TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.

HL Deb 01 July 1947 vol 149 cc623-765

2.37 p.m.

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

Clause 21:

Supplementary provisions as to revocation and modification.

21.—(1) Where permission to develop land is revoked or modified by an order made under the last foregoing section, then if, on a claim made to the local planning authority within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act, it is shown that any person interested in the land—

1. (a) has incurred expenditure in carrying out work which is rendered abortive by the revocation or modification, or
624
2. (b) has entered into a contract for any work which is abandoned in consequence thereof,

that authority shall pay to that person compensation equal to the expenditure so incurred or, as the case may be, to any sum reasonably paid by him in discharge of any liability arising under the contract in respect of the abandonment of the work.

(2) For the purposes of this section any expenditure incurred in the preparation of plans for the purposes of any work or upon other similar matters preparatory thereto shall be deemed to be included in the expenditure incurred in carrying out that work, but except as aforesaid no compensation shall be paid under this section in respect of any work carried out before the grant of the permission which is revoked or modified, or in respect of any liability arising under a contract made before the grant of that permission.

(5) Where, by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this section, compensation is payable in respect of expenditure incurred in carrying out any work on land, then if a purchase notice is served under Section eighteen of this Act in respect of any interest in that land, or a claim for compensation is made in respect of any such interest under subsection (1) of Section nineteen of this Act, any compensation payable in respect of that interest under the said Section eighteen or under the said Section nineteen, shall be reduced by an amount equal to the value of the works, in respect of which compensation is payable under this section.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection (1) to leave out all words after paragraph (a) and insert: has otherwise sustained loss or damage which is directly attributable to the revocation or modification, that authority shall pay to that person compensation in respect of that expenditure, loss or damage: Provided that unless either—

1. (a) any sum has been paid under Part VII of this Act by way of development charge in respect of the development to which the permission relates; or
2. (b) no such charge is payable in respect of that development by virtue of any of the provisions of Part VIII of this Act;

no compensation shall be payable under this subsection in respect of loss or damage consisting of the depreciation in value of any interest in the land by virtue of the revocation or modification.

The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment should be read in conjunction with the Government Amendment at page 24, line 27. The object of these Amendments is to remedy certain defects in the provisions of the Bill governing the compensation for the revocation of planning permission. Under Clause 21, as drawn, an owner of land is entitled to compensation for expenditure which s rendered abortive by the revocation, including any sum which he has to pay by way of damages for breach of a contract for work which is abandoned in consequence of the revocation. Except where the permission which is revoked was granted for development of the classes specified in the Third Schedule, the owner is not entitled to compensation for any depreciation in the value of his interest which is attributable to the revocation.

This is consistent with the principle of the Bill, under which owners in general receive no compensation for a refusal of planning permission. If, however, the development charge or any part of the development charge has been paid before the permission is revoked, Clause 70 of the Bill provides for the inclusion of the sums paid by way of development charge in the abortive expenditure for which compensation is payable under Clause 21. In effect, therefore, the intention of the Bill is that where planning permission is revoked the owner should receive compensation for the loss which he sustains by the revocation, except that he is not to receive compensation for depreciation in the value of his land except to the extent that he has paid the development charge.

This being the general intention of the Bill, the provisions by which it is carried out are defective in, several respects. The main defect of Clause 21 (1) is that it enables a landowner to recover compensation only in respect of his own expenditure and not in respect of the expenditure of the person from whom he bought the land. It is also defective in that it excludes compensation for certain damage which plainly ought to be covered. It excludes, for example, damages for breach of a contract for the supply of goods or machinery which has to be abandoned in consequence of the revocation.

Finally, Clause 21 and Clause 70 together make no sufficient provision for those cases where no development charge is payable owing to specific exemptions in Part VIII. The present Amendments accordingly expand Clause 21, making it clear that the owner is entitled to compensation for all loss or damage, which is immediately attributable to the revocation, subject only to this qualification, that he receives no compensation for depreciation in the value of his interest unless either the whole or part of the development charge has been paid, or the development is free from development charge under one or other of the special provisions in Part VIII. In the latter case the owner has in effect paid the charge, either in the form of the purchase price of his land or, in the form of being excluded from a share in the £300,000,000 under Part VI. I think this expansion of the clause in the interest of the owner is a reasonable one, and accordingly I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 and insert the said new words. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

Who had given Notice of an Amendment to insert in the Lord Chancellor's Amendment the words "including any development charge paid by that person under Part VII of this Act," after "loss or damage," immediately before the proviso, said: I think in general we are in agreement with what the noble and learned Viscount has said, but in one of his later Amendments, to which I do not think he referred, that to Clause 70, certain words are to be omitted. Subsection (3) of that clause says: Where planning permission under Part III of this Act to carry out any operations, or to institute or continue any use of land, is revoked or modified as mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, any sums previously paid to the Central Land Board by way of development charge in respect of that use, shall be included in the expenditure which may be taken into account.… Those are the words which are to go, but I think it is only fair that the man should get the development charge back. It was laid down in black and white and I am doubtful whether the present words are wide enough to include what was previously provided. It is for that reason that I am suggesting that we should make it quite clear by putting in, after the words "loss or damage" in line 4 of the Amendment which the Lord Chancellor has moved, the words I have down in my Amendment. We should then make it clear that a man can get back a development charge if he has paid it. There may be an explanation of this, but if we are going to put it in, it should be in the right place. It may at present be in Clause 70. Therefore I beg to move my Amendment to the Lord Chancellor's Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved— In the fourth line at end insert ("including any development charge paid by that person under Part VII of this Act").—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is really unnecessary. Provision for repayment of the development charge is already made. The combined effect of Clauses 21 and 70, as amended, is that the compensation payable under Clause 21 will include a sum which represents, in effect, repayment of development charge. I quite agree that if I get my Amendment to Clause 70, with the amended Clause 21, it will be granted, as a payment in respect of the depreciation in value of the land. The reason is that Clause 21 covers those cases also in which no development charge is payable by reason of specific exemption under Part VIII. Therefore the payment he will get will include the difference in value between the land with a right of development if he paid the charge, and the value of the land without the right of development—it is the difference between the two values. If the noble Lord is dissatisfied he will probably raise the matter again on Clause 70. I think he will see that by reason of the fact that we are giving, under the amended Clause 21, the difference in the value of the land with and without the development right, we do, in fact, in that way secure that he gets the value of the development charge if he paid it, and probably something more.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

This is obviously a matter to be gone into rather carefully. At the moment, I do not very much like the words "depreciation in value of any interest in the land," because that would look prima facie as if you looked to land and not to any other annual or other like charge. I only enter a caveat—I cannot quite follow the argument.

LORD LLEWELLIN

In view of what the Lord Chancellor has said I do not propose to press the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, original Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Next is the other Amendment to which I referred when I moved the first.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 27, leave out from ("of") to ("before") in line 28 and insert ("any other loss or damage (not being loss or damage consisting of the depreciation in value of an interest in land) arising out of anything done or omitted to be done").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 22, leave out ("and where") and insert ("(5) Where").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

This also is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 24, leave out ("granted for development").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

Next is a drafting Amendment consequential on an Amendment which was made in another place on Report stage to Clause 19. The Amendment does not in any way alter the effect of the clause; it simply brings the wording into line with the simplified wording of Clause 19. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 26, leave out from ("apply") to end of line 32 and insert ("as if for references therein to the refusal of the permission or the imposition of conditions on the grant thereof there were substituted references to the revocation of permission or the modification thereof by the imposition of conditions and subsection (1) of that section shall have effect as if for the words 'if the permission had been granted or had been granted unconditionally' there were substituted the words 'if the permission had not been revoked or had not been modified.'").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON moved in subsection (5), after "payable in respect of" to insert "the acquisition of." The noble Lord said: This Amendment should be read in conjunction with the one that follows. In the subsection as drafted, the word "compensation" has a double meaning. The object of these Amendments is to make it clear that the word "compensation" means (a) In the reference to Clause 18, the compensation payable on compulsory acquisition of an interest in land, that is to say the purchase price; and (b) in the reference to Clause 19 the compensation payable in respect of the depreciation in value of an interest. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 40, after ("of") insert ("the acquisition of").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 40, at end insert ("as the case may be, any compensation payable in respect of that interest.")—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert: (7) Any compensation payable under this section in respect of loss or damage consisting of the depreciation in value of an interest in land shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule to this Act; and in calculating the amount of any such depreciation it shall be assumed that permission would be granted under this Part of this Act for development of the land of any class specified in the Third Schedule to this Act.

The noble Viscount said: This is really consequential on the first Amendment I moved to-day. Now that we have agreed that the compensation shall be in respect of the depreciation in value of the interest in land, it is only logical that the compensation should be assessed in the same way as other compensation for depreciation under other Parts of the Bill. The existing use value of the land at present is the floor; that is to say, the owner is compensated only to the extent that he has, by paying a development charge, paid for something over and above the existing use value in revocation, and it is necessary to make this plain, otherwise the clause might be construed as meaning that, if the permission was revoked after £1 had been paid on account of the development charge, he was entitled to substantially the whole of the existing use value plus £1 as compensation for depreciation. Accordingly I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 43, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I wonder if I might ask a question on this? I moved an Amendment yesterday dealing with the compulsory acquisition of land by the local authorities which came under Clauses 20 and 21. Am I right in saying that these Amendments do not affect the arguments which the noble and learned Viscount used last night in regard to my Amendment on Clause 20?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That is so.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

2.53 p.m.

Clause 22:

Enforcement of planning control.

22.—(1) If it appears to the local planning authority that any development of land has been carried out after the appointed day without the grant of permission required in that behalf under this Part of this Act, or that any conditions subject to which such permission was granted in respect of any development have not been complied with, then, subject to any directions given by the Minister, the local planning authority may, if they consider it expedient so to do having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations, serve on the owner and occupier of the land a notice tinder this section.

LORD CARRINGTON moved, in subsection (1), after "may," insert "within two years of such development being carried out," The noble Lord said: I should say at the outset that this Amendment is not designed to help the man who has developed his land without permission, but I do feet that it is unreasonable that the local planning authority should be able to wait an indefinite period before taking any action. I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord De L'Isle and Dudley said last night. In this case the private individual is hamstrung with the controls and regulations and time limits to which he is subjected, and yet the local planning authority can take action at any time they wish. The sort of case we visualize is that of a property which has been sold to another person who is quite unaware of the circumstances, or, again, a property inherited by a relative of the man who built the house—a perfectly innocent man who will still be liable to a penalty. We therefore think that it would be reasonable that two years after the development has taken place should be the time allowed for the local authority to take action. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 5, after ("may") insert ("within two years of such development being carried out").—(Lord Carrington.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I confess that my mind was, and is, rather wondering about this matter. I do not quite know what is the right thing to do. I will put the position quite frankly to the Committee and see what your Lordships think. On the one hand, none of us, I think, wants to help the man who develops without any permission. One case has been brought to my notice where in or behind a belt of trees a man put up a series of buildings without any permission. He added one building to another until there was quite a little settlement there, and it was a rather undesirable one too. That he had done without any planning control, and without any knowledge. I therefore thought when I saw this Amendment: "Would not the best way of dealing with it be to do it in this way, to let the time run"—because I quite see the point of the noble Lord in wanting to have a time limit—"from the time when the local authority discovered the thing, in order to do away with this sort of illicit and secret building." Then I thought about the time factor. I thought that it was a very difficult thing, an extremely difficult thing, to fix the time from which you would then start the period, if you had in mind the rather difficult conception of the time when the local authority discovered and the still more difficult conception perhaps of the time when they ought to have discovered.

However, there is a strong case for having a time limit because, as the noble Lord has said, you may get a purchaser who may be innocent, and he wants to know where he stands. Of course, in practice, whenever you buy a property to-day, you will have to have requisitions on title, as the lawyers say, and you will have to see that every building had its planning permission. I frankly am in a difficulty about this. If I were going to do anything at all on the spur of the moment, I think I should say that I would accept this Amendment with the substitution of "four" for "two." But I am not particularly wedded to that solution, and if your Lordships would like to turn it over in your minds and discuss it with me on the Report stage, I am willing to accept something on those lines, if I am asked to do so.

But I wonder really whether we had better put in this limitation. There is a good argument both ways, and I myself frankly cannot feel very strongly on the matter one way or the other; but if your Lordships desire something on those lines, then I should suggest that we increase the two¹years, which I think is not long enough. If your Lordships would like me now to accept the Amendment of four, I will do so, reserving to myself, if I may, the right to come back to this matter on the Report stage, helped, as I hope I shall be, by any observations which your Lordships may be able to put before me. I am sure we all want to stop the improper planning which goes on under cover and which has not received consent. On the other hand, there is the difficulty that I have indicated. Therefore, if the noble Lord likes to move his Amendment in that form, I would accept it. On the other hand, if he prefers to leave it over to the Report stage, he will find me quite amenable to reason when the time comes.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Did I understand the Lord Chancellor to say that after the passing of this Bill if anyone bought a property he would have to inquire, first of all, as to whether the buildings which were on that property so purchased had in fact received planning permission?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I should assume so.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Then the new owner will take on all the obligations of the owner who has done the illegal dealing?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If you have got a building for which you have got no permission it can be removed. I should imagine, if I were buying a property and I saw a recent building on it, I should ask the question "Did you have authority to put this building up?" because I should not want to find myself served with an enforcement notice and told to pull the building down.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

Might I say a word on this point? Many years ago I used to set requisitions on purchase of property, and I am rather interested to know how it is going to be done here. To ask the vendor whether he got leave might not be a complete answer, because he may have bought from somebody else, and he may himself have neglected to ask the question. Ought there not—perhaps there is, but I have not found it—to be a register somewhere where a solicitor's clerk can go and see, with reference to a piece of property, by reference to a plan, if permission has at any time been given under the present Bill? If something of that sort were done, it is probable that a practice would grow up under which you would make just the same sort of inquiries as you make in many other circumstances on purchases of property, but it would only be for the local authority or the other person concerned to keep the register which the public was entitled to see.

LORD SALTOUN

In connexion with this there is a reflection which I would like, if I may, to try to put into the mind of the noble and learned Viscount. Very probably where the local authority does not discover this breach it is a case that does not matter very much. I know that Scotland does not come into the Bill, but I can imagine a breach by a cottar at the far end of Lewis, for instance, not being discovered for quite a long time. There must be analogous places in England, so I do not think that where a long time elapses before the breach is found out it is likely to be a matter of very great importance.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Perhaps this is rather tangential to the actual purpose of the Amendment, but the statement made by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, just now, to which the noble Earl, Lord Munster, has drawn attention, to the effect that everyone would have to find out whether a building on land which they purchased had planning permission, is one which strikes me as rather astonishing. I think the natural assumption of any purchaser—and most of such people will not be cognizant of all the details of the Bill—will be that planning authorities are sufficiently competent to ensure that there are not buildings where there should not be buildings, and they would accept an assurance from the vendor, even though it may be only a verbal assurance, that the buildings are there as of right. I do not think it can be expected that in future when these purchases take place, a clause will have to be drawn up giving chapter and verse as to planning permission for every building on a property. I think that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will realize that the general respect for the authority of the law is such that we believe that what we see on the land is there by permission, when we know that there should be permission, rather than that we would be likely first of all to assume that there is no permission and require verification of the fact that there is.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

When I recently bought a house I did not inquire whether the sanitary surveyor had passed all the bathrooms and lavatories. I assumed that that had been done. I suggest that it is unlikely that the average member of the public buying a house—and that is a transaction which has to be done pretty quickly nowadays—would actually go into all the questions which the surely exceptional prudence of the noble and learned Viscount would, apparently, lead him to go into.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Of course if you have to put in this requisition on a man who has not any planning permission he is not likely to be a very reliable man and your only remedy is to take action against him. Therefore, I think something ought to be done to make the local planning authority act within a reasonable time. After all, if the new owner, whose circumstances we are now considering, not only loses the properly for which he has paid his money, but has an order enforced on him to pull it down, that means double expense. I think that things of this kind ought not to go on and on and on. I do not know what the noble Lord who moved this Amendment thinks, but I feel that we ought to put in some term. I should have thought that the right thing to do was to put in this period of four years which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has offered, at this present stage, realizing that if the noble and learned Viscount feels that this should be reconsidered he can propose some amending words at the Report stage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That is quite satisfactory to me, if I may reserve my liberty to come back to the matter on the Report stage. I would like at this point if I may, to give an answer to my noble and learned friend, Viscount Maugham. If he will look at Clause 13 (5) on page 16 of the Bill he will see that it is contemplated that regulations may be made requiring a local planning authority to keep such a register as he indicated. I have no doubt that that would be a very convenient step to take and it would be a very simple way of getting round the difficulty which the noble and learned Viscount has mentioned.

LORD CARRINGTON

I shall be very happy to accept the suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I do not particularly mind whether it is two years or four so long as there is some limiting period in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment in its present form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CARRINGTON

I now beg leave to move the Amendment with "four years" substituted for "two years."

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 5, after ("may") insert ("within four years of such development being carried out").—(Lord Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23 agreed to.

3.6 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 23, to insert the following new clause:

"Agreements regulating development or use of land.

.—(1) A local planning authority may, with the approval of the Minister, enter into an agreement with any person interested in land in their area for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land, either permanently or during such period as may be prescribed by the agreement, and any such agreement may contain such incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions of a financial character) as appear to the local planning authority to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the agreement.

(2) An agreement made under this section with any person interested in land may be enforced by the local planning authority against persons deriving title under that person in respect of that land as if the local planning authority were possessed of adjacent land and as if the agreement had been expressed to be made for the benefit of such land.

(3) Nothing in this section or in any agreement made thereunder shall be construed as restricting or requiring the exercise, in relation to land which is the subject of any such agreement of any powers exercisable by any Minister or authority under this Act.

(4) The power of a local planning authority to make agreements under this section may be exercised also—

1. (a) in relation to land in a county district, by the council of that district;
2. (b) in relation to land in the area of a joint planning board, by the council of the county or county borough in which the land is situated,

and references in this section to a local planning authority shall be construed accordingly."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a new clause to provide that when this Bill becomes law local authorities and local planning authorities may enter into agreements with owners of land for restricting or regulating the development or use of land. It is the counterpart of Section 34 of the 1932 Act. As your Lordships will remember, those agreements, the past agreements, will continue, and they are dealt with in a later part of the Bill. This new clause is to enable new agreements to be made. A very large number of such agreements have been made under Section 34 of the 1932 Act by landowners and local authorities. They are agreements which deal with many various sorts of things—for instance, with waiver of claims for compensation for injurious affection in respect of certain lands on condition that no claims were made by the authorities for betterment in respect of development of other land; for gifts of land in consideration of permission to develop other land; for permitting public right of access to private lands in consideration of permission to develop other land; for granting permission to develop or redevelop land on condition that the value of the works was discounted in computing the consideration on a subsequent purchase of the property by the authority. They are all voluntary agreements and they have proved useful. Accordingly I am proposing to continue this principle of voluntary agreements.

Subsection (1) gives the general power to enter into agreements, subject to the approval of the Minister, and prescribes what may be their general structure, on exactly the same lines as Section 34 of the 1932 Act as amended by the 1943 Act. Subsection (2) provides the means of enforcing the agreements and binding successive owners. Subsection (3) makes it clear that an agreement made under this clause cannot permanently override the planning powers of the Bill. If, through change of circumstances or otherwise, action has to be taken under the Bill to secure certain other planning objects the local planning authority will be able to do so. Subsection (4) enables district councils to enter into these agreements and also county councils and county borough councils in areas in which a joint planning board has been set up. The Amendment to paragraph 10 of the Tenth Schedule sets out the machinery proposed for maintaining, modifying or revoking existing arrangements. It is presumed that discussions on that aspect will not take place until that Schedule is reached. The point of this clause is to enable new agreements to be made after the appointed day on the analogy of the existing agreements under Section 34 of the 1932 Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 23 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT GAGE moved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting at the end of subsection (3): Provided that the powers are exercised in conformity with the development plan of the area or in conformity with any directions which may have been given by the Minister under Section thirty-five of this Act.

The noble Viscount said: On the understanding that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, is prepared to accept this Amendment, I will add nothing more. I beg to move.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved— At the end of subsection (3) insert the said proviso—(Viscount Gage.)

On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think it is wise to insert this provision in the Bill. It will be beneficial in many instances under the 1932 Act. I am glad to think that on second thoughts the Minister is prepared to have these agreements entered into and when we come to the Tenth Schedule to make some fresh insertion so that some of the existing ones might be continued. I welcome this proposal.

On Question, original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 agreed to.

3.12 p.m.

Clause 25.

Provisions supplementary to s. 24.

25.—(1) Where an order is made under the last foregoing section requiring any use of land to be discontinued, or imposing conditions on the continuance thereof, or requiring any buildings or works on land to be altered or removed, then if, on a claim made to the local planning authority within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act, it is shown that any person has suffered damage in consequence of the order by the depreciation of any interest in the land to which he is entitled or by being disturbed in his enjoyment of the land, that authority shall pay to that person compensation in respect of that damage; and any compensation payable under this subsection in respect of the depreciation in the value of an interest in the land shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule to this Act.

(2) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, any person who carries out any works in compliance with an order under the last foregoing section shall be entitled, on a claim made as aforesaid, to recover from the local planning authority compensation in respect of any expenses reasonably incurred by him in that behalf.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved, in subsection (1) at the end to insert: And in addition to such compensation that authority shall secure the provision for any persons displaced from such accommodation of suitable accommodation before the date on which the order takes effect.

The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will have noticed the pertinacity with which Scottish Peers press the claims of their own country, and I think it is only fitting that an Englishman should, every now and then, put in a word for England. You will notice that this Amendment seeks to put into the Bill words which have ben put into the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill in a Standing Committee in another place, and I feel certain the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, having that excellent precedent to follow, will quickly accede to this very modest request for England. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 46, at end insert the said new words.—(The Lord De L'Isie and Dudley.)

LORD HENDERSON

I regret that I am unable to make the concession to the noble Lord who speaks on behalf of England. It may be true that this concession has crept into the Bill for Scotland, but we are dealing with the Bill for England and unless I am asked to argue the merits of the Amendment, which I am quite prepared to do, I will simply say I regret I am unable to accept it.

LORD LLEWELLIN

We cannot just leave it there, because, as I understand proceedings in another place, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland urged that a Division should be taken on this matter, and it was inserted in the Scottish Bill. It may be a right or a wrong provision; nobody yet has argued that in this House; but it certainly would be wrong to leave it in the Scottish Bill if it is not put in the English Bill. When the Bill comes here, or perhaps to another stage in another place, it may be sought to defeat what was done really at the request of the Under-Secretary; but if that is the intention, I think we should know it now, because otherwise it seems to me important that we should have these two Bills in line. If people in Scotland who are turned out are given in this way a preferential treatment it should also be given to English people who may similarly be turned out. What are the intentions of the Government on this matter? Will they give us the assurance that these two Bills will be in conformity? One simple way of putting them in conformity is to accept here and now the Amendment. Other ways are suggested by the Government, but we cannot leave it in this way.

LORD SALTOUN

Noble Lords opposite will realize how often they have dug in their heels on this question of tied houses. I believe one of the greatest reasons for that is their natural sympathy, which I fully share, with a man who loses his home and has nowhere to go. We avoid that difficulty in Scotland because everyone in a tied house leaves at the same time, and there are always houses. But noble Lords opposite feel very strongly, and I feel just as strongly, that it would be a bad precedent for the Government not to put this in here, when the sympathies of their own supporters are so very much aroused by this question.

LORD HENDERSON

The simple answer is that this Bill will obviously be made to correspond with the other Bill on this particular point, but whether it will be done in the way the noble Lord suggests or in the way in which I think it is most likely to be done, I am not able to decide at this moment. But there will be other opportunities for examination on Report stage, and perhaps if the noble Lord will keep this matter in mind he will raise it on that occasion.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY

On that assurance, I will certainly withdraw the Amendment without prejudice to any further discussion that may take place. I will not commit myself to withdrawing it in principle.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HENDERSON

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

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 2, after ("section") insert ("and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 of the Fourth Schedule to this Act").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

3.18 p.m.

Clause 26:

Orders for preservation of trees and woodlands.

26.—(1) If it appears to a local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands in their area, they may for that purpose make an order (in this Act referred to as a "tree preservation order") with respect to such trees, groups of trees or woodlands as may be specified in the order; and, in particular, provision may be made by any such order—

• (a) for prohibiting (subject to any exemptions for which provision may be made by the order) the cutting down, topping, lopping or wilful destruction of trees except with the consent of the local planning authority, and for enabling that authority to give their consent subject to conditions;
• (d) for the payment by the local planning authority, in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, of compensation in respect of damage or expenditure caused or incurred in consequence of the refusal of any consent required under the order, or of the grant of any such consent subject to conditions.

(4) If any person contravenes the provisions of a tree preservation order, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds; and if the contravention is continued after the conviction, he shall be guilty of a further offence and liable on summary conviction to an additional fine not exceeding forty shillings for every day on which the contravention is continued.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Clause 26 deals with forestry. I do not propose to move the first Amendment in my name—to insert in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) the words "the requirements of the rules and practice of good forestry and to"—as it is quite obvious that if certain individual trees require preservation you will not preserve them in accordance with the rules and practice of good forestry. You will want to preserve them in their existing state as far as possible. But I do move the next Amendment, which is to insert in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "destruction", the words "otherwise than for the purpose of maintaining or increasing the production of food." This Amendment deals with the possible and very probable problem of the preservation of a line of trees along a road which overhang agricultural fields, and which, if scheduled for preservation, cannot be lopped under the terms of the preservation order. As they grow and overhang the field more and more, they decrease agricultural production. There may be other instances which will occur to your Lordships, but I think it is only right to this extent to preserve agricultural production as against the dictation of a tree preservation order. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 14, after ("destruction") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Radnor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am afraid this Amendment is too wide and I am sure the noble Lord will realize it if he considers the words, "otherwise than for the purpose of maintaining or increasing the production of food." Of course, every tree, to a certain extent, does diminish the production of food. Its roots stretch out over the surrounding ground, and its boughs shade the surrounding ground. Anybody would be able to say that if the tree was not there he would be able to grow a few potatoes where there is now the trunk of a tree. On the other hand, that matter obviously ought to be considered in the making of the preservation order. Supposing there is some historic tree which has been painted by Constable or Crome which it is desired to preserve. It would be intolerable to Say that we must not make a preservation order about that tree.

Obviously if I cut a tree down, I could grow potatoes in its place. On the other hand, you may have a lot of trees which do interfere with the surrounding areas so much that they do substantially impede the growing of food. I think this matter ought to be considered at an earlier stage, when the question of the preservation order is dealt with. That is the time to deal with the matter, having regard to the rival interest, and the vitally important interest, of food production. I can give the noble Earl an assurance that the Minister is alive to the fact, and realizes that tree preservation ought not to be entered into without due regard to the conflicting interest of food production. I cannot accept the Amendment in this form, but I can give the noble Earl that assurance.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, and, in the circumstances, I do not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1) (d), to leave out "in such cases and." The noble Earl said: The next two Amendments really go together, being consequential one on the other, and they take the place of the original Amendment which I tabled. Clause 26 (1) (d) deals with the payment by local planning authorities of compensation in respect of damage or expenditure caused or incurred in consequence of the refusal of any consent required under the order. My Amendments, substantially, are designed to reverse the procedure. As your Lordships see, as drafted paragraph (d) says: for the payment by the local planning authority, in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order.… That is to say, that you will be paid for what is actually specified in the order. The two Amendments which I am putting forward suggest that the compensation should be paid except in those cases which are actually specified in the order. They simply reverse the procedure. They are simple Amendments, and I hope they will be accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 29, leave out from ("authority") to ("subject") in line 30.—(The Earl of Radnor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As the noble Earl said, this Amendment and the next go together, and I am happy to accept them both.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I beg to move the next Amendment which, as I have said, is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 30, after ("such") insert ("exceptions and").—(The Earl of Radnor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, after subsection (1), to insert: (2) A tree preservation order shall not be made in relation to any land in respect of which a Forestry Dedication. Covenant is in force under the Forestry Act, 1947, or in respect of which advances have been made by the Forestry Commissioners under the Forestry Acts, 1919 to 1947.

The noble Earl said: This deals with a problem which is of very considerable interest to woodland owners. As the Bill stands at present any woodland, as well as trees, may be the subject of an order, and subject to regulations by the planning authority. Under the Forestry Act there is a scheme for the dedication of woodland, whereby the woodland owner dedicates his woodland for the growing of trees; he has to conform to an agreed working plan and, in fact, by agreement with the Forestry Commission, he has to do what the Forestry Commission require. If, at the same time, he has imposed upon him an order by the local planning authority, he may find himself getting contradictory orders from the Forestry Commission, on one side, and from the local planning authority, on the other.

I will give your Lordships a particular instance where this might have occurred had this Bill in its original form been in operation. It happened quite recently. Not far from me there is a very considerable area of woodland, on an estate which was sold. The woodland was purchased—I think there were 2,000 or 3,000 acres—by a man whose obvious intention it was to fell the trees, and subse- quently to sell the land cleared of trees. There was a considerable outcry locally—the woods were considered to be beautiful—and it was such an outcry that undoubtedly a planning authority, had they had the power, might well have taken the necessary steps to preserve those woodlands. In this case the Forestry Commission took the trouble to send an official to look at the woodland, and his report was that from the forestry point of view there could be no objection to the felling of the trees. Although they were beautiful, the trees were mature, and it would be better from the national point of view that they should be felled and replanted. That might easily happen in the case of dedicated woodland, unless you have this Amendment which, as your Lordships see, exempts from a tree preservation order any land in respect of which a forestry dedication covenant is in force, or in respect of which advances have been made by the Forestry Commissioners under the Forestry Acts, 1919 to 1947.

That second provision is meant to cover those cases where, for one reason or another, it may be that the land is not necessarily dedicated, but a grant for replanting or maintenance may have been made. In fact, it covers all commercially run woodlands. Originally I wanted to include all land that was suitable for dedication in case, through some delay in administration, orders should be placed upon land which, although not yet dedicated, or not yet having received a grant, was suitable for that purpose and was a commercially run woodland. However, those cases would be hypothetical, and I withdrew that from the Amendment. I now put it before your Lordships in its present form. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Radnor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am happy to accept this Amendment, and I am grateful to the noble Earl for moving it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (3), to insert: (4) Without prejudice to any other exemption for which provision may be made by a tree preservation order, no such order shall apply to the cutting down, topping or lopping of trees which are dying or dead or have become dangerous or the cutting down, topping or lopping of any trees in compliance with any obligation imposed by or under any Act of Parliament or so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance.

The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I propose here is to insert the words as they are printed on the Paper. The point I have in mind is that there is more than one authority in certain cases. The highway authority might give you an order to lop a tree, and the local planning authority might give you an order to preserve the tree. You then have two orders which might conflict if something like my Amendment is not carried. Which order do you obey? You may be summoned before a local police court for not lopping the tree, in accordance with the request of the highway authority; and if you do lop the tree you may then be summoned for lopping a tree which was subject to a preservation order. I think that normally in the tree preservation orders there are some such words as I have in my Amendment, which will mean that a person can cut down, top, or lop trees which are dying or dead. After all, there is no great object in preserving those trees to beautify the countryside.

My Amendment proposes that one may top or lop any trees "in compliance with any obligation imposed by or under any Act of Parliament"—which is the thing which I have been dealing with, and then there come the words "or so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance." It is very important that the owner should be allowed to lop additional branches of trees because, if he preserves them in accordance with a tree preservation order and they fall on somebody's head, he will be liable. With those few words, I beg to move the Amendment which I think will remove owners from the dilemma I have outlined. After all, the words will be normal in tree preservation orders, but I think they should be actually in the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 16, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sorry that any of His Majesty's lieges should be in this unfortunate dilemma, for, whichever way they do it, they are bound to be wrong. Therefore I have pleasure in accepting this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (4), after "if," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "in the case of a continuing offence." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is to meet the difficulty to which Lord. Llewellin called attention, if I remember aright, on the Second Reading, of the contravention continuing after the conviction and the difficulty that a man might be "guilty of a further offence and liable to a fine not exceeding 40s. for every day on which the contravention is so continued." The noble Lord gave an illustration of a man cutting down a tree; no power on earth can put that tree back again once it is down, and it might be said that he was liable therefore to a fine of 40s. for every day on which the tree was not there. That would be most unfortunate and that is not what I intend at all.

If, after the word "if" in line 20 on page 33, we put the words "in the case of a continuing offence" so that it makes it quite plain that the additional penalty is only exigible in the case of a continuing offence, it will be all right. It has been decided in the Courts, and it has never been doubted. In a case decided a long time ago a man built a party wall. The regulations required a party wall to be nine inches thick, but he built his party wall only four and a half inches thick. There was a nice little house with this peccant party wall, and somebody was bold enough to say that that was a continuing offence and, having been fined once, he would be fined every day. The Court did not support that view. If we have those words "in the case of a continuing offence," it will not hit cases of that nature. I accordingly beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 20, after ("if") insert ("in the case of a continuing offence").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

This Amendment does meet the point to which I referred and indeed on which I put down an Amendment. I had in mind, and I think I am right, the fact that in the Bill as drafted, if an unfortunate man had cut down a tree in contravention of a tree preservation order, he could not only be fined once a sum not exceeding £50 but he could go on being fined 40s. for every day for the rest of his life. I worked it out that if he lived to be 80 and he had committed the offence at the age of 30, it would cost him some £36,000. I quite see that you need some provision in the case of a man who is allowed to cut his tree on condition that he should replant and, although I am not quite certain that we have dealt with it rightly in the Amendment which the Lord Chancellor has proposed, I think it is a good step in that direction. Tree planting cannot be done every day of the year, and I think that for the tree replanting offence you really ought not to have "every day" but "any season" when he misses the replanting. This really is the way to deal with the replanting.

If he misses his autumn planting, it is no good planting trees in the summer at all, and I think it would be much more appropriate to have a special provision. If it is replanting, if he misses a season, he should be fined more than the 40s., up to £50. If we may look at that point up to the Report stage, I think we do not want this replanting of trees to be treated as a daily offence. We want an offence to be committed if a man misses a planting season. Subject to that, while we should like an opportunity before the Report stage of getting something more to deal with the actual facts, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for meeting my point as far as he has.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

3.36 p.m.

Clause 27:

Orders for preservation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.

(3) A building preservation order shall not take effect until it is confirmed by the Minister and the Minister may confirm any such order either without modification or subject to such modifications as he considers expedient.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved to insert in subsection (3): Provided that no such order shall be made by the local planning authority, or confirmed by the Minister, unless he or they is or are satisfied that the execution of the works specified in the order would seriously affect the character of the building.

The noble Lord said: I have put down an Amendment to this clause—in fact I have put down two Amendments to this clause—but the one I am moving now represents second thoughts on what I consider to be good advice. I am seeking to confine the preservation order to works which would seriously affect the character of the building which is the subject of the proposed order. I think that this brings this Bill into line with previous enactments. Where a building which it is proposed to cover by this order is a dwelling which is inhabited, if the order is made too comprehensive and too detailed it is going to make it extremely difficult for the owner or occupier to modify that building in order to make it habitable.

Speaking from personal experience in these matters, I think the best way of preserving a building is to live in it and if it is not convenient according to modern ideas and modern possibilities, the only thing is to adapt it. After all, our buildings have been going through a process of adaptation for the last five or six hundred years. It would be throwing an undue burden upon people trying to live in old houses—I think they need encouragement—if the power given to the local authority to make the order were so extensive that they could make the owner or occupier go to them for permission for such necessary things as putting in new bathrooms or altering the kitchen accommodation. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment which I think meets the requirements both of building preservation and of living in modern conditions. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 24, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord admits that he has had second thoughts about this matter. I think they were rather good second thoughts and I have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved, after subsection (6), to insert: (7) A building preservation order shall be registered in the register of local land charges in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made for the purposes of this section under subsection (6) of Section fifteen of the Land Charges Act, 1925, by the proper officer of the council of the county borough or county district.

The noble Lord said: It seems to me that a building preservation order is a proper order to have registered in the register of local land charges and, if I am rightly informed, this is not at present the case. If it is not the case, I would like it inserted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 21, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I agree with the noble Lord that it ought to be inserted, but the Amendment is unnecessary, because it is already provided for. The position is as follows. By Section 15 of the Land Charges Act, 1925, as amended by the Schedule to the Law of Property (Amendment) Act, 1926, the relevant provision is as follows: Any charge … acquired either before or after the commencement of this Act by the council of any administrative county … shall be registered in the prescribed manner … Then subsection (7) reads as follows: the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply to … any prohibition of or restriction on the user or mode of user of land or buildings.… Therefore, it is plainly covered, and the noble Lord's Amendment is unnecessary.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

3.42 p.m.

Clause 28:

Lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.

28.—(1) With a view to the guidance of local planning authorities in the performance of their functions under this Act in relation to buildings of special architectural or historic interest, the Minister may compile lists of such buildings, or approve, either with or without modifications, such lists compiled by other persons or bodies of persons, and may amend any list so compiled or approved.

(5) Before compiling or approving, either with or without modifications, any list under this section, or amending any list thereunder the Minister shall consult with such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him appropriate as having special knowledge of or interest in buildings of architectural and historic interest.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "may" and insert "shall." The noble Marquess said: I owe an apology to the Committee for tabling this Amendment in manuscript form. The purpose of this Amendment is very simple. Under Clause 27 (1), which your Lordships have just considered, the task of making a preservation order with regard to buildings of historic and architectural interest is left to the local planning authority. It is at least doubtful whether the local planning authority are quite the right people to perform this particular function. No doubt they are admirable from the ordinary planning point of view. They may be expected to be skilful and devoted in their work, but the preservation of buildings of historic and architectural interest needs a specialized knowledge which I should should have thought could not be always in the possession of a local planning authority. So far as I see it, the danger is not that they will include too much, because after all they could not include too much; the danger is that they will include too little, and leave out of their list buildings which experts would include. It may be that it would be important to preserve those buildings from the point of view of our national heritage.

If I might give an example—I am speaking from memory, but I think I am fairly accurate—some years before the war there was a proposal to demolish an ancient hospital in Croydon because the road needed widening. Your Lordships will remember that there was considerable agitation in the Press and elsewhere, and eventually the proposal was stayed. That is exactly the sort of thing which might be done by a not too æsthetically minded local authority. But if a duty were imposed upon the Minister in Clause 28 to prepare lists in all areas of buildings which are worthy of preservation, he would be able to check up on the lists which were sent in, and make certain that nothing notable was left out. If he wished to call into consulation his colleague, the Minister of Works, they could have at their disposal panels of all the architects, antiquarians and experts in the country. Under the Bill in its present form, the Minister may in fact prepare such lists, but there is no obligation upon him to do so. I suggest that he should have a statutory duty. That is what I propose in the very simple words of this Amendment, which I believe will be useful. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 43, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I, too, think that this Amenment may be useful, and I am happy to accept it.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

An Amendment would also be necessary to alter the word "may" to "shall" in line 45. If the Minister is compelled to compile the list he ought to be compelled to amend it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That would compel him to amend a list sent in by a local authority, and he may think it an admirable list.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HYLTON moved, in subsection (5), at the end to insert: and shall advertise in the London Gazette and in at least one local newspaper circulating in the district in which any of the buildings proposed to be included in the list are situated and afford to the owner or occupier of any building which it is proposed to include in the list, and the owner or occupier considers ought to be included in the list, an opportunity of making representations with respect to the proposed list, and shall duly consider the same.

The noble Lord said: As your Lordships know, the Minister of Town and Country Planning has already started in many parts of the country to make the lists to which the noble Marquess has just referred. In this respect I should like to quote the example of the City of Bath. Here the Minister has made a most comprehensive list, and it is with regard to the making of these lists that I put down this Amendment. I think your Lordships will agree that it is important that during the compiling of the lists, not only should the Minister consult with persons and bodies with special knowledge as set out in subsection (5), but he should also consult either the owner or occupiers or both. The importance of this suggestion is that the question of user must come into consideration or preservation.

What has happened in the past is that lists have been made irrespective of the future user of the buildings, and therefore it has been found that when the owners and occupiers of buildings which have been so listed have been informed, they have objected very strongly, because the building cannot be used owing to its age, or for some other reason under the preservation order. Therefore, I would suggest to your Lordships that the owners and occupiers ought to be consulted when the lists are being compiled. Such a provision would prevent a great deal of consultation, very often of an acrimonious nature, which takes place when these lists are finally printed. The first part of my Amendment deals with the publicity which should be given to such lists when they are being made. I think your Lordships will agree that it is important that these lists should not be made in secrecy and be unknown to the people most concerned. It is with that object that I have put down the Amendment, so that there shall be consultation during the period in which the lists are being compiled and not only at a later stage. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 26, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Hylton.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment, because it seems to me that it would lead to very unnecessary delay. I do not quite see the point of it. Do your Lordships realize what is the effect of being on the list? If you look at page 36 of the Bill, subsection (6) of this clause, you will see that the effect is simply that if your building is on the list you may not execute works, or the demolition of the building, or its alteration or extension in any way which would seriously affect its character, unless you give two months' notice. That is a proviso which your Lordships may think necessary in order to preserve health or safety. Before you pull a building down or alter it in any way which seriously affects its character, you must give two months' notice. That being so, it seems to me that it would be really quite impracticable to publish a list of buildings. I have heard the list of buildings put as low as 100,000—that is the lowest I have ever heard—and I have heard it put higher than 200,000. Somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 will presumably be the number of buildings. To advertise all these things and get people protesting at that stage I think would be quite wrong. There would be a possibility of an infinite number of objections and of hearings.

Of course the owner-occupier receives a notice. Any owner-occupier is at liberty to make representations at any time that a building should be listed, and the Minister is under obligation to consult appropriate persons or bodies before compiling, approving, or amending any such order. I am doubtful whether we could do any good by having this very elaborate provision for advertising and the like. I think it would cause great delay and much expense, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I gather that under subsection (4) the Minister should serve a notice on the owner-occupier of a building. Where does it provide that the owner shall have a chance of making any representation to the Minister? That is the point I would like to know, and it is the point included in my noble friend's Amendment. I quite see that notice to the owner is perhaps covered by subsection (4), but I think he should have some opportunity of making representations.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

His opportunity comes when it is sought to make a preservation order, does it not? The object of the clause is to serve a preservation order, if the building is going to be pulled down, or something of that sort.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

The important part of the Amendment is that those who are on the list and those who think they ought to be on the list should have an opportunity of being heard. The noble and learned Viscount said that anybody could make an application to get on the list, but I do not know where that is provided for in the Bill. I do not think it says anywhere that such a person can make representations.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is implicit in subsection (5). The Minister has to consult appropriate bodies of people, and if the owner either consults the Minister in the first instance or consults the body of people, his case comes before the notice of the Minister.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I dare say it will work out all right.

LORD HYLTON

I am sorry the Government are not able to accept any part of this Amendment. It provides a means of consultation before these matters go to a great length, and that has been found to be a great advantage in the past. The Minister will require the good will of the local and planning authorities and the owner-occupiers if he is to be successful in carrying out the preservation of these buildings. I thought we had provided some oil to facilitate the working of the machinery proposed in this Bill, but if the Government prefer to carry out this process without the good will of many of the owner-occupiers, I think it is to be regretted. However, in view of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29:

Control of advertisements.

29.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, provision shall be made by regulations under this Act for restricting or regulating the display of advertisements so far as appears to the Minister to be expedient in the interests of amenity or public safety, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, any such regulations may provide—

LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "any such regulations" and insert: such regulations shall prohibit the display in any rural area of all advertisements except advertisements of such classes (if any) as may be specified in the regulations and

The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the control of advertisements, and the Amendment refers to those in rural areas. All those who are interested in the preservation of the amenities of our rural districts feel strongly on this matter. I have been supplied with a memorandum setting forward the views of some of them at considerable length. I do not propose to deal with those points in detail. These people particularly want to see that the prohibition of unsightly outdoor advertising in rural areas is made mandatory in the Bill itself. It is feared that regulations drafted by the Minister, even if they were sufficiently strong and comprehensive so far as such prohibition is concerned, would be subject to modification at some future date by a Minister who is less concerned with the preservation of rural amenities. Therefore I suggest that there is no valid reason for leaving any loophole in the Bill in this respect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 29, leave out ("any such regulations") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Addington.)

LORD HENDERSON

The effect of this Amendment is merely to make obligatory upon the Minister the exercise of powers he already possesses. If it were accepted, the only result would be that the Minister would have to prohibit some advertisements in rural areas, but he would be obliged to prohibit only a minimum, since he could exempt as many classes as he liked. The Amendment is really unnecessary, since Clause 29 (3) expressly provides for making rural areas into "areas of special control"; and the intention is that the regulations will prohibit substantially all commercial advertising in rural areas. Exceptions will, of course, have to be made to cover minor advertisements essential to the life of the community—for instance, statutory notices, announcements of local events, and so on. The Minister has made it clear, for example in his Second Reading speech in another place, that one of the most important features of the control would be the almost complete prohibition of outdoor advertising in certain specified areas … most rural areas will probably be protected in this way. In view of that, I think the noble Lord will not wish to press his Amendment.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

Following on what the noble Lord said in regard to Clause 29 (3), under which different regulations can be made for rural areas, I would like to ask what would be the definition of a "rural area." Under the present law there is provision whereby a county council can enforce certain prohibitions on advertisements in urban and rural district council areas. I hope the definition will be such as to cover all cases, whether or not it is in the administrative area of an urban or a rural district council.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

This problem of advertisements in rural areas is not quite so easy as it seems on the surface. It is quite true that none of us likes to see large hoardings standing in the fields, either alongside the railway or alongside the roads; but in the life of a rural community—and I know this is so in villages in my own part of the world—there is a great need for certain adver- tisements to be stuck up in the village. There are blank walls in every village upon which there are regularly stuck up advertisements in regard to local sales, local entertainments and local cinemas, and they are very necessary to the people who live in those villages. Many of them are extremely offensive to the eye; nevertheless, they are very necessary. A wall covered with advertisements is not a beautiful thing, but it does perform a useful service to a community which probably do not buy a local paper, and which do not have in their daily papers the advertisements which help them in their ordinary daily lives. I hope, therefore, that advertisements in rural areas will, generally speaking, be treated with some caution when it comes to a matter of regulations.

LORD HENDERSON

I think I dealt with that particular point in my earlier remarks, and I said that exceptions will, of course, have to be made as regards advertisements relating to community life. On the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, I do not think that the question of defining a rural area arises in this connexion, because subsection (3) of the clause points out that regulations may make provisions with respect to different areas and, in particular, may make special provision with respect to areas defined for the purposes of the regulations as areas of special control; and rural areas will be brought into areas of special control. I do not think it requires a definition as to what a rural area is.

LORD ADDINGTON

In view of what has been said, I withdraw the Amendment, but I hope there will not be any modifications of the regulations affecting the control of advertisements in rural areas, and that that will be maintained in any Amendment that is made.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.4 p.m.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, at the end of the clause to insert: (6) This section shall apply to the undertakings vested in any statutory Board, Commission or other authority. The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment I think is quite plain. A good many doubts have been raised by my noble friend recently on the degree of independence of the various Commis- sions, Boards and so forth that are being set up under the Government's nationalization policy; and if they are directly under the Minister it might be argued, in technical language, that they were under the jurisdiction of a local planning authority. I think they ought to be, because it will surely be a bad precedent if a local authority took firm action against private traders in order to preserve the amenities of a particular area, and then the whole effect was spoilt by posters of the Coal Board or the Transport Commission, or even by those bodies allowing commercial advertisements to be exhibited on their premises.

I would like to submit to your Lordships that, instructive though many of the Government posters may be, they do not always enhance the amenities. In fact, they may be just as bad for the amenities as advertisements for Pears' soap. Your Lordships will perhaps remember the Road Safety poster of the tragic widow which, I think, showed a lady dressed in the deepest black with a horrifying expression of woe upon her face. That poster came in for a, good deal of criticism, but I believe it was finally withdrawn because so many people wrote underneath it: "I voted Labour last time." I am not seeking to control the nature of advertisements from Government Departments. All I am saying is that although some advertisements may be better designed than others, all of them look out of place in some settings, and I am asking that they should be treated on the same lines, whoever displays them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Gage.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think it is highly important to ensure that these large bodies come within this advertisement control. A new techique, if I may call it such, has arisen in respect of, for instance, the Coal Board, where the Minister is responsible and will answer any general decisions of policy, but where questions of any detail are raised, such as a question about houses which they are buying for their staff, and things like that, the Minister says that that matter is within the functions of the Board, and declines to answer. So, of course, would any advertisements that they put up be within the functions of the Board. You would not expect the Minister to deal with, and be responsible for, the advertisements of the Coal Board. Therefore, as these bodies are deciding matters of that sort, outside Parliamentary criticism, they cannot be put it the same position as the Crown may be—and the Crown itself may often be an offender. This weary widow, for whatever cause she was weary, was certainly a Ministry of Transport poster. However, you can at any rate ask the Minister about those posters, but it is all-important that where there is not this Parliamentary control these bodies should be just as much controlled in what they do in regard to planning as are the other citizens of this country. I very much hope that the Government will either accept this Amendment, or will point to any places in the present Bill where these bodies quite clearly come within its ambit.

LORD HENDERSON

: The provisions of the Bill apply to any display of advertisements and make the owner of the site liable if the regulations are contravened. This applies even if the advertisement relates to activities of the Crown. For instance, an R.A.F. poster displayed on a hoarding or a gable belonging to a private person would be a contravention of the regulation. As regards advertisements by new corporations, such as the Coal Board or the Transport Commission, their advertisements would be treated in exactly the same way as the advertisements of any private person. There is only one exception, and that is advertisements by the Crown displayed on Crown land, and control there would be exercised by administrative action through the various Departments. The control also applies, although it excepts advertisements on Crown land, to advertisements on Crown land that is leased to some person. So I think you will see that the regulation applies over-all, excepting in the one respect of advertisements on Crown property.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Perhaps this would not be the appropriate moment to raise the matter, but I am sure the noble Lord opposite agrees it is essential that there should be some machinery to co-ordinate the work of the Government Departments in this and other respects. Clearly the interests, say, of the Air Ministry might be different from those of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. In dealing with Crown land, which we have to discuss later, you will be outside the purview of this Bill. If that is so, it makes it all the more important that within the Government there should be some machinery to enable the views of the Minister of Town and Country Planning to be at least considered, and, if possible, prevail in matters of this character.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There is such machinery. I quite agree that the machinery must be made more effective and strengthened in view of the passing of this Bill.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I just wish to ask this. There is no possibility is there that any railway stations or other places of that kind that may be acquired by the Traffic Commissioners can be considered Crown lands?

LORD HENDERSON

No.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I thank the noble Lord for his answer and, in view of that last reply which he made to Lord Llewellin, I think that the immediate purposes which I wanted to achieve in this Amendment are covered. I understand that the term "Crown land" will not embrace land owned by these Commissions, Boards and various other bodies.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Or leased?

VISCOUNT GAGE

That being so, I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment, and I beg leave to do so.

LORD RANKIELLOUR

Before this Amendment is withdrawn, I should like to ask if the expression "Crown land," covers the very large areas of land, the areas of surface land, now taken over by the Coal Board?

LORD HENDERSON

No; I tried to make that clear. Crown land that is leased comes under the operations of the regulations and it is treated in exactly the same way as any other land.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

As I understand it, property now vested in the Coal Board was acquired by the Crown. I do not know if there is any lease by the Coal Board. The same I take it will apply in the case of the railway stations and other railway property. They will be acquired by the Crown.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Coal Board are not the Crown nor are the Traffic Commission, and their land is not Crown land.

LORD REA

May I ask whether lands used by the Services for training purposes are Crown lands, in the sense that disfiguring notices can be placed thereon and there is no way of restricting them?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not know, I should imagine that ground at Aldershot is Crown land, but I do not know.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

What will be the position of requisitioned land in this connexion?

LORD REA

I have in mind an area in the Lake District that was requisitioned by the Government. Although the local outcry has enforced its removal a little further inland, the objection still applies. As I understand it is requisitioned by the War Office for training purposes. What I want to know is whether the War Office is entitled to put any notices it pleases on that land subject to no supervision by any other authority?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

With regard to Crown land we must rely on the inter-departmental control which exists, and which must be perfected and strengthened in view of the passage of this Bill. Whether any particular land does or does not come within the actual category of Crown land, is a matter which we might discuss when we come to the relevant clause later on.

LORD SALTOUN

I take it that danger notices are not advertisements covered by this Bill?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

They would be covered by regulations.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 agreed to.

4.15 p.m.

Clause 31:

Power to require proper maintenance of waste land, etc.

31.—(1) If it appears to a local planning authority that the amenity of any part of the area of that authority, or of any adjoining area, is seriously injured by the condition of any waste or other land in their area, then, subject to any directions given by the Minister, the authority may serve on the owner and occupier of the land, in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act, a notice requiring such steps for abating the injury as may be specified in the notice to be taken within such period as may be so specified.

LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "waste or other" and insert "garden, vacant site or other open." The noble Lord said: This clause preserves a power which has usually been included in planning schemes in the term of "any garden, curtilage, or private open space." The Amendment is designed to indicate with greater precision the type of land in respect of which the powers of the clause can be invoked. It has been suggested, for instance, that, as drafted, the clause really covers all the land in the country, and Lord Carrington has a later Amendment to leave out the words "or other" and thus confine the clause to waste land. The words to be substituted follow broadly the term used in planning schemes under the 1932 Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 17, leave out ("waste or other ") and insert ("garden, vacant site or other open").—(Lord Henderson.)

LORD CARRINGTON

Perhaps I may say just a word here, as I have an Amendment down on the same subject. The only reason I put my Amendment on the Paper was that I did not understand what "waste or other land" meant. It seemed to include everything. Now that Lord Henderson has clarified the position I feel quite happy about it, and I shall not move my Amendment.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

May I ask what would be the position of commons within the area of the authority which have been neglected, and have had the gorse allowed to grow over them and spread on to adjacent lands? Will the local authority have any power under this clause?

LORD HENDERSON

I am not sure what the position would be in respect of commons. I will find out, and will let the noble Lord know.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I think that commons would be included in "other open land" under the Amendment which is now being considered. Commons do not belong to the Crown as a rule but to the local authority.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Did I understand the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, to say that these words follow the 1932 Act exactly.

LORD HENDERSON

Broadly, not exactly.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I asked because "other open land" is very nearly as wide as "other land." If the noble Lords looks at the Bill he will see that the marginal heading reads: "Power to require proper maintenance of waste land, etc." I should have thought that "other open land" comes under "etc." That word of three letters has been stigmatized as being the largest in the English language—not, in fact, being English at all.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

4.17 p.m.

Clause 32 [Delegation of functions to councils of county councils]:

LORD ADDINGTON moved to insert after subsection (1): (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the foregoing subsection the regulations shall provide—

1. (a) for the delegation by a local planning authority to the council of every county district of the function of the authority relating to the granting of permission for the development of land which is wholly within the county district; and
2. (b) for the delegation by a local planning authority of their functions relating to the granting of permission for the development of land which is situate in two or more county districts either to the councils of those districts or to a joint body consisting of representatives of those councils with or without representatives of the local planning authority."

The noble Lord said: This proposed subsection deals with the delegation of functions to county district councils, and the Amendment has been put down in order to obtain some information about the intentions of the Minister in this respect. I do not claim that the wording is the best that could be devised. No doubt if we consider now the sort of words that could be put into the Bill we can consider later what particular words would best meet the situation. The subsection is drafted in particularly wide and general terms and leaves it entirely at the option of the Minister whether he makes or does not make regulations authorizing or requiring the county council to delegate functions, which include in general terms applications for permission to develop land.

I should be grateful for enlightenment as to the way in which the Minister intends to make these regulations and how such regulations will be co-ordinated with any delegation by a county council to local sub-committees under Part II of the First Schedule of this Act. I do not think we have heard very much about the Minister's intentions, at any rate with regard to questions of any detail, although no doubt some general principles have been indicated. I submit that this question of administration is so important that at any rate the general principles should be laid down in the Bill itself. I think those principles are generally agreed upon. They are that there should be the widest possible use of local knowledge and local initiative coupled with adequate consideration for the wider aspects of county and national planning and for questions of appearance and amenity. There are under the Bill as it stands, it seems to me, two ways in which these principles could be departed from. On the one hand there could be no delegation at all to any council of a county district; on the other, the Minister might require the county to delegate to the councils of such county districts such functions of granting permission to develop in more cases or subject to fewer restraints and restrictions than the county would wish. It is such a contingency I am anxious to avoid by a form of words specifically put into the Bill. I would urge that the widest powers should be given to the councils of those county districts—that is to say, non-county boroughs, urban districts and rural districts.

It is a question of principle; the tendency of legislation is more and more to take away the functions and duties of these councils and it is important that they should be left with sufficient powers and duties and scope to attract the most capable and energetic inhabitants to serve on these councils. These councils should, continue to be, as they have been for a very long time, the nursery for the statesmen of the country. In practice it would be impossible for the county councils themselves to undertake this work of granting permission to develop. In a county of any size, the number of applications will be far too great to be dealt with by any single council; and local knowledge, particularly detailed local knowledge of the particular site which is to be developed, is essential. Further, as indicated in Clause 99, one application is to be made for all the consents required, by-law consent, as well as planning consent, and probably the determination of the amount of development charge. These applications must surely come, in the main, before the council of the county district.

I do not want to take up too much time but I wish to indicate the kind of general restrictions that the county council might reasonably require. What I have in mind is to insert words that, without prejudicing the provisions of the foregoing subsection, such regulations shall provide for the delegation of functions relating to the granting of permission for the development of land either (a) to the council of the county district, or (b) to a joint committee or to a local sub-committee of the county planning committee on which those councils are adequately represented, and subject to such general directions and restrictions as may be required by the planning authority. If we agree that new words shall be put in as suggested, we can consider the actual words at a subsequent stage. I would only suggest that we should have something more definite to put in the Bill than the wording as it stands at present. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 40, at end, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Addington.)

LORD O'HAGAN

I would like to support the Amendment. There is a great tendency to take away from these local authorities the powers which they are quite capable of discharging fairly and properly, and I suggest that some such words as indicated in this Amendment should be included in the Bill. It is essential that the local knowledge of these authorities should be available in some form such as is indicated here. I hope the Government will see their way, if not to accept this Amendment, to agree to some form of words to cover this point.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I wish to support this Amendment and hope very much that the Government will think carefully about it. In my opinion the work of the county district councils has been remarkably good. Under the present law the district council are the interim development authority and are bound to consult the county joint planning committee. This arrangement has worked remarkably well where I come from. One must remember that no county committee can know the details of every part of their county so well as the county district council. And the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a point of the importance of keeping the district council a living, useful and active part of the life of the country, as they are now. From time to time we see their functions going away—unclassified roads have been taken from them, certain health functions are going from them, and here more of planning responsibility is being taken away. It is a matter to be deplored. I have had experience of working both in a county council and a district council and it is a great pity that it has been necessary to make the county the planning authority because the present system works remarkably well.

One must admit, however, that under present conditions, with the new conception of planning in this Bill, it is perhaps inevitable. That being so let us see that as much as can be safely placed in their hands is left there. If the district councils were continued as interim development authorities, it would still bind them to follow the plan laid down by the county committee and to follow the policy of the county. I remember a case recently where the district council of which I was a member wished to put up a certain building for their own use and being themselves the interim development authority applied to the county, but were refused permission. I was involved in the negotiations and felt no difficulty in arguing it. Your Lordships know very well the kind of discussions that go on. That showed me how practicable it is for the two parties to work together. It is of the greatest value to make use of the district councils in this way. I hope that something which says that whatever happens there must be some delegation to county districts will get into the Bill.

LORD HENDERSON

This Amendment would put all control of development in the hands of the district councils. The effect would be that the county council prepare the development plan but the powers under Part III of the Bill would be exercised by the district councils working independently of the local planning authority. Control of development cannot be divorced from preparation of the development plan. This is particularly true in the initial stages, when only the planning authority will know what the plan is likely to contain and will be able to judge applications for permission accordingly. When the plan is approved, it will still be necessary to reserve decisions on major matters for the planning authority, since the plan will not be a fixed and final document, and the way in which individual applications for permission will be dealt with might have some modified effect upon it. Miner matters can, in most cases, be delegated to the county districts from the outset.

The intention is that the regulations should provide for the greatest possible degree of delegation, and the clause ensures that the local authority associations, or where necessary individual authorities, will be consulted before the regulations are made. Different sets of regulations may be made to cover different areas and different stages in the planning process; but it would be wrong to bind the Minister by a statutory provision which would prevent him from granting the local planning authority any power to see that the development plan is in fact carried out in accordance with their intentions. The noble Lord is also aware that there is provision to make use of sub-committees in connexion with the work of the planning authority. There again it is expected that certain functions of the planning authority will devolve upon the sub-committees. On those sub-committees there is scope for representation by local people, who can bring a local interest and a local knowledge to bear upon the problems. In view of those considerations, I am unable to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, and I ask him to withdraw it.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

May I ask one question? Surely, the delegation need not be accepted by the local authority if they do not wish to accept it. It provides only that they may have the right to delegate. Is not that so?

LORD HENDERSON

I was referring to the terms of the Amendment which are that Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the foregoing subsection the regulations shall provide—

LORD RANKEILLOUR

—Shall provide for the delegation. But the local planning authority need not make use of that provision, surely?

LORD ADDINGTON

I did make it clear that I was not particularly wedded to the words of the Amendment, but that if the principle could be admitted we might agree on some different words. One of the points which is still obscure to me is the relationship between the regulations which the Minister makes and the delegation the county council may make. I do not know whether the arrangements of the county council are to be subject to the approval of the Minister, or whether there is to be any adjustment between any such regulations the Minister may make and those of the county council. I hope that the matter may still be considered at a later stage, because there are consultations going on. I think it is important to provide that there shall be delegation because although the Minister may consult there is nothing to require him to make any delegation at all, however strongly the local planning authorities may press for the delegation. In view of what has been said, I am unable to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 agreed to.

4.35 p.m.

Clause 33:

Application to local authorities and statutory undertakers.

33.—(1) Where the sanction of a government department is required by virtue of any enactment in respect of development to be carried out by any local authority, or by any statutory undertakers not being a local authority, that department may, upon granting that sanction, direct that permission for that development shall be deemed to be granted under this Part of this Act, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the directions; and the provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply in relation to any permission deemed to be granted by virtue of such directions as if it had been granted by the Minister on an application referred to him under Section fourteen of this Act.

LORD HENDERSON

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

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 55, leave out ("sanction") and insert ("authorisation").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

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

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 19, leave out ("sanction") and insert ("authorisation").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (1), after "sanction," where that word occurs a second time, to insert: if it is satisfied that such development is in conformity with the development plan of the area, or in conformity with any directions which may have been given by the Minister under section thirty-five of this Act.

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to produce in a modified form what I think my noble friend Lord Addington desires, and what is also desired, I think I am right in saying, by the Association of Municipal Corporations, without raising quite the same constitutional issues. I do not think it can be denied that there is a real fear among all planning authorities that after they have spent a great deal of time and a great deal of money some Minister will come along with overriding powers and make complete nonsense of the local authority's plan.

We are from time to time assured by Ministers that that cannot really happen. Nevertheless, this fear persists, and I think will still persist until something goes into the Bill to make it ultra vires for a Minister to upset an approved scheme. I am quite sure that it is useless to hope that the Service Ministries would consent always to abide by a planning scheme; the security argument, I feel, would be quite irresistible. One can only hope that they will co-operate with the planning authorities so far as they can. In this connexion, I would like to acknowledge with gratitude the recently displayed readiness of the Army to consult with local planning authorities, at any rate, in my part of the world. I hope they will go on doing so.

In the case of the much more limited range of ministerial powers covered by this clause, I do feel that the scheme ought to be paramount. These schemes, before they are approved, will no doubt be submitted to all the Ministers likely to be affected. I do feel that once having given their approval, they should not seek to upset the schemes, which will be binding on everybody else, at least until the quinquennial review. The clause as drafted seems to give a Minister power, for example, to sanction the placing of a reservoir by one local authority in the territory of another, or the erection of a power station—such as Bankside—irrespective of what an approved scheme may be. I think that once the scheme has been approved that would be entirely wrong, and I beg to move my Amendment accordingly.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 19, alter ("sanction") insert the said words.—(Viscount Gage.)

LORD HENDERSON

I can assure the noble Viscount that the object which his Amendment seeks to secure will in fact be achieved by administration. The Department concerned will consult the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and will be prepared to refuse sanction if the development is objectionable on planning grounds. As the noble Viscount realizes, it would be contrary to constitutional practice to include in a Statute an obligation on one Department to consult another—

VISCOUNT GAGE

I have not done so.

LORD HENDERSON

Nor is it thought desirable to impose an another Department the obligation of consulting the local planning authority and abiding by their decision. The right of the Minister of Town and Country Planning to reverse the local decision would in any event have to be preserved, and also his right to take the initial decision out of their hands. I might add that in order to advise the authorizing Department the Ministry of Town and Country Planning will, where necessary, consult the local planning authority. The inter-Departmental consultation will usually take place at regional level. The Ministry's regional planning officer is in close touch with local planning authorities and with the regional officers of other Departments. In addition, the local planning authority will frequently have been consulted locally before application for the departmental sanction is made. In the light of these statements, I think I am right in saying that the object which the noble Viscount has in mind is, in fact, met under the Bill by administration and I hope that he will not press his Amendment.

VISCOUNT GAGE

The noble Lord's answer, I am afraid, fills me with gloom. I have not asked that any Minister should consult with the local planning authority or should be subordinated to the direction of the Minister. What I am saying is that a plan which has been approved by all the various Departments, not only the Minister of Town and Country Planning but all the other Ministers implicated, should prevail, and that the Minister should not have complete power to set something aside to which he has agreed. I have never suggested that they should put themselves in a humbler position, because I knew it would not be acceptable. I must say that I sometimes feel that the attitude of the Government towards planning must be to some extent measured by their attitude towards such an intention as I have, perhaps badly, expressed—though I think the intention is plain. It seems to me that the Government feel that planning is all right for the lower orders of the political hierarchy but it should not apply to the people at the top, because it might, perhaps, be rather inconvenient.

I feel that planning is a form of discipline, and all discipline is, to some extent, inconvenient. I really do not know quite what the morale of an army would be if all the generals took every liberty and disobeyed all the orders they gave out to the other ranks. I do not know whether any other noble Lord feels as I do about this, but I do not think that I can accept this. I know that there will be consultation; I know, as a matter of fact, that the Minister of Town and Country Planning is to co-operate with the local planning authorities. But I am afraid of the other Ministers; I am afraid that the other Ministers will not be prepared to accept the advice of the Minister of Town and Country Planning; I am sure they will always think that everything they do will be very much better in the national interest, and the effect will be that the plan will be utterly upset. I feel that had the Bankside case been developed after the London scheme had been officially approved it would have been a real blow to every aspect of town planning. I do not wish to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, but I would rather have the Amendment negatived than withdraw it.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD HENDERSON

This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 14, leave out ("sanctioned") and insert ("authorized").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

This is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 35, leave out ("sanction") and insert ("authorization").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 33 shall stand part of the Bill:

LORD RANKEILLOUR

Reverting to what the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, said, I would ask merely for information and not from any feeling of hostility: if the planning authority prescribed that a certain area should be exempted from anything noxious or dangerous, would the War Office who were in occupation of part of such land be able to put an explosive dump on it?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That would be under the Crown and the prohibitions in this Bill do not apply to the Crown.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

Even if they were in occupation of the land?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the War Office have something noxious on the land, notwithstanding the fact that there was some planning prohibition, planning prohibition does not relate to the Crown.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34 [Application to land regulated by special Acts, etc.]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a little more than drafting, but not much more. We are proposing to take out Clause 34 from this part of the Bill and to put it into the Bill after Clause 113 in a slightly different guise, the new clause which I am moving. I suggest we might await discussion on it until we get to the new clause. I beg to move that Clause 34 be deleted from this part of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 34.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think that would be a convenient course.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 35 to 37 agreed to.

Clause 38:

Power to expedite completion of purchase under s. 36.

38.—(1) If the Minister is satisfied, in the case of a compulsory purchase order submitted to him under the last foregoing section by a local authority, that it is expedient to empower that authority to enter on the whole or any part of the land to which the order relates and secure its vesting in them before the expiration of the time which would be required for the service of notices to treat, he may include in the order as confirmed by him a direction that the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Act of 1944 shall apply to the order so far as it relates to that land:

Provided that no such direction shall be so included in a compulsory purchase order unless application in that behalf is included in the order as submitted to the Minister.

(2) A compulsory purchase order which contains any such direction as aforesaid shall be registered in the register of local land charges, in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made for the purposes of this section under subsection (6) of section fifteen of the Land Charges Act, 1925, by the proper officer of the council of each county borough or county district in which the land to which the direction relates to any part thereof is situated; and it shall be the duty of the local authority, as soon as may be after the order has become operative, to notify that fact to the proper officer of the authority by whom it is required to be registered as aforesaid, and to furnish him with all information relating to the order which is required for the purpose.

(3) Where a compulsory purchase order containing any such direction as aforesaid is made in respect of any interest in land which has sustained war damage, then if any of that damage has not been made good at the date on which notice to treat is deemed to have been served, the local authority shall, when they notify the fact that the order has become operative to the proper officer under the last foregoing subsection, notify the War Damage Commission of that action having been taken.

(4) Any reference in the Sixth Schedule to the Act of 1944 to a purchase order providing for expedited completion, or to the purchasing authority, shall be construed as a reference to a compulsory purchase order containing any such direction as aforesaid, and to the local authority authorised to acquire land by that order, as the case may be.

(5) Paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946 (which provides for entry on land before the purchase money has been paid, notwithstanding the provisions of sections eighty-four to ninety of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845) and paragraph 4 of that Schedule (which makes special provision, in substitution for section ninety-two of the said Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, with respect to the sale of parts of houses and other premises) shall not apply to a compulsory purchase order containing any such direction as aforesaid.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved, in subsection (1),to leave out "expedient" and insert "urgently necessary in the public interest." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name seeks to put into the Bill certain safeguarding words which I think, in the interests of the rights of the individual, might justifiably be accepted by the Government. The word "expedient" is a difficult word to construe. I believe it is true to say that in the Oxford Dictionary it can be translated as "advantageous" or "politic if not just." I think it would be a justifiable request to make to the Government that this speedy procedure should not be used unless it is urgently necessary in the public interest. I hope that the Government will regard this Amendment as reasonable and I do commend it to their attention. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 28, leave out ("expedient") and insert ("urgently necessary in the public interest").—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)

LORD HENDERSON

I am glad to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved, in subsection (1), at the end to insert: and unless there is included in the order a statement of the reasons why completion of the purchase should be expedited.

The noble Lord said: This further Amendment to this clause puts the onus upon the authority to state the reasons why the completion of the purchase should be expedited rather than the normal procedure of acquisition being followed. This Amendment is really in line with my previous Amendment, and is a safeguard that the powers of speedy acquisition should not be in any way subject to any imputation of unjust use. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 38, at end insert the said words.—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)

LORD HENDERSON

The Minister, before confirming an order, is obliged under the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, to hold either a public inquiry or a hearing. If any owner affected by the compulsory purchase order objects to expedited completion he is entitled to say so at the inquiry or hearing, and neither the 1946 Act nor the present Bill permits the Minister to disregard an objection of that kind. The reason why the purchasing authority wishes to apply expedited completion is therefore, certain to transpire. If expedited completion is not objected to there does not seem to be any reason why the local authority should be required as a matter of course to state their reasons for wishing to apply it. I think in the light of that explanation the noble Lord may feel disposed to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY

I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I would like to look at it more closely in the Official Report. On a first understanding it seems to me that his answer is a satisfactory one. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.53 p.m.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to leave out Clause 38. The noble Earl said: Clause 38 deals with speedy procedure of purchase under Section 36, which is the acquisition by local authorities and statutory undertakers. Speedy procedure was, if I am correct, introduced as a war-time measure, a measure obviously necessary in war-time in order to get on with the job and acquire land as quickly as one could for certain purposes without going through all the normal procedure. But I cannot see that speedy procedure which overrides quite a number of the rights of a property owner should be necessary in peace-time and under a Planning Bill. I should have thought that the essence of planning should be that there should be a plan, that people should be looking ahead and thinking ahead, and that there should be no necessity for speedy procedure for which another word might be "hurried" procedure. So often hurried procedure means hasty procedure, and hastiness is a very undesirable thing in this connexion. I do not understand why it is necessary to carry on to peace-time this speedy procedure as laid down here. It is for that reason that I am moving to leave out Clause 38 from the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 38.—(The Earl of Radnor.)

LORD HENDERSON

Perhaps I should say at the outset that this is not speedy procedure. Speedy procedure comes under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. This is the special procedure provided for in the 1944 Act for speedy completion of purchase. Expedited completion is designed to meet two needs. The first is the case where an area of land is held by a large number of different owners who may be difficult to trace individually but who, it can be reasonably assumed, will receive notice through publication of an order. The delay in compulsory acquisition has in the past been mainly due to the necessity of compiling a book of reference before the compulsory purchase order is submitted. It often took two years or more to find out the various interests in the land and the names of the owners. It is only if this referencing has been done that individual notices to treat on all owners of all interests can be served. In war-damaged areas particularly it may often prove quite impossible to trace the owner of a particular blitzed site.

The second, and even more important, reason for expedited completion is to secure actual vesting of title in the acquiring authority. In areas of comprehensive development and redevelopment the normal procedure will be for a local authority to buy the whole area and lease or possibly sell to private developers in suitable units. No private developer could start building until he is assured that he is taking a clean title for a lease. That is to say, without the provision for expedited completion the acquiring authority would have to ascertain the names of all owners, even though referencing had been dispensed with at an early stage, then serve a notice to treat on each owner and negotiate a conveyance before any leases for redevelopment could be granted. If there was found to be a flaw on the title in any case the development of that land by a lessee would be held up indefinitely. Expedited completion imposes no hardship on the owners. The fact that their land is to be compulsorily acquired will already have been settled and it can be of no advantage to them to have the transfer held up until numerous legal formalities have been carried through. Once the order is made all the owner is concerned with is compensation, and expedited completion does not affect his compensation rights in any way. I hope the noble Earl will regard that as a satisfactory explanation as to why these powers are required in the Bill, and that he will not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, which I think has a considerable amount of reason behind it. I quite appreciate the difficulty of tracing owners, for instance, in areas of bad war damage. Nevertheless, I do anticipate that you may find yourself in certain difficulties even in well-regulated estates like my own. I have been known to sell somebody else land which did not belong to me, and that kind of thing may happen under this expedited completion. You will find that you are selling land of which you cannot either trace the owner or find anybody to pay. You may win on that. But in view of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord De L'Isle and Dudley which has been accepted, and which I think does improve this clause, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 39 agreed to.

4.58 p.m.

Clause 40:

Power to acquire buildings of special architectural or historic interest.

40.—(1) Where a building preservation order is in force as respects any building and it appears to the Minister that reasonable steps required for properly maintaining the building will not be taken unless the building is compulsorily acquired, the Minister may authorize the council of the county or county borough or county district in which the building is situated to acquire compulsorily under this section the building and any land comprising or contiguous or adjacent to it which appears to the Minister to be required for maintaining the building or its amenities, or for affording access, thereto, or for the proper control or management thereof.

(2) Where a building preservation order is in force as respects any building and it appears to the Minister of Works that reasonable steps required for properly maintaining the building will not be taken unless the building is compulsorily acquired by him, that Minister may be authorized under this section to acquire compulsorily the building and any land comprising or contiguous or adjacent to it which appears to him to be required as mentioned in the foregoing subsection.

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, any power of a local authority to acquire land by agreement thereunder shall include power to acquire by agreement any building as respects which a building preservation order could be made by the local planning authority under Part III of this Act, and any land comprising or contiguous or adjacent to it which appears to the Minister to be required for the purposes specified in subsection (1) of this section.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment of some importance, and I trust, therefore, that I shall have the support of the Government in what I intend to endeavour to do. Under Clause 27 of the Bill, the local authority can make provision for restricting the demolition, alteration, or the extension of any building of special architectural or historic interest, but they are excluded from making any such order in relation to a building which is included in a list of monuments published by the Ministry of Works. If your Lordships will turn to Clause 40 (1) you will see that if it appears to the Minister that reasonable steps are not being taken for properly maintaining a building, then he may compulsorily acquire that building and can authorize the council of the county, the county borough or the county district in which the building is situated, to acquire that building and any land adjacent to it.

For a very long time it has been the custom in this country for the Ministry of Works to associate themselves where buildings of historic or architectural interests are concerned. Although I am not the owner of any of that class of buildings myself, nevertheless I have been, in common with many of your Lordships, to see some of the buildings which are under the control of the Ministry of Works; and I feel certain that we must all admire the manner in which they go about their labours, the tasks they have fulfilled, and the magnificent way in which they have preserved many of the very ancient buildings of this country. Here we intend to do something real—and I do not want to be told that this was in the 1944 Act. I know that is a bad Act, but that does not alter my question. What I want to be told is what is necessary in an Act which is going to be permanent and lasting in order that the local authority should receive these powers from the Ministry whereby they can purchase a building of historic or architectural interest and run it for any purpose, and levy a special rate to keep it up. This is not included in the Bill. I am quite certain that these local authorities have not got the skill and the technical staffs which are to be found in the Ministry of Works.

For these reasons I hope the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor may see his way, if not to accept this Amendment, at least to redraft the whole subsection so that the powers which the Minister intends to give to local authorities should in point of fact be given to the Ministry of Works. There are other noble Lords in this House who are owners of these buildings of historic interest, and I have no doubt that there are also noble Lords who in the past have owned buildings which are now the property of the Ministry of Works. I feel certain they will bear out everything I have said. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will see his way to meet me as far as he can.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 1, leave out subsection (1).—(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD HARLECH

I should like to say one or two words, having for a number of years administered ancient monuments as First Commissioner of Works. In those days the only things which the Office of Works administered and actually, took over and ran were buildings other than those inhabited by wore than a caretaker. The whole object of the old Act was that the whole building was to be open to the public, except for the caretaker's quarters, and that they became national monuments, and it was restricted to that. So the bulk of monuments were prehistoric forts, Roman remain, ruined abbeys, and a few rather stately decayed Elizabethan and other houses.

I have the highest regard for the technical knowledge, ability, and experience of the Office of Works, their architects and their archæologists. I have also a high regard for one or two local authorities for the way they have done the same sort of thing. Take Leeds and Templenewsam; nobody could find fault with them. But I have vivid and terrible memories of the vandalism of some others. The most notorious case of all in my time was Dundee. The city of Dundee, by a comparatively small majority, decided, for the convenience of their offices, to enlarge their modern town hall by pulling down the old and famous early eighteenth-century town hall, the finest building in the town, built as one of his most notable works by the first Adam, father of the two famous brothers who built so much in Edinburgh and afterwards in London. All I had power to do was delaying action, because it belonged to the local authority. I put in a preservation order, but that lasted for only six months unless it was confirmed by a special Act of Parliament passed by both Houses. I was urged to act by the Cockburn Society and by the learned societies of Scotland. The result was that instead of a small majority, by an overwhelming majority the city of Dundee said this was monstrous interference from Whitehall; and they pulled the thing down "good and proper," not a stone was left standing.

I do not imagine that what I may call the operative portion of this Clause 40 would have to be exercised in many cases. We all assume that it will be deterrent rather than operative, but that it may in a few cases have to be put into operation. But I do pray the Government to consider whether, if it has to be put into operation, the whole thing should not be done by the Ministry of Works or its Ancient Monuments Department rather than by any county council or county borough council or county district council. My experience of county district councils is that they have some excellent surveyors for roads and sewers, men of great professional skill in that line of country, but that they are certainly very far removed from men who have made a life-long study of Elizabethan and medieval buildings. The local authorities have not got the skilled staffs at their disposal.

Our object is to preserve the goodly number of our ancient buildings, the heritage of all centuries and the culture of all centuries. The State will have to take a hand. I am a member of the Ancient Monuments Board myself so I must not speak for them; but I have every confidence in the Ancient Monuments Department of the Ministry of Works. But I say quite frankly I have mixed views about local authorities. Some are good, some bad, some indifferent. If you get one bad one on to a great historic building you may be doing a very grievous national injury. I know there are many noble Lords in this House who speak strongly in support of local government and local government organizations; but on this matter we want to walk warily before we concede powers to local authorities to deal as they like with our historic buildings.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have listened with great interest to the noble Lord's speech but I looked to see whether he was in fact speaking of this particular clause or not. With his interesting recollection about Dundee and their pulling down the Adam building—I wished there had been more Scotsmen here to listen to it—I agree entirely. The noble Lord says he has mixed feelings about local authorities. But this clause is a preservation clause. If a local authority acts under this clause it is on one hypothesis only—that they are acting to preserve. It is not a question at all of a local authority coming in and then perhaps pulling down: it is mere preservation. I myself feel this about it. After all, there are some of these ancient buildings of such importance that they are obviously national and not local. Those buildings obviously ought to come under the Minister of Works, and those he will operate under Clause 42. But there are other buildings, not of the same degree of importance, but, on the other hand, very attractive buildings, in which the local people take pride, and properly take pride, and I think it would be a great pity if we prevented them coming—and this is all the clause is doing—to the Minister and saying: "We are proud of this building; we want to preserve it. Will you authorize us to buy the building in order that we may preserve it?" In regard to the second class of building I think that is good, I think that is to be commended, and I think it would be rather a shock to local pride if it were otherwise.

I am very anxious in these days to maintain and support local pride. I think it is a most essential part of local Government in this country, and I think it is an excellent thing, and entirely good and right, that the local authorities should look around their area, and should, if they think that a building of which they have reason to be proud is in danger of neglect, be able to go to the Minister and say: "Will you please give us permission to buy this building in order that we may keep it and maintain the building, and its amenities for affording access thereto, and properly control and manage it?" I think that is good. I should agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken if I were entrusting to the local authority the power of buying this building with a view to pulling it down. Then, I would very much rather they had nothing to do with it and it went to the Minister of Works. This clause is only addressed to maintaining and preserving a building. I think it would be a great pity to deprive the local authorities of the powers which they have to-day, and which they have not abused in any way. I think they, would quite properly resent that power being taken away from them, and it would be a bad step so to do, because we all want to encourage local authorities to preserve historical buildings in their areas. That being so, with regard to these rather lesser buildings, which are not quite of sufficient importance to come under the Ministry of Works, I think it would be a good thing to give the local authorities the power to apply for the right to maintain and to preserve those buildings in which they justifiably take pride.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

If I might ask the noble and learned Viscount a question, who is going to find the money to keep these buildings in repair? Are they going to find the money, which may be a very large sum of money, to keep second class buildings in repair?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is not quite fair to say that I called it a second class building; that is a derogatory term. A building may be a very good building, but not of quite sufficient importance to be treated as national rather than local. Of course, if they find that money has to be found, the money must come out of the rates or must be raised by loan, and that, no doubt, is a consideration which the Minister would bear in mind in deciding whether or not to grant authority. But if there is a building which needs preserving then surely it would be a lamentable thing, assuming the local authority can raise the money, that they should not be allowed to preserve it.

LORD SALTOUN

Before we leave this subject, I would like to say that, while I sympathize very much with what the noble and learned Viscount said, I can produce examples from south of the Border of local authorities who have purchased historical buildings, and then conspicuously failed to preserve them, even in spite of considerable public outcry. Therefore, if it were possible to associate the Ministry of Works in some way with the local authority, I think it would be a very good thing. I would rather give my examples outside the walls of this room, although I do not mind Dundee.

THE EARL OF PERTH

Might the noble Lord answer one question? He talked about preserving and maintaining. Would that include restoring or not? That is a matter of some importance. I have seen buildings restored which have become eyesores.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Earl will see the words in line 9 of the clause, "to be required for maintaining the building or its amenities." Restoration is a different thing.

THE EARL OF PERTH

You exclude restoration?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes, and I would point out to Lord Saltoun, if I understand him aright, that if there is a case of a local authority in charge of one of these buildings which is bought for this purpose and neglected, and if the building is of sufficient importance, there is nothing to prevent the Minister of Works stepping in and taking control.

LORD SALTOUN

Is that absolutely clear, that there may be some intervention on the part of the Minister of Works if a local authority fails, very often not from ill will, but from lack of knowledge, to do what is really right by this building? I think that is very important. I think this suggestion is worthy of con- sideration between now and Report or some stage: in regard to some of these local authorities there arises this question of saving the rates, a Pinchbeck business, and I think that there ought to be permissive powers, at least, for the Exchequer to give them grants for this purpose, where they can make out a good case; but if the Exchequer does give them money, then they can have an Inspector of the Ancient Monuments Department to advise them. I throw that out simply as a suggestion. I quite agree that, provided this subsection is for the preservation of these historic buildings, and not for any other purpose, and for the public amenity, my case is rather knocked out. But this has got to be watched very carefully because there are good, bad, and indifferent local authorities.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

I have seen a church described as having been "utterly restored" in 1882. Would that be prevented under this clause?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think it would.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

We have had an extremely interesting debate, and obviously a great deal of sympathy exists on all sides of the House in regard to the preservation of ancient buildings. But I was struck as I listened by the fact that the whole of this discussion is a rather remarkable and rather melancholy commentary on the tendencies of our modern life. After all, what were these houses built for? They were built to live in, to form the core of a community which surrounded them. That is the purpose which they have fulfilled for a good many centuries now. It is rather a strange development, represented by the policy of the Government, that they have begun by taxing the owners out of existence, and when they have done that and the owners cannot any longer maintain their houses up to the standard required, they take them over compulsorily, and then compel the local community to pay a very large sum to maintain them. Surely, in fact, it would be very much wiser to make some moderate financial arrangement, not indeed to subsidize the owner in his living expenses, but to maintain the structure of the house, if there was some duty on the owner to open the house to the public in order that the public should enjoy the beauties of the place. That, in my view, would be a very, very much better arrangement.

I went, the other day, to see a beautiful house from which the owner had been driven and which had been turned into a museum. It was a beautiful museum, full of works of art, but it was completely dead. There, again, there was a village community, and there was no centre to that community—it had gone. I cannot believe, whether one is a Conservative or a Socialist, that that is a very desirable thing to happen, and I would like to take this opportunity to suggest to the Government that there might be some other avenue of approach which would in the end be more satisfactory and less expensive both to the people themselves—the people to the initiative of whose families the houses are due—and to the community at large.

The only other thing which I wish to say is this. There is a discussion as to whose care these houses should be entrusted under the Bill. It is probable that if they are not of the very highest class, the local authority will take over the maintenance of them. The Lord Chancellor made, I think, a very eloquent plea for the local authorities. He said that they were people who had a local interest, who were proud of these possessions and who would maintain them perhaps more sympathetically than anyone else. But is that in fact so? I have not been there lately, but I am told that Chiswick House is in a most dreadful condition, and it was taken over by the local authority. I may be misinformed, and I do not want to say anything that is inaccurate, but I am told that owing to the condition of the house the Middlesex County Council have intervened in order to see that it is properly maintained. The honest truth is that it is not a question of neglect or of lack of interest, but of lack of knowledge. There are a great many very well-intentioned local authorities, but they are not really the people who have had the necessary training to enable them to do this work.

So I would still make a great appeal to the Government to consider what has been said by my noble friend Lord Harlech with regard to the Office of Works. Everyone knows that the Office of Works does this work magnificently. I would have thought that the fact of a house like Chiswick House being handed over for maintenance to the Office of Works would in no way reduce the pride of the people of Chiswick in the possession of this great monument on their soil. It would in fact, I should think, have quite a different effect. Personally, I would be inclined to suggest that they would be greatly relieved at having the expense of maintaining the house taken off their shoulders. I do not say one word derogatory of the local authorities. They are one of the glories of our country. But everyone has his job, and this is not a job for the local authority. I beg the Government, even now, while Clause 40 is before the Committee, to consider whether it is not right that the preservation of such houses should be entrusted directly to the Minister of Works.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

While we are on this point may I ask whether the local authority is to have power to lease those buildings? And is the Minister to have any say as regards the terms on which such leases may be granted?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The answer to that last question is that, if a local authority think that a house that is worth preserving is suffering from neglect, they can go to the Minister under this clause and put up a proposition to the Minister. One of the points they can discuss is the terms on which they are going to deal with the place. The broad proposition is that the Minister wants to be assured, before he consents, that they are going to make proper provision for affording access thereto. That means public access thereto, though not necessarily at all times and on all days, and not in such a way as to interfere with any normal user of the place. But there must be some public access. That would clearly be a matter which the Minister would have to consider. I have checked up on what I said before and I find that it was right.

I do not know, neither did the noble Marquess assert it positively, that Chiswick House is being neglected, it having been taken over by a local authority. But if this Bill were operative the Minister of Works would have power under subsection (2) to take over that house from the Chiswick people. I think that when we get this new code under this Bill, the Minister of Works should be rather ready to use his powers, and I think, further than that, he should try to help local authorities with regard to the proper ways of preservation. I think that in that way we can probably reach an end which we all desire. I agree with the noble Marquess that it is ridiculous to say that local authorities can, in the nature of things, be as competent and as skilled in these matters as the Ministry of Works, who, of course, have a very highly skilled set of people to advise them upon it. I still think that it would be a mistake to deprive the local authority of the powers that they now enjoy, but that the Minister of Works ought not to hesitate to step in and take a thing over if he thinks the local authority are not satisfactorily carrying out their duty.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I cannot pretend that I am really happy about the Lord Chancellor's reply, but I would like to ask him if he would be prepared to do this between now and the next stage of the Bill. Will he consult with the Minister and see whether it would be possible to alter this subsection in some manner so that the Minister of Works does come in at the very beginning of these proceedings? I feel certain that it will not be possible in the future for local authorities who are likely to have enormous burdens cast on them by this Bill, and by this clause, actually to fulfil the intentions of this subsection unless they can get staff, and the difficulty in that respect is well known. The Ministry of Works would not have sufficient staff now to train local authorities in looking after buildings of any character or any class. I feel that it would be quite lamentable—and I am not saying one word derogatory of the local authorities—to let some of these buildings, whether of the first class or the second class, fall into the hands of a local authority with the practical certainty that they would not be kept up as well as they would be if they were in the hands of the Ministry of Works. I do hope that the noble and learned Viscount will use his power to see if he can bring in the Minister of Works at a very much earlier stage than is at present contemplated. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn,

5.28 p.m.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "required," where that word first occurs, and insert "are not being taken." The noble Lord said: We have had a very interesting discussion on the first subsection of this clause, which the noble Earl, Lord Munster, moved to leave out. On subsection (2) I am moving the first Amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and myself. The Amendment seeks to put in the words "are not being taken" instead of "required." I think it right to say that the Minister is unlikely to have prophetic powers or the powers of divining the intentions of owners of buildings, and it would not be justifiable for the Minister to acquire a building compulsorily on surmise. I think that the owner must be proved to be neglecting his building before the building should be compulsorily acquired.

Take an example. It may be that the building requires lead to be put upon the roof. Anyone who has had experience of trying to acquire lead for the purpose of repairing a roof will know that it is almost impossible to get now. It may conceivably be said that an owner was neglecting his building by letting the rain get into the roof, if his building was a valuable architectural monument. The Bill would be properly amended if these words of the Amendment were put in. The two Amendments which stand side by side really form part of the same Amendment, and if convenient, I would like to move them together. I think that if they are accepted the subsection would then read: Where a building preservation order is in force as respects any building and it appears to the Minister of Works that reasonable steps are not being taken for properly maintaining the building that Minister may be authorized under this section to acquire compulsorily the building.

I would say one more word. As Clause 40 (1) was moved to be left out, there was no Amendment made to line 4. If my Amendment were accepted and subsection (1) left in, there ought to be an Amendment made corresponding to my Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 14, leave out ("required") and insert ("are not being taken").—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will gladly accept this Amendment, and the following one.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 15, leave out from ("building") to ("that") in line 16.—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.31 p.m.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "as mentioned in the foregoing subsection" and insert "for maintaining its amenities or for affording access thereto." The noble Earl said: This Amendment was also put down on the assumption that the Government would accept the Amendment of my noble friend, the Earl of Munster, and there should be a consequential Amendment to subsection (2). Subsection (2) authorizes the Minister "to acquire compulsorily the building and any land comprising or contiguous or adjacent to it which appears to him to be required as mentioned in the foregoing subsection" and subsection (1) provides for any land "which appears to the Minister to be required for maintaining the building or its amenities, or for affording access thereto, or for the proper control or management thereof." My Amendment seeks to leave out "for the proper control or management thereof."

My reason for putting forward that suggestion is one of fear that the provision might be interpreted rather widely. Indeed, on the example of what I believe to be the practice of the National Trust, it would be interpreted very widely. When the National Trust take over voluntarily, they always insist on taking over with either sufficient land or sufficient investments to provide an income for the proper management of the property. I do not say that it is the intention to interpret this provision regarding a building in that way, but we might easily find in years to come that not only are a building and its amenities being taken over, with the necessary access, but also the whole of the property is being taken to maintain the building. I do not know if this is the right way of doing it, but it seems to me that the words "maintaining the amentities and affording access" should be sufficient for the purpose of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 19, leave out from ("required") to end of line and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Radnor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I confess I thought this Amendment was consequential on the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, and that when we decided to keep in subsection (1) we would not hear about this Amendment. I would point out that we are not dealing here with local authorities and there is no question of saving rates. This is a building taken over by the Minister of Works, and I think everybody considers —it is certainly my experience in this and other Governments—that the Ministry of Works in this connexion are doing their work extremely well. I have not the slightest hesitation in entrusting these powers to the Ministry of Works. It does not worry me at all if the Minister is entitled to acquire a building, either to maintain it or its amenities or for affording access, or for the proper control and management thereof. I feel personally that the wider powers you give to the Ministry of Works, the better. I do not see any ground whatever for thinking they are abused and I should think it desirable that the Ministry of Works should have power to acquire a building for any of the reasons indicated in this and the preceding subsection. Therefore I cannot accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I would like to point out to the noble and learned Viscount that the last words cannot possibly apply to the actual buildings to be acquired; they apply to land surrounding the buildings, to what is considered the necessary adjunct in the way of land round a building. There is a precedent for acquiring such land to produce an income to maintain a building and to save either the taxpayer or the ratepayer, and it may be dangerous. I tried to say that I know it is not the intention of this Government, but it might be the intention of some hard pressed Chancellor of the Exchequer in the future, in order to save the pockets of the taxpayers to the extent of the maintenance. As this should have been first raised on subsection (1), if I withdraw my Amendment now I may possibly resubmit it in a different form on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert: Provided that any person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Minister of Works under this subsection that reasonable steps are not being taken for properly maintaining the building may, within twenty-eight days of receiving notice of such decision, appeal against the decision to a court of summary jurisdiction for the petty sessional division or place within which the building is situated, and any person aggrieved by a decision of such court may appeal against that decision to a court of quarter sessions.

The noble Lord said: Under the clause there is no appeal. It is true that the Minister may be authorized under this clause to acquire compulsorily any building if it appears to him that reasonable steps required for properly maintaining the building are not being taken, and the Minister again may, for similar reasons, authorize a local authority to acquire the building. In the whole of these provisions there is no provision whatever for the person from whom the building is to be acquired to appeal to some tribunal and point out the circumstances, and for the tribunal to say that the authority cannot get the land. He has no opportunity of being heard in public, as I think should happen in all these cases.

Clause 22, which we have passed, gives the right of appeal against an enforcement notice enforcing planning control. That right of appeal is to the same body—the court of summary jurisdiction—which I have named in my Amendment. If a man should have a, right to appeal against an enforcement notice, surely he should have an equal right of appeal when his house is to be compulsorily acquired by a Government Department, not because they need it, but merely because they say he is not maintaining it in a sufficiently good condition. I say he ought to be able to go before some tribunal and have the case argued. I do not think that the method laid down in the Bill is the way to acquire a man's land or his house, especially if it is a house in which he and his family have been living for a long time. He should have some right of being heard, and have some appeal. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 19, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord, Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am not very happy about the drafting of this Amendment but I gladly accept it—I think the noble Lord has got a point—if it is understood that I may come back on Report stage and make proposals in regard to an alteration of the wording. The noble Lord will not think that by accepting the Amendment now I am in any way precluded from doing that.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. This certainly shows that he is anxious to see that justice is done to these people.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.41 p.m.

LORD ADDINGTON moved at the end of subsection (2) to insert: (3) An authorisation may be given under this section notwithstanding that a demolition order has been made under section eleven of the Housing Act, 1936.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is also to the clause dealing with building preservation orders. It has been suggested by those who are interested in these buildings that the clause needs some widening to provide a power to acquire buildings which have previously been made subject to orders for demolition. Reconsideration of demolition orders has been pressed for some time by those who are interested in preserving ancient buildings. At present a demolition order cannot be altered or removed, and no doubt some buildings were condemned some time ago, perhaps rather unwisely. I believe a certain number of the local authorities would like to have these demolition orders rescinded. There are certain picturesque houses in different districts—there is one at Hogs Head, and the Lake District has been instanced—which were made the subject of demolition orders before the war, although owing to the conditions prevailing during the war and the shortage of housing the demolition orders have not been carried out. It is thought necessary that such buildings should be preserved, some probably in part and others entirely; and it may be that there should be some restriction put on their use for certain agreed purposes and probably that they should not be used for habitation. On the clause as it at present stands you cannot preserve an ancient building for any purpose where it is subject to a demolition order. It is to resist that that the Amendment is moved. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 19 at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Addington.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think there is some misapprehension here. It is quite true that a demolition order once made cannot be removed. It is also perfectly certain that a purchase by a local authority in pursuance of an authorization made under Clauses 40 and 41 can be effected notwithstanding the fact that there is a demolition order. But if you make such an authorization, the demolition order still stands good; and if the local authority are unwise enough to purchase such a building, they will be caught by the order and will be bound to demolish it. The only way to deal with this matter is under Clause 42, and not Clause 41, since the demolition order does not bind the Crown. If the building is required by the Minister of Works, he is not bound by the demolition order, whereas the local authority is. In that way the position is protected and preserved. The Amendment which the noble Lord is moving would have no effect in law at all. It would merely have the effect of leading some unhappy local authorities to suppose that if they got an authorization under Clause 41 they would then be free from the demolition order, when in fact they would not be. I think the Amendment, which, as I say, has no legal effect, would be unfortunate, in that it might, if I may use a vulgarism, lead some of the authorities "up the garden path."

LORD LLEWELLIN

I would like to ask one question. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, when he was speaking, said that he could stop the demolition of the Town Hall of Dundee only by a preservation order, which could last only six months. Has the law been altered since then? I do not press it now, but I think it is a point which we should go into. If a demolition order has been made by mistake in regard to one of these ancient buildings, it seems to me that the Minister of Works ought to be able to override it in suitable cases. I should have thought that that was something on which we could all agree. Although this may not be a suitable Amendment, it seems to me that somebody ought to be given that power.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will, of course, look into it. I am inclined to think that the only practical way of getting rid of it is for the Minister to buy the property. The order then ceases to have any effect, because it does not bind the Crown.

LORD ADDLNGTON

Perhaps I may be allowed to consider the point and introduce it at a more appropriate place at a later stage. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved at the end of subsection (3) to insert: (4) Where any building is acquired under the provisions of this section the Minister of Works shall observe the provisions of the building preservation order relating to that building

The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to impose an obligation on the Minister of Works similar to the obligation imposed by a building preservation order on a private owner. If the purpose of building preservation orders is to be fulfilled, the Minister of Works should be compelled to undertake the same obligations as an owner, because the character of a building might very easily be altered if there was a violent change of user. It is with that object in view that I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think it might be convenient to discuss this and the next Amendment together. Whereas I am not so strongly wedded to the first Amendment, I am very strongly wedded to the second. We all know that the Ministry of Works does these things very well, and the first Amendment deals with that Ministry. But I think there is a strong case for the second Amendment, for the simple reason that most local authorities (with the exception of one or two who have done this work before) have as their only idea when they buy a building of this sort what they can put into it—whether they can make it into a mental home, or whether they can make it into something else for which they have to find some kind of building. That will very likely be the outlook of quite a number of these local authorities on taking over these ancient buildings. That is not the way to preserve an ancient building, as everybody knows who has visited the unfortunate people in a mental home. In other cases, they may make them into schools, and things of that sort. I think the second Amendment is really important. They will have taken the building over in order that it may be preserved. Let us see to it by inserting this Amendment in the Bill that they do preserve it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not know whether my natural feeling of compromise or bargaining is getting the better of me, but I am disposed to make this suggestion to the noble Lord. If he will withdraw the first Amendment, I will accept the second, which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said he thought was the more important. That is a short and simple way of dealing with the matter, and it would save a great deal of time if the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, would agree to that course.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY

I think the compromise proposed by the noble and learned Viscount is a reasonable one. In the main, I feel that the objects which I am seeking to achieve by these Amendments will be met by leaving in the second of my two Amendments. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the first Amendment in my name, and formally move the second.

VISCOUNT GAGE

Before this Amendment is withdrawn, might I ask what is probably a very ignorant question? Are we to understand that this Bill gives a local authority power to spend ratepayers' money on preserving a building? I have been in local government for some time, and I am always discovering that we have powers which I never knew we possessed, but I was unaware that we had any power to spend ratepayers' money on preserving purely and simply.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The answer is this: if the local authority have power to do anything, for instance, to preserve a building, it follows that they have the right to spend their money for that purpose. Since they derive their money from the ratepayers, it follows that they have the right to use the ratepayers' money to do any of the functions which Parliament has entrusted to them.

Amendment, by Leave, withdrawn.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 47, line 33, at end insert: (4) Where any building is acquired under the provisions of subsection (1) of this section the council of the county or county borough or county district, by whom the building is acquired shall observe the provisions of the building preservation order relating to that building."—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

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

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 38, after ("order") insert ("has been or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is also a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 39, leave out from ("authority") to ("and") in line 40.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

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

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY

I do not want to delay the Committee on this, but there is one point which has not specifically been discussed on this clause, which does seem to me to be germane to the policy underlying what we have been discussing. There are in various parts of the country, certainly in the part of the country in which I live, cottages both of considerable antiquity and of architectural merit. They are now mostly occupied by agricultural workers, people employed by the agricultural industry. They are not ideal houses to live in; they are often remotely situated; they have not got modern conveniences; they often require considerable expenditure of money to maintain. I can foresee the time coming—at least, I hope I can foresee it—when other houses will be built, when the rural workers will have a wider choice of where they can live and, when they get that choice, if the time ever comes, they will not wish—and, in fact, even with the shortage of houses, they do not now wish—to live in these cottages.

The owner of a cottage of that sort is in a dilemma. The Rent Restrictions Act, the merits of which I do not wish to discuss now, prevents him offering that house to any other agricultural worker or to anybody else at a higher rent. If those buildings are to be preserved, they will require money spent on them and it is very difficult to find people nowadays who can afford to spend money upon cottages which they are letting at three shillings a week. I think that the time will come when this circumstance may arise rather acutely, and, although I cannot see any way of amending this Bill to bring this point within its scope, I do commend to the attention of the Government this problem. If and when housing accommodation in rural areas becomes more abundant, I think there is a case for withdrawing from the scope of the Rent Restrictions Act cottages of this type which with certain improvements are desirable for people who want agricultural cottages or who want a retired life, but they are unsuitable for rural workers because of their antiquity or remoteness. I do hope that the noble and learned Viscount will draw the attention of the Minister to this particular point.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think that is at all a bad suggestion, if I may say so. It does not really arise on this clause, as the noble Lord knows quite well, but a good suggestion is always welcome, and I will see that his observation is reported to the proper quarters.

Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 41 agreed to.

5.55 p.m.

Clause 42:

Acquisition of land by Central Land Board.

42.—(1) The Central Land Board may, with the approval of the Minister, by agreement acquire land for any purpose connected with the performance of their functions under the following provisions of this Act, and in particular may so acquire any land for the purpose of disposing of it for development on terms inclusive of any development charge payable under those provisions in respect of that development.

(2) If the Minister is satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest that the Board should acquire any land for any such purpose as aforesaid, and that the Board are unable to acquire the land by agreement on reasonable terms, he may authorise the Board to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(3) Subsection (4) of Section thirty-seven and Section thirty-eight of this Act shall apply to the compulsory acquisition of land by the Central Land Board under this section as they apply to the compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities under the said Section thirty-seven; and for the purposes of this section the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, shall have effect as if any reference therein to a local authority (except the references thereto in subsection (2) of section one and in paragraph 9 of the First Schedule) included a reference to the Board.

(4) Any land acquired by the Central Land Board under the provisions of this section shall be disposed of by them in accordance with such directions as may be given to them in that behalf by the Minister, and until the land is so disposed of the Board may manage it in accordance with such directions:

Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the Board to carry out any development of land acquired by them thereunder.

(5) Any expenses incurred by the Central Land Board in the acquisition of land under this section shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament; and any sums received by the Board in respect of the disposal of any such land shall be paid into the Exchequer.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (1), after "development," where that word first occurs, to insert "for which permission has been granted under Part III of this Act." The noble Viscount said: I have a later Amendment to leave out this whole clause, and that I have put down purely with the idea of getting an explanation from His Majesty's Government as to how it will work. I cannot really explain the whole object of my first Amendment without going into rather the working of the clause. I would therefore like to make all the remarks that I propose to make on this first Amendment, and it may be advantageous to consider the subsequent Amendments in the light of any explanation which we may get from the Government.

On the Second Reading, I did venture to suggest to your Lordships that it was really one of the most important and revolutionary clauses in the whole Bill—important because it was the only clause which sought to do anything for private enterprise, and revolutionary because it was aimed at affecting the system of land tenure in this country. It seemed to me that, before we would wish to pass this clause, the Government could give us an explanation of how it was proposed to work. Many clauses in this Bill are drafted in very complicated language, but this has a certain magnificent simplicity about it. It simply gives the Minister power to buy land through the Central Land Board—to buy any land he likes from anyone he likes at a low price and to sell it at a higher price to someone else, provided he is satisfied that he is acting in the national interest. It, therefore, gives the Minister power to become a dealer in land on a very large scale.

I venture to ask one or two questions about this new idea. On what principles is the land going to be disposed of? I have asked before what the position of the local planning authority was and what the position of the owner was. With your Lordships' permission, I would like to ask those questions again to-day in a little more detail. It is always easier, in trying to get hold of a new idea, to refer to some concrete example, and I would like to take one or two cases which I think can very easily arise under this clause. I should like to suppose that there is an owner of a vacant plot of land in an area which is defined in a scheme as a shopping and business zone—an area which, in fact, has already been built-up largely for such purposes. I would like to suppose that the owner advertises the land for sale and that he asks a very high price, or a rather high price, for it. If I may interpose one remark here, it does not seem to me that there is anything in the Bill to prevent a man taking any price he can get for his land. The theory may be that the Government acquire all development values, but it does not seem to me that that is quite what happens under the Bill as drafted. What happens seems to me to be that the Government take power to acquire that land if they acquire the land compulsorily.

I am supposing that the owner ignores the threat of compulsory acquisition and he takes a risk and asks for a high price. This seems to me a direct challenge to the intention of the Government, and I have little doubt that, if interested parties thought they could get hold of this land more cheaply by applying to the Central Land Board than by dealing with the owner for a good site, it would become quite a popular sport putting in an application for this good site. Indeed, I do not think it is at all unreasonable to think that for a really good site you might get up to half a dozen different applicants. For a vacant corner site you might have a bank, a multiple shop, a private trader, a man who wished to put up a block of business offices, all putting in for this plot of land. Let us suppose that they put in quite satisfactory plans in accordance with the general development scheme, and acceptable from the point of view of design. I want to know who is going to be the lucky one to get this land, and why.

Is the man who can pay the highest development charge going to get the land? I saw in another place that the Minister said there was going to be no discrimination as between individuals, but he added that the amount of the development charge might depend on the nature of the shop premises that were going to be put up. Therefore, I am wondering whether, out of the six applicants, five of them are going away reflecting rather sadly that they merely exchanged the whips of private control for the scorpions of Treasury control. If that is not going to be the principle what is going to be the principle? How is the decision going to be arrived at? What is the responsibility of the local planning authority? In the case that I have quoted presumably there will be six sets of plans for the same plot of land, and presumably the local planning authority will be the authority to consider them. I certainly think they should, because it would surely be very wrong if the Central Land Board were above ordinary town-planning procedure. That would really mean that the Minister was setting up a kind of private agency of his own within the territory of the local planning authority. I think that would be most undesirable, although it is possible under the clause as drafted; hence the Amendment which I am moving.

If the local planning authority are to consider the plans, will they also have to take any part in deciding who is to be the favoured applicant? If that is so, I do hope the responsibilities of the planning authorities will be accurately defined; otherwise I simply cannot imagine a more fruitful source of gossip, rumour, suspicion and innuendo than would be provided by this clause. Just imagine what would be said by the local Conservatives if the lucky applicant happened to be a branch of the Co-operative Stores. It would almost be as bad as what would be said by the local Labour supporters if the winning entry were a block of offices to house the local branch of the Conservative Association. I do hope that the Government will be able to clear up this somewhat complicated situation.

I am afraid I have one other conundrum. I want to come to the question of who does what and why. Your Lordships will probably remember that under Clause 5, the local planning authority can purchase land which in their opinion ought to be purchased compulsorily for the purpose of securing its use in the manner proposed by the plan. In other words, they have similar powers to those of the Central Land Board, except that they cannot sell land having acquired it, but can only lease it. I would like to take the case of a man who wanted to put up a factory on the outskirts of a town. Supposing he has planning consent and Board of Trade consent, but that the land he wants belongs to a farmer who will not sell except at a good price. Are we really to expect that farmers should sell their land except at a good price? If a farmer has to sell his land at roughly agricultural prices, surely the presumption is that the buyer would wish to keep it for agriculture. All I can see must happen is that somebody must step in and buy that land which is required under the plan for industrial purposes. But is that to be the Central Land Board, or is it to be the local planning authority? This is not an academic question, and I feel that if the Government are going to split the responsibility for doing many of these things, which are often difficult and often unpleasant, there is going to be a tremendous amount of confusion.

There are many other questions I could ask. How, for example, is the compulsory principle going to apply to the working of the minerals clause, Clause 79? I do not wish to develop that to-day. What is the position of the owner when all kinds of transactions are taking place over his head and possibly without his knowledge? I will not detain your Lordships any longer, but I hope that the Government will make an effort to give us an idea of how this clause will work without, if I may say so, leaving out all the difficult parts. It is very easy to say in answer to a clause like this that the Minister will take every relevant circumstance into account before making a decision and that everybody will co-operate with everybody else. I hope that the Government will not take that line, partly because I know that there are all manner of people who have got to work this Bill, officials and others, who are wondering really what on earth the Government's intentions are, and partly because I feel very strongly that unless responsibility is defined and everybody knows what his job is this clause would not help private enterprise at all but would, I believe, bog it down in uncertainty and complication. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 44, after ("development") insert ("for which permission has been granted under Part III of this Act").—(Viscount Gage.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think we are in rather an inconvenient position. I am perfectly prepared to accept this Amendment, but the discussion the noble Viscount raised seems to arise on the question whether the clause shall stand part. I shall content myself with accepting the Amendment now and answering the observations the noble Viscount has made on the question whether the clause shall stand part.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, but the position is that a planning authority is very much bound up with what I have been saying. However, I will leave it like that for the time being.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to insert: (4) The notice published under subparagraph (1) (a) of paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure Act, 1946, shall contain a statement setting out the name and address of the person to whom and the price or rent at which it is proposed to dispose of the land after its acquisition under subsection (2) of this section.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is of some importance in view of what my noble friend Lord Gage has said. It is designed to deal with the problem of publicity with regard to transactions undertaken by the Central Land Board. This deals with the question of compulsory acquisitions by the Central Land Board. While I have no doubt I may be told that it is undesirable in transactions of this nature as between individuals that there should be publicity of this nature, one must remember that the Central Land Board is a public body handling, public money and a good many of the things which the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has suggested—a number of people applying for land and the highest bidder, or possibly not the highest bidder, getting the land—may occur. I think it is desirable that there should be the fullest possible publicity for these transactions so that we may be quite certain that there is no underhand work or jobbery of any sort going on or even profiteering, which may happen. I hope, in those circumstances, that the noble Lord will at least treat this Amendment sympathetically. I beg to move.

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

LORD HENDERSON

I am not going to accept the Amendment. It is not because I am against publicity and it is not because I want any underhand work, or any of the unhappy circumstances to which the noble Earl referred. The real reason is this. In many cases at the date of compulsory purchase the Board will have no knowledge of the person to whom, or the prices at which, it is proposed to dispose of the land. They may, for instance, buy land for the purpose of selling it, together with the development rights, by public auction in order to test the market and test the basis on which development charges are made. Even where they buy land with the intention of selling it to a particular developer, the price he will be charged for it will often not be known at the date the notice under the Acquisition of Land (Authorization Procedure) Act, 1946, is served. It will be the total of the development charge and the existing use value, and in cases which go to arbitration the latter will not be known until after the arbitration. It is in respect of those two sets of circumstances that I am unable to accept the Amendment. It has nothing to do with the other points which the noble Earl raised, with which I have a great deal of sympathy. In the light of these practical considerations I hope that the noble Earl may feel inclined to withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the sympathetic way in which he says he will not accept this Amendment. I gather that the gist of his remarks is that he is not averse to publicity in these matters, but as this Amendment is drawn it is impossible of fulfilment, because at the time the Amendment requires the publicity, the knowledge will not necessarily be there. I appreciate that, and I think, therefore, that there is a lapse in the drafting of the Amendment. I did not draft it myself—probably I should have made a worse job of it if I had. If the noble Lord is really not averse to publicity, would he treat sympathetically at the next stage a favourable Amendment, if it can be devised, which would ensure that when the transaction was completed, publicity could be given full rein?

LORD HENDERSON

I obviously could not give a definite answer to that point at this stage, but I would certainly be glad to have such a proposed Amendment looked at and considered before the next stage of the Bill is reached.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

In those circumstances I will try to get someone to devise a suitable Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved, in subsection (4), after "provisions of this section," to insert "otherwise than land acquired by the Board for it own use as offices." The noble Lord said: This and the next really form part of the same Amendment. I am seeking by these Amendments to put words in the Bill to ensure that the Central Land Board shall not buy up as a side wind, or embark upon a policy of becoming a national ground landlord. I should like to hear from the noble Lord who replies that that is not the Government's intention. It seems to me that that would be an undesirable result of this Bill and I think we should have some statement from the Government of their policy in this very important matter. I therefore beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name. Obviously it is necessary to safeguard the Central Land Board's own acquisition of land for their own use.

LORD HENDERSON

The first Amendment seems to assume that the Board will acquire land for offices for their own accommodation. That is not so. The Ministry of Works will provide office accommodation in the same way as they provide accommodation for other Government Departments. I think the second Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord is unnecessary. It is not intended that the Board should hold land purchased for development for a longer period than is necessary to dispose of it at a reasonable price. There may be other cases in which exceptional circumstances make it desirable that the Minister should have power to give directions to the Board not to dispose of the freehold in the land acquired.

It may be asked what sort of exceptional circumstances could arise. Sometimes the developer to whom the Board are disposing of land will have only temporary planning permission; that is to say, permission subject to a condition requiring the removal of buildings, for instance, at the end of a certain time. The reason may be that the land will be required for a public purpose after that time. In such a case the Board will grant a lease for the same term of years as the planning permission. It is preferable for them to do this rather than sell the freehold leaving it to be acquired for a second time when the land is needed for another public purpose. One of the purposes for which the Bill acquires land, too, is to test the market. They will need to test the leasehold as well as the freehold market, and in such cases the Board would, of course, give leases and not sell the freehold. It is in respect of that sort of exceptional case that the limitation is required. Apart from this the general policy will be to dispose freely of the land.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY

I am grateful for the noble Lord's reply, which I feel is reassuring. I beg leave to withdraw my first Amendment as it stands, but I should like an opportunity of considering the implication of the words, and of seeing whether something could not be put into the Bill which would strengthen the reassurance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved, after subsection (4) to insert: (5) Upon any disposition by the Central Land Board of any land compulsorily acquired under the provisions of this section the Board shall make it a condition that the person to whom it is disposed of shall not transfer his interest or any part of his interest therein until the development thereof for which permission was granted has been completed.

The noble Lord said: Dealings by the Central Land Board in land must involve large sums of money and great interests and offer great temptations. It would be an undesirable practice, as I see it, that a purchaser from the Central Land Board, or a developer of a particular kind, should acquire the land from the Central Land Board in his turn and then re-transfer his interest at a large profit without developing it. This Amendment seeks to prevent that kind of occurrence. If it were allowed—and I think it is allowed under the Bill as it stands, although I am open to correction—it would naturally open the door to undesirable practices, or could open the door to undesirable practices. And I think it would be a much better safeguard if the developer were compelled to complete his development before he disposes of his interest. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 25, at end, insert the said subsection.—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)

LORD HENDERSON

I think that the purpose that the noble Lord has in mind is a, purpose which is already served by the Bill. The proviso to subsection (1) of Clause 69 provides: that the Board may, if they think fit, direct that any such determination as aforesaid shall cease to have effect if, before the operations to which the determination relates are carried out or completed…any interest in the land is transferred or created (otherwise than by operation of law), unless the determination is confirmed by the Board with or without modifications, on a subsequent application made to them in that behalf. This provision is applicable to all determinations, whether they relate to land which the Board has purchased in order to sell to a developer, or whether they relate to land which has not been purchased by them. It is designed to achieve the object which I think the noble Lord has in mind, the object of curbing speculation. Apart from this, it would be unfair to go further than the provisions under Clause 69 because, for example, cases may arise where the developer, having carried out part of his development, finds himself unable through lack of funds to complete the work. It would be unfair in such cases to enforce a condition such as that proposed in the Amendment. In the light of that explanation I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I see something in what the noble Lord has said, but I think that his reply both on this Amendment and the previous Amendment goes to reinforce what was said by my noble friend the Earl of Radnor in his Amendment, that it is very important, when these difficult transactions are going on, that the public should know about them. It should not be something done behind the scenes, without anybody knowing anything about it. I very much hope, therefore, that before the Report stage we may be able to deal with something on the lines suggested by my noble friend the Earl of Radnor.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY

I will not press this Amendment, although we on this side of the House are in a difficulty until we have had an explanation, which we hope we may have at the end of this Clause, as to how the Central Land Board will operate in this matter. What we are anxious to do is to see that there shall be no loophole, if we can so arrange it, by which undesirables should take charge of the land. Whether or not this is desirable before the Bill becomes law is another question, but it is clearly desirable where there is a Government monopoly, and I hope that if I withdraw this Amendment now it will not prejudice anything I may wish to put down on the Report stage, having looked at the question again in the light of the information given.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.25 p.m.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved to leave out Clause 42. The noble Viscount said: I have already made my speech on this Amendment, and I apologize to the noble and learned Viscount for having made it prematurely.

Amendment moved— Leave out Cause 42.—(Viscount Gage.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It was only my sense of order which I learnt in another place which prompted me to point out that you cannot discuss the general principles of a clause until you know what the clause is to be. I thought we should wait until the Amendments were disposed of before I proceeded to propound the clause. The noble Viscount has asked some very pertinent questions, and it is desirable that we should have this matter quite plainly in our minds. We are proposing under this Bill, if I may just restate the obvious, to buy out development values and to pay compensation. All the people will lose their development values, but they will be left with the exist- ing use of the land, and they will have had, assuming they come into the proper category, a share of the £300,000,000. This circumstance, therefore, follows, a circumstance which is very often lost sight of: It is quite true to say that the inducement to a landowner to sell is therefore very largely gone.

The farmer, as the noble Viscount, who presumably is interested in farming, rightly said, if he sells his land and is only going to get the existing use value, has not much inducement to sell. Therefore you have got to take steps, to put it quite crudely, to see that the landowner does not get paid twice over, first of all by having a share of the £300,000,000 and then by being able to exact from a would-be purchaser, not an existing use value at all, but a price which is really the development price. Your Lordships follow what I mean about that. The only way that can be done is to see that there are powers of compulsory purchase. I do not doubt this, and I would make this admission quite frankly, and indeed I shall pray it in aid if anybody is going to suggest, although I do not think they will do so, that the £300,000,000 is not a very adequate sum.

Consider this case. Here is a man, a farmer, and his land for agricultural purposes is worth £50 an acre. Here is a site on his farm. Planning permission can be obtained. If a man wants to build a house there, there is no reason why he should not. He goes to the farmer, having got his planning permission, and says, "Will you sell me that piece of land?" —land which is worth £50 an acre for existing use. The farmer will probably say: "Yes, I will sell it to you," and the would-be purchaser would say: "What is your charge?" and the answer might be "£100." He will very often get something over and above existing use value. If he went on further and said, "I shall charge you £200," then the difference between the existing use value and the value which he is demanding would be so marked that, in those circumstances, it might be worth while for the would-be purchaser to try to put in motion one of the two agencies, either the Central Land Board or the local planning authority.

Therefore, I think if we try to be realistic about this sort of thing we must always try to see that, although our plan is to compensate the landowner for everything exceeding the existing use value, in fact, we should not put him in the position where, in a great many cases, he will be able to exact a good deal more than the existing use value. That being so, we have therefore to have some method of compulsory purchase, so that if a man wants to buy this site for which, as I have said, planning permission is obtained, he is not going to be treated as though the landowner had not received part of the £300,000,000, and, in addition, of course, the purchaser has got to pay the development charge. He is not going to be made to pay twice over. So you have the local authority and the Central Land Board; they both have powers, with Ministerial approval, of compulsory purchase, but they approach the problem from different angles. The concern of the local authority is, of course, to get the land developed. The concern of the Central Land Board is to get the development charge.

The noble Viscount gave some illustrations. He wanted to know at what price the land will be disposed of, what is the position of the local authority, what is the position of the owner. And he gave an example. Suppose you have an owner of land occupying, I think he said, a corner site in the shopping or business zone. He advertises it for sale, or is prepared to sell it at a high price. He demands and insists on a high price. An interested party can apply to the Central Land Board to get them the site. Perhaps there may be half a dozen people applying and asking for the site. The noble Lord asks who is going to get the land in such a case. How is the decision arrived at? The answer is that the Central Land Board are to act like a good estate owner. Just as a good estate owner would—other things being equal, and the prospective tenants being equally desirable—sell to the highest bidder, so will the Central Land Board. They will sell to the highest bidder, unless there is something exceptional about the case.

Take another example, that of a farmer. Some of his land is wanted for development and he either says he will not sell at all or he wants £500 an acre, or some equally ridiculous price. He would not, in practice, say that stupid sort of thing. He would say something like £200 an acre. When the other fellow then suggested that that was not the agricultural value he would reply, "That is just the one plot on my farm where everything grows well." If he were to ask for an extreme price the local authority could buy. That being so, we feel that it is essential to the working of this scheme that there should be in reserve this power of the local authority on the one hand and the Central Land Board on the other to make compulsory purchase, in order to prevent what would be very unfair—namely, that the landowner who has got his share of the £300,000,000, should in addition get a price for his land which represents not existing use value but development value. The Central Land Board will therefore buy land for that purpose, that is, to help the intending developer to do what he seeks to do, which is to develop the land, and so that the Central Land Board may get the development charge, which is the thing they are after.

But there will be another case—a not infrequent case—in which it is contemplated that the Central Land Board will require to acquire land. They will require to acquire land to be put up to auction from time to time with planning permission to develop and free of development charge. They want to do this in various parts of the country fairly often so that they may use sales of this sort as a prototype as to what development value really is and so as to check and keep in touch with the market. As I say, they anticipate that they will have to do that fairly often. So the Central Land Board will require to purchase land for these two purposes—sometimes to help the man who wants to develop it and sometimes to test the value of the land by selling it free of development charge. When they acquire land for the former purpose they will in normal circumstances sell it to the highest bidder. For the reasons that I have given we think that this clause is really an important part of the machinery of this Bill.

VISCOUNT GAGE

Could the noble and learned Viscount explain just one further point? Do I understand that the Central Land Board is going to take decisions in such cases as that of the six applicants who have been referred to? I gather that the local planning authority has no say as to which of these six applicants is to be successful?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Assuming of course that the six applicants all have planning permission and that sort of thing, then it would be the Central Land Board who would sell to the highest bidder.

LORD DE 'ISLE AND DUDLEY

Presumably the landowner who is selling—who may be forced to sell—is entitled to existing user value. That may change considerably, and may go up. How is the Central Land Board going to test the portion of the price which will be attributable to existing user value and the portion which will be attributable to development value?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There will be a good many sales of land taking place, and it is not anticipated that it will be very difficult to fix existing user value. The Central Land Board will, as I have said, sell land free of development charge, and in that way they anticipate they will be able to check the development value of land and ascertain to what extent land fetches a higher price when free of development charge than when it is limited to existing use.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

There was one feature of the noble and learned Viscount's remarks that I think was almost disturbing. He said that the Central Land Board would naturally deal with land more or less as a good estate owner would and, other things being equal, would sell to the highest bidder. It seems to me that the prospective purchaser is probably not going to get the land any cheaper in the end. With regard to any difference between transactions of the Central Land Board and existing transactions between landowner and prospective purchaser, the only difference, should say, is going to be that whereas the landowner is frowned upon for getting a profit out of his land the Central Land Board will not be so frowned upon.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The object of this Bill is not really that the purchaser should get the land any cheaper. Instead of paying all to the landowner, he will now pay the existing use value to the owner and the development charge to the Central Land Board. It may not in fact represent the whole 100 per cent. of the development value, but in normal cases it does represent, I hope, a substantial part of it. That is the scheme of the Bill.

LORD SALTOUN

There seems to me to be one slight and disturbing point about the noble Viscount's illustration. If you take a small portion of land from a farm you may very materially injure the farm, possibly because of the importance of the situation of farm buildings or something of that kind. The taking away of a small plot, even though it is only a matter of 20 acres, may make the rest of the land of far less value. I think that that ought to be considered.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Am I not right in thinking that there are provisions for compensation for severance in this Bill?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes, that case is taken care of.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the explanation which he has given. It seems to me that the art in dealing in land in the future will be the art of guessing at what point official action will be taken, and also of taking into account the psychology of the buyer and realizing exactly at what point he will risk all the red tape inseparable from any Government activity—the invariable mass of forms, and so on. However, I have no doubt there is a great deal that will have to emerge in connexion with this clause. Whatever they may be, I say candidly that I cannot help feeling that the results of this clause will be to put up the price of land —by how much remains to be seen. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 42, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD RANKEILLOUR

May I ask whether there will be any time limit under subsection (4)? Will the Central Land Board be enabled to keep that land and manage it indefinitely? They might wish to tide over a slump till they thought they could get their price; that might continue for a long time, and they might have a great deal of land to manage. I suggest that the land ought to be put up for auction within a reasonable time.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord must have been out of the House when we had a discussion on this point. Lord Henderson explained that the intention is that the Central Land Board shall not keep land. They shall dispose of it as quickly as they can, save in exceptional cases where they might have some land requited for a particular purpose for a particular number of years.

Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.

6.42 p.m.

Clause 43:

Incorporation of certain provisions of Act of 1944.

(2) Subsection (3) of section twenty of the Act of 1944 (which provides that in certain cases the Minister shall not give his consent to the carrying out of any operation by the local planning authority under that section if a person other than that authority is able and willing to carry out the operation) shall cease to have effect.

(3) Section fifteen of the Act of 1944 (which relates to the purchase of licensed premises) shall apply in relation to premises comprised in land acquired under this Part of this Act, not being land in a licensing planning area within the meaning of the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Acts, 1945 and 1946, and the said section shall accordingly have effect as if for the reference to land purchased under Part I of that Act there were substituted a reference to any such land as aforesaid acquired under this Part of this Act.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: I am seeking to move out subsection (2) of Clause 43 which says that "subsection (3) of section twenty of the Act of 1944…shall cease to have effect." Subsection (3) of Section 20 says: The Minister shall not give his consent for the purposes of the last preceding subsection"— that is, consent to a local planning authority to acquire compulsorily 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, 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,"— and so on.

The subsection in Clause 43, instead of allowing as many private individuals to develop land as may be willing and able to do so, is designed virtually to compel the local planning authority to do that developing and cut out the private developer, even more than he is cut out in the Bill as it stands. I hope that in deference to the many expressed views that we do not wish to curtail development in this way, the noble and learned Viscount will consider leaving out this subsection of Clause 43, so as still to leave some hope for the private developer. If he is barred from any chance of developing, it will undoubtedly lead to a curtailment of development generally. I hope there will be a partnership between public and private development, and this subsection takes a long step against any such partnership. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 41 leave out subsection (2).—(The Earl of Radnor.)

LORD HENDERSON

This Amendment involves a very simple principle. There is no question of the local authorities undertaking all the development and squeezing out the private developers. The discussions on earlier clauses have given indications that opportunities will be provided for local developers and it is a misapprehension to suggest that it is possible under the Bill at present that private developers will be squeezed out. Subsection (2) of Clause 43, as the noble Lord said, repeals Section 20, subsection (3) of the 1944 Act, which, broadly, prevented a local authority from carrying out any development which private enterprise was prepared to undertake. Indeed, that is a case where local authorities were squeezed out.

The Amendment would leave Section 20 (3) in force. The simple position is that the effect of the subsection is broadly to reserve all lucrative development for private enterprise and to leave the local authority with the rest. This would be inequitable and would be a most serious restriction upon a local planning authority, with its responsibility for development and re-development. Provision is made for bringing in the services of the private developer. Under the old position, the local authority was left with what the private developer did not want to take. That is a position which it is not proposed to continue under the Bill, and it is one which—if I may say so with respect to your Lordships—should not be continued under this Bill. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

The noble Lord used as part of his argument that it was "inequitable" to leave to the local authority the unremunerative development and the remunerative development to private enterprise. I think that is not impossible. The local authority, with the backing of the Central Land Board and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, is going to come into competition with private enterprise, and one has to remember that the Ministry has a monopoly. The insertion of this repeal of subsection (3) indicates that it is proposed to enable local, authorities to make a profit out of that transaction. That is virtually what the noble Lord said. They are not prepared to take unremunerative development unless they get a fair cut at the remunerative. They want to make a bit of money.

LORD HENDERSON

No, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to correct him. What I said was that under the operations of the section of the Act hitherto, the best pieces of development have been taken by private developers, because they had the right to get those under that section, and the more difficult pieces were left for the local authorities. I may add that that was not a new thing under the 1944 Act; it is a very old problem of municipal development that developments were not taken in hand by private developers because there was no private profit, and the local authorities had to take them in hand in order to provide the community with necessary services. I am not saying that this provision is to enable the local planning authorities to monopolize the best pieces now. It is in order that the local planning authorities might carry out the responsibilities imposed by this Bill that we cannot have them restricted in the way they have hitherto been by the section we propose to repeal by this Bill.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I am grateful to the noble Lord. The truth of the matter is that there is a fundamental difference of opinion between us as to the functions of the local authority in this case. I rather thought when I moved this Amendment that I should be running my head up against a brick wall. In this House the extreme measures are to force matters to a Division. I do not propose to take extreme measures, but I have brought this forward to show my strong disapproval.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD HENDERSON

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

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 7, leave out from ("effect") to end of line 9 and insert ("subject to the amendments specified in relation thereto in the second column of the Eighth Schedule to this Act").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 44 agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 44, to insert the following new clause:

"Acquisition of land by development corporations under New Towns Act, 1946.

.—(1) For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that the powers of acquiring land conferred by the New Towns Act, 1946 on a development corporation established for the purposes of a new town include power to acquire any land within the area designated under that Act as the site of the new town whether or not it is proposed to develop or redevelop that particular land.

(2) Section five of the said Act (which regulates the disposal of land by development corporations) shall have effect as if in subsection (1), after the words 'this Act' in the second place where those words occur, there were inserted the words 'or for purposes connected therewith'."

The noble and learned Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment is to remove doubt. Difficulty has arisen with regard to the New Towns Act, 1946. The question is merely one of vires. Section 4 of the New Towns Act, 1946, makes it clear that the development corporation can be authorized to buy any land. But Section 2 is the section which deals with the vires. Section 2 (2) says: The objects of a development corporation established for the purposes of a new town shall be to secure the laying out and development of the new town in accordance with proposals approved in that behalf under the following provisions of this Act, and for that purpose every such corporation shall have power to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of land. It is said that the vires they have is only for that purpose. It is said that they only have power to buy land which they need for laying out and developing the new town. We desire to make it quite plain that the corporation should have the widest powers over the area designated as a new town, and they are not to be restricted by the phrase "for that purpose" as limiting the vires which they have. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—. After Clause 44 insert the said new clause. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

Does it make a great deal of difference? If the land is designated for the town, it is land which is going to be used for the town. I presume that nobody is going to designate more land than is necessary.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It removes doubt, and doubt has been expressed.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 45 agreed to.

Clause 46 [Construction and improvement of private streets]:

LORD SALTOUN had given notice that he would have to insert in subsection (5): (c) that where expenses have been incurred in the execution of street works under the provisions of this section by the owner of any land abutting on such street or have been charged on any such land, the amount of such expenses shall be taken into account in determining whether any, and if so what, development charge is to be paid under Part VI of this Act in respect of such land.

The noble Lord said: I do not propose to waste your Lordships' time on this Amendment because the purpose of it is obvious. I understand that the noble and learned Viscount is in agreement with the purpose of the Amendment, and that it is covered by Clause 84 at a later stage. The only thing I wish to say about it is that I myself have ventured to put down an additional Amendment to Clause 84, which I think does complete the matter. I do not think it is right without my Amendment. I shall be obliged if your Lordships will study that in the interval between now and Clause 84 to see if I am not correct in my supposition.

Clause 46 agreed to.

6.55 p.m.

Clause 47:

Power to stop up and divert highways, etc.

47.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Section twenty-three of the Act of 1944, as incorporated with this Act, or Section three of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, the Minister of Transport may, if he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in order to enable development to be carried out in accordance with planning permission granted under Part III of this Act, by order made in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to this Act authorise the stopping up or diversion of any highway.

LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (1), after "Act," where that word occurs for the third time, to insert "or to be carried out by a Government Department." The noble Lord said: Clause 47, as presented in another place, enabled the Minister of Transport to make an order for the stopping up or diversion of a highway in order to enable development to be carried out "in accordance with the provisions of a development plan." This would have made it impossible to use Clause 47 until a development plan had been approved. In Standing Committee in another place, therefore, these words were replaced by the words "in accordance with planning permission granted under Part III of this Act." This wording is also defective, however, since it would make it impossible to use Clause 47 to facilitate development by a Government Department, where the planning issues are settled up by consultation, and for which no formal permission under Part III is required. The present Amendment corrects the error. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 16, after ("Act") insert ("or to be carried out by a Government Department").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

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

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 34, leave out ("purchase") and insert ("acquire'').—(Lord Henderson.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

Can the noble Lord tell me what is the difference?

LORD HENDERSON

There is no difference, but the Amendment introduces consistency into the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

The effect of the next Amendment is to enable the Minister of Transport to make regulations to allow for the purchase of land under an order under Clause 47 to be taken concurrently with proceedings for the purpose of ah order under the clause for stopping up or diverting a highway. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 56, line 25, at end insert— (5) Regulations made under this Act by the Minister of Transport may provide for securing that any proceedings required to be taken for the purposes of the acquisition of land under subsection (3) of this section may be taken concurrently with any proceedings required to be taken for the purposes of the order under this section."—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORD O'HAGAN moved to insert: (8) The Minister of Transport or the local authority being the highway authority for any highway provided under this section, shall restore the surface of any highway stopped up or diverted under an order under this section for use for the purposes agriculture, where the land contiguous or adjacent to such highway is used for the purposes of agriculture.

The noble Lord said: It is clear that one of the effects of this clause will be that there will be a large number of ribbons of waste land, often in the middle of farms, which the farmer will not be able to cultivate. It will often be impossible for him to do so. It will be noticed that this Amendment deals only with those parts of what in effect will be waste land, where there are farming operations being conducted on either side. That will make it very difficult for the farmer to cultivate the land in the best possible way. A further effect will be that the presence of these bits of waste will be naturally productive of weeds, and so forth, not merely in the waste itself, but obviously on the surrounding soil which is used for cultivation. It is the declared policy of His Majesty's Government to secure the maximum development of food production in this country, and it does seem that unless this small point is dealt with there may be unfortunate occurrences as the result of the passage of this clause in the Bill. I think it is clear that it will not be to the advantage of the cultivation of farms.

This Amendment is confined to where these pieces of undeveloped ribbon land pass through agricultural land. Exactly the same point with regard to weeds was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, when he pointed out some years ago the effect of the growth of weeds in many parts of the country, from what amounted to bits of waste land, and the effect of the relinquishment of land that had been occupied for military purposes. Both on that account and on the one that I have already mentioned, I suggest that this is an Amendment which might well commend itself to His Majesty's Government. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord O'Hagan.)

LORD HENDERSON

I regret that I must resist the Amendment. It would impose on the Minister of Transport or the appropriate local highway authority an obligation, after a highway has been stopped up or diverted, to reconvert for agricultural purposes any part of the discontinued section which adjoins agricultural land. This could not be accepted generally for two reasons. The first is that the breaking up of a section of road and the restoration of the land for agriculture might involve considerable expenditure which would not always be justifiable. No obligation of this sort has been included in any previous Act which authorizes the stopping up or diversion of highways, and there is no reason why it should be accepted now. It will obviously be a matter for consultation between the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture whether, having regard to the expense involved, the restoration is worth undertaking. If it is, the order can provide for it. In some cases, of course, the disused highway will be capable of use as a private road or right of way, or in connexion with planning operations.

Secondly, the main purpose of the stopping-up is to enable certain development to take place which the existence of the highway would otherwise prevent. In this type of case, it would be absurd to impose an obligation to restore the land for agricultural use. The course to be taken must therefore depend on the circumstances of the individual case, and for that reason subsection (4) of the clause contains a power to include in the order "incidental and consequential provisions." The object of the Amendment can, therefore, be secured in appropriate cases. Having said that, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD O'HAGAN

If the case is really covered as suggested by the noble Lord, I will not press the Amendment, of course, but I am very doubtful whether in fact it is so. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment and I will carefully go into the point that the noble Lord has made.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.

[The sitting was suspended at three minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]

Clause 48:

Abolition of the 1939 standard for compensation on compulsory acquisition.

48.—(1) Section fifty-seven of the Act of 1944 (which provides for the assessment by reference to the prices current in 1939 of the value of interests in land which are compulsorily acquired) shall not apply to compensation in respect of a compulsory acquisition of land in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the passing of this Act.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1) after "land" where that word occurs the second time, to insert "under any public general or local Act." The noble Earl said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Munster, I beg to move this Amendment on his behalf. I have only just realized that he is not here, so I formally move it in the hope that I shall get an answer from His Majesty's Government.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 20, after ("land") insert ("under any public general or local Act").—(The Earl of Radnor.)

LORD CHORLEY

I regret that the noble Earl is not present to move his Amendment, because, to be frank, I am not clear as to his purpose in moving it. Clause 48 (1), to which the Amendment is moved, repeals quite clearly and categorically Section 57 of the 1944 Act—that is to say, the Act which established in respect of matters which are dealt with in this part of the Bill, the 1939 standard of values. If the noble Earl's Amendment is intended to define this matter more clearly and carefully, then I am advised that the form of words which he suggests has not in fact that effect, and that the words in the clause as it at present stands are more apposite to achieve the effect which I imagine the noble Earl desires to achieve.

The clause as it stands is a perfectly clear repeal of the particular provision which, as your Lordships are aware, gave rise to considerable controversy—the provision under which 1939 values were taken. Knowing the point of view for which the noble Earl stands, I think it very unlikely that he wished in any way to restrict the operation of the clause. As I am advised that the clause as it stands is perfectly operative to achieve the object of repealing the 1939 standard and putting in its place the present value of the lands which are dealt with, I have no alternative but to say that we cannot accept this Amendment.

LORD SALTOUN

I think it may clarify this matter if I say that there are certain local Acts which have adopted the 1939 standard. I think my noble friend is not clear as to the extent to which the terms of these local Acts will be repealed by the present Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord will look into that matter. For instance, there was the Birmingham Act of last year which adopted that standard, and we are not clear as to whether that would be amended by this Bill or not.

LORD CHORLEY

I am obliged to the noble Lord for the gloze which he has been able to put upon this Amendment, and I say quite frankly that I am not advised as to the effect on these local Acts. I should myself have thought that a provision of this kind would have had the desired effect, but I speak subject to further advice on the point. I can assure the noble Lord that I will have that particular matter looked into. Perhaps the noble Earl would withdraw the Amendment on that assurance.

LORD LLEWELLIN

That is the real point—that it is thought by some people that the 1939 value has not wholly gone, and that this Bill as at present drawn may not be effective to destroy those parts of local Acts which incorporated in them a provision to pay compensation on the basis of the 1939 value. I think it is common ground between us that the 1939 value ought to go entirely, and we do not want to see one standard in Birmingham and in the surrounding districts of Birmingham the other standard—the new standard of the "present day user." I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, as I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Munster, will be, for what the noble Lord has said. I suggest that it might be looked into between now and the Report stage, and I have no doubt the Government will meet us and tell us if these words cover all the local Acts.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I beg leave, on behalf of my noble friend, to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48 agreed to.

Clause 49:

Compensation for compulsory acquisition after appointed day.

49.—(1) Any compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition of an interest in land by a governing department or a local or public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, in pursuance of a notice to treat served on or after the appointed day (not being compensation which falls to be assessed in accordance with Rule (5) of the rules set out in section two of that Act) shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of that Act as modified by the provisions of this and the three next following sections.

(2) The value of any such interest shall be ascertained on the assumption that planning permission would be granted under Part III of this Act for development of any class specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, but would not be so granted for any other development; and where such permission has been granted before the date of the notice to treat for any such other development, then in so far as the development in question has not been carried out at that date no account shall be taken of any additional value attributable to that permission:

LORD CHORLEY

This Amendment is merely to correct a printing error. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 30, leave out ("governing") and insert ("government.").—(Lord Chorley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved in subsection (1), after "modified" to insert "except where the interest acquired is an interest in land to which section seventy-eight of this Act applies." The noble Earl said: We seek to have this Amendment made here because it would seem that land which will be "ripe land" under Clause 70 if not compulsorily acquired, will not, if compulsorily acquired, receive compensation at the "ripe" level—that is to say, at the level it would get if it were not compulsorily acquired. It does not seem quite just, because if it does not receive compensation at "ripe" level it receives "existing user" level, and takes its chance of a cut out of the £300,000,000. It is therefore sought to have the words inserted to remove what would appear to be an injustice in the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 57, after ("modified") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Radnor.)

LORD CHORLEY

It is quite true that the Amendment does in fact seek to put right an error in the clause as it at present stands. The matter was raised in another place and on that occasion my right honourable friend the Attorney-General gave an undertaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government that this difficulty would be met; and in fact it is met by the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, at Clause 39, page 58, line 14, an Amendment which will be moved very shortly. That Amendment does cover this particular case, and a number of other cases which the Amendment of the noble Earl does not cover.

On the other hand, I am obliged to say that the Amendment moved by the noble Earl is rather too wide, in that it would exclude the operation of the three following clauses, Clauses 50, 51 and 52 which to some extent cut down the operation of Clause 49, dealing with cases where there is vacant possession and swollen values, and matters of that kind, and the others points in those clauses with which your Lordships are quite familiar. In those circumstances, there are two reasons why I cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment. One is that it is covered, and we feel better covered, by the Amendment which will shortly be moved, and the other one is that it is rather wider than we could in any case accept. I hope, in those circumstances, the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I had not realized that it might be covered by the noble and learned Viscount's subsequent Amendment, and in view of what the noble Lord has said, I will withdraw my Amendment. I would like to look into it and possibly modify it on Report if I think it necessary. I beg leave to withdraw it.

LORD CHORLEY

Certainly if the noble Earl is satisfied that the Amendment does not cover his case I shall be very glad indeed for him to bring the matter up again on the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHORLEY

This is a purely drafting Amendment which is preparatory to the substantial Amendment which I am going to move. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 43, leave out from ("development") to end of line 4, on page 58.—(Lord Chorley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHORLEY moved, after subsection (2) to insert: ("(3) Where, at any time before the date of the notice to treat, planning permission has been granted under Part III of this Act for any development of the land, other than development of any class specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, or is deemed to have been so granted, then unless either—

1. (a) any sum has been paid under Part VII of this Act by way of development charge in respect of that development; or
2. (b) no such charge is payable in respect of that development by virtue of any of the provisions of Part VIII of this Act;

the value of the interest to which the notice to treat relates shall be calculated as if that permission had not been granted.")

The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment to which I alluded a moment ago, and it deals, among other cases, with the case of the ripe or over-ripe land to which the noble Earl referred.

Where land is compulsorily acquired at a time when planning permission for development has been granted, but the development has not yet been carried out, it is perfectly right in general that no account should be taken of that, assuming the price payable on the compulsory acquisition of any additional value is attributable to the permission. Clause 49 deals with this particular matter. Subsection (2) as drafted, however, is rather too widely drafted, and the Amendment is proposed in order to cut down that over-wide drafting. There are two instances where obviously there is a case, as the noble Earl said a moment ago, for taking that matter into account. The first of those cases is the case where an owner has already paid some development charge and he has obviously, to that extent bought back, if one may use that expression, some development value. His compensation, therefore, on a compulsory acquisition ought to be assessed with that matter in mind.

This point will be dealt with in a later Amendment to Clause 70 which will be moved on behalf of the Government. Amongst other things it will provide that in a case of that type the Central Land Board will be able to repay the development charge which has already been paid, and, in those sorts of circumstances, this particular difficulty will be dealt with. Therefore I do not think that I need discuss it in any further detail. The second case is the case where a development to which the provision relates is exempt from development charge by reason of the fact that it falls under provisions which are contained in Part VIII of the Bill; that is to say, in cases where there is no development charge in respect of certain kinds of interests. It would clearly be inequitable, I think, if the owner were bought out at strict existing-use value in a case of that kind without regard to the value of the permission to develop, because under Part VIII, the corollary to freedom from development charge, as the noble Earl pointed out in the case he instanced, is the right to make a claim on the £300,000,000.

In those circumstances, the Government's Amendment is moved in order to overcome this particular kind of difficulty. The further development cases which are dealt with in Part VIII form a considerable list with which I do not think I need trouble the Committee. But one of them is a very important one: it is the case of dead ripe land, under Clause 78, which was covered by the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. It is for that reason that I claim that this Amendment covers the case he had in mind. It also covers very substantially many other cases—unfinished buildings, mineral workings during the three years moratorium, and other cases with which I need not trouble the Committee. So the object of this Amendment is a wider one than that which the noble Earl had in view. In the circumstances I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I do not think we have any possible objection to this Amendment. I believe it does cover the Amendment proposed by my noble friend the Earl of Radnor, and it also follows up a pledge given in another place.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (2) to insert: (3) For the purpose of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, land designated under this or any other public general or local Act as subject to compulsory acquisition shall be deemed not to be so designated.

LORD LLEWELLIN

On behalf of my noble friend, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, I beg to move this Amendment. The short and simple reason for it is this. Under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, compensation in the case of land that is compulsorily acquired is taken to be the amount which the land, if sold in the open market by a willing seller, might fetch from a willing buyer. That is to be the test. But if your land has already been designated, it has not quite that kind of market. So the difficulty that we see is that if you designate land in advance of compulsory purchase, as quite normally will be done under the terms of this Bill, then you have depressed its value and are not giving it the same value that it would have had if you had not designated.

I do not think that can be the intention of the Government. What they want to do is to give it value of that kind of amount in that neighbourhood, and not have it depressed because no one will buy it, knowing that a threat of designation is over it. This simple Amendment in intended to deem that, for the purpose of assessing the amount to be paid for it, the land was not designated. I am certain that the Amendment is fair and just, and I hope that the Government will see their way to accept it.

LORD CHORLEY

This is one of the cases where at first sight it would appear that a really genuine and reasonable case has been made out, and I must say that on first reading I had that impression; but when one looks into it one finds it is not really quite so simple. On a reasonably close analysis I think your Lordships will agree that the Government are right in refusing to accept this Amendment. In the first place, it assumes that the prospect of compulsory acquisition is brought about only by designation and that that prospect will affect the market value. Actually that is not so. There are many other cases where compulsory purchase takes place quite apart from designation. I have no doubt that it has already been suggested from this side that this principle of de- signation would be very useful for covering most of the cases where compulsory purchase is likely to be effected, but it is obvious that it cannot cover all emergency cases where compulsory acquisition becomes, for one reason or another, essential. The Amendment seeks to assume that this is the only case or at least forms the majority type of case.

Again it assumes (and although it may be so in a substantial number of cases, it will certainly not be so in all cases) that in future large areas of land designated will, as a result of designation, lose in value. At first sight that appears to be likely, but when one looks a little more closely one must admit that it certainly will not be the case always. In some cases it will be the other way about. When an area is designated for particular use—for instance, a large area that has been designated as a housing estate—obviously the land for shops in that area will increase in value. Generally very substantial areas of land are to be designated, and the reasonable implication seems to the Government to be that the market will quickly settle down. People will get used to the fact that substantial areas, particularly around towns, will have been designated, and there will be little, if any, effect on values, generally speaking. Quite apart from this point, if one looks at the three possibilities which exist in regard to the compulsory acquisition of land, I think your Lordships will agree that in only one of them could this particular result occur, and even then, as I am trying to persuade your Lordships, it would not occur in the majority of cases.

The first case is that of land which is required by a Government Department, local authority or some statutory undertaking for the exercise of their ordinary functions. The great bulk of this land could be compulsorily acquired under other powers, quite apart from any question of designation at all. Designation, therefore, really adds nothing to the perils (if one might use that term) which exist under the present legislation. It does not impose any restrictions on the use of the property, and it implies that it is in an area selected for development. Acquisitions of this type have been going on ever since the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, was passed—that is to say, for very nearly thirty years—without any such provision being found necessary as that which is suggested in this Amendment. Therefore, I think it is pretty clear that in this particular type of case there is no especial danger of designation having the kind of effect which the Amendment is aimed at preventing.

It is true, of course, that designation does mean that the interval between what has been called the pin-pointing—that is, of course, the designation of the particular area—and the actual acquisition by the authority in question is likely to be extended. It becomes rather a longer period than in the case where a notice to acquire is served under the 1919 Act, where it goes through comparatively quickly. But this longer period, while it would have a very obvious effect upon development values, could have no effect at all upon the existing user value, which is the value aimed at in this particular Amendment. Therefore, I suggest that the Amendment, considered in respect of land of this kind which is required by a Government Department or a local authority, does not really have the effect which the noble Lord who moved the Amendment had in mind.

The second class of land is that which is required for comprehensive redevelopment; that is, what has been referred to in these discussions as the blitz and blight scheme. Here the designation procedure under the Bill really repeats the procedure which was introduced in the earlier Act; it is just a re-enactment of the procedure under the 1944 Act. It was never suggested, at the time when that Act was passed, or throughout the discussions on it so far as I am aware, that any provision of this kind was necessary. Nor in the New Towns Act, which deals with a not dissimilar type of case, was it suggested that a provision of this kind was necessary. On the face of it, it does not seem that in this type of case designation is likely to have any adverse effect. Therefore, we have two substantial types of case where there does not really seem to be anything in the argument.

The third type of case which I have no doubt the noble Lord had in mind in framing his Amendment deals with land which is designated in order to secure that its use shall be in accordance with the plan of the planning authority which is responsible for it. Obviously, one has to look at this rather closely in order to see how far the Amendment is necessary. The primary purpose in a case of this kind is not compulsory acquisition at all; compulsory acquisition is just a weapon in the background, so to speak. The primary object in this type of case is to have this weapon in the background as a reinforcement to planning decisions, so that the zones of development which are set out in the plan may be effectively used in the way that the planning authority has in mind. Compulsory acquisition is, so to speak, only an ultimate sanction, to prevent owners from trying to defeat the plan either by declining to carry through the sort of development which the planning authority had in mind in drawing up its plan or refusing to sell to other purchasers who would be prepared to develop the area in question on the lines laid down by the planning authority in its scheme. If such an attempt is made, of course, then it is perfectly right that the planning authority should have this weapon, so to speak, in their armoury, in order that they may bring it out and acquire the land compulsorily. But this is hardly a reason why one should accept an Amendment of this kind.

It is unlikely that in this sort of circumstance you will often have a case where the designation of the land did in fact produce the fall in the values which the noble Lord who moved the Amendment suggested was likely to occur. Moreover, this contention, if I may say so, seems to me to be substantially reinforced by the Amendments which were moved and carried in connexion with the new Clause 9, which provided and provides that, as soon as the proper planned development takes place, the land will be de-designated. That being quite likely to occur in a period which is not too long, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the whole of the planning proposals, it seems to cut down, to some extent at any rate, the force of the argument which has been put forward on the other side.

There are two other points which I think are relevant to this matter which I put before you: first of all, there is no reason why, as a result of designation, the owner should himself take steps which are likely to depreciate the value of his own land. It was suggested during the discussions on Clause 5 that, as soon as land was designated, owners would cease to have any interest in its improvement; they would say: "This is, so to speak, to be written off," and no further money would be spent on it. But my noble and learned friend, in the course of that discussion, did point out very clearly—and I think the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, seemed to be very gratified that he made it so clear —that any improvements which are effected, in the way of erection of agricultural buildings and so on, would, in fact, attract compensation; and therefore to suggest that, as soon as designation takes place all improvement and building and that sort of thing on land should immediately cease, is, I think, a rather defeatist policy which is not in any way supported by provision in the Bill. It is an impression which it is important should be removed from the minds of the public and particularly from the minds of landowners.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

Defeatist policy on whose part?

LORD CHORLEY

On the part of those who are suggesting that designation of the land will have the effect of completely bringing to an end any sort of progressive development on the land, because, in the circumstances of compensation as described by my noble and learned friend, there is no reason why it should take place. The other point is that the threat of compulsory acquisition at some uncertain date cannot remain over the owner's head for ever, and in the light of the Amendments which are to be moved, cutting down the period within which notice for compulsory acquisition can be given, obviously the strength of the argument will be even further reduced. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that in the light of all these considerations, and after a close and careful analysis of this Amendment—which did appear to me when I first read it to be a likely sort of Amendment—there is little case left, and it is one which cannot really be effectively supported.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am sorry to have to say this, because we have got on extremely well with this Bill up to date, but of all the unsatisfactory replies, that just given by the noble Lord is about as unsatisfactory as I could possibly conceive. I am sorry to have to put it in that way, but it is so. First of all, he said that he did not think that the majority of cases where compulsory purchase followed would be dealt with under designation. If the noble Lord had been here on the discussion on Clause 5, he would know that the whole point was that the Government wanted it wide so that it would cover—

LORD CHORLEY

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I did say in fact that the majority of the cases would be covered; and although I may not have been sitting on the Front Bench I heard most of the discussion on Clause 5. As I said, one of the great advantages of designation is that it will cover the majority of these cases, although it may not cover them all.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I apologize to the noble Lord, but I should not have thought he was here from his speech. At any rate, he said that he did not think the land would lose in value. We have mostly in mind the agricultural areas. We were all practically in agreement—until the noble Lord rose—that there was likely to be some blighting effect on an agricultural area if it were designated. It is quite true that the notice to treat is served on a certain day, and the value is taken on the day when that notice to treat is served. It is quite true that the man gets the value of his building and things at that date. But nobody in his senses thinks that the second-hand value of a shed at the date of notice to treat compensates you for the cost that it takes to put the shed up. The two values are not the same. You do not get your actual outlay on the land; you get the value of it on the day of the notice to treat.

Another point upon which I must say I completely failed to follow the noble Lord was when he said that if this designated and compulsorily acquired land was for a shopping centre, the value increases. It may well increase, but increases for whom? It does not increase for the man who is getting present user value for it. Let us get our minds back to this very simple problem. A man is entitled to the present user value. If that value is not going to be decreased by designation, the Government can do no harm to anybody in accepting this Amendment. If the noble Lord is right, why not accept the Amendment? Who is going to be hurt if it is accepted? Nobody—not a single soul. If, on the other hand, the value is going to be decreased by designation, because you designate a man's land, are you going to give him less than he would have got if a compulsory purchase order had been made directly, without designation?

The difference designation makes is this: that there is a long period of time —ten years, perhaps, or nine and a half years—during which the land may be under designation, before the compulsory purchase is made. That is the position we are facing. If there is a compulsory purchase order it is easy enough for the valuers to say what the land will be worth two or three months ahead; but it is not easy if the land is designated for nine and a half years before it is taken. It is a strong and fair case that we are making, and I am completely discontented with the reply given by the noble Lord. I hope that someone on the Government Benches will give us a more favourable reply. All we want is justice for those whose land will be designated under this Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am afraid that I am not an expert on this part of the Bill—or on any other, for that matter—but what struck me about this Amendment was this: that if the valuers have to value the land, as they will do for purposes of compensation, they will have to compare this land with other like land. The valuers' difficulty will be that if they are to assume that this land is not designated, they will not know what to compare it with. They have to compare it with designated land. I am not able to say whether designation will have an adverse effect, a harmless effect or a beneficial effect. I do not know. The valuers, looking at any piece of land, will ask what they ought to allow for it. They must compare it with designated land; and they will be in great difficulty in saying what allowance to make.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Surely the value which will be paid will be existing user value, and they will compare it with like land not necessarily designated.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

But suppose the land available for comparison is designated land. They will have to compare it with designated land. I am quite willing to take this upon myself and look into it again. I will gladly consider it between now and Report stage, so long as it is understood that I am not holding out any promise. I do not want to treat these people unfairly, but, on the other hand, I do not want to put the valuers in a difficulty. I have not myself gone into this question with care, but I will do so.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. All we want is to do justice to these people, and we believe that justice will not be done if you just take the value as designated land. Designation may or may not depress the value of land; it is a question of opinion. I think in quite a number of cases it might not, but in some cases I think it undoubtedly will. What we do not want to do surely is to penalize a man because his land has been designated in advance. It may be that a piece of designated land has been depressed in value as compared with another plot by its side. I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for saying he will look into it. We really believe that there is something here that can do no harm to anybody. I do not believe it will put the valuers in any difficulty; but if I can be convinced of that I shall not press it further. We want the same treatment as between one man and the man next door. But, in view of the assurance that he will look into it himself, I now beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHORLEY moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: (4) Where the interest is acquired in pursuance of a purchase notice served under the said Section eighteen, and directions have been given under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of that section requiring that planning permission shall be granted for any development of other land to which the purchase notice relates, no account shall be taken for the purposes of this section of any increase or diminution in the value of the said interest which is attributable to the direction or to any permission granted in pursuance thereof.

The noble Lord said: This is a technical Amendment of really a drafting character. It gives effect to an undertaking given by my right honourable friend in another place during the Committee stage.

Your Lordships will remember that when we were dealing with Clause 19 the case was discussed of the possible purchase notice under Clause 18 being served, requiring the local authority to purchase a specified area of land. The local authority might take only part of it and the other part might be left, and, in those circumstances, obviously the value of the part which is left may either be enhanced or may be depreciated; in some cases it will be one, and in the other cases the other. The effect of the Amendment which is proposed is to prevent this operating either the one way or the other, and leaving the thing, so to speak, in a neutral state. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 26, at end, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

We have no objection to this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 49, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

Before this clause, the first of the important compensation clauses, is passed, I would very much like to be allowed to ask for some information. I would like to inquire on which clause or on which Amendment we may ask for, and the Government will give, information as to how the compensation clauses will work; and what is their intention in regard to this? I understand that these clauses are framed generally in respect of built-up areas, and there is, of course, a big difference between them and the semi-rural and the purely agricultural areas. I find it difficult in this House, after studying the Bill, to ascertain how they will work, but I do know hundreds of thousands of people outside who are likely to be adversely, or very seriously, affected in the agricultural districts who have very little idea whatever of how they are to be affected. I would like to ask if it is the case that the Government are taking the principal and excess values in these areas without compensation. I am not sure if this is the stage at which to ask these questions and to make a few references to them, and I would very much like to be guided.

LORD CHORLEY

I think that this part of the Bill, which is Part V, does not deal with the sort of matter which the noble Duke has in mind. Here we are concerned with the amendment of the law relating to compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. If the noble Duke has in mind the whole problem of the £300,000,000 fund, and the effect of planning schemes on land valuations—which is quite a different matter and is dealt with in the succeeding parts of the Bill—it could, I think, be more suitably discussed when we reach those parts of the Bill. Part V of the Bill really refers only to earlier provisions—amended it is quite true. They have been substantially amended for the purpose of introducing a more scientific and easily workable scheme in those cases where land has to be compulsorily acquired for Government or local authority purposes.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

Then I would be in order later on in asking for information.

Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 50:

Temporary provisions for eliminating special value attributable to vacant possession.

50.—(1) Where the notice to treat giving rise to the claim for compensation is served at any time before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, and the interest in land in respect of which the compensation is payable carries the right to vacant possession of the land or any part thereof, or the right to obtain such possession at any time before that date, then, unless the land is agricultural property within the meaning of this section, the value of that interest shall be calculated as if there were derived therefrom a lease of the land, or of that part thereof, as the case may be, for the term, subject to the conditions and at the rent specified in this section.

(4) In this section the expression "agricultural property" means agricultural land or agricultural buildings as defined by the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, and includes a house used as a dwelling-house by a person who is primarily engaged in carrying out or directing agricultural operations on land in the neighbourhood of the house; and for the purposes of this section the capital value of any premises shall be deemed to be the value of an unincumbered freehold interest therein calculated in accordance with the provisions of any enactment other than this section which would apply to the assessment of compensation on a compulsory acquisition thereof by a government department or a local or public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved, in subsection (1) to substitute "nineteen hundred and fifty-two" for "nineteen hundred and fifty-four." The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. As the Committee are aware, Clause 48 abolished the 1939 price as the basis for compensation in the case of compulsory acquisition. The substance of the substituted proposals is that the owner whose property is compulsorily acquired should receive the market value, subject to a notional lease of seven years. The purpose of the Amendment is to reduce the term of that notional lease from seven years to five years. In moving it, I am not unmindful of the very great concession made by the Minister in another place in doing away with the 1939 price as a basis for compensation in the case of compulsory acquisition. But I think that under the present proposals hardship still exists. I have not had the opportunity of consulting the distinguished authority Cripps on Compensation which was quoted by the noble and learned Viscount last night, and I hardly know what proposals he would indicate in cases of this nature. But it hardly seems to me to be just, when you say to a man (and it is the owner occupier whom I chiefly have in mind) "I am going to turn you out, whether you want to go or whether you do not want to go. I do not care what you do about getting another home. All you will receive is the market price, subject to this notional lease of seven years."

I am not a trained valuer, but your Lordships are aware that the difference between vacant possession value and value subject to a seven years' lease is considerable. I am not saying that the unfortunate man who is turned out should make a profit. There is no question of the position which the noble and learned Viscount indicated in connexion with another clause, where the owner of land may receive a share of the £300,000,000 and also something beyond the restricted value. I suggest that in the case of the man who is turned out of his own home there is no other possibility but that of grievous loss. He has to go and find himself another home, and has to buy it at market price. He has to buy it with vacant possession. If I were asking for the notional lease to be removed altogether, I might well have been held to be unreasonable, but I suggest to the Committee—and I hope not without some effect—that reduction in the period of the notional lease from seven years to five years is not unreasonable. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 29, leave out ("fifty-four") and insert ("fifty-two").—(Viscount Buckmaster.)

LORD CHORLEY

The clause is concerned with devising a method of eliminating the special scarcity value which attaches at the present time to vacant possession. The clause itself uses the term "the right to vacant possession." It may be that from time to time somebody was in possession although there was a right to vacant possession, when no doubt the expression "turn somebody out" would be an accurate one. Most of these cases are cases of vacant possession and the whole object of this notional lease is to remove the scarcity value or rather to remove the right to cash in on scarcity value.

Of course, the correct length of the notional lease is a valuation point. This matter has been considered very carefully indeed, by the Government and their technical advisers, and the precise length of the notional lease has been arrived at as a result of full discussions. If the period taken is too short, the whole value of this device will be lost. The reduction suggested in this Amendment is a very substantial one and I suggest that if it were put into effect it would largely destroy the whole value of this clause. If the time which the noble Viscount has selected is too short the value of the clause is substantially diminished, and, on the other hand, if the Government's period is too short it will taper off. A rather longer period may eventually be found to be the correct one, and less harm will be done. It is quite obvious that this matter is one of calculation and it is not possible to be 100 per cent. right in selecting the period for the lease. It seems to the Government that the period we have taken is, in all circumstances, much the best. I hope the noble Viscount will see his way to withdrawing this Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I have listened with great interest and attention to the noble Lord's speech. He talked a great deal about the danger that the Government might have to pay a scarcity value. What about the owner? He is going to be turned out of his house at a price which is not a scarcity value, but if he has to find a house he has to buy one at a scarcity value, unless he is willing to stay in lodgings for seven years. The Government's advisers have looked at it from the point of view of the Government, but we must look at it from the point of view of the private citizen affected by this decision. He will be very hardly treated, as I think the noble Lord and the noble and learned Viscount will agree. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has been extremely moderate. He does not ask for the same price to enable the citizen to buy another home to live in. He suggests a slightly shorter period—five years instead of seven. He could not have been more moderate than that. I hope the Government will consider it. They are not only the Government but trustees for the people, and they must look at it from the point of view of the citizen who will be affected by this Bill. I hope, therefore, they will consider this matter further before they come to a final decision.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I would like to add a few words on this matter. Surely, this is not a valuation point at all. It is based on an estimate of how long scarcity value will continue, or how long the scarcity of houses will continue. It is just a question of the difference between selling a house with vacant possession, or without. It means that if, up till 1954, your house is taken, you are to be considered as having it under a lease. Is not that the right reading of the clause?

LORD CHORLEY

Yes.

LORD LLEWELLIN

So it is not a valuation point, but an estimate of how long it is going to take the Government to complete the promised housing programme. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on the last Amendment, talked about a defeatist policy. Nine years seems to be pretty defeatist about this programme, after all we heard about it at the General Election. It means that it will be nine years before scarcity values leave our shores. Let us get it shortly and simply. Everybody who tries to lessen this period is more trustful than the Government are as to how quickly their housing programme can be effected. I am sorry there is such a defeatist policy on the part of His Majesty's Government in regard to how quickly this programme will be carried out. May be the noble Lord is quite right.

I would also like to reinforce what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said. We must also consider the wretched citizen. We must realize that his house will be compulsorily purchased by the State, and there is nothing he can do to get himself other accommodation except purchase at some scarcity value. He is not on the same basis when he is turned out of his house. He has, as my noble friend said, either to live in lodgings or billet himself on his friends, if he cannot purchase a house at the existing scarcity values for the same price which the Government have given him for his house, in which he was living quite happily. You have to bear in mind the position of that person.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I would like to support the various speakers on this point. It seems to me it is grossly unfair to prolong the period unduly, when a man who is to be turned out of his house is to get only normal value and will have to pay scarcity value in purchasing new accommodation. I would also emphasize the feeling I have had all along about this particular clause of the Bill, that it indicates a defeatist attitude of mind on the part of His Majesty's Government. After all, the scarcity value will continue as long as houses are scarce. The Government are reckoning on seven years at least, and they are quibbling about that period being reduced to five. It is a little hard that this country should be faced with the contemplation of the continued scarcity in houses for that long period, and that the individual owner who is dispossessed will be turned out on occasions at non-scarcity prices, with nowhere to go except by purchasing, or by acquiring in some other form, accommodation at a scarcity price. I do hope His Majesty's Government will reconsider this very moderate Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

May I add one more word? I would like to impress upon the Government that, as the discussion on this Amendment has developed, we have become more and more shocked by what one must regard as the slightly cynical attitude towards the individual citizen that the spokesmen of the Government show. I hope the Government will see their way to consider this matter further. It is quite evident that great hardship will be inflicted on large numbers of people who will be compensated on a basis which will make it quite impossible for them immediately to find a new home at the same cost as that of the home which they have lost. Therefore, I beg the Government to consider this matter further. We feel very strongly about this; we have not considered dividing about it; it had not entered my mind that the reply of the Government would be unsatisfactory, but we may find ourselves obliged to divide unless the Government take the opportunity of considering the matter further before the next stage of the Bill.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

I hesitate to intervene in so technical a matter as this, and perhaps there may be an easy reply to the point I am about to make. Nevertheless, as the House may be called upon to divide on this matter and we must all decide how we are going to vote, I would venture to put this point. It appears to me that the two sides of the House are somewhat at cross-purposes. It does not appear to me to be a question whether the right period should be five years or seven years, nine years or three years, but whether you can distinguish between the cases of hardship of the people who are to be turned out of their houses and those who are in quite a different category. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said that the vast majority of these cases were not of the kind described by the noble Marquess. There may be some of these houses which are blitzed houses, or already vacant for one reason or another, but the case as stated by the noble Marquess seems to me to be a very strong one. It is not just that people should be paid off at the market value, and should have to replace their houses at the scarcity value. Obviously, that is an injustice. On the other hand, on account of that hard case, it may be that you may be induced to make a provision which in a great number of other cases would give more than is necessary; so I venture, humbly and with some diffidence, to suggest that, if the matter is to be reconsidered, it should be reconsidered not only from the point of view of length of period but also of category of case.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Viscount has made quite a good point and I will go into it.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

I cannot say quite honestly that I feel happy in withdrawing this Amendment. It may well be true that there are cases of vacant possession, but I am not aware of many empty houses. But, be that as it may—and I am deeply appreciative of the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—you cannot escape from the fact that there are cases of real and grievous 'hardship. A man is turned out of his home to begin with; in addition he is forced to lose a large sum of money. The whole matter is offensive to the position of common justice. As the noble Lord has undertaken to see if some way can be found to meet this difficulty I will, with reluctance, withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHORLEY

This is an Amendment which is complementary to, and goes with, the Government Amendment to Clause 50, page 59, line 28, which is the next one, so that perhaps with your Lordships' permission I may take them together. They are really just drafting Amendments. One of the alternative ways prescribed by subsection (3) for calculating the rent under the notional lease is to take 5 per cent. of the capital value. These Amendments are put forward in order to make it perfectly clear that this means the capital value of the freehold, assessed with due regard to any easements or restrictive covenants which may exist on the land. This was always the intention, and the Amendments are tabled purely for the purpose of making it clear. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 27, leave out ("an unincumbered") and insert ("a").—(Lord Chorley.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I was slightly shocked by the arguments of the noble Lord on the last Amendment, and I am slightly shocked in this Amendment by the wording. I have never seen "incumbrances" spelt with an "i" before. Perhaps that is a matter which might also be looked into.

LORD CHORLEY

I give the noble Marquess an assurance on that point with great pleasure.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have not my Nuttall with me, but I should have spelt it with an "i."

LORD LLEWELLIN

I rather fancy the word "incumbent" is spelt with an "i," and the word "encumbered" with an "e."

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHORLEY

This is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 28, after ("therein") insert (" (free from incumbrances but subject to any easement or other restriction affecting the land on the date of the notice to treat)").—(Lord Chorley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.

9.40 p.m.

Clause 51 [Compensation for compulsory acquisition of land attracting converted value payments]:

LORD CHORLEY

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 9, after ("under") insert ("paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of").— (Lord Chorley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 52 agreed to.

Clause 53 [Compensation for compulsory acquisition after passing of this Act and before appointed day]:

LORD CHORLEY

This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 44, leave out ("on") and insert ("immediately before.")—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

It would be interesting just to know why it is "immediately before" and not "on." I have no great objection to this Amendment but it would be interesting to know.

LORD CHORLEY

The clause provides that the value shall be taken at the time immediately before the day on which the Bill was introduced, and I understand that that is the usual method of dealing with a matter of this kind. The clause as it stood was not accurately drafted to achieve that object, and that is the reason for the proposed Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHORLEY

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 63, line 2, leave out ("on") and insert ("immediately before.")—(Lord Chorley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHORLEY

This is a further consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 63, line 4, leave out ("and (3)") and insert ("to (5)").—(Lord Chorley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 54 agreed to.

9.45 p.m.

Clause 55:

Payments for depreciation of land values.

55.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act payments shall be made in accordance with a scheme to be made by the Treasury under this section, in respect of interests in land which are depreciated in value by virtue of the provisions of this Act.

(2) The aggregate amount of the payments to be made by virtue of this section and of any corresponding provisions which may be enacted in relation to Scotland shall be the sum of three hundred million pounds, and that amount shall be apportioned, as between land in England and Wales and land in Scotland, in such manner as the Treasury may by order determine after they are sufficiently informed as to the development values of land in those countries respectively as ascertained for the purposes of this Part of this Act and of any such corresponding provisions as aforesaid.

(3) As soon as may be after they are sufficiently informed as to the development values of interests in land in respect of which claims are made for payments under this Part of this Act, the Treasury shall make a scheme providing for the distribution, as between those interests or such of them as may be prescribed by the scheme, of the sum apportioned under the last foregoing subsection to land in England and Wales.

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing subsection, any scheme made by the Treasury thereunder may provide for the ascertainment of the amount of the payments to be made under the scheme in respect of particular interests in land either by reference to the development values of those interests respectively or by reference to such other circumstances affecting those interests as may be prescribed by the scheme, or partly in the one way and partly in the other.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved in subsection (3) after "shall" to insert: cause a statement to be prepared setting out the total of the said development values and such statement shall be forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament, if Parliament be then sitting, or if not, within one month after the then next sitting of Parliament and shall then.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to say that we should have a statement prepared of the total of the development values, and that such statement should be forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament, if Parliament be sitting, and if not, then a month after the next sitting of Parliament. The statement I seek to have is one to set out the different development value interests, both of land and minerals. The Minister, in another place, on the Report stage of the Bill, said he was willing for the Central Land Board to inform the House and publish through the Minister as soon as possible the aggregate amount of development values that are determined, and that is all I seek in my Amendment. I hope it will be given. It will be necessary for us to have these values before us before we consider the Treasury scheme, which has to have the approval of each House of Parliament. I have no doubt that something may be done or said to implement the assurance which the Minister gave in another place. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 35, after ("shall"), insert the said words.—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think there is anything between us here. It seems quite obvious that both Houses must be kept fully aware of the whole position as it develops, and if anybody asks a question in either House the Minister will have to answer—there is no reason why he should not—as to how the matter is getting on from time to time. But there is this practical difficulty: I do not suppose you can ever say a time has arrived when every claim is in. We all know that claims have a habit of arriving late, and you will never get all the sheep into the fold. Therefore we deliberately drafted Clause 55 (3) in this form: As soon as may be after they are sufficiently informed as to the development values of interests in land in respect of which claims are made for payments under this Part of this Act, the Treasury shall make a scheme providing for the distribution…. The point of these words "sufficiently informed" was that we do not anticipate they would get the whole 100 per cent. of the claims in; but they could start if they had even 95 per cent. in. This Amendment would have the effect of causing a statement to be prepared, setting out the total, but it would not work. The scheme we have in mind at present is this. First, there is no reason why the amount of development claims coming in should not be made public from time to time. We thought of issuing a White Paper showing how claims have come along, and what they are—because you cannot possibly form any real idea as to the merits of a scheme unless you have all the figures. I can give the noble Lord this assurance: that before your Lordships' House is asked to pronounce on any scheme you shall have all the figures available to the Government. But it would be inconvenient to accept this Amendment for the reasons I have given.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

There is one point I did not quite follow. The noble and learned Viscount said that the words "sufficiently informed," as he interpreted them for us, meant really that if 99 per cent. or 95 per cent. of claims were received the Treasury could prepare a scheme. I am not sure that the Treasury could prepare a scheme if they have not all the claims in.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I should have thought they could. If the Treasury have to wait until they have the last sixpence in, they will never prepare a scheme at all. When substantially all the claims are in you may then prepare a scheme, and do the best you can. You will probably have some arrangement made to enable late-comers to share. There is the point that if the late-comers do not take the trouble to assert their interest you might rule them out. But you must not wait for the late-comers until you have every single half-penny in—and, incidentally, you will never be able to say that every claim is in. Therefore, dealing with this thing in a businesslike way, you must form a judgment that you have substantially got the claims in, and then promulgate your scheme.

LORD LLEWELIAN

So far as I am concerned I am satisfied. I gather the intention is, and it will obviously he ful- filled, one of tabling a White Paper at a time just before the scheme is placed before us. I believe it will be done, but if anybody were pessimistic enough to think that it would not be done, this House still has it in its own hands, because it can quite easily refuse to approve the scheme. That being the position, I am quite satisfied. I am glad I put the Amendment down to get that assurance, and with that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.52 p.m.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "or such of them as may be prescribed in the scheme" and insert: in the same proportion as the said sum bears to the aggregate of the development values of interests in land in England and Wales ascertained in accordance with the provisions of this Part of We Act.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is one which I hope the Lord Chancellor will accept. What I am anxious to find out here is actually how this payment is to be made. May I first of all refer the noble Lord to an Act which he probably knows very well—the Coal Act, 1938, in which there was a global sum of £66,450,000, which was agreed to by Parliament in precisely the same way as there is a global sum of £300,000,000 here.

Under the Coal Act we set up a Central Valuation Board, and they divided this country, including Scotland and Wales, into divisions (known as valuation regions) and they allotted to each valuation region a part of that global sum, in the words of the section: being a part bearing the same proportion to the whole of that sum as they may estimate the value of all principal coal hereditaments in the region to bear to the value of all principal coal hereditaments in Great Britain. From there each holding in every valuation region was to receive a sum of money by way of compensation. That sum naturally might have to be scaled up or down, as the case may be, so that the total compensation of all the holdings in the valuation region equalled the sum of money which was allotted from the global sum to the valuation region.

At that time members of the present Government were in Opposition in this House, and they all claimed that that was the only fair and equitable method of dis- tributing compensation in that case. In this case all we know about the payments under this Bill is that the Treasury are going to make a scheme as soon as they have been sufficiently informed of the development value of interest in land in respect of which claims of payment are made. This scheme, as I see it—and this is what I want to ask the Lord Chancellor—may substantially include some and exclude others: in other words at the present time no one knows in regard to his interest in land, whether he may receive a payment for his interest in land or whether he may not. Some claimants may receive a large sum, others a small sum; and probably, so far as I can see, the greater majority will receive practically nothing at all.

Surely the equitable way really is that this sum should be distributed on a pro rata basis, which will involve a scaling up or a scaling down which will bring all to the level which will finally total up to the global sum of £300,000,000. That is all I am asking the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, to do—to let these figures for all these claims be scaled up or scaled down to reach the figure of £300,000,000. It seems to me that something of this sort should be included in the Bill if we are to have this payment made on a fair and equitable basis. In the belief that my case is a good one, I heartily commend it to the noble and learned Viscount and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 36, leave out from ("interests") to ("of") in line 37, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Munster.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I cannot accept this Amendment. I am not at all saying that the noble Earl's way of doing this is not the right way; I am only saying that there may be another way, and that I think we should be very unwise to tie the hands of the scheme-makers at this stage. There is sure to be a great deal of knowledge acquired about this matter, and I suggest to the Committee that the wisest thing to do is to leave great latitude to the framers of the scheme. Bear in mind that when the scheme is framed both Houses of Parliament have to approve it by positive Resolution. If we do not like it we can throw it out. The effect of the noble Earl's Amendment would seem to be this. He thinks that all the claimants on the fund ought to be in the position (if I may use this analogy) of ordinary shareholders, there being no preference shareholders at all. He may be right, and I am not saying he is not. But I can quite conceive people framing this scheme who may think that there ought to be preference shares or deferred shares as well as ordinary shares.

I will give an illustration—I am not saying that these are the sort of things that will be considered, but only that they are the sort of things that might be considered, and might be in a scheme presented for your Lordship's consideration. Suppose a case where the element of "float" is inconsiderable because it has almost "settled" on the land in question. Now take the case of a small builder who, I understand, generally acquires a small amount of land as part of his stock in trade, in order that he may have it available for building houses. Is he to be treated on the same basis as those landlords with whom you can say there really is a considerable speculative element of "float?" I do not assert one way or the other, but I am confident that when the Treasury come to frame the scheme they might put up such a case as that of the small builder being entitled to a preferential share. And I might, when I had heard the argument, say it was a wise thing to do. I think we should be unwise to turn that down now.

It has been suggested to me that somewhat similar arrangements should be made to meet the case of mineral undertakings actually in operation at the appointed day. It might be said that they should stand in the preferential category. Then there is the matter of near ripe land. The Minister gave an undertaking that he would advocate it being placed in a preferential category. It is possible that a man who bought his land quite recently, or an inheritor who has just paid death duties on a certain figure, should be in a preferential category. I am not saving that there will be, or that there should be, preferential categories, but I think we should be very unwise at this stage to make the scheme too rigid and to eliminate the possibility of preferential categories. I suggest that we had better leave ample power to the scheme maker, and when he propounds his claim and if we think it unsatisfactory we can turn it down. We shall make a great mistake to say at this stage that there should be only ordinary shares. It is unnecessary to make a decision now in regard to a topic on which We shall be much better informed in a few years' time.

LORD RENNELL

On what basis would the distinction be made, in the words of this clause, between "those interests" and "such of them"—that is, of certain of them? Is the basis of distinction a matter of justice or a matter of expediency?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I take it that the date will be the date of the scheme, but that is a matter which will be dealt with by the scheme.

LORD RENNELL

I meant the motive, not the date—the motive of making a distinction between "those interests" or "such of them as may be prescribed."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not for a moment have in mind that any part of them should be eliminated by the scheme. There might be some which will not be included, but at the moment I cannot think there are.

LORD RENNELL

Is there not a difference in kind between those described as "or such of them as may be prescribed" as compared with "those interests" which appear before the word "or." Is that distinction one of justice or expediency?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

How can I tell what the distinction is at the present time? No one can tell until we see the scheme.

LORD RENNELL

The scheme will make a distinction, and I was wondering on what basis that was to be made.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The scheme may make a distinction but unless it indicates the basis of the distinction you will not know. At the moment I do not see what distinction will justify anything being left out.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

There is a great deal in what the noble and learned Viscount says about examining the scheme, to see that it does not become unfair to all claimants under this particular clause. He will permit me to say that the remarks which fell from him just now show there is to be very great hardship. Some will get money and others will receive absolutely nothing at all. I cannot help thinking it is an extremely unfair scheme. It is done deliberately. We know well the value of land and to exclude some altogether is bound to be unfair.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Earl says he knows that. He knows no such 'thing. It might well be that the £300,000,000 is excessive for landlords selling for existing use and getting much more than existing the.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

If the noble and learned Viscount were a betting man I would be willing to make a bet! But I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 55 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD RANKEILLOUR

May I ask whether the Treasury have a formula of allocation as between England and Scotland? Formerly they had, when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, a formula which I think went 80-11-9. Now that Ireland is out of it, I presume there must be a fresh distribution. Have the Treasury arrived at any formula as between the two parts of Great Britain?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Treasury have arranged no formula for this. There is a sort of stock formula, which applies to grants, which the noble Lord will know about; have forgotten for the moment what it is.

LORD LLEWELLIN

It is 11–80.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That is the kind of stock formula. The Treasury have not made up their minds on any formula here at all. It is much better to wait until you get the claims in, and then see, in the light of the knowledge you then acquire as to the respective amounts of the Scottish and the English claims, what the allocations should be.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I was hoping that it might be possible to ascertain rather more as to how the compensation clauses would work, and what is the Government's intention. If I understand correctly, we shall know little or nothing more until long after the Bill is passed. I am one of many representatives of hundreds of thousands of people associated very closely with the land. I think their general impression is that in those cases where the land is more valuable and less valuable, the principle of excess values will be removed from it. In future, if they want to improve various parts of their farm or land, they will have to rely entirely on the agricultural value, and will not be able to take advantage of these other values. Though the Government doubtless take the view that by removing these values and placing them in the hands of the community they are doing good, I venture to suggest that in the hands of the people responsible for that land these values, and the revenue from them, could be spent very much better and where it is much more required in the actual locality from which it comes.

These excess values may, therefore, be removed from one locality and put into a different locality, thereby depriving the first locality of them. I would like to know if it is the intention to remove from owners of farms and land this source of revenue, which should be spent by them, but which otherwise will be spent by the Government in different ways. After all, it is our business, if we are asked to manage land on business lines, to spend the revenue from the richer parts on the poorer parts. The Government themselves will be doing that in the case of land owned by them; and I also understand the same thing applies in the case of coal mining; that the revenues from richer mines are used to help on the poorer mines. However much it may be argued that the values may be created or increased by the public in the built-up areas, I venture to suggest that in the rural areas it is generally by wise enterprise and development that the development values are created. I do feel it is reasonable to ask for more information at this stage. I hope, in any case, that the matter will be dealt with as clearly as possible.

10.9 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will give the noble Duke what information I can. It is no part of my case whatever to make an attack on the landowners as a class. A good landowner, in develop- ing his estate, will do it in a way conducive to the public interest quite as well as any local authority or anybody else. I agree with that. However, I am quite satisfied that you cannot have a system of planning if the planning authority have to pay compensation for saying: "No, you may not develop." I believe that is absolutely fundamental. That being so, you must work out some scheme which enables the planning authority not to have to pay compensation. How can that fairly be done? What we propose is to let everybody stay in possession of his land, but he retains his existing use value, and his existing use value only. He is deprived of the development value but, in return for that deprivation, we give him a right to claim on a fund of £300,000,000.

If, in fact, the landowner were to be limited strictly to the existing use value, it might be that the £300,000,000 would be too little; but, as I pointed out to-day, however ingeniously you work your scheme, you cannot, I think, bring about that result. If the existing use value is £50 and a man wants to buy a bit of the farm at £50 an acre for a house and the farmer asks £75, or even £100, is it not probable that the man who wants to buy the land to build the house will pay the £100 and not the £50? That is one element which anybody who has thought about this matter at all knows that you must take into consideration. Indeed, I have heard one person—and so has the noble Marquess opposite—whose opinion on these matters we value, whose objection to this scheme was always this: That when you had paid whatever sum of millions it might be—it was not in those days any fixed sum of money—you really had bought nothing, and the landowner would still receive no share of that sum of money to be enabled to exact more than the existing use value of the land. To some extent, he will—we cannot get away from that.

That is the scheme, therefore, and we are proposing this fund of £300,000,000 to compensate the landowners for the fact that they no longer have the right to make use of the development value but are limited to the existing use value. If the noble Duke asks me as to how the £300,000,000 is going to be divided, I cannot tell him. I can only tell him this: that the Treasury have to propound a scheme, first of all, to allocate the money as between England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other and then, with regard to England and Wales (or Scotland, as the case may be), allocate an available sum of money for that country amongst the various claimants. They do that by means of a scheme, and the scheme has to receive the positive approval of both Houses of Parliament. It is not until that scheme is promulgated that we shall ascertain how they are going to allocate the money. That is the effect of Clause 55 of this Bill and that is as far as it is possible to go at the present time. It there were any other information I could give the noble Duke I would give it him, but I think that is a fair statement of how the position stands under Clause 55.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I feel that we must make one comment before we part with this clause, because it is a very important clause. It scorns to me that His Majesty's Government know where they are going but they do not know how they are going to get there, so far as the financial side is concerned. They have decided that they are going to acquire the development rights. As I said on the Second Reading, they have made a guess at the figure which should be paid for hardship and not in compensation. They are not prepared to admit, apparently, that any landowner has ever done anything towards improving the value of his land for development purposes. That is the fundamental difference of opinion between the other side of the House and this side, because there are many landowners who have done a great deal to deserve well of their country in improving the development value of their land. The Government have selected, as a guess, the figure of £300,000,000; I say advisedly a guess" because nobody knows what the figure should be. It is all very well for the noble Viscount to say it may be more than is necessary.

The evidence before the Barlow Committee was what was characterized as an intelligent guess of £400,000,000, which did not include minerals; it did not include mineral rights. I do not know what the mineral rights are going to cost and I do not know what the value of the development values will be which are going to be expropriated by His Majesty's Government. I am quite certain though that they are greatly in excess of the £300,000,000 which is being offered as a sop—that is in fact what it is. Not only that, but we are given no indication of flow the £300,000,000 is going to be distributed. We are given the information that it will be left to the Treasury to get out a scheme, and it is left in the most hazy way. Are landowners going to be left to scramble for their own share of the money, or what? Are we going to be left in a, sort of chaos with the Government sitting pretty, limited to an expenditure of £300,000,000, and the landowner with the loudest voice perhaps getting the most money? That is the position in which we are being left, and if His Majesty's Government call that government, very few other people do.

10.16 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I did not propose to intervene in this discussion at the present stage, but as the noble and learned Viscount referred to me in the course of his speech there is something which perhaps I ought to say. He recalled to my mind that there was an expert, whose name he did not mention, who took the view, as I understand it, that there was no right to compensation. I am not at this moment clear who that was, but I can quite well believe that there was such a person. I do not wish to question what the noble and learned Viscount said at all. The fact remains that the Government of that day, which included members of the noble and learned Viscount's Party, and the noble and learned Viscount himself, at that time agreed to a scheme by which compensation was balanced against the development charge, and everybody was entitled to full compensation. This scheme, of course, is completely different. What the Government have done in this case is to fix the sum of £300,000,000, which may be enough, may be too much, or may be too little. I think there is little doubt—and I believe the noble and learned Viscount admitted it himself in his Second Reading speech—that it was much less than the full value. They just compiled that sum as seemed to them best. By virtue of a sum which was demonstrably inadequate, they abolished all development rights whatever. I am not arguing whether it is good or bad, but it is entirely different from the scheme which the noble and learned Viscount and his colleagues accepted during the war.

We may be obliged to accept this scheme, but we cannot say that it is a fair scheme. It is not a fair scheme. It does not allow for full compensation and it is really expropriation for £300,000,000. It is what used to be called in the City "a sprat to catch a whale." They put out a sum which sounds very considerable, but which they know to be less than the total value of the rights they are expropriating, and then they take, by virtue of a development charge, a form of indirect taxation which they levy upon all developers or owners of land, whatever the case may be. I would not like it to go down in this House that I have accepted the noble and learned Viscount's view that the sort of scheme which was propounded during the war, and to which certain exports agreed, was the same scheme as is now being put before Parliament.

Clause 55 agreed to.

10.19 p.m.

Clause 56:

Additional payments in respect of certain war-damaged land.

56.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the last foregoing section, the Treasury may make a scheme under this section providing for the making of payments of such amounts, in such cases, and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed by the scheme, in respect of interests in land which are depreciated in value by virtue of the provisions of this Act, being land in the case of which it is shown—

1. (a) that the land sustained war damage in such circumstances that the appropriate payment under the War Damage Act, 1943, in respect of a hereditament within the meaning of that Act which consists of or includes the whole or any part of the land is a value payment;
2. (b) that the amount of the value payment falls to be computed by reference to the value of the hereditament as a site for development, other than the making good of war damage, and as so computed is less than it would be if no account were taken of that value.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved in subsection (1) to leave out from "the" ("the making of payments") to "the" ("the provisions of this Act") and insert "payment of compensation in respect of the depreciation of any interests in land due to." The noble Lord said: This clause, as I understand it, seeks to include in the claim on the £300,000,000 fund those owners whose land suffered war damage and whose compensation under the War Damage Act, 1943, does not include any development value. My Amendment merely seeks to put, in what I consider more acceptable language, the claims of such landowners upon that fund. I am seeking to insert in this Bill the words "payment of compensation in respect of depreciation of any interests in land due to." It seems to me that there is a claim upon the Fund whatever the actual net value may be, proportionate to the depreciation of the interests in land due to expropriation of development values. I therefore beg to move that these words be inserted in the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 29, leave out from ("the") to ("the") in line 32, and insert the said new words.—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)

LORD CHORLEY

I regret that we cannot accept this Amendment. The noble Lord has, I think, moved it under a complete misapprehension. The scheme under Clause 56 deals with quite a limited type of case—that of war damaged property. A separate fund is in fact being established for the purpose of providing the compensation which certainly should be paid in cases of this kind. This separate scheme will make available other money from the Treasury which is not part of the £300,000,000 at all. In other words, it is to be a completely separate scheme. It is quite true that it will be a scheme drawn up by the Treasury but it will not be based on the same sort of considerations as the considerations under Clause 55. After all, the considerations in Clause 55 are largely hardship considerations, whereas this case is more in the nature of compensation. Be that as it may, the scheme will be quite a different scheme relating to a much smaller group of cases which should be reasonably quickly and easily dealt with. Therefore, although I am not in a position to give any absolute undertaking, I think there is every possibility of a scheme being ready quite soon—certainly long before the scheme under Clause 55. The amount of money available for cash payments will be forthcoming rapidly. In these circumstances I am sure the noble Lord will wish to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY

I should like to ask the noble Lord when, if a value payment has been made under the War Damage Act of 1943, as I understand it, is it compensation to "existing users"?

LORD CHORLEY

Payment of War Damage is the difference between the value of a property before the bomb fell and after it had fallen. Of course it may happen that the value of a property after the bomb fell was larger than before, because sometimes a lot of poor class property is demolished. In that type of case the value of the payment will be in effect nothing; but the development value is substantial, and this scheme is being put forward to meet the very proper cases of persons affected in that way.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think it is a fair provision. The main point in mind was that the Treasury are given a great deal of latitude to make a scheme for the "making of payments of such amounts, in such cases, and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed by the scheme." That gives such latitude that it may take away the fair provision in the rest of the clause. That is the basis of this Amendment. I gather, of course, that this is one of those schemes that will have to come before us. The Treasury may be asking for more latitude than is really necessary because I think these people should be dealt with not on a differential basis, but on the broad line of the general provisions of this clause, and not "in such amounts, in such cases, and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed." I think those words have been put in by an excess of caution, so that the scheme may not be thought to be ultra vires when it comes before us. If that is really the short and simple explanation, as I expect it is, perhaps we had better pass on.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHORLEY moved to leave out from "that" in subsection (1) (b) and insert: by reason of the prospects of development other than the making good of the war damage, the value of the hereditament in the state in which it was immediately after the occurrence of the damage is higher; and the amount of the value payment is accordingly lower, than it would be apart from the prospect of such development.

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 40 leave out from ("that") to end of line 45 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 57:

Establishment of claims for payments.

(2) Provision may be made by regulations under this Act for regulating the making of claims for payments under a scheme made under this Part of this Act and for the ascertainment, in the case of interests in land in respect of which claims are so made, of the development values of those interests and of such attics particulars as may be required for the purposes of the preparation of a scheme under Section fifty-five of this Act or for the purposes of a scheme made under the last foregoing section; and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, such regulations may provide—

1. (a) for requiring the development values of interests in land to be determined by such authority, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed by the regulations, and for the determination of questions arising in relation to such determinations in such manner as may be so prescribed;

(3) A claim for a payment under a scheme made under this Part of this Act may be made in respect of any interest in land being an interest in fee simple or a leasehold interest as defined by this Act.

LORD LLEWELLINmoved in subsection (2) (a) to leave out "such authority" and insert "the Valuation Office." The noble Lord said: In this paragraph we get words requiring the development values of interests in land to be "determined by such authority, in such manner, and within such period as may be prescribed by the regulations." Mine is a simple Amendment. As a matter of fact, there are only a few people within my knowledge, who can make these valuations. They do it for Death Duties and for compulsory purchases already, and many of them are doing it also in this case. I have not the slightest doubt that it is the intention of the Government to use the Valuation Office, and I would like to see the words in the Bill. The public know the Valuation Office; and although, from time to time, people may feel that the valuation that Office has made is different from what they think it ought to be, at any rate they know that it is an honest valuation. For that reason I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 4, leave out ("such authority") and insert ("the Valuation Office"). —(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think there is very much between us here, but I would rather not see those words inserted and for this reason. I do not doubt for a moment that the Valuation Office would be the people who would do the actual donkey work—indeed I know of no one else who can. On the other hand, the scheme which we anticipate will be made is that the person responsible for doing the valuation will be the Central Land Board. They will do it through the Valuation Office, who will act as their agents or servants, but the valuation will be, in all probability, the valuation of the Central Land Board. We must take the greatest possible pains to keep this Central Land Board as strong as possible, with a very strong personnel. It may be that in some cases they themselves will take some step; it may be that they will correct a valuation prepared by the Valuation Office because they think that the Valuation Office has gone wrong, in some of its logical steps. The determination will be, as we anticipate, that of the Central Land Board and not that of the Valuation Office, though, as I have said, the point is a fine one, because the facts, at any rate, will come from the Valuation Office. For these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I am indeed sorry that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, should take that line. The Central Land Board is a new body which is being set up and is therefore inevitably suspect to begin with. If the Valuation Office could be mentioned in this connexion I can see no reason why that should upset things, because the paragraph would then read: for requiring the development values of interests in land to be determined by the Valuation Office, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed by the regulations … The Committee will note the words "within such period." It can be done, I think, through the Central Land Board, but if the Valuation Office were mentioned it would convey a measure of confidence. It is true, as Lord Llewellin says, that the Valuation Office has acquired a reputation amongst those who deal in land and have dealings in land, and the mention of it in this connexion would convey a considerable measure of confidence.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I speak subject to my memory being at fault, but my recollection is that the War Damage Commission have to make a determination while the people who no doubt do the technical work are the Valuation Office. I think we may fairly claim that the War Damage Commission have done their work extremely well, and that is just the system that I want to have adopted here.

THE EARL OF CRAVEN

I hesitate to take part in a discussion on this question, but it strikes me that this point is worth mentioning in this connexion. Every landlord who is coming up on any of these points that have been mentioned is also going to take his own legal advice. I suggest that that advice will cost him a lot of money. He must also have his own valuation made. It might also well be that a considerable amount of litigation would take place.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I had hoped that I should have had this Amendment accepted. I am very much disappointed that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has not seen fit to accept it. There is one thing I would like to say, and it will perhaps bring me, if I may be allowed to do so, to embark on my next Amendment at the same time. To have the Central Land Board as valuers, arbitrators and finally appeal tribunal, all in one, which is what it appears is going to happen under this scheme as set out, is not a good position in which to put any body of men. It is not a satisfactory position. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, spoke of the War Damage Commission, and I agree that they have done their work extremely well. But one has to remember that in cases of dispute, there is a tribunal above it to which decisions can be referred.

If the Valuation Office people are to be the people employed, I would have liked to see that provision included in this clause, but what I do especially want to see is some kind of appeal tribunal nominated, before which an individual whose valuations are being assessed can go in person. These proceedings of the Central Land Board are just going to be carried out in some file in an office. That sort of thing gives no one satisfaction. It does not please you to have your case determined without your seeing any of the people who have been concerned in determining it or being able to appear yourself. Those noble Lords who have been in the other House know how many constituents want to come up and explain in person—masses of them. Lord Ammon is agreeing with me on that. People do not like the coldness of a letter and the official reply. I am anxious to see that there is some Appeal Tribunal, and if the noble Lord could undertake that I think we should be much more satisfied. I hope to put in the two things together—the Valuation Office, which could work under the direction of the Central Land Board, and the Appeal Tribunal.

We place considerable importance on this Amendment, chiefly so that people may feel that fairness has been done and that it is not all in the hands of the Central Land Board acting under the direction of the Ministry of Country Planning or the Treasury, or whoever it may be, who might say, "By gum! We are getting near the £300,000,000. We had better lower the valuations, the total is becoming large." We want to see fair valuations made, and if the £300,000,000, is too much, as the Lord Chancellor has asserted it may be, then we will see. The people to make fair valuations are the Valuation Office, or, in case of appeal, this body I have suggested. I hope that I may now have a reply, and if the reply is that the Amendment cannot be accepted now, we might have further discussions between now and Report stage. At any rate I shall have to reserve my liberty to put these Amendments down, because we lay considerable emphasis on this.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I thought I put down an Amendment to meet the desire of the noble Lord. That was my intention. I copied my Amendment, page 67, line 7, almost exactly from this Amendment. It is a shocking case of plagiarism. I hope that satisfies him.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I must confess that Amendments appear very frequently, and however hard one works it is difficult to keep up with them. I am sorry I had not found the Lord Chancellor's Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Let us deal with this one first, if you please.

LORD LLEWELLIN

As soon as I have looked at the Amendment I shall no doubt see that the Chancellor has met me on this point, and I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection (2) (a) to leave out from "determination" to the end of the paragraph and to insert: settlement of any disputes arising in relation to such determinations by an arbitrator appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, or by a special tribunal constituted in accordance with the regulations.

The noble and learned Viscount said: I have an Amendment which is precisely the same as that which the noble Lord put down. What I have done in this Bill is that when I see an Amendment made by a noble Lord opposite which does not fit the Bill, I quite unblushingly copy it and make it fit the Bill. That is a convenient course to adopt. Sometimes I tell the noble Lord that I am going to use it and ask him to put it down in his name if he so desires.

In this case, for seine reason, that was not done. My Amendment is as follows: To leave out from the beginning of line 7 to the end of line 9, and insert: settlement of any disputes arising in relation to such determination by an arbitrator appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, or by a special tribunal constituted in accordance with the regulations.

The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin's Amendment, is at page 67, line 8, to insert: by the arbitration of such one of the panel of official arbitrators under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as may be selected in accordance with the provisions of that Act for the purpose of such determination.

The noble Lord will see that the only difference, apart from mere verbal differences, is that I have put on the end "or by a special tribunal constituted in accordance with the regulations".

I do not want to be bound by this. We are getting into new territory; we may have a vast number of cases, and it may be desirable that I should have some special tribunal. While desiring to reserve that right, I contemplate that the arbitration will take place in accordance with the acquisition of land procedure. I put that Amendment down hoping that thereby I should satisfy the noble Lord. May I just say one other thing? I am very much misunderstood about this matter. I do not doubt for a moment that the aggregate of the valuations, if you allow float to come in, will greatly exceed the £300,000,000. But when you have that aggregate, the problem is this: You have then to discount it to account for float. Everybody agrees with that. There is no basis by which you can tell scientifically how much of it you have to discount—whether you take one-half, one-third, one-quarter or one-fifth. It is no good doing a long sum, if at the end of it you have got to do something which is not justifiable arithmetic.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. The extra part which he has put in his Amendment, as compared to mine, is quite acceptable to me. I thank him for it, and only apologize to the House for having wasted the time of the House and urged an Amendment that had already been accepted.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I would like to say something before this Amendment is agreed to. I do not want to enter into a discussion with the noble and learned Viscount on the subject of float at this time of night, but I disagree with him substantially on the question. I hope I made my point fairly clear on Second Reading. Float is quite easily taken into account, and always has been taken into account in the past, by competent valuers, other than when valuing for Death Duties.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I differ completely from that. What I do want to make plain is that I do not think for a moment that the aggregate of the figures added up will come to more than £300,000,000.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is a drafting and consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 12, after ("determination") insert ("and the settlement of any such dispute").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

10.43 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (3), at the end to insert "or in respect of the interest of a mortgagee in possession." The noble Lord said: There are quite a number of people who are wondering why the mortgagee in possession has not been referred to in this clause. I believe there is an explanation for it, but it might be as well that it should be given publicly, especially as it may be thought wise that having progressed so far to-day we should finish our discussions on this clause. I hope that may be quite convenient to the House, because there will be considerable discussion on the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Viscout Buckmaster, which may well start our proceedings to-morrow. However, the question I was asking was why the mortgagee in possession was not included in this clause in that kind of way, and what is the principle involved in it. I put down the Amendment to draw attention to the fact that he had not been included.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 25, at end insert ("or in respect of the interest of a mortgagee in possession").—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The reason why the mortgagee has not been included is because the compensation is paid for land. You pay your compensation for land and then, of course, you pay to the person entitled to receive it in respect of that land. If your Lordships will be good enough to turn to Clause 55, subsection (4), your Lordships will see these words: any scheme made by the Treasury there-under may provide for the ascertainment of the amount of the payments to be made under the scheme in respect of particular interests in land either by reference to the development values of those interests respectively or by reference to such other circumstances affecting those interests as may be prescribed by the scheme, or partly in the one way and partly in the other, and may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the Treasury to be necessary or expedient, including provision—

1. (a) for applying, in relation to any payment made in accordance with the scheme, all or any of the provisions of Sections twenty-four to thirty of the War Damage Act, 1943 (which relate to the rights of mortgagees …"

I there have power to include this provision of the War Damage Act, and that provision—Section 24 is the particular one we are considering now—provides that in those particular cases payment goes direct to the mortagee. That is why we thought it unnecessary to do any more about it here. I can give your Lordships an assurance that the regulations will be so framed as to enable that to be done.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. In view of his explanation which we on this side wanted to have, I thought it best to get it into Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.