop that sort of thing. We want to list all buildings which really ought to be under these restrictions because of their national value, and we want to be able to say: "You must give two months notice before you make an alteration which affects the character of the building." The thing which does restrict the use made of the building after the two months is not the fact that it is listed, but the fact that the local authority has made an order under Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932. Once the local authority has made such an order then, as the original Act says, the building cannot be destroyed and as the law will now be, I am glad to say, the building cannot be pulled about or improved out of all knowledge without that order being got rid of. The order, of course, has to be confirmed by the Minister. The owner has the opportunity of challenging an order, which would severely limit his rights to deal with his own property, and he can appeal to the Minister. As a matter of fact we propose to make regulations under the relevant clause which will give not fourteen days' notice but twenty-eight.

It is therefore obvious, if we look at this impartially, that really in these respects there is nothing to choose between the one arrangement and the other; but there is this vital difference, that if you give notice before there is a period, which may be short or long, during which the owner of a building which you mean to list can pull it down or do what he likes with it. No doubt no member of this House would do that sort of thing, for it would not be a very straightforward thing to do, but I think it would be using wrong language to describe it as sharp practice. If it be the case that a man who has acquired a property such as the Queen Anne house which I have just mentioned has done so for the purpose of pulling it down, it is essential that we should be able, in all necessary cases, to stop it immediately.

My noble friend Lord Maugham made an ingenious suggestion. He said that those cases might arise, but that they could be dealt with by means of an emergency order. The emergency order procedure is provided for in Section 17 (2) of the Act of 1932. It is not desirable to make more emergency orders than are strictly necessary; we do not want every order to be an emergency order; but the real argument against the suggestion is much more serious. If you look at Section 17 (2) of the Act of 1932, you will see that that proviso operates only if the local authority has made an order. It does not operate simply because the Minister would like to issue an emergency direction. In some cases the local authority will not, or may not, be disposed to make the order. That is the great advantage of adopting the plan by which the Minister makes the list. He is the guardian of these matters, and there will be local authorities who do not care about them at all. Section 17 (2) of the Act of 1932, however, does not give any opportunity to the Minister to make an emergency order and to stop a building, between night and morning, being pulled down.

I have endeavoured to state what is a very complicated matter in what I believe to be quite accurate words. The result is that in the view of the Government it would be a mistake to make this alteration. I think that the argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has to be very fully weighed. I do not believe that there is any substantial disadvantage imposed on the owner by saying that he is to have notice as soon as the building has been listed. Once the order is made, of course, he has ample opportunities to challenge it and to refute it. I hope, therefore, that the House will not accept the Amendment.

2.32 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, in the Committee stage I supported an Amendment to provide that notice should be given to owners in these cases, but I cannot support the Amendment which is now before your Lordships. In the first place, it seems to me to be unnecessary. As the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has said, no consequences follow merely from the making of the list. It is what may be called a cautionary list, and it can properly be an ex parte statement. It is a list drawn up by the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Monuments and other such bodies from their knowledge, and approved, perhaps after amendment, by the Minister. At that stage the owner as such does not really enter into the proceedings; as the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has said, he comes in afterwards, if it is intended to take any action with respect to any of the buildings in such a list.

There is a disadvantage in this Amendment. In the first place, there is no procedure for dealing with any disputed cases. There may be a number of obstructive actions taken at this preliminary stage, and there is no proper procedure provided for determining them. An owner may urge that part of his building should be exempted, even if part is included, and there may be other technical objections of that kind. More important than that, however, is the point which has just been made by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, and in that connexion perhaps your Lordships will allow me to quote an instance which has a certain relevance and which I heard of long ago. Mr. James Bryce, when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland and was making a tour through the country, happened to come across a rather interesting ruined arch, which was all that was left of an ancient, historic abbey. Thinking that this ought to be preserved, he gave instructions, on his return to Dublin, that the Office of Works should build a wall round the ruin. They accordingly issued instructions that that should be done, and let the contract to erect the wall to a local builder. When the bill came in they sent an inspector to see whether the wall had been built according to specification, and found that it had been, but that the builder had used the stones of the ruined arch in order to build the wall. Whether that story is true or not I do not know. It is right that I should tell your Lordships that one day I asked Lord Bryce whether this had actually occurred, and he said that it was the first he had heard of it; but quite possibly some other Chief Secretary may have had that experience.

But suppose that this local builder had also been the owner of the land and of the ruin, and had been intending for some time past to use these stones in the course of his ordinary business, and then one day he received a notification that this arch was to be listed as a building of historic importance. At once he would say: "I had better hurry up and use the stones while I can." He would be under no penalty for that, and he would be in no way contravening the law if he were to do so. I think, therefore, that the argument advanced by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is sound. There may be a disadvantage in inserting this Amendment, while there is no real advantage to be gained from it.

2.38 p.m.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, with your permission I should like to say a few words in answer to what the noble and learned Lord Chancellor expressed as being view of Clause 42. I venture to think, with the greatest respect, that the noble and learned Viscount has not quite appreciated the difference between subsection (1) and subsection (3) of Clause 43. He said that under subsection (3) if the local authority wanted to stop some building being altered they would make an order. I venture to think that that is wrong; you make your order under the powers conferred by the Act of 1932. Under Clause 43 (3) of the present Bill you make no order at all if you are the local authority, because this subsection prevents the pulling down or alteration or extension of the building. I am thinking chiefly of buildings and not of ruins—buildings in which people live. You cannot extend a building or pull it down or alter it without the leave of the local authority. That can be seen from subsection (5) of Clause 43, which provides the penalty if any owner of a building executes, or causes or permits to be executed any work for the purpose of demolishing, altering or extending the building in contravention of an order in force.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That is the order to which I am referring.

VISCOUNT MALGHAM

Would you allow me to go on because the next words are those which are fatal, if I may say so with the greatest respect, to your argument— in contravention of an order in force under the said Section seventeen, or if any person contravenes the provisions of subsection (3) of this section"— that is to say, subsection (3) being in force, if you do something which pro- hibits your demolishing or altering the building— the said owner or person … shall be liable … to a fine not exceeding £50 and the court may make him restore the building. The two things are quite different. Subsection (1) deals with power to make an order; there is no power at all to make an order under subsection (3); you do not want one. The mere effect of putting the owner on the list has the effect under subsection (3) that he cannot pull it down or alter it or extend it unless he gets the leave of the local planning authority. That is the objection to being put on the list.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sure the House does not desire us even as a matter of entertainment to keep this up. The entertainment is of a very low order. Subsection (3), as my noble friend quite correctly says, does provide that no person shall execute any work—going to the end of it—before two months have elapsed from the notice, but you also want of course, or you may in some cases want, an order which will prohibit not within the two months but finally misuse or malpractice in connexion with the building, and consequently I think subsection (5) does not omit that but it refers to both. If you start your alterations before the two months are out then you have offended against the rule that you must wait for two months. If you wait for two months and an order has been made against you then you must not do it at all. At least that is my understanding.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The House has in fact already adopted the new subsection (3) which was down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and we went back in order to ensure that we did justice to the noble Earl's proposals. The next is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 53, line 43, leave out ("subject to") and insert ("either with or without").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

2.45 p.m.

Clause 43:

Preservation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.

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

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There is another Amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Warwick, which I have here in Clause 43, page 54, line 12 to amend Lord Woolton's proposed new subsection (3) by inserting in line 6, after "building", the words "provided that if any question arises under this section as to whether a proposed alteration or extension to a building is such as seriously to affect the character thereof, such question shall be submitted to and decided by the Royal Fine Art Commission."

THE EARL OF WARWICK

My Lords, I had some conversation with Lord Woolton about this and he has suggested that he will probably be able to effect what we want at some later stage. In those circumstances I shall not move that Amendment.

LORD WOOLTON

My Lords, may I say I have much sympathy with the noble Earl's intention but I could not accept his proposal? I believe that so much of what he wants can be done by administrative means that I have asked him not to burden us to-day with trying to make legal enactments, and he has been good enough to agree. I hope I shall be able in conversation with my right honourable friend the Minister in charge to satisfy the main purposes of what he wants.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Earl will not move this Amendment, and I gather that that applies to the next one as well.

THE EARL OF WARWICK

Yes.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), after "preceding subsection," to insert: (3) An order giving or adding such a direction as aforesaid shall not be made by the authority or approved by the Minister unless the authority or the Minister, as the case may be, are or is satisfied that the alteration or extension of the building in the way prohibited would seriously affect the character of the building. (4) Subsection (2) of the said Section seventeen (under which an order prohibiting the demolition of a building is of no effect until approved by the Minister, and the Minister is required to consider representations of the owner of the building before approving such an order) shall apply to an order giving or adding such a direction as aforesaid,

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is the first Amendment to Clause 43 in the name of Lord Woolton. The proposed new subsection (3) is moved with a view to meeting an undertaking which I gave on the Committee stage to move words to make it clear that alterations or extensions of buildings for which the consent of the local authority (or, on appeal, of the Minister) may be required and which are to be prohibited in the absence of consent, are only to be such as will seriously affect the character of the building in question. I move that and the other subsection at the same time. The proposed new subsection (4) is moved with a view to meeting an undertaking given by myself that I would see that it should be made clear that the requirement to serve notice on owners before an order is made shall apply to an order prohibiting the alteration or extension of a building. That is merely making clear the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 12, at end insert the said new subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for putting this Amendment in. It makes some slight improvement in the clause; but I hope he will realize that my qualified approval does not mean approval of the clause as such.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the proviso in subsection (3), to leave out "otherwise to deal with an unforeseen emergency" and insert "health, or for the preservation of the building or of neighbouring property,". The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is an endeavour to bring into the Bill some of those other considerations which I think my noble friend Lord Balfour mentioned and here I hope, though it is only a small concession, that I may further administer to his sense of well-being. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 32, leave out from ("or") to ("so") in line 33 and insert ("health, or for the preservation of the building or of neighbouring property,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Again I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, although perhaps to some extent I regret that this Amendment has involved the leaving out of those general words "otherwise to deal with an unforeseen emergency." I spent some considerable time last night trying to think of suitable arguments with which I could persuade your Lordships to leave in those words, but I could not think of any unforeseen emergency which would not occur under the words which are now being inserted, and therefore I did not produce a manuscript Amendment—very much to my regret, because I like those general words.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am obliged to the noble Earl. I think that the words which we have omitted about an "unforeseen emergency" were unduly narrowing words, because you have to think of the case where the owner knows perfectly well that his ancient building will fall down in the winter, so that the emergency is not unforeseen, and yet you want to give him the power to prop it up at the very shortest notice.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: ( ) Works specified by the Minister as being required for properly maintaining a building as respects which an order under the said Section seventeen is in force and which is settled land within the meaning of the Settled Land Act 1925, shall be added to the classes of works specified in Part II of the Third Schedule to that Act (which specifies improvements in or towards payment of which capital money may be applied, without any scheme being first submitted to the trustees of the settlement or the court, subject to provisions under which repayment of capital money applied may be required to be made out of income).

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I move this Amendment in order to meet a valuable suggestion made in Committee by my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham. He was good enough to draw up some words which were to help the case where the owner under a settlement really could not be expected to do what was required of him, at any rate without temporary assistance from capital. The words now moved have been shown to Lord Maugham, and he is good enough to say that he accepts them, and does not propose to make any alteration.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 41, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, not being one of those—a phrase which often includes very eminent persons—who are wedded to an original form in which they move an Amendment or improvement in this Bill, I beg to say that I am content with the form which the Lord Chancellor has now moved.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55 [Definition of "local planning authority"; and delegation to county councils and joint committees]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the next three Amendments on the Paper are little more than drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 62, line 39, at end insert ("the references therein to")

Page 62, line 40, after ("council") insert ("under that Act included references to their powers and duties")

Page 62,line 41, leave out ("were powers and duties under that Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 56 [Provisions as to London]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is a purely formal change. I move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 42, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert: (2) The Common Council of the City of London—

1. (a) may with the consent of the Minister certify as respects any land which they have acquired for the purposes of this Part of this Act and which is for the time being held by them for those purposes that the land will not, as from the giving of the certificate, be so held;
1139
2. (b) may with the consent of the Minister certify as respects any land for the time being held by them, not being land which subsection (2) of Section fourteen of this Act applies, that the land is appropriated for the purposes of this Part of this Act;
3. (c) may with the consent of the Minister revoke a certificate in force under this subsection as respects any land for the time being held by them;

and references in this Part of this Act to land acquired or appropriated by a local planning authority for the purposes of this Part of this Act shall be construed, in the case of the said Council, as references to land acquired by them for the said purposes as respects which no certificate under paragraph (a) of this subsection is in force or land as respects which a certificate under paragraph (b) of this subsection is in force or land appropriated for the said purposes in accordance with subsection (2) of Section fourteen of this Act. The consent of the Minister for the purposes of this subsection may be given either as respects a particular certificate or as respects certificates relating to land of any class, and either subject to or free from any conditions or limitations. (3) The powers of disposal conferred on the Common Council of the City of London by Section nineteen of this Act shall be exercisable, as respects land to which they apply, to the exclusion of any other power of disposal which apart from this subsection would be exercisable by the said Council.

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the position of the City of London. Subsection 2 (a) corresponds with Clause 19 (3), and subsection (2) corresponds with the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1933, and the London Government Act, 1939, as to appropriation for the purposes of the Bill; and subsection (3) puts the City of London in the same position as respects disposal for the purposes of the Bill as other local planning authorities.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 44, at end insert the said subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

2.54 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after Clause 56, 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 security a proper balance of population as between one area and another, and the decentralisation of excessive concentra- tions of population and industry to the smaller towns.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the same Amendment as I moved on the Committee stage, and it was one which was fortunate enough to secure a considerable measure of support from all quarters of the House. Your Lordships will recollect that as the matter was left, my noble friend was going to look at it and see whether, as he quite agreed with the intention of the Amendment, he could not put it into the Bill, possibly by way of Preamble, or in some other way. I think it is possible my noble friend may have some statement to make as the result of his reflections.

Amendment moved— Page 61, line at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

LORD WOOLTON

My Lords, I did go into this question very carefully with the Lord Chancellor and the Minister. I found no satisfactory means of meeting the desires of the noble Lord, but I hope that in what I say in moving the Third Reading I may do something to give him some satisfaction.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I had anticipated that my noble friend would not be able to do what I wanted, and I think we are going to have some further discussion on Third Reading. But I would like to take the opportunity to say that I understand that the obstable in the way of putting this thing in is that it is held to be difficult to define for all time the objects of national planning, and therefore it might have a limiting effect. At one stage of the Bill or during some previous discussion that we have had my noble friend did impute to me the quality of being one of those who wished to impose a kind of master plan on the country. I hope I have succeeded in disabusing my noble friend's mind of the idea that I was among that number, because I am not. I entirely agree that nothing in the nature of a master plan could be imposed, and the only reason why I say this now is that if the Government cannot put this in because they think it may limit the objectives of national planning, then I think that is a very good reason. So far am I from wanting a master plan which would have a limiting effect that, if that is the reason of the Government, I accept the refusal to put my Amendment in with the best grace, because I think it is a good reason. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

2.57 p.m.

Clause 57 [Assessment of compensation in connexion with acquisition of land for public purposes by reference to 1939 prices]:

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, or an interest which comprises 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 currant at the said thirty-first day of March, and if the price was lower than as aforesaid, the following shall have effect:

1. (i) If the 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 then the foregoing rule shall apply;
2. (ii) in any other case the arbitrator shall not award any sum greater than the price so paid adjusted so far as may be necessary to meet any change in the character or extent of the interest or the state of the land between the date of the purchase of the interest and the date of the service of the notice to treat, or to meet any special or exceptional circumstances which, in the opinion of the arbitrator ought to be met by such adjustment."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has the same purpose in view' as a like Amendment moved in Committee. It is to prevent the speculator in land and buildings having the advantage of the supplement provided for in the various clauses of the Bill now before us. It is cast in a somewhat different form from the Amendment we discussed last week. It is by no means a simple matter as all those who have looked into it will realize, but I think that the Amendment as now drafted would be effectual in a fairly large measure in preventing the speculator from having the uncovenanted benefits of the supplement provided in this Bill without doing injury to the person who is not a speculator. In short I do not think that this Amendment would impose any injustice upon the just but it would catch the speculator who should not be permitted to participate in public funds to the extent of the supplement. Lord Chesham and others were with myself and my friends concerned that the speculator, whose activities are not diminishing by any means, should not be in a position to benefit from the supplement.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 34, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Latham.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, with the broad object of Lord Latham I have no quarrel at all, but we have to see whether or not we have really devised machinery that will work. Your Lordships who attended the Committee stage will, of course, observe that the present proposal represents the effort—a very sincere effort, I know—which has been made by the noble Lord to meet certain practical difficulties to which attention was called by my noble friend Lord Woolton in Committee. I am afraid on examining it, however, that I do not think this proposal does deal with some other difficulties, for example, the danger of collusive transactions—a very real danger. We are dealing with a class of person for whom we may not have the highest respect in all cases, who is generally the sort of person who would undoubtedly take advantage of a transaction which some people might call collusive to get out of this difficulty. My own experience as Chancellor of the Exchequer and in other offices is that you meet with many difficulties when you have to devise words which will enable you to catch the person you want to catch if there is an opportunity for a collusive transaction, and in connexion with Surtax the Statute book is absolutely stuffed with attempts, not all of them in my opinion as successful as I should wish, to deal with these evasions.

Let me point out secondly, that it really thrusts on the arbitrator, I am afraid, the duty of exercising a judgment or discretion beyond the point that is possible. You cannot really by enactment leave to an arbitrator—he may be skilled and no doubt honest and has his own functions to perform—decisions on question of principle. You have to tell him what the principle is and he has to apply it and no doubt will apply it as well as he can. But I do not think that is so here. For example, in what cases and to what extent are collateral transactions to be taken into account? The speculator will be very anxious to make various arrangements. May be he will pass the property to a relative or even to a private company. There are various devices very well known for this purpose. How far do you require an arbitrator to look into that and allow for it? Then, suppose that the parties are not at arms length, that there is a genuine sale between persons who are each making their own deliberate bargain, but there is something which makes both of them wish to qualify the arrangements they have made. And, thirdly, is a greater price than the sum paid to be awarded to a person who has bought properties at prices which have depreciated owing to war conditions and who has received no income since the purchase? The property has not been productive and then there comes a time when it begins to be productive. How is the arbitrator to deal with that?

My own view—and I do not speak with the smallest prejudice against the Amendment—is that this Amendment thrusts upon the arbitrator a decision upon things which an arbitrator cannot decide unless you are to make a whole code which will direct him how he is to act if he finds this situation, or that situation, or the other situation. I am sorry to say I do not think this Amendment will do. It is interesting to notice, fully conscious as I know Lord Latham is of this sort of difficulty, how close he comes to one of the practical difficulties that was mentioned previously. It was pointed out last time we discussed this question that' in many cases the land that has been compulsorily purchased will not be the whole of what the speculator bought. He may have bought certain areas by treaty and then you come to a particular piece that is to be bought by compulsory purchase. The Amendment says the arbitrator is then to make an adjustment. Believe me, you cannot pass effective legislation which seeks to make the arbitrator do that. This sort of difficulty is very hard indeed to get over.

The Eighth Schedule, your Lordships will have noticed, does not make the hopeless attempt to deal with this root difficulty for the case in which the land to be valued for compensation is not the whole of what has been valued under the War Damage Act which is deliberately excluded from the operation of the Eighth Schedule. I am sincerely sorry about this, but I am bound to advise the House I do not think this is an Amendment that ought to be passed.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE)

My Lords, we have had a good deal of latitude in this debate and as the House knows it is not really our procedure to have second speeches made on the Report stage. There was a case in which the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, did it. I felt I ought to draw the attention of the House to that now because if it becomes a regular practice we shall really have a debate over again. I am sorry. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, was going to reply and of course he is able to do that.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I was otherwise wondering why I should be selected. I only wish to say that whilst I admit the difficulties which the noble and learned Viscount has pointed out, there is no disadvantage in trying this Amendment. After all, it has been by the process of trial, and not altogether of error, that evasions of Income Tax and Super-tax have been very substantially reduced in the last fifteen years. No one will say that the provisions of the various Finance Acts have succeeded in catching every evader but they are certainly catching more and more, and I cannot think there will be any harm done if this Amendment were adopted and it only turned out to be successful in, say, only 5o per cent. of the cases. I can hardly agree with the noble and learned Viscount that such directions as are contemplated in this Amendment are not normally given to an arbitrator. All sorts of directions are given to arbitrators and they are enjoined to take into account all sorts of conditions and facts and all sorts of considerations in respect of the acquisition of land under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. If, however, it is the view of the Government that they are unable to accept the Amendment I will withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.7 p.m.

Clause 58:

Supplement to compensation in case of owner-occupiers.

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

1. (a) references to the person entitled to the 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 be 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, so however that a person shall 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;

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, to insert at the end of paragraph (b) in subsection (6): ,so however that a person shall not be treated under this paragraph as in occupation of a building or property by virtue of his occupying a part thereof if he occupies it wholly or mainly in connexion with the management, supervision or control of the building or property as a whole. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I think this Amendment really makes clear the circumstances in which persons in occupation of property should be regarded as the occupiers. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 46, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LATHAM moved in paragraph (c) of subsection (6), after the second "employment," to insert "where such occupation is essential for that employment." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. During the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, indicated his agreement in principle to certain of the Amendments that were down designed to circumscribe the nature of the employment which would bring the premises, if occupied by the employee, within the classes of eligibility for the supplement, and it was recognized that there was great difficulty in so doing. Since the Second Reading certain conversations have taken place between myself and the Ministry and certain, I think quite valid, objections to the proposals that were put forward, have been made. The Amendment now on the Paper to insert the words "where such occupation is essential for that employment" would meet the objection I referred to last week—namely, that while it might be convenient and usual for a manager or other employee of a business to live over the premises it is not essential in many cases that such should be the case. Under the Bill as now drafted mere residence above the premises would bring not only the business premises but the flat above in which the employee resided within the 30 per cent. supplement. This Amendment is designed to remove that, and I hope your Lordships will support it.

Amendment moved— Page 68, line 3, after the second ("employment") insert ("where such occupation is essential for that employment").—(Lord Latham.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the Amendment is plain enough as far as its purpose is concerned, but is the fear of the noble Lord as to what might happen unless some such words as he proposes are put in really justified? Moreover, there is another question, whether the word "essential" is very easy to construe. Let me take one or two cases. One at least was mentioned during the Committee stage, that of a farm worker who occupies a cottage on the farm where he is working. There may he cases where it is an actual condition that he should occupy the cottage, but that I think is not usual. It is more usual that he is allowed to occupy the cottage and thereby gets a certain advantage. But would that be a case where occupation is essential to the employment? In many cases it would not. That is one illustration. Is it intended to mean that the employee shall not be regarded as occupying so as to confer this advantage unless without such occupation the particular work would not go on? I doubt very much whether that is quite what my noble friend intends. Is it intended to mean that unless the employee occupies a particular building he cannot be employed at all by the owner, as for example when some bank manager lives over provincial bank premises?

So far as it goes I agree that the Amendment does impose a tighter condition, and that is no doubt the object of the Amendment, but those who advise me and I may say I myself think that is a mistake. We have given a good deal of attention to this clause and the conclusion we have reached is that the words "for the purposes of that employment" express the intention more accurately and with less likelihood of inequitable results than the formula suggested. In fact, while paying the greatest respect to the views of the noble Lord, I do not share his fears of an undue extension of the principle. Therefore I advise your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.14 p.m.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM had given Notice of two Amendments to paragraph (c) of subsection (6)—namely, after "him," to insert" merely," and, after" caretaker," to insert "or watchman." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I put two Amendments on the Paper in the hope of making this clause a little easier to understand. I am not very much wedded to them but they seem to me to clarify the clause a little. The case I conceive is where a person dealt with in this subsection is employed for the purposes of his employment and also as caretaker. I thought it might be as well to rule that out by my first Amendment, and I submit that to the Government. My other Amendment is only to carry the matter out a little more fairly by adding after the word "caretaker" the words "or watchman" because I conceive there are cases where a man is not really a caretaker because he is employed at the front door to watch that the house does not get on fire or that people do not get in. However, I must leave it to the noble and learned Viscount.

Amendment moved— Page 68, line 7, after ("him") insert ("merely").—(Viscount Maugham.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am obliged to my noble and learned friend for having raised this point and explained it. We have been looking into it in the interval between Committee and Report and on balance we do not advise that the words proposed be inserted. May I point out—it may not be quite clear to everyone, though probably my noble and learned friend understands it—that an owner can qualify as an owner-occupier under the Bill on either of two grounds, either because of actual occupation, which is the case under Clause 58 (5), or else because he has the right and intention to occupy? Paragraph (c) of subsection (6) adds a special case to the category of actual occupation by the owner. What my noble friend suggests would qualify this addition by saying that actual occupation by a caretaker is not to constitute actual occupation by the owner. The reason for the qualification is that actual occupation by a caretaker, unlike actual occupation by other employees, may occur where the owner is an investor pure and simple. The principle is that we do not give this concession to investors, whereas we do give it to those who qualify by actual occupation. In these circumstances the view of the Government is that it would be better not to insert these words.

I remember my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh in Committee put an illustration which I would like to dispose of in order to show that it has not been overlooked. My noble friend said, "If I have two houses, a country house and a town house, and if while I am in town I put a caretaker in charge of the country house, it would never do that by reason of the employment of that caretaker I should lose the protection of the Bill." There are two misconceptions there. In the first place there is nothing in paragraph (c) of subsection (6) which removes the protection. The disputed words merely remove the particular added protection of actual occupation by an employee. The main protection of intention to occupy remains untouched. While my noble friend is in his London house he does not lose intention to occupy his country house, and that qualifies it. It would be easy for the owner to show intended occupation by himself. There is also this second consideration, that it is possible that in the kind of case put by my noble friend Lord Balfour the occupation would be in law actual occupation by the owner. You do not cease to occupy because you leave premises in charge of somebody else. The caretaker would be an employee, not a man in occupation. It would be the owner himself who would be in occupation. I say that out of courtesy to my noble friend because at first sight his illustration is a clinching one.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

3.20 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, there is an Amendment to Clause 58, at page 68 of which notice has been given by my noble friend Lord Hemingford. I had better read the words of this Amendment as they are not on the Paper.

"Page 68, line 8, at end insert— A person carrying on a brewery (or wine or spirit) business shall be treated as in occupation of premises belonging to him and licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor if the premises are let to a tenant whose trade is by the terms of the tenancy tied to the person carrying on such business (or if the premises are conducted by a manager who is employed by the person carrying on such business and resides on the premises and conducts them for the benefit of the, person carrying on such business).

LORD HEMINGFORD

My Lords, I apologize for the fact that this Amendment is not on the printed Paper, but it really is not my fault, and in these days one cannot blame the Post Office for a delay of 24 hours, or thereabout, in the delivery of letters. I referred more particularly to this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill. The object of this Amendment is to remove a curious anomaly in connexion particularly with what is known as the licensed trade. When I moved an Amendment for this purpose in Committee, the noble and learned Lord Chancellor advised the Committee not to accept it. His objection was that the Amendment, as I moved it, would cover not only the licensed trade—with which I gathered, in this respect he had some sympathy—but might also include a number of other cases such as companies conducting multiple shops and things of that kind. As a result of that I have put down this Amendment which is strictly confined to the licensed trade. The curious anomaly, to which I refer, arises from the custom and methods of this trade in certain matters. May I take as an illustration what is commonly known as the "road house"? I think that these houses are the ones most likely to be affected. They are the modern inns which are of such convenience and use to an immense number of people who in normal times of peace use the roads. They are refreshment houses by the roadside. If a house built by a brewery is run by a manager of the company that owns the house then that house is owner-occupied and gets the benefit of it. But it is the common and growing custom in the trade that instead of putting in a manager to these houses, the owners let the house to a man who lives in the house, and who is bound by the terms of his lease or tenancy to use the house for the purpose of selling his landlord's goods.

Now it will be agreed I think, generally, that it is a mistake and an unfortunate thing in any Act of Parliament to have a curious anomaly whereby just as the result of an accident of that kind one business gets the extra 30 per cent. and the other business does not. It would not, perhaps, be right, it might not even be to my advantage, to argue in favour of the form of business of letting to a tenant. But, at any rate, it is a method employed in that business which has very much sympathy from those who make use of these houses as customers. Under these circumstances, I venture to suggest to your Lordships not merely that it would be advisable to do this in order to get rid of an anomaly but that one of Parliament's efforts in legislation should be to watch for and avoid doing something or other which is annoying to a large class of people concerned in a particular and useful trade for the benefit of the public.

I have sent this Amendment in, and I hope that the Minister received it in considerable time beforehand. I have no doubt that it has been considered. I have no doubt also that the answer to my plea has been decided upon. If it has been decided upon in my favour, I should rather have expected to have received a notification to that effect before I had said as much as I have said. Therefore, I am bound to admit that I do not move this with a great deal of hope. But I do ask that these small and perhaps imperfectly expressed arguments which I have addressed to your Lordships may be given some weight, and that at least if this Amendment cannot be accepted I can be given some good reason for not getting rid of this anomaly—for it is an anomaly—and for not getting rid of an anomaly which is injurious to a useful trade.

Amendment moved— Page 68, line 8, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Hemingford.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hemingford need make no apology for having sent in his Amendment or having sent it in by post. In fact, it reached me in quite good time, though not in time for it to be printed on the list of Amendments. I do not think that I shall greatly surprise him when I say that I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment. It may be true, as my noble friend says, that this is an anomaly in the sense that a particular trade which owns public-houses sometimes carries on the business of selling dairy milk by one method and sometimes by another method. If that is an anomaly—well it is an anomaly. But it is, of course, for the brewers, who own these premises, to decide which they will do. If they decide in the case of a public-house to keep it and put in a manager they will get the ordinary results which this Bill provides for everybody else in that connexion. If, on the other hand, they think it is a case where they had better grant a lease—it may be in somewhat exceptional circumstances—so that this company can no longer be said to be in occupation that, again, is a matter which they must decide as a matter of business. The trade is one which is directed with a vast deal of business skill, and I do not doubt that those who are affected by the provisions of this Bill will consider the provisions very carefully before they decide how they will develop their business in the future. I do not see any justification for putting in these special provisions as suggested, and I therefore must resist the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 65 [Interpretation]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I think that I am right in saying that this is only putting the Bill in order. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 72, line 35, leave out from ("Act") to ("to") in line 36.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.30 p.m.

Second Schedule [Procedure for authorizing compulsory purchase]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is manifestly an im- provement I think. I beg to move that it be made.

Amendment moved— Page 75, line 42, at end insert ("and giving the prescribed particulars of his interest").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

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

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment to the Third Schedule.

Amendment moved— Page 77, line 39, after ("of") insert ("any").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Fifth Schedule [Modifications of Lands Clauses Acts and Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, for purposes of Part I]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment to the Fifth Schedule.

Amendment moved— Page 82, line 6, leave out from the beginning to ("section") in line 7.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Sixth Schedule [Procedure for completion of compulsory purchase under orders providing for expedited completion]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the first two Amendments to the Sixth Schedule are merely improving the references in the Bill, and I beg to move that those Amendments be made.

Amendments moved—

Page 85, line 24, leave out ("subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, and of Part II, of this Schedule").

Page 86, line 15, at end insert: ("(4) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph to the Lands Clauses Acts and the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, is to those enactments as modified by the Fifth Schedule to this Act and by paragraph 3 and Part II of this Schedule (and as amended by Part II of this Act).")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the next Amendment is to rectify an omission. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 88, line 26, after ("Schedule") insert (",or the amount of any sum payable as a supplement thereto,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 88, line 32, leave out ("becomes") and insert (",together, if any sum is payable as a supplement thereto, with the amount of that sum, has become").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.33 p.m.

LORD WOOLTON

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, I should like to thank your Lordships for the patient care with which you have examined in detail the clauses of what is, I am afraid, a somewhat complicated Bill. The debate has been an instructive one, and I am sure that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will forgive me if I say that it has been particularly instructive because of the clarity of the explanations which he has been good enough, on behalf of the Government, to give on the numerous Amendments which stood in my name. I think that your Lordships will agree that the Bill as it now stands is better and stronger for its sojourn in this House. The subject of the Bill is one that traditionally has been beset with difficulties, and I am sure that I am expressing what is the feeling in the country generally when I say that there is a good deal of cause for satisfaction in the broad-minded tolerance which has been shown by political Parties of very widely divergent views, which has enabled this Bill to get so far and which, when the Bill becomes law, will have made it possible for urgently needed land to be acquired in order that, without impediment on that score, housing and rehousing plans may be realized on sound planning lines.

The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has already said that this Bill is an instalment. Those of us who are responsible for it do not claim that it gives full effect to a policy of national planning, but we do say that it assists substantially in securing important objects of such a policy. A great deal of the new develop- ment which will be carried out, both in the devastated areas and as overspill development, will enable the Minister to exercise such control as will secure that both the places of the new development and the form of it conform with the requirements of national planning, to which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has referred. This Bill is not a measure for "the intensification of suburban sprawl." It is an essential object of the Bill that the sites for the overspill shall be chosen with full regard to the wider considerations of planning. Planning is a young development in Government responsibility—a child, if I may say so, born somewhat late in the life of parents who have longed for it for many years and who are now, perhaps, a little anxious, and it may be a little overanxious, as to its strength and its future. I can understand, therefore, the desire of certain noble Lords that in this Bill there should be a clear statement defining its birthright with precision. We could find, however, no satisfactory means of bringing into this Bill a code of principles of a declaratory nature. It is by men's deeds that we judge them.

Much of this Bill is concerned with providing the machinery that makes planning possible in the places where planning is most needed. It will strengthen the power of the Minister to fulfil the task for which he was appointed, and that is its justification. Let us judge it by what it does, and leave to the next measure the task of further definition. In truth, if we had attempted more in this one measure we might easily have agreed on less. But more is needed for completion, and the problem of compensation remains for our future deliberation.

I should like to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, by answering the questions that he put before the House went into Committee on this Bill. The noble Lord asked two questions: (1) What machinery do the Government propose to co-ordinate the various departmental policies for land use and development, and in particular to concert policy with regard to the location of the overspill of industry and population resulting from decongestion of the big towns? (2) Will the Government give an undertaking that they will introduce legislation next Session dealing with compensation and betterment on the lines of the White Paper, or of some improvement of it? On the second question, I have nothing to add to the reply given by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor immediately after Lord Balfour of Burleigh had spoken, but I should like to answer the first question, and, if I am somewhat long in the process of describing the machinery and even unusually dull, I hope that your Lordships will charge the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, with the responsibility, because he has asked for it and I am going to do my best to give it to him.

What is the planning machinery to be —that is the question—and how will it work in practice? The central planning authority is the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Every local plan requires, and will continue to require, his consent. Further, the Minister has power under the Acts of 1932 and 1943, and will have power under this Bill when it becomes law, to call up for decision by himself rather than by the local planning authority any application, or class of application, for planning 'consent, and, where necessary, the power to overrule any consent, or any refusal, given by the local planning authority on such an application. Further, the consent of the Minister will be required under this Bill for all disposals of land purchased by local authorities under the Bill and for all development proposed to be carried out by the authorities on land retained by them. The Minister will also be the channel through which all central decisions on planning matters (whether or not those decisions concern other Government Departments as well as the Ministry of Town and Country Planning) will he sought and will be pronounced.

There can be no doubt as to where the powers of the central planning authority are located, and I do not think there is any doubt as to the amplitude of those powers. Your Lordships are, however, chiefly interested in the question as to how those powers will be exercised. It is here I call for your patience. As regards the collaboration between the Minister and the local planning authorities, the primary responsibility for the detailed planning of an area should—and must—remain with the inhabitants of that area, as represented by their elected representative bodies; but subject always to three overriding considerations. What are these three con- siderations? First, that local plans must conform to national policy in such matters as the preservation of good agricultural land, for balanced distribution of industry, and the decongestion and decentralization of excessive concentration of population. I apologize for that sentence. The jargon to which this Town and Country Planning Bill is leading us is most unfortunate, and I am sorry to have fallen into it. Secondly, that local plans must be made in accordance with sound planning principles, and with due regard to the health, employment, living conditions and enjoyment of the local population. Thirdly, that an even balance must be held between all sections of the community. In his collaboration with the local planning authorities, it will be the duty of the Minister of Town and Country Planning to see that these principles are observed, and the Minister accepts this obligation and responsibility.

There is already, and will increasingly be, close day-to-day working collaboration between the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the local planning authorities. This will take place not only in London, but "on the spot." It will not be a case of each local planning authority working out its plans in isolation and then forwarding them for rejection or acceptance by the Ministry. Rather, the Ministry's regional representatives will help to bring local planning authorities together, and will provide guidance and "inspiration"—the noble Lord asked me where the inspiration was coming from; they will, I hope, provide inspiration; such at any rate will be their instruction and their intention—in the light of the Government's policy for the region taken collectively. In particular, the questions of where the overspill of population and industry should be placed, and the density at which rebuilding within the original urban area should proceed (including, of course, the question of the preservation of open spaces) will be matters in which the Minister and his advisers will, under the present Bill, have large responsibilities to discharge in collaboration with the local authorities. These questions are not to be left for decision on purely parochial grounds, which was one of the issues about which the noble Lord asked me. The Government firmly believe that through this machinery their avowed policy of decongestion will become effec- tive: first, where both the opportunity and the need are greatest, in the neighbourhood of the "blitzed" towns and cities: secondly, in the neighbourhood of towns where there are blighted areas in need of redevelopment.

There remains the question of co-ordination at the centre between the various Government Departments concerned with different aspects of planning and with some—indeed with most—of the decisions to be issued by the Minister of Town and Country Planning as the Central Planning Authority. This is not, of course, a new problem: there is, in fact, hardly any aspect of the administration of Government in which more than one Department is not concerned. It is particularly the case in the administration of planning, the nature of which is to harmonize competing claims to land use. The Minister of Town and Country Planning shares in the collective responsibility of the whole Government. Many of his colleagues have responsibilities which involve the use of land: the Minister of Apiculture and Fisheries, the Minister of Health, the Minister of War Transport, the Minister of Education, the President of the Board of Trade; not to mention the Postmaster-General, the Minister of Fuel and Power and in these days particularly the Service Ministers.

There can be no question, under our Constitution, of the Minister of Town and Country Planning having power to override his colleagues, by compelling them to do his will, however excellent that may be, but the Minister has a definite statutory duty and power to secure "consistency and continuity in the framing and execution of a national policy with respect to the use and development of land throughout England and Wales "—I quote Clause 1 of the Act of 1943, under which the Ministry was established. That was the proper place to define the Minister's objectives. I know there has been some concern among some of your Lordships as to whether the Minister was going to be able to get the co-operation of the other Government Departments. Government Departments do not work in isolation and treat one another as enemies. In every problem of reconstruction that I have had to deal with I have found myself having to deal with several Government Departments and I am bound to say I have found the greatest possible desire for co-operation in reconstruction be- tween the several Departments. If differences of opinion arise which cannot be resolved at the Ministerial level, then of course the Minister has his statutory obligations and is in a position clearly to take the question to the Cabinet for decision.

I see no reason to doubt that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the many other Departments necessarily concerned with the use of land will successfully co-operate in the framing and execution of "a national policy with respect to the use and development of land." And again, and for emphasis, I repeat that this collaboration will be found not only between the headquarters of the various Ministries in London, but also—-and this is most important—between the regional and local officers of the various Ministries throughout the country when the plans are being worked out. A great deal has already been done to secure effective but flexible machinery. In every area of the country the Regional Planning Officer is acting increasingly as the recognized clearing house for a variety of projects affecting land use.

The Government recognize that for certain purposes a standing inter-departmental body may be the right instrument to use. For example, the Minister of Town and Country Planning has recently taken the initiative in forming an Inter-Departmental Committee to consider Government policy in relation to the provisional outline plans that have been prepared for the Greater London area—a matter to which Lord Balfour of Burleigh rightly attaches great importance. This Committee again has a nucleus membership of representatives of the Departments chiefly concerned, but there is provision for the attendance of other Departments on particular issues.

One particularly important example of this working partnership between various Ministers and their respective Departments is foreshadowed in a Government White Paper that we have discussed here on Employment Policy. Chapter III of that White Paper deals with the balanced distribution of industry and Labour, and I would specially draw your Lordships' attention to paragraphs 26, 28 and 30, for these have an important bearing on certain questions raised by Lord Balfour and other noble Lords regarding the need for the Government to influence the location of new industrial development. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning is mentioned in paragraph 30 as one of the four Departments which will carry the main responsibility for formulating and administering the Government's Policy in this matter (the other Departments being the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour and National Service, and the Scottish Office). The Government proposal is that the channel for the expression of Government policy in this matter should be the Board of Trade, which will be the Department responsible for all general questions of industrial policy. And I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Town and Country Planning will achieve both at headquarters and regionally. Nor have the Government any intention of delaying the introduction of legislation to give effect to this policy for the balanced distribution of industry. Indeed, they have already announced, in another place, their intention to introduce next Session legislation to give effect to the proposals in Chapter III of the White Paper on Employment Policy.

I have taken much of your Lordships' time in dealing with this question of Governmental machinery to implement the policy of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who threatened that if I did not do this he would move the rejection of the Bill on Third Reading, will feel that I have dealt fully if not adequately with the point he raised. There is one final observation that I would like to make on this Bill. I have sensed in the debate some conflict on the issue of national planning. My own conviction—and I am indeed interested in this subject and have been for over 35 years—is that we shall best replan Britain by the proper co-ordination of the planning activities of two sets of people: first, those who are living in the districts that are to be planned—and care about them —people whose knowledge of local conditions will be great, even though some may fear that their vision may be somewhat restricted; and, secondly, the planning activities of those sitting at the centre of Government whose views are wide and comprehensive, but who are always in danger of laying more emphasis on plans than on people. We shall not get good planning unless we get these two forces working together, and I beg those who put their belief in national planning not so to over-emphasize the national as to depreciate the local. There need be no divergence of interest here, and there must be co-operation and mutual understanding and respect. I am anxious to assure those whose views run with those of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, that the responsibilities of central Government will be discharged in such a way as to ensure that national planning becomes a reality and finds expression in the future use that is made of the land of this country: but it must be a natural growth if it is to be strong and if it is to find acceptance under our democratic form of Government.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3^a.—(Lord Woolton.)

3.57 P.m.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, we are at the end of the passage through your Lordships' House of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, asked the Minister of Reconstruction last week for at least a toot upon the horn: well, we have certainly had this afternoon something that amounts to almost a blast on the horn.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

A trumpet voluntary.

LORD LATHAM

It seemed to me that the noble Lord was making a Second Reading speech on a Bill winch had not been introduced, which places some of us at a certain disadvantage, because we have no knowledge of what it may contain. I do not wish on this occasion to repeat any of the criticisms which I made of the Bill on Second Reading. The Bill, I think, has been improved in your Lordships' House, but it is the case that it was an inadequate Bill when it reached this House, and it leaves this House an inadequate Bill, having regard to the enormous tasks of planning and reconstruction which face this country.

The noble Lord said, as is the case, that the Bill is no more than the machinery of town and country planning. Unfortunately, although the machinery may be new it is not up to date, and being new and being up-to-date are not necessarily the same thing. It is also, in my view, not equal to the tasks which will be placed upon it. However, we are told that the Bill is an instalment. I think not more than a modest instalment. I think the House and the country can rely upon it that the local government authorities will make the best of it; they will use it, to the full, they will seek to achieve, with good will, with earnestness, with courage and faith, whatever can be achieved under the Bill or under subsequent legislation which may be introduced. We are all anxious in our several spheres to do what we can to make this country a better and a healthier country, and to improve the conditions, especially of that large population which lives in the congested cities and towns of our land. I am certain that the local authorities will bend all their efforts to wring out, if I may use that expression, of the powers in this Bill the maximum that will lead towards making this a better, a healthier and a more beautiful land.

I would like, in conclusion, to express to the noble Lord who has had charge of the Bill the thanks of my friends and of myself for the open-minded way in which he and the Minister of Town and Country Planning have met the suggestions which we have put forward, and for the co-operation which has been received from them in solving, I think satisfactorily, one or two of the very difficult problems among the many which emerged in the consideration of this Bill. I would like also, if I may, to express my gratitude to the Lord Chancellor for the great help he has given us and, if I may say so as a young member of your Lordships' House, for the amazing ability with which he unravelled what appeared to be almost the unravellable in this not too clearly drafted Bill—although I must confess that I have some sympathy with the draftsmen.

Like most of your Lordships I have from time to time sat down to put on paper what appeared to be a perfectly simple idea, and have then been pursued for hours with reservations of this kind, that kind and the other kind, only to realize in the end how difficult it is to draft clearly. Considering all the contingencies, reservations, provisos and the like which are essential in any legislation dealing with land, my sympathy goes out to the draftsmen and, having regard especially to the pressure under which certain clauses of this Bill have been drafted, they are entitled not to criticism, due perhaps to our lack of capacity to understand cer- taro clauses, but to our esteem and respect. I do not know whether it is appropriate to do so, but as one who is aware of the very great work which has been done during the past few months by the officers of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, I would like to include them at all events in my thanks and I hope also in the thanks of your Lordships for the work they have done.

4.0 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I feel that I must make some attempt to express to your Lordships the feelings that I have with regard to the very full reply which my noble friend has been so kind as to give me to the questions which I put on the Motion to go into Committee on this Bill. With regard to the question about compensation, that was, as my noble friend said, fully dealt with by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, but I think if I may say so that the short part of his speech which my noble friend devoted to that question to-day was more satisfactory than the longer exposition which we had last week. As your Lordships will remember, my noble friend opposite, Lord Samuel, called attention to the fact that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack did make the promise to introduce a Bill contingent upon obtaining agreement. To-day my noble friend Lord Woolton contented himself with saying, if I understood him aright, that the Government did intend quite definitely to introduce a Bill next Session dealing with compensation and betterment.

LORD WOOLTON

I did not say so.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My noble friend says that is not what he said. I am sorry. I had hoped that it was the full intention of the Government to introduce a Bill.

LORD WOOLTON

I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord but what I did say was that we should introduce a Bill dealing with the problem of location of industry. I said that because some time ago an announcement to that effect was made in another place. I made no observations at all as to what would be in the King's Speech for the new Session because it would have been quite improper for me to do so and on that account I deliberately avoided making any promise.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I apologize to my noble friend. I entirely misunderstood what he said. I thought he was dealing with my second question when in fact he was dealing with something entirely different—namely, the location of industry. We shall all welcome the introduction of a Bill on the location of industry and Shall look forward to seeing what it contains. The satisfaction that I expressed was, I am afraid, unfounded. I thought we had got a little further about a promise to introduce a Bill dealing with compensation and betterment. That is a horse I need not beat. My noble friend knows that dealing with compensation and betterment is absolutely essential if we are to have planning and if this Bill is to fulfil the hopes which he has expressed for it.

Before I say anything else, I would like to associate myself with what my noble friend said about the relation between plans and people. I cannot help feeling that my noble friend's remarks were directed, to some extent, to me. I do attach more importance to people than to plans. I do believe that local sentiment in planning is immensely important and I do not for one moment want to make too little of the function which the local authority has to carry out in planning and the importance of seeing that the wishes of the inhabitants are given effect to. Having listened to my noble friend and been extremely grateful to him for the trouble he has taken to try and allay my apprehensions, I must freely confess to your Lordships that he has not entirely succeeded in doing so. I shall, of course, read with great attention what he has said, and I am hoping to find a good many grains of comfort in it, but the principal grain of comfort that I want I am afraid is not there.

My noble friend said a lot of things which, if I could be certain they were going to be fulfilled—I am sure he will not think that I am casting any doubt upon his bonafides, because I am not—would be welcome. He said the Minister of Town and Country Planning will exercise such control as to secure a place for individual development in the form of new development. He said that he wished to see the sites for the overspill of population from congested areas chosen with full regard to considerations of national planning, and he said also that density, in the case of overspill, would be controlled where he had large responsibilities to discharge with regard to it. If one was quite certain that all that was going to happen that would be all right, but I still do not see in this Bill or anywhere else the actual weapons which are given to the Minister to bring those happy results about.

By noble friend also said there must be co-ordination at the centre between Government Departments and that it was the duty of the Minister completely to harmonize the claims to land use. He said, of course, that in the ultimate result if he could not get agreement the Minister could always go to the Cabinet. My noble friend mentioned various Ministers who are closely concerned with this planning question, and I was proposing to try and draw an analogy which I think is fairly close. This is really like an orchestra; there are a number of very important musical instruments which have got to be harmonized. To take the five principal Departments—I am referring now to Ministers who are concerned in land use—there is the Minister of Health concerned with housing and water supply; there is the Board of Trade concerned with industrial location; there is the Minister of Fuel and Power who is responsible for the statutory undertakers, mainly gas and electricity; there is the Minister of Transport and there is the Minister of Agriculture.

Suppose we allot the instruments in the orchestra. The Minister of Health, in virtue of his important housing operations, is entitled, I think, to have the first violin. The Board of Trade, with industrial location, has I think a very important function and the Minister there should be given the violoncello. I turn now to the woodwind instruments and I would give the Minister of Fuel and Power a flute and the Minister of Transport the horn. For the Minister of Agriculture, who is very, very important in this respect, I was reserving the big trombone. Up to the point at which we are at present with this Bill the only instrument allotted, as far as I can see, to the Minister of Planning is something on about the level of the triangle, or possibly the comb with a bit of tissue paper which your Lordships will remember when you were at private schools. If all these in- strumentalists who are going to play all these instruments insist on playing their own part in the score we shall not get a symphony. They must play to the orchestrated score, and I do not see anything in the Government's arrangements as yet which compel these different Departments to play to the orchestrated score. If the Minister of Planning is to be the conductor, well and good, but I cannot see that he is to be the conductor.

When we come to the location of industry, in the White Paper on Employment Policy to which my noble friend referred there is a full chapter devoted to the balanced distribution of industry and labour. It is said in paragraph 30: No single Department could conveniently undertake the responsibility for formulating and administering the policy for the distribution of industry outlined in the foregoing paragraphs.… Standing arrangements will be made for supervising and controlling, under the Cabinet and as part of the central Government machinery, the development and execution of the policy as a whole.… It is necessary, however, that there should be a single channel through which Government policy on the distribution of industry can be expressed.…. and that is the Board of Trade. If this policy of planning is to be effected I should have thought that would be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the Ministry of Planning. Consequently I am not quite sure how it is going to be worked.

I would like to relate it to the problem of Greater London once again, because just think what is going to happen in the next two years. I am relating it to Greater London and housing because that is the really important thing. We are going to have in the next few years 300,000 temporary houses. In the absence of a national policy—and I do not think we have one yet—I do not know where they are going to be put, but they will be mostly on land already acquired by local authorities. In addition to that we are going to have 200,000 or 300,000 permanent houses. After two years, what? We hope for a million houses in ten years, permanent houses. That means another 800,000 houses to be put up in the eight years following the two years in which we are to have 500,000 or 600,000 permanent and temporary houses. Unless we have some very big co-ordinating Standing Committee that is going to look ahead after the end of the next two years, unless we have a settled policy prepared now to come into operation at the end of the next two years, then the continuation of fringe development all round our big cities is inevitable. I was delighted to hear my noble friend tell us that there is a Standing Committee to deal with the Greater London plan. It is essential that there should be prepared now machinery to hammer out a plan of action if we are to have proper dispersal in order that local authorities may know where they stand. Local authorities will have to carry it out, and unless we have the beginnings of a plan to come into effect in two years' time I see no hope of anything except a continuation of fringe development. I think that history is going to repeat itself, and from all the evidence that the history of fringe development after the last war is going to repeat itself.

Among the attributes my noble friend gave to the Minister of Planning I did not hear him say that he had sufficient power to initiate; but the Minister does need power to initiate such a planned dispersal as I am talking about. They used to say about the Bourbons that they learned nothing and they forgot nothing. I think in housing the Government have learned nothing and forgotten everything. We all know the kind of house we want. The average person wants a house with a bit of garden in pleasant surroundings reasonably near his work and within reach of the open country. I do not think that even with all the efforts of my noble friend —and I am most grateful to him for his answer to my question—the machinery he has outlined is going to bring that about. Why should there be a Standing Committee for the location of industry and only a casual specially appointed committee for the production of houses? I do not think that is putting the two things in their relevant importance. I do not want to prophesy disaster, but I do think we have not got the foresight in this matter that we need. Under the providence of God we are in sight of winning a great victory. I do not think that the prospect at the moment is that the fruits of that victory in the form of the homes we want are going to be reaped.

4.15 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, the discussion on the Third Reading of this Bill has been given greater importance than usually attaches to this stage of a Bill because of the declaration of policy made by the Minister of Reconstruction. I do not concur with the noble Lord, Lord Latham, who thought this was not the occasion for such a declaration. On the contrary, it seems to me that when your Lordships' House is bidding farewell to a Bill which has been criticized chiefly on account of its inadequacy it is right and proper for the Minister in charge to point out that this is only an instalment of a larger policy and to indicate in general terms what is that larger policy. Indeed my noble friend Lord Woolton was under an obligation to make such a statement on this occasion because Lord Balfour of Burleigh withdrew his Motion for a declaratory statement to be put in the Bill on the understanding that such a statement would be made by the Minister.

Unlike my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I welcome the substance of this Ministerial declaration wholeheartedly. It seems to me to be right in all particulars. The functions of the Ministry of Planning and its relations with the Cabinet Committee seem to me quite sound, and I accept them all the more readily because they are precisely what I myself have been advocating for the last four years. Indeed it seemed to me so obvious that this was the correct lay-out for the Government's system in dealing with town and country planning that I have never been able to understand why some of my noble friends like Lord Balfour of Burleigh raised any objection to this particular scheme. On the other hand it seems to me that to make the Minister of Planning at one and the same time the Minister in charge of all the Departmental work required and also the Chairman of the Cabinet Committee which is to deal with the question in all its wider aspects, would really be to establish an orchestra in which one man was to be at one and the same time conductor of the orchestra and the first violin. I am quite sure that little harmony would be obtained under an arrangement of that character. The question is whether this process will be administered by that machinery in the right spirit. Everything depends upon that.

O[...] complaint has been that during these last years there has been a lack of celerity and zest and energy which the conditions most imperatively require. I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh ask that in the very next Session of Parliament we should have not merely a declaration of Government policy but also a Bill to carry into effect Government policy with regard to the location of industry. That to my mind is the most difficult of all the problems. I sincerely trust that the Bill will be such as to be adequate for the function which it is intended to perform. As to compensation and betterment, here again our complaint has been the prolonged delay, and I earnestly trust that when my noble friend Lord Woolton declined to say that a Bill on that subject would be introduced next Session—I can quite understand the reason for his reticence—that was not meant to imply that a Bill would not be introduced next Session. That would give rise to the greatest possible disappointment. As to the point raised by Lord Balfour of Burleigh on the question of national planning, I welcome cordially the declaration of the Minister of Reconstruction as to the value the Government attach to the maintenance in all its fullness of our free system of local self-government. That is indeed of the very essence of our democracy. At the same time, while not interfering with its proper functions and privileges it may well be that there should be extended to it the central influence of a Government giving the general direction of national planning. I use advisedly the word "influence" because none of us would wish the functions of a central Government to expand to anything in the nature of daily control over local planning authorities.

As to this Bill generally, we welcome its provisions as far as they go. Our complaint is that this measure though large in bulk is small in substance in relation to the requirements of the case. But its provisions, such as they are, are undoubtedly useful and, indeed, indispensable. There was a time when if a Bill of this character, dealing with land use, came to the House of Lords there would have been considerable apprehension as to the treatment it might here receive, and a great deal of nervousness as to the outcome. But it is certain that, in this case, the Bill has not been worsened by this House. I agree with Lord Latham that, in many particulars, it has been bettered. Your Lordships have dealt with this Bill with great expedition. By a rearrangement of our business which has caused some little inconvenience, perhaps, and also by a slight extension of hours, we have been able to deal with the matter with the greatest promptitude, and return it to the other House with a minimum of delay.

Before we end this discussion I think some of us would wish to pay a tribute to my noble friend Lord Latham for the help which he has given to the House in these discussions. Speaking, as he does, with great knowledge and experience, on behalf of local authorities in general and of the London County Council in particular, his interventions have been of the greatest assistance to the useful conduct of these debates. Also, we welcome the help given by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the Earl of Radnor and many other private members of the House. But our congratulations must be directed chiefly to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, who has been in charge of the Bill, and who has thrown around it the atmosphere of his benign influence. But a measure of this character, a measure of so highly technical a nature, is undoubtedly one which on all occasions would certainly fall to be carried through a House of Parliament by one of the Law Offices of the Crown, and we are fortunate indeed in having here the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, who, with a clarity and celerity almost unprecedented, has been able to give the House his assistance in guiding it through very many difficulties and complexities. Without that assistance the House would indeed have been lost. And the Lord Chancellor has done this with a zest for these legal technicalities which we must all admire, even if we do not share it.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

My Lords, I rise for only a very few minutes, but I should like to join in the omnibus vote of thanks which has been spoken to by so many members of this House. I should also like to join in congratulating Lord Woolton and others who have piloted this Bill through. As I said on the Second Reading, this Bill is in many ways disappointing to us. But still it is a stage, not a very long stage but nevertheless a definite stage, towards that rebuilding of our cities which we all deem so essential and urgent. I feel that, in this House, the Bill has undoubtedly been improved; not indeed that all the Amendments have been earned which we should like to have seen carried, but the House has dealt with the whole complicated Bill with celerity and in the most practical way. I do not know if I have a peculiarly Cross-Bench mind, but I find myself very much in sympathy both with what Lord Woolton has said, and with what Lord Balfour of Burleigh has said.

I welcome Lord Woolton's statement, and I accept all the ideals which he set forth in his speech. I especially welcome his statement that there must be close co-ordination and co-operation between the central authorities and the local authorities. None of us who are enthusiastic for central planning ignore, for one moment, the vital importance of local planning. The local people have a very special knowledge, and we wish to encourage them in their local pride in rebuilding their cities. But central planning is undoubtedly necessary so as to guide and assist them, and, sometimes, even to stimulate them. I also welcome the statement, with which I am sure all of us agree, that this planning is not merely a scheme. It is for the sake of the people. It is on the lines that we have persons to consider rather than the details of actual schemes. Then I find myself in sympathy with Lord Balfour of Burleigh when he points out that these ideals which have been so eloquently set forth by Lord Woolton will not be carried out unless we have adequate machinery and that machinery docs seem, in some respects, still to be lacking. I am certain that a much stronger co-operating and co-ordinating authority is required. There is a very real danger, the noble Lord said, of haphazard development, and there is the possibility that some of our towns may more and more destroy the Green Belt which is still to be found immediately around them.

I also agree that further legislation is necessary. I understand from Lord Woolton that legislation will be introduced in the near future. I am certain that this legislation ought not to be delayed. After all, these "blitzed" towns have got to set about their work at once—it is not one of those matters in which we can delay. As Lord Balfour of Burleigh has pointed out, there are huge schemes already in existence for rehousing the people who have been "blitzed," and unless it is arranged where these temporary houses are to be placed, and where some of the permanent houses are to be placed, we shall find two or three years hence that the way is blocked for any more comprehensive scheme of planning. Therefore, I hope and believe most sincerely that Lord Woolton—who, I know, has taken a deep personal interest in this Bill and has worked hard to get it into shape—will throw all his energy into securing the machinery which is necessary to carry out the ideals which he expressed so clearly in his speech. With these reservations I welcome this Bill as a step—not a very long step—in the right direction, which will enable local authorities to make a very necessary start.

On Question, Bill read 3^a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.