HL Deb 05 June 1945 vol 136 cc366-72

2.6 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

My Lords, this Bill is formidable, even menacing, in its dimensions and I have given some thought to the best means by which I can bring it to your Lordships' notice. I do not think that I shall be failing in my duty, and I shall certainly conserve your Lordships' time, if I adopt this method. I remind your Lordships that a similar Bill to this for England received the sanction of your Lordships' House in the year 1944. This Bill in the main follows the lay-out of the English Act. It would, in these circumstances I think, be redundant on my part to re-argue the case for the substantive provisions of the measure. They have already received the approval of your Lordships' House. I shall therefore confine myself to the task of summarizing the intent of the Bill and then pointing out the main differences between it and the English Act, which is already on the Statute Book.

The Bill deals in the main with the special problems which are presented by what are termed: (1) "Blitzed" areas— that is, areas of extensive war damage; and (2) blighted areas— that is, areas where, as my predecessor said in another place, "decay, decrepitude and poverty have set their seals." The Bill has three main objects. The first is to enable local planning authorities to acquire, by a simplified and expeditious procedure, land in these areas together with the land needed for the "overspill" of population and industry from these areas. The second is to regulate the compensation payable for land or property which is compulsorily acquired for public purposes within the next five years. The third is to enable local planning authorities to develop their areas either by themselves or by disposing of land which they have acquired to public individuals to develop in accordance with plans laid down by the local authority— in short, to ensure that the land acquired is developed and used to the best possible advantage. Such, as I see them, are the main purposes of the measure.

I now turn to the principal differences between this Bill and the English Act. First, the English Act imposes a general obligation on all local planning authorities to obtain the consent of the Minister to their own development works. This Bill, instead of imposing such a general obligation on local planning authorities, gives the Secretary of State a reserve power to require them to submit to him for decision any particular developments which raise important planning issues. To put it briefly, it imposes the minimum control on local planning authorities in carrying out their work. I have the fullest confidence in the competence of Scottish local authorities to plan their areas on the best possible lines. Secondly, the English Act enables the Minister in appropriate cases to direct the local planning authorities to dispose of land or property acquired under the Act to some particular individual on specified terms and conditions. This power was inserted in the Act as I understand with a view to the protection of minorities. This Scottish Bill, while recognizing that some power of direction may, on special occasion, be necessary, limits the power of the Secretary of State to intervene in cases in which representations have been made to him that the refusal of a local authority to dispose of land to a particular person constitutes unfair discrimination against that person or is otherwise oppressive. Where any such representations are made to him the Secretary of State will usually arrange for a public local inquiry so that he may be fully informed of the facts of the case. He will then decide whether any direction about the disposal of the land should be issued by him.

Another difference between the two measures relates to the method of disposal of the land acquired under the Bill. In both measures the consent of the Planning Ministers is required for the disposal of land. The English Act provides that local planning authorities may not dispose of the freehold of land or lease the land for more than ninety-nine years unless the Minister is satisfied that the circumstances are exceptional. On the whole public opinion in Scotland much prefers the system of feuing land, but this Bill leaves local planning authorities free to decide whether they should sell the land outright or feu it or lease it. There is an exception which I might mention. In the particular case of land disposed of for the erection of a church or other buildings for religious worship an amendment which was made in another place provides that such disposal must always be by way of feu unless the parties otherwise agree. This amendment was designed to ensure that church authorities get reasonable security of tenure to enable them to erect buildings worthy of their purpose. I understand that the amendment is most acceptable to the Scottish Churches.

I hope your Lordships will not think that I am perfunctory in the discharge of my duty if I close on that note and leave the Bill in your hands. As time is so short I sincerely trust that this Bill, which is so necessary to Scotland, will receive a general assent and I invite you now to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Rosebery.)

2.12 p.m.

VISCOUNT MERSEY

My Lords, I should like to say a personal word on this Bill. I feel it would be ungracious if nothing was said from this part of the House to congratulate the noble Earl on his first appearance as a Minister. He has many friends here who appreciate his abilities and wish him well. As your Lordships know, he is the son of a distinguished father, and he has quite recently discharged, with distinction, a most important office in his own country, that of Regional Commissioner for Scotland. Personally I wish him well. The noble Earl has only embarked comparatively recently on active politics. It is some years since he set out flying the Blue Peter; now he comes in on the crest of the Ocean Swell. We are confident that he will apply to his new work the Midas touch.

2.13 p.m.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I propose, with your leave, also to say a personal word. But first of all may I make two comments on the Bill itself? My noble friends desire to facilitate its passage into law as soon as possible. It is not the Bill we would ourselves have drafted for Scotland but it is the best we can get in the circumstances of the late unlamented Coalition. The actual need for town planning and the clearing away of obsolete slums is, I believe the noble Earl, the Secretary of State for Scotland, will agree, more urgent in Scotland even than it is in England. We hear a tremendous lot about the slums of Leeds and London and elsewhere, but I am sorry to say the slums of Glasgow, Edinburgh and other cities in Scotland are even worse, and they have the added disadvantage of being obsolete tenement erections which I think all modem housing experts agree should have been condemned long ago or indeed had better never have been erected at all. I would also say on my own behalf that I particularly welcome the inclusion of Clause 42, which deals with the preservation of ancient buildings in Scotland of special architectural or historic interest. I see that a list of these is to be furnished and this is long overdue. We have in Scotland many wonderful old places of great historic or architectural value, not only to us but to the whole world, and however poor we may be we cannot afford to allow these to fall into decay or neglect. I am also glad to see that steps are to be taken to prevent the vandals from renovating these historic buildings.

Now may I say a word to my noble friend on the personal side? We, on personal grounds, welcome the noble Earl as Secretary of State for Scotland. Those of us who know him are aware of his great public spirit and abilities and while he is here he will have all the assistance we can give him in the task which I understand he has undertaken with great reluctance. In the other place some of my friends objected to the Secretary of State for Scotland sitting in your Lordships' House on the ground that the Scottish members want to have him in person in the other House so that they can cross-examine him across the floor. I am not here to express any opinion about the views of my honourable friends in another place, but as long as we have this Chamber in existence, I hope your Lordships will agree that any Peer is entitled to fill any office under the Crown. If the present Caretaker Government should, unhappily, be replaced by a Government of a like complexion for four or five years, then if the noble Earl sits here as Secretary of State for Scotland I can promise him that if we are in opposition, unhappily, we shall be quite prepared to keep him up to the mark, if that is needed.

2.16 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, before asking the noble Earl some questions about the Bill, I would like to join in what I must call the hopes expressed by Lord Strabolgi that the noble Earl's tenure of his present office will be a long one. I should like also, before embarking upon a discussion of the Bill, to say a word about what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has also said on another matter about the back-lands of Scotland. I had prepared for your Lordships' information a plan of an important Scottish burgh following the ordnance survey of 1870. At that time the development of that burgh was practically entirely in the hands of the proprietor. It shows a very beautifully laid-out burgh with many gardens and other amenities for a very pleasant town. On the same plan I have had pasted the ordnance survey of 1926. I would wish to point out that the year 1870 marks a period when the Scottish burghs began to put into operation the powers they have to control planning, and the ordnance survey of 1926 shows that burgh with all the gardens gone and back-lands similar to those in Glasgow developed. I would like to show your Lordships the plan to-morrow to prove my point that it is not entirely private development which is the father of bad planning.

With respect to the Bill before your Lordships this afternoon, I would ask the noble Earl in charge of it something in regard to subsection (5) of Clause 1 on page 3. There it is stated that any application for land must be accompanied by a map or maps. I am informed that there is a difference between a map and a plan. A plan is anything greater than a 25-inch Ordnance map and a map is anything up to that scale. I believe that is the principle but I think we ought to have included in the Bill, in the definition clause or somewhere else, words to show that the word "map" in this place does include "plan." This is rather important because the question of maps and plans is getting us into a certain amount of difficulty. Owing possibly to the war situation and the lack of skilled labour, local authorities are more and more coming to use maps or plans produced by photography. Unfortunately, not only is this process employed very often to produce a plan on no known scale but the scale of the various parts are very often not the same, so that it is extremely difficult from the rather scanty descriptions given to identify the boundaries of any piece of land that may be applied for. I think this point is deserving of the attention of His Majesty's Government.

With all these Planning Acts I think it is a very great pity that something is not put in to enable local authorities to take more land than they actually require for their immediate purposes in the course of development. Time and again the local authorities apply for small parts of land and they leave over small corners and triangles which are of no possible use for agriculture or for pasturage, and which become practically "no man's land." As most of your Lordships who have spent any portion of your time in planning and development know, such pieces of land become either useless rubbish dumps or nurseries for weeds. So much has been said about the vast improvement in urban development that is going to take place in consequence of the Government taking planning seriously, that I think it would be a pity if in fifty years' time people should turn round and speak of the harm that has been done and point to all the nuisances it has engendered. I know these little bits of waste land are a potential nuisance of a very high order. Finally, I would like to ask the noble Earl whether this Bill will give a local planning authority a machine by which they can force through planning schemes to which there may be serious and quite valid objections. It would be a pity if this Bill set up a machine by which any public discussion and public inquiry should be short-circuited and made quite nugatory by means of arbitrary powers. If the noble Earl can enlighten me on these points I should be very grateful.

2.21 p.m.

EARL OF ROSEBERY

My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords for the nice things they have said about me and particularly to thank my old friend Viscount Mersey for what he said. I can assure them that I shall do my utmost, fortified by these good wishes, to further what I can for Scotland. I quite agree with what the noble Lord opposite said about slums in Glasgow and elsewhere north of the Border, but I would like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who said that this Bill is the best that could be expected from the Government, that the person really responsible for the Bill— although I am in entire agreement with it— is Mr. Tom Johnston, who I think holds the same views as the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, referred to the words "map or maps" in Clause 1 (5) on page 3 of the Bill, and spoke of the necessity of plans. I think, however, if he reads further on he will find that this subsection and subsection (6) completely cover his question. Plans could be put in as well as maps and used if necessary. To his question about corner plots and other waste land, the answer is "Yes, this Bill can deal with them." To his question about the forcing through of planning schemes, the answer is clearly in the negative.

On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the LORD CHANCELLOR.