TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.

HL Deb 16 July 1947 vol 150 cc874-934

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 4 [Local planning authorities, etc.]:

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, this and the following Amendment in line 37 are drafting Amendments to an Amendment moved by Viscount Ridley in Committee and accepted by the Government. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 36, leave out ("Where") and insert ("(3) Where").—(Lord Henderson.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

That is quite right. They tidy up a point that was left somewhat loose after the Amendment was accepted on Committee stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, this is purely drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 37, leave out ("this") and insert ("the last foregoing"). — (Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, this Amendment remedies a technical defect in an Amendment which was moved by Viscount Ridley in Committee and accepted by the Government. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 42, at end insert—

("In reckoning for the purposes of this subsection any such period of forty days, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.")—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 [Surveys of planning areas and preparation of development plans]:

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. As the subsection is drafted at present, it might be open to doubt whether land which ought to be developed as a whole, partly for dealing with war damage and partly for relocation of industry, could be included in a single area of comprehensive development. This Amendment is designed to remove any such doubts as there may be, and enables the authority to develop an area of comprehensive development for all or any of the purposes named in the subsection. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 32, leave out ("whether") and insert ("for any one or more of the following purposes, that is to say ").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12 [Obligation to obtain permission for development]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved at the end of subsection (3) to insert: Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to require permission in respect of the deposit of refuse or waste materials on a site already used for that purpose if the height of the deposit does not exceed the level of the land adjoining such site, and the superficial area of the deposit is not thereby extended.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I might, with the permission of the House, alter the Amendment which stands in my name, so that the first line of the Amendment reads: Provided that nothing in paragraph (b) of this subsection shall be deemed ", and so on. I explained this fully on the Committee stage. I do not think there is any necessity to weary the House by going into the full details again. At this stage, I formally beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 24, at end insert the said proviso, as amended.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14 [Applications to local planning authorities for permission]:

LORD SAVILE moved at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) to insert: and for authorising the local planning authority to pay compensation not exceeding the amount of any development charge paid under Part VII of this Act in respect of development carried out in accordance with provisions of the development plan, where on a claim made to the local planning authority within the time and in the manner prescribed by the order it is shown that the value of the interest of any person in the land on which such development has been carried out is less than it would have been if the permission for development which does not accord with the provisions of the development plan had not been granted.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is a corollary to one I moved on the Committee stage. Your Lordships may remember that my original Amendment provided for the payment of compensation where the value of any property was depreciated by carrying out operations in accordance with a development plan as provided for under this paragraph. A short debate followed and the noble Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, pointed out that no compensation would be payable at the present time for any obstruction of view. He also said that the power to depart from the development plan was one which would be very sparingly used. I was prepared then to withdraw that Amendment.

As Lord Llewellin pointed out afterwards, something entirely new has come up in this Bill, due to the development charge which is assessed by the Central Land Board. That entirely alters the plea of the person who has something to grouse about. After all, any individual or estate developer who pays a development charge is entitled to something if a gasworks or something of that kind is put up, and, as I said on the Committee stage, I think he ought at least to be refunded something out of the development charge to cover the damage caused to his plans as a developer. The Central Land Board will have taken the money, and everything was meant to be as it was originally planned, perhaps ten years before. I feel he ought to be given something out of the development charge, at any rate. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Savile.)

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, this is a point we desire to meet, but I will ask the noble Lord to withdraw this present Amendment, because the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has put down an Amendment to Clause 72 which provides for the consideration of the point which the noble Lord has in mind. In these circumstances I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. Through the courtesy of the noble and learned Viscount, I have seen his Amendment. It does, I think, meet the point that my noble friend and I have in mind, and meets it at a more convenient place in the Bill.

LORD SAVILE

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to insert at the end of paragraph (c) of Subsection (3): including the owner and occupier of the land to which the application for permission relates where the applicant is a person other than the owner or occupier thereof. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment was put down because of a fear that the planning authority may grant permission to somebody who was not the owner of that land to develop it, and to develop it without the knowledge of the owner. It was discussed on Committee stage. One hopes that the owner of land would be amply protected under such circumstances in the matter of making his voice heard at least in the disposal of the land. I do not think I need go into great detail on the matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 33, at the end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Radnor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the point which the noble Earl raises is a very real one. He is alarmed lest somebody should go and ask for planning permission to build a house, let us say, on somebody else's land without having had the courtesy or, I may add, the good sense, to tell the owner of the land what he is doing. Then, when he receives, if he does receive, planning permission to build on that land (he has to get the land to build on; it is no good having planning permission unless you have the land to do your building), he goes to the owner and says "Pleased to meet you; I have come to tell you that I have got permission to develop your land. That is all there is to it. Will you please show me the land so that my permission will become effective?" The owner will perhaps be surprised. If he is prepared to sell his land, well and good; if, on the other hand, he is not prepared, then the gentleman who has been foolish enough to get planning permission can go to the Land Board or the central authority and ask them compulsorily to acquire the land on which he may build. At that stage there is ample protection for the owner. I agree with those who are anxious not to encourage the gentleman who goes and asks for planning permission with regard to another person's land, but I think the owner of the land is adequately protected at a later stage. I hope that with that explanation the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I should be grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for a little more information about this. He has explained on previous occasions that it is all right for an owner to charge a reasonable amount above the agricultural value for his land, but if he charges too much that is recalcitrance, and he may find that the land is bought over his head. I think the noble and learned Viscount said protests were made that the sum of £300,000,000 was not sufficient, and that it was that extra value that the owner could get which would have to be taken into account. So a small profit is all right, but a large profit is not. If an owner refuses to sell, however, on both of those occasions it is recalcitrance. There is obviously no exact definition as to where good business ends and where recalcitrance begins, and it really is anybody's bet as to the exact point where the Central Land Board will take action. I think on a previous occasion the noble and learned Viscount told my noble friend, Lord Radnor, that the cases in which the Central Land Board would take action would be fairly rare. I think he said they would be bizarre and exceptional. That, of course, may be true, but I cannot see how anybody can foretell what the reaction of the public will be to this new idea. It seems to me that anybody who is aggrieved in regard to a refusal to sell can jump to the conclusion that the owner is being recalcitrant, and he has a perfect right to put in plans and to apply to the Board for compulsory acquisition.

One thing I have not been able to understand from the noble and learned Viscount's explanation is exactly what is the position of the local planning authority in relation to this new procedure. Have they got any power of discrimination in regard to these plans, or have they not? The owner may have a whole variety of reasons for refusing to sell to a particular applicant. He may be really recalcitrant, but, on the other hand, he may wish to develop the land himself at some future date, and unless somebody is in a position to go through those reasons to discover exactly why the owner has refused, it really is impossible to form a proper conclusion as to whether those plans should be sent forward or not. It does seem to me rather hard on the local authorities that they should have to consider what may be perfectly cock-eyed schemes, if I may so describe them, put up possibly by some irresponsible person for the development of somebody else's land. I think that may well happen under the Bill as drafted. Of course we have not seen the regulations but, from what we have been told, there is no reason why a local authority should not be really inundated with such applications, and I think that the proper course for a local planning authority to pursue would be, when they get some applicant about whom they know nothing, to consult the owner and find out something about his reasons for refusing to treat. Whether they have the power to do so or not, I think that is what a number of local authorities would do.

But if a local authority had a "down" on an owner they might be perfectly prepared to send these plans on, and to put him to a certain amount of embarrassment. The noble and learned Viscount said that the owner had plenty of facilities for being heard at some later stage. That may be so, but I think I am right in saying that the Central Land Board can act under a quick procedure, in which case the owner would, it is true, have an opportunity of being heard, but it would be a very late and a very short opportunity. I rather hope that the noble and learned Viscount will reconsider this, because I think it is what in most cases a local authority would do—they would consult the owner. I think, however, it ought to be made mandatory, and that the local authority ought, as a matter of normal practice, if they get an application from a person about whom they know nothing, to consult the owner. In doing so they would save a lot of unnecessary work.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, if I may be permitted to say a word in support of my noble friend, I do think that it is probable that a great deal of saving of public time and money, and also of a good deal of irritation, would be effected. The proprietor of the land should be brought in to anything that is going on at the earliest possible moment. I say that for this reason. It is quite possible, in fact it is almost certainly probable, that the proprietor knows more about his land than does anyone else. It may be that the people who want to get planning authority are some minor local authority. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time unnecessarily but let me give a case of which I have particulars.

This was a case in which a minor local authority, wishing to get some land for housing, put it into a planning scheme to their planning authority, just as would happen under this Bill. For about a year the proprietor had no knowledge of what was going on. Now that land was open at certain seasons to the danger of serious flooding and as it was in a fairly elevated situation that was not known to a great many of the people concerned. The flooding could be obviated only by very expensive works. It was never possible for the proprietor, who, of course, knew it very well, to point that out to the people who were concerned in the scheme until quite late in the negotiations. When it was pointed out it naturally led to a lot of irritation and disappointment, the more so because certain experts had advised the use of the land for the purpose for which it was wanted. That sort of thing can be avoided, it seems to me, by bringing the proprietors in at the earliest possible moment. Therefore I beg the noble and learned Viscount to consider this rather carefully. I do not put this forward purely on the ground of the owner's interests. Indeed, that is not the real point at all. But I think that the proprietor ought to be brought in at the earliest possible moment.

LORD HYLTON

My Lords, I wish to support the Amendment of my noble friend the Earl of Radnor from the point of view of the planning authority. It is most important that before giving permission or consent a planning authority shall not work in the dark, as it were. They must take all the factors into consideration, and they cannot take all factors into consideration unless, in some way or other, they are in touch with the owner, because the reasons of the owner for refusing or not wishing to sell land for this type of development may be extremely material. They may be material to the decision of the planning authority, and unless the planning authority who have to give the consent know the reasons of the owner, they cannot give a reasonable answer to an application. Therefore, in the interests of the planning authority, I would ask the noble and learned Viscount if he would look into this.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Will the noble Lord forgive me for interjecting a few words here? I am not, of course, entitled to make a second speech. May I say that I entirely agree with what he says, but I do not think that a planning authority should entertain any application seriously unless the owner has been consulted about this matter, for the very reason that has just been given. But let me point out the extreme difficulty which there may be sometimes in ascertaining who is the owner. You cannot possibly expect a local planning authority to take upon themselves the task of investigating titles.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Lords, I find myself in considerable difficulty in answering this brief debate. I am not at all sure that for the purpose of doing so I ought not to move over to the other side of the House. Three noble friends of mine have spoken in support of the Amendment, but I find myself in the position of being, at least in part, convinced by the arguments of the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack. I think my noble friend Lord Saltoun is confusing the issue a little. This is not a question of planning permission but permission to develop. I would make it clear that, so far as the plan is concerned, long before anything may arise under the clause or the Amendment the owner will have the opportunity of making the necessary objections to that plan, so far as subsequent operations may be concerned. I am inclined to think, in view of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, that the owner of land has a sufficient safeguard against anybody who wishes to acquire his land by underhand means in order to develop it and make money out of that development.

It was the purpose of my Amendment to prevent some entirely extraneous scoundrel, to put it bluntly, coming along and bribing a member of the planning authority to allow him to acquire land which belonged to somebody else in order to develop it to his own private profit. I am assured that there is adequate safeguard in the Bill to prevent any underhand work of that nature, because if that man does come along and get permission to develop, as soon as he receives permission someone, if not himself, will have to get in touch with the owner of the land because someone, whether by compulsion or otherwise, has to acquire that land before he can begin to develop it; and over the process of compulsory acquisition I think the owner of land has considerable powers of complaint. I am sorry if some of my noble friends wish to see this Amendment pushed to the last degree. I am not prepared to do so and unless the House forces me to do so, I prefer to beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the proviso to subsection (4), after the first "that" to insert: ("(a) no such certificate as aforesaid shall be required in respect of the erection of any industrial building if the building does not cover an area of more than five thousand square feet; and (b)")

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember what this point was. The Bill requires permission of the Board of Trade, in addition to all the other permissions, in order to enlarge or construct a factory and in the Committee stage I promised to give your Lordships an Amendment providing that it would be unnecessary to obtain the consent of the Board of Trade so long as the alteration did not exceed 5,000 square feet or 25 per cent. of the factory, whichever was less. I am glad to say I have been authorized to do rather better than the undertaking I gave, because I can knock out the 25 per cent. altogether and give your Lordships the straight Amendment, that up to 5,000 square feet the Board of Trade's consent is not necessary. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, lime 11, after ("that") insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. Two points were made on this clause on the earlier stages, if I remember rightly. The first was that there ought to be the power of the Board of Trade to give a blanket certificate over a whole area which was an industrial estate. That Amendment we moved here in Committee stage. There was the further point, with which the present Amendment deals, that a man should not have to apply for permission to the Board of Trade for quite small factories. What the Board of Trade really ought to give their permission for is a large industrial factory which will make a great difference in the labour situation in a particular area which may already be over-industrialized. We pleaded that the small factory should be exempt from this position of obtaining a certificate from the Board of Trade in every case, and we are now obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for putting down and moving this Amendment. It is even rather better than he said, because the factory can cover an area of not more than 5,000 square feet, which means that if you build on two floors you get 10,000 square feet, and if you are allowed to build a factory three storeys high you get 15,000 square feet. I think that has handsomely met our point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

8.56 p.m.

Clause 16 [Appeals to Minister]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am glad to be able to say, with slight malice, that this is an, Amendment to correct a technical error in an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. It is pleasant to think that even the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, sometimes nods! His mistake necessitates not only this Amendment, but the next also. I have great pleasure in moving this Amendment to correct the noble Lord's Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 5, after ("days") insert ("from the receipt of notification of their decision.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD O'HAGAN

I am always subject to correction, and I am very glad to be corrected on this occasion.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment. This is to correct the other mistake of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 43, at end insert ("and as if notification of their decision had been received by the applicant at the expiration of the period prescribed by the development order or the extended period agreed upon as aforesaid, as the case may be").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, I would like just to congratulate my noble friend Lord O'Hagan on having effected at any rate some improvement in this Bill, even if it has to be further improved at a later stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19 [Obligation to purchase land on refusal of permission in certain cases]:

LORD O'HAGAN had given notice that he would move, in subsection (2) after "the Minister shall" to insert "within six months of the receipt by him of the said copy." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this case there is no doubt that the point I raise has been covered by the next Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount. In the circumstances, I would not dream of pressing the words that stand in my name. I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount for putting down this Amendment.

LORD HENDERSON moved to insert after subsection (2): (3) If within the period of six months from the date on which a purchase notice is served under this section the Minister has neither confirmed the notice nor taken any such other action as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection, nor notified the owner by whom the notice was served that he does not propose to confirm the notice, the notice shall be deemed to be confirmed at the expiration of that period, and the council on whom the notice was served shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire the interest of the owner compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of this Act, and to have served notice to treat in respect thereof at the expiration of the said period. The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said, this Amendment fulfils an undertaking given by my noble and learned friend on Committee stage, and also meets the point of the Amendment which the noble Lord had down. The broad effect of the Amendment is that if at the end of six Months the Minister has not taken action on a purchase notice, or announces his decision not to confirm, the notice is deemed to be confirmed. I think that fully meets the point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Henderson.)

LORD O'HAGAN

I quite agree with what the noble Lord has said.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20 [Compensation for refusal of permission in certain cases]:

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, consequential on an Amendment to the previous subsection which was made on Report stage in another place. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 37, leave out from ("extent") to ("it") in line 40 and insert ("the value of any interest in land is less than it would have been if the permission had been granted or had been granted unconditionally").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21 [Revocation and modification of permission to develop]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, at the end of the clause to insert: (4) For the purposes of this and the next succeeding section, where permission to develop land has been granted on an applica- tion made in that behalf under this Part of this Act and the land, or any part thereof, in respect of which such permission has been granted is compulsorily acquired by a government department or a local or public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, such permission shall be deemed to have been revoked in respect of the land so acquired.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, you will remember the Amendment which I moved on the previous stage of the Bill. This Amendment deals with the question of abortive expenditure, which anyone may have cause to incur, on the question of developing land which is subsequently acquired compulsorily by a local authority or a Government Department. The noble and learned Viscount asked me to get in touch with his advisers. I have not had the opportunity of doing that, but I have been in touch with other people who have been advising me, and I would like to know from the Lord Chancellor whether he is certain that the views which he expressed on a previous occasion dealing with compensation are correct. If indeed they are correct, and he is still of that opinion, then obviously I will not press the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 41, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for the way in which he has approached this matter. I have gone into this with some care, and I have consulted the Valuation Office. I am quite satisfied that the advice which I gave the noble Earl on the previous occasion was correct. The Valuation Office are quite clear that abortive expenditure not reflected in the value of the land would rank for compensation under the heading of "disturbance," and therefore no Amendment is required on this point. Indeed, if we did accept this Amendment there would be a risk of argument that the same thing was to be taken into consideration twice over. I can, without any hesitation, give the noble Earl the assurance for which he asks.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24:

Supplementary provisions as to enforcement.

(5) Provision may be made by regulations under this Act for applying in relation to steps required to be taken by an enforcement notice under the last foregoing section all or any of the following provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936, that is to say—

1. (a)Section two hundred and seventy-six (which empowers local authorities to sell materials removed in executing works under that Act, subject to accounting for the proceeds of sale);

subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be specified in the regulations.

9.2 p.m.

LORD ADDINGTON had given Notice that he would move, after paragraph (a) of subsection (5), to insert: (b) Section two hundred and ninety-one (which provides for expenses recoverable from owners to be a charge on the premises).

The noble Lord said: This Amendment was put down in order to see that the expenses incurred by local planning authorities in enforcing planning control should be made a charge upon the land itself. There have been consultations, and I understand that the point is fully met by the next Amendment and therefore I will not move this. I am grateful for the words put down in the following Amendment.

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, the next Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, says, deals with the point of the Amendment to which he has just referred. Its purpose is to give the local planning authority an alternative method of recovering their expenses when they themselves (in default of an owner) take steps required by an enforcement notice. At present, under Clause 24 (1) they can recover their expenses as a simple contract debt, by court action. The Amendment enables the regulations made under Clause 24 to provide for charging the expenses on the land. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 31, line 10, at end insert ("and any such regulations may provide for the charging on the land of any expenses recoverable by a local authority under this section").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25[Agreements regulating development or use of land]:

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will speak on this Amendment and the next two together. These three Amendments to Clause 25 (3) are all drafting Amendments, the only object of which is to improve the wording of the proviso which was moved in an Amendment by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and which was accepted. Similar Amendments will be moved to paragraph 10 of the Tenth Schedule, which preserves agreements already in force. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 31, line 28, leave out ("or requiring"). —(Lord Henderson.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I would again like to express gratitude for this concession.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 31, at end insert ("so long as those powers are exercised in accordance with the provisions of the development plan or in accordance with any directions which may have been given by the Minister under Section thirty-six of this Act, or as requiring the exercise of any such powers otherwise than as aforesaid").—(Lord Henderson.).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 31, leave out lines 32 to 35.—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27 [Provisions supplementary to s. 26]:

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on a Government Amendment in Committee to Clause 19 (1) (a). I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 12, leave out ("then state of development") and insert ("existing state"). —(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29 [Orders for preservation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest]:

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, this Amendment brings the wording of Clause 29 (2) (c), which deals with compensation payable under a building preservation order, into line with that of Clause 28 (1) (d) which deals with compensation pay- able under a tree preservation order. The provision in Clause 28 was amended in Committee by the acceptance of an Amendment moved by the Earl of Radnor. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 27, leave out from ("authority") to ("conditions") in line 28 and insert ("subject to such exceptions and").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38:

Compulsory acquisition of land for development.

(2) If during the period before a development plan has become operative under this Act with respect to any area, the Minister is satisfied that the acquisition of any land under this section is expedient for a purpose which appears to him to be immediately necessary in the interests of the proper planning of that area (not being a purpose for which a local authority could be authorised to acquire the land compulsorily under any other enactment) he may authorise the council of the county borough or county district in which the land is situated to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of this section.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR had given Notice to move two Amendments to subsection (2) the first being to leave out "for a" ["for a purpose"] and insert "(a) for any," and the second being after "enactment" to insert: (b) for any other purpose for which, by virtue of paragraphs (c) or (d) of subsection (1) of Section ten of the Act of 1944, a local planning authority could be authorised to acquire land before the appointed day.

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the Amendment is a preliminary Amendment to the one which follows, which perhaps I might discuss at the same time. The object of the second Amendment is this. Viscount Gage was good enough to point out to us that there were certain powers in the Act of 1944 with regard particularly to buying land for exchange, and so on, which he was anxious to see retained in this Bill. At a later stage, after the plan has been prepared and the land has been designated, no doubt there is no difficulty about it. I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount for pointing out what was a flaw in the existing Bill, in that we had not retained the 1944 powers. The noble Lord has down on the Paper to-day the next Amendment, but I rather think if he has looked up (as I have no doubt he has) subsection (1) of Section 10 of the Act of 1944, he will have seen that the provisions under paragraph (c) and (d) of that subsection go a little wider than the Amendment which he is submitting. I would suggest that we can meet the point which the noble Lord so rightly refers to by incorporating into this Bill the pre-plan stage of the powers of the 1944 Act, without which there would be an obvious defect. We can do it in this way by referring to the Act of 1944. With regard to these purposes the Act of 1944 does bring in the considerations of the public interest, and it is right that before a county council, county borough or county district purchase land for the purposes of exchange there should be consideration of the public interest. In that sense my Amendment is a little narrower than the Amendment of Lord Gage which follows, but it brings in paragraphs (c) and (d) of Section 10 of the Act of 1944. The noble Lord will see that the Amendment is rather wide, and it is with the endeavour to meet the point to which he has so rightly called our attention that I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 11, leave out ("for a") and insert ("(a) for any").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Lord Chancellor for meeting my suggestion in this way. I feel sure that it will mitigate a number of real cases of hardship amongst those who own small plots, whose land will be sterilized and who will have to wait for compensation, whereas they really need their land. I am informed that this Amendment covers entirely my point as the noble and learned Viscount says, the only difference being that in the Lord Chancellor's Amendment the public interest is mentioned, while in my Amendment the consent of the Minister is mentioned. As I understand that Ministers always act in the public interest, I do not see that there is much distinction between them. At any rate I will be willing not to move my Amendment. I again express gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 15, after ("enactment") insert: "(b) for any other purpose for which, by virtue of paragraphs (c) or (d) of subsection (1) of Section ten of the Act of 1944, a local planning authority could be authorised to acquire land before the appointed day").(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41:

Power to acquire buildings of special architectural or historic interest.

41.—(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 authorise 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 are not being taken for properly maintaining the building, that Minister may be authorised 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:

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.

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 16, leave out ("required") and insert ("are not being taken").—(Lord Henderson.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, this is a point that my noble friend Lord De L'Isle and Dudley raised in Committee in regard to the subsequent subsection. It is right that the two should be brought into line. I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 17, leave out from the first ("building") to the first ("the") in line 18.—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "maintaining," where that word occurs a second time, and insert "preserving." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a manuscript Amendment. On the Committee stage I had some doubts about the exact meaning of the phrase "appears to the Minister to be required for maintaining the building or its amenities." It might have a much wider significance. I had some doubts whether the word "maintaining" might suggest the possibility of obtaining rent or other forms of income in order to keep the building in proper order. I think the suggestion that the word "maintaining" should be taken out of the Bill and the word "preserving" put in, probably meets the case. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 22, leave out ("maintaining") and insert ("preserving").—(The Earl of Radnor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for moving the Amendment and suggesting a better word. I did not realize at the earlier stage that the word "maintaining" might have that double meaning. I thought it might mean maintaining the fabric. But you could maintain a thing by raising a fund with which to do it, and that is not what I had in mind. By accepting this suggestion, we make it plain that we are dealing with the more limited sense of the word, and we shall do better by getting rid of the word "maintaining" altogether. I have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON moved to leave out the proviso to subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to leave out the proviso to Clause 41 (2). This proviso was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in order to provide an appeal against a proposal of the Minister of Works to acquire a building subject to a preservation order on the ground that the building is not being properly maintained. It is now to be replaced by a new subsection (contained in my next Amendment), which enables a court of summary jurisdiction, on the application of any person interested in the building, to hold up proceedings on a compulsory purchase, whether it be initiated by the Minister of Works or by a local authority, if they are satisfied that the building is being properly maintained. The effect of these Amendments is to preserve Lord Llewellin's proviso in an improved form. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 50, leave out lines 32 to 40.—(Lord Henderson.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, this follows a suggestion that we made on the Committee stage that there ought to be this right of appeal, and I am much obliged to the noble Lord for incorporating it here.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 51, line 9, at end insert: ("(4) Any person having an interest in any building which it is proposed to acquire compulsorily under this section may, within twenty-eight days after the service of the notice required to be served under paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, apply to a court of summary jurisdiction for the petty sessional division or place within which the building to which the notice relates is situated for an order staying further proceedings on the compulsory purchase order, and if the court is satisfied that reasonable steps are being taken for properly maintaining the building, they shall make an order accordingly. Any person aggrieved by the decision of a court of summary jurisdiction under this subsection may appeal against that decision to a court of quarter sessions.").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43 [Acquisition of land by Central Land Board]:

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to insert after subsection (4): (5) Upon the disposal by the Central Land Board of any land acquired by them under the provisions of this section the Central Land Board shall upon the written request of any person inform him in writing of the name and address of the person to whom, and the price at which, such land has been disposed of by them.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, on the Committee stage I made the point that it was very desirable, if anybody acquired land for development from the planning authority, that it should be known who had acquired that land, and at what price. It was to be made quite certain that there should be no underhand business going on. Certain objections in. detail were put forward by the noble and learned Viscount. My purpose was not that that knowledge should be made available at any particular time, but that it should be made available so that the public could see what had happened with land which had been disposed of by a public authority, and to make quite certain for their own satisfaction that that public authority was doing its duty properly. I have therefore put down this Amendment, which does not seek to give any particular time as to when the knowledge should be available, and I hope that that will give the necessary security to the public in ensuring that the knowledge will be available at such times as it is ready to be made available. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 53, line 6, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Radnor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I find myself largely in sympathy with the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment. We should be very rash if we dispensed with publicity in any of these cases. Even in such well-tried institutions as our courts of justice, I think it is a mistake to dispense with publicity, and when you are dealing with the activities of the Central Land Board, which is, after all, a new institution, I am quite sure that it would be undesirable to have things done under a bushel. Indeed, public confidence in the activities of the Central Land Board would be very much greater if their transactions were open to the light of day. I think this particular Amendment has this objection: that it would place upon the Central Land Board a very great burden. All sorts of people —Tom, Dick and Harry—whether they were interested or not, or who had any cause or right to be interested, might write to them and ask: "Please tell me what price John Jones paid for this, that, or the other." I do not think that is desirable.

One way of dealing with the matter would be to start a register like there is at Somerset House, which on payment of a small fee you may inspect. And perhaps the mere fact that you have to pay a small fee will prevent the mere curiosity merchant going and doing it. I will give the noble Earl an assurance that the Minister will endeavour to see that a register is kept of the dealings with which the Central Land Board is concerned, and that that register shall be open to public inspection. I think that in that way we shall achieve the object which he and I both have at heart—that of giving the necessary publicity and therefore winning the necessary confidence of the public in this matter. I hope that in view of that assurance he will think it unnecessary to press the Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the way in which he has received this Amendment. I think that his suggestion of a register is an excellent one—much better than my Amendment. I could wish, though, that he could find some means of putting that suggestion into the Bill on Third Reading. But if that proves to be impracticable, I am prepared to accept his assurance that a register will be kept. I think the point that the noble and learned Viscount made, that it will prevent any Tom, Dick and Harry bedevilling the Central Land Board with correspondence is rather an important one. The imposition of a small fee for inspection of the register is also, as I know from my experience in other connexions, a very good deterrent to those idle curious people who are sometimes found in this world. I hope that possibly he may be able to include something on Third Reading to make that clear, because this is a matter of some public concern. By putting it in the Bill it will give it greater publicity than would result from a mere assurance. However in view of the fact that the noble and learned Viscount has met my point so well I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 51:

Compensation for compulsory acquisition after appointed day.

(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:

Provided that where at any time before the date of the notice to treat permission for development of the land of any class specified in the said Third Schedule (other than development specified in paragraph 1 thereof) has been refused or granted subject to conditions, or, having been granted, has been revoked or modified by the imposition of conditions, it shall be assumed for the purposes of the ascertainment of the value of the interest in question that such permission would not be granted, or, as the case may be, would not be granted otherwise than subject to those conditions.

(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.

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords this is a drafting Amendment preparatory to the next Amendment but one. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 4, leave out ("where") and insert ("(a) where").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords this is a drafting Amendment consequential on the splitting of the Third Schedule into two parts in the Committee stage and the resulting Amendments made in Clause 20 (1) at the same time. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 6, leave out from ("in") to ("has") in line 7 and insert ("Part II of the said Third Schedule").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), after "imposition of conditions" to insert: and compensation has become payable in respect of the refusal, revocation, or conditions, as the case may be, under Section twenty of this Act.

The noble Lord said: My Lords this is in substance a drafting Amendment. It might conveniently be taken with the Amendment at line 13 which covers a similar point. The point is rather technical. Clause 51 (2) provides that compensation on compulsory acquisition is to be assessed on restricted value, that is value for existing use, including the Third Schedule tolerances. The intention of the proviso is to secure that the full value of the Third Schedule tolerances shall not be included if the owner has been refused permission to develop up to the Third Schedule limit. Such refusal is treated like an interference with existing use and attracts compensation from the planning authority under Clause 20. Without the proviso, that compensation would be duplicated in the compensation on compulsory acquisition.

The proviso as drafted, however, covers refusal under the previous planning code to carry out development of the kind now covered by the Third Schedule. This produces the wrong result, and the Amendment inserts words which make clear that the proviso applies only where the refusal has attracted compensation under Clause 20. This was always the intention.

The next Amendment covers a similar point. An order under Clause 26 requiring the removal of an existing building or the discontinuance of an existing use is an interference with existing use, which under the general principles of the Bill attracts compensation from the local planning authority. In such a case, likewise, it is necessary so to calculate the compensation on compulsory acquisition as to ensure that it does not duplicate that compensation. Accordingly the Amendment imports the assumption that the interference already made and paid for will not be reversed. Incidentally, these two Amendments bring the clause, as is proper, into line with Clause 68 (3), which provides that if these two kinds of interference with existing use are later reversed, development charge will be payable on the development, the previous refusal of which attracted compensation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 9, after ("conditions") insert the said new words.—(Lord Henderson.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, before I heard the very lucid explanation of the noble Lord, I was told this Amendment was perfectly all right, and thus reinforced we have no objection to it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 62, line 13, at end insert: ("(b) where at any time before the said date an order has been made under section twenty-six of this Act requiring the removal of any building or the discontinuance of any use, and compensation has become payable in respect of that order under section twenty-seven of this Act, it shall be assumed for the purposes aforesaid that planning permission would not be granted for the rebuilding of that building or the resumption of that use.")—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (2) to insert the following new. subsection: (3) Without prejudice to any rule of law affecting the assessment of compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition of and in pursuance of any enactment; no account shall be taken, in calculating the value of an interest in land designated by a development plan under this Act as subject to compulsory acquisition of any depreciation in the value of that interest which is attributable to the designation.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, since the Marshalled List was marshalled I have put down another Amendment in lieu of the one standing in my name at the top of Page 7, and I will move this Amendment in the Supplementary Marshalled List. Those who were here during the Committee stage will remember that the point was made that it would be quite unfair to designate land some little time before a compulsory acquisition—perhaps it might be farming land which gets into a very bad state if nothing is done to it during the period of designation—and then for the local authority to buy it at a reduced price because of depreciation arising solely out of designation. The position I put then I reiterate now. Surely the right value is the value without any ill effects, if there be ill effects of designation. If there be no ill effects, this Amendment will not alter the position at all. It is only where there has been some deterioration of land because of designation that a fair and just position for the owner would be safeguarded by my Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 13, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I think this is a fair Amendment. Where there is compulsory purchase following on designation I think it would not be right that the value of that which is to be purchased should be pressed down by any depreciation there may be owing to designation. That is the sum and substance of the noble Lord's Amendment, and I am prepared to accept it.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am very much obliged.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved in subsection (3) to substitute the words "except where" for "unless." The noble Lord said: My Lords, although this is going to be rather confusing, with permission, I will not move the next Amendment on the Marshalled List but will substitute the following manuscript Amendment— Page 62, line 18, leave out ("unless") and insert ("except where"). The point of this Amendment is that a local authority who are buying this land would be entitled to carry out the development specified in the clause dealing with ripe land. The position is as follows. The people who are owners of ripe land pay no development charge and have no claim to any part of the £300,000,000. If they then have their land acquired, and it is used for a different purpose, such as is set out in subsection (3) (b) on page 62, then the local authority may come along and buy that land at its present user value, although the owner has not had any claim on the £300,000,000.

This was a point that was raised in another place, and on which assurances were given by the Attorney-General in speaking on the Report stage there. In consequence, I believe, subsection (3) of Clause 51 has since appeared for the first time. That says that, unless either (a) or (b) has happened, "the value of the interest to which the notice to treat relates shall be calculated as if that permission had not been granted." That implies that if (a) or (b) had happened it should be taken that it had been granted. But the word "unless" seems to me not to point that out so well. I suggest that instead of "unless" we put the words "except where." If the Government will accept them, those words will fulfil the purpose of my far longer Amendment on the Marshalled List, which I have not moved. I beg to move the short and simple Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 18, leave out ("unless") and insert ("except where").—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I fully understand what the noble Lord has in mind. I confess that my intention was to say that in the cases specified by (a) and (b) the value of the interest to which the notice to treat relates should be calculated in accordance with the real circumstances, and as if permission had been granted. However, I think that perhaps there is a slight ambiguity about that, and if we accept this Amendment we make it quite plain that that is the state of affairs where (a) or (b) prevails, and it is only in the absence of the (a) and (b) cases that the other circumstances prevail. Accordingly, I am happy to accept this Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 52:

Temporary provisions for eliminating special value attributable to vacant possession.

52.—(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 there from 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.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "nineteen hundred and fifty-two" for "nineteen hundred and fifty-four." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, those of your Lordships who were present during the Committee stage will appreciate the purpose of this Amendment. It is designed to protect the owner-occupier in the case of compulsory acquisition. Your Lordships will recollect that the 1939 price as the basis of compensation was dispensed with, and instead we were given the existing value, subject to a notional lease lasting seven years. My proposal is that the notional lease should be taken as being of five years' duration only. The only section of the community with which I am concerned in this Amendment is the owner-occupier who is ejected from his house, and who has to go out into the market to get himself a new house at whatever price he can.

I do not think it meets the case to be told that such occasions are rare. I do not think it is an answer to say that this kind of thing will not happen. If it does happen it is not only unjust but at the same time it inflicts hardship. I suggest that it would not have been unreasonable to ask that in such cases the idea of the notional lease should be abandoned altogether. To suggest that it should be reduced from seven to five I hope is not an unreasonable proposal. My noble friend Viscount Samuel suggested that it might be possible to find some means whereby the owner-occupier could be protected and the theory of the notional lease would be preserved in regard to other properties or other cases. Whether that be so I do not know, but I do hope that the noble Viscount will not harden his heart against something which to me is fundamentally just and which must tend to reduce hardship. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 63, line 3, leave out ("fifty-four") and insert ("fifty-two").—(Viscount Buck-master.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sorry to say that I cannot accept this Amendment. We had this matter fully discussed on the Committee stage. I can understand the objection on principle to the idea of the notional lease, but this Amendment accepts the principle of the notional lease and really cuts down the period from seven years to five. I am afraid that we cannot accept this Amendment. With regard to the owner-occupier in whom the noble Viscount says he is interested, I considered most carefully whether we could in some way differentiate between the owner-occupier or the investor generally. I am quite satisfied that it is impossible to do so. The suggestion thrown out by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and I think by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has received careful consideration. If it had been possible to do something to limit that class of case it would have been done, but we are quite certain that it is impossible. That being so, we think the period of notional lease which we suggest is the right period, and I am unable to accept this Amendment.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

I am sorry to hear the noble and learned Viscount's answer, but in view of what he has said I have no other course but to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 53 [Compensation for compulsory acquisition of land attracting converted value payments]:

9.37 p.m.

LORD HENDERSON

This is a drafting Amendment consequential on a Government Amendment to subsection (1) moved in Committee. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 26, after ("under") insert ("paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON moved, at the end of the clause to insert: (5) Subsection (4) of section sixty-nine of the War Damage Act, 1943 (which makes special provision with respect to payments under that Act in respect of war damage sustained by hereditaments held for charitable purposes) shall not apply to any payment which, by virtue of this section, vests in the person by whom an interest in land is acquired.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new subsection is necessary in order to deal with a technical point which has come to light in the working out of the new clause which will come after Clause 55 relating to "Rule (5)" properties. I may say that it has nothing whatever to do with the discussion about charities which will take place on a later clause. Section 69 (4) of the War Damage Act, 1943, provides among other things that if the property of charities is damaged and the case would normally attract a cost of works payment, the War Damage Commission may, after the appropriate consultations, make either a cost of works payments or a payment in lieu, and they have the further discretion to make the payment to such person as they think fit.

Clause 53 provides that on the compulsory acquisition of a property which has suffered "cost of works" war damage the converted value payment which becomes payable is to be diverted from the owner to the acquiring authority. This Amendment will make sure that this result is secured in the case of charities' property, notwithstanding the special provisions of Section 69 (4) of the War Damage Act to which I have just referred. This is most conveniently done by excluding the operation of section 69 (4). The result is that when a charity's land which has suffered "costs of works" war damage is compulsorily acquired, the War Damage Commission will have no discretion but to pay the converted value payment to the acquiring authority in the same way as with property not owned by a charity. Since the property of a charity may or may not be a "Rule (5)" property, the provision is necessary, both in this clause and in the new clause dealing specially with "Rule (5)" properties. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 40, at end insert the said subsection."—(Lord Henderson.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

This and the new clause that appears later on seem to me to raise a completely new point that has not come up hitherto in this Bill. It is a point that has been found at a late stage. We have no objection to this, or to the subsequent Amendment, which no doubt the noble Lord will shortly move. I would only say that it does show the value of having a revising Chamber to pick up those points which might have been missed in all stages at another place.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55 [Compensation for compulsory acquisition after passing of this Act and before appointed day]:

LORD HENDERSON

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

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 26, leave out ("the service of").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON moved, after Clause 55 to insert the following new clause:

"Special provisions as to war-damaged land where compensation assessed by reference to cost of equivalent reinstatement.

56.—(1) Where an interest in land which is compulsorily acquired in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the passing of this Act is an interest in a hereditament or part of a hereditament which has sustained war damage, any of which has not been made good at the date of the notice to treat, then if—

1. (a) the appropriate payment under the War Damage Act, 1943, would, apart from the compulsory acquisition or apart from any direction given by the Treasury under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section twenty of that Act, be a payment of cost of works; and
2. (b) the land would, but for the occurrence of the war damage, be devoted to any such purpose as is mentioned in Rule (5) of the rules set out in section two of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.

the provisions of the said Rule (5) shall have effect for the purposes of the assessment of compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition as if the land were so devoted as aforesaid.

(2) Where any such interest in land as is mentioned in the foregoing subsection is compulsorily acquired as therein mentioned, then if the conditions specified in paragraph (a) of that subsection are satisfied, and the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition falls (whether by virtue of that subsection or otherwise) to be assessed in accordance with the said Rule (5), the reasonable cost of equivalent reinstatement shall be ascertained for the purposes of the said Rule (5) by reference to the state of the land immediately before the occurrence of the war damage, and the right to receive any value payment or share of a value payment which, under the War Damage Act, 1943, is payable in respect of the interest which is compulsorily acquired (including interest thereon) shall, notwithstanding anything in that Act, vest in the person by whom the interest is so acquired.

(3) Where any such interest in land as aforesaid is acquired by agreement in pursuance of a contract made after the passing of this Act by a person authorised by virtue of any enactment to acquire it compulsorily, then if the conditions specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section are satisfied in relation to the land, and the compensation which would be payable in respect of the acquisition, if the acquisition were compulsory, would fall (whether by virtue of the said subsection (1) or otherwise) to be assessed in accordance with the said Rule (5), the right to receive any value payment or share of a value payment which, under the War Damage Act, 1943, is payable in respect of the interest acquired (including interest thereon) shall vest in the person by whom the interest is so acquired.

(4) Subsection (4) of section sixty-nine of the War Damage Act, 1943 (which makes special provision with respect to payments under that Act in respect of war damage sustained by hereditaments held for charitable purposes) shall not apply to any payment which by virtue of this section vests in the person by whom an interest in land is acquired."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment may seem a formidable Amendment but it is not so difficult as it might appear to be. The new clause is required in order to deal with a highly technical point which has just come to light in dealing with Rule (5) properties.

Rule (5) directs that in the cases of such properties—that is to say, schools, almshouses, town halls, police stations, and so on—the compensation on compulsory acquisition is to be, not the market value, because this cannot be ascertained, but the reasonable cost of equivalent reinstatement. Clause 53 of the Bill provides that in the case of war-damaged property attracting a cost of works payment, the compensation on compulsory acquisition is to be assessed as if the damage had been made good. It also provides that the converted value payment which, on the compulsory acquisition, takes the place of the prospective "cost of works" payment, is to be diverted from the owner to the acquiring authority. This new clause marries up these two conceptions in the case of Rule (5) "properties which have suffered 'cost of works'" damage. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 55 insert the said clause.—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 60:

Ascertainment of development values of land.

(5) For the purposes of this section, the restricted and the unrestricted values of interests in land shall be calculated by reference to prices current immediately before the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty- seven, and for that purpose any such interest shall be treated as if it had been subsisting immediately before that date with all incidents to which it is subject on the appointed day (being incidents which are relevant to the calculation of the restricted or unrestricted value of that interest, as the case may be), and the land shall be treated as having been immediately before that date in the same state as it is on the appointed day:

Provided that in computing the restricted value of an interest in land, no account shall be taken of the provisions of this Act except in their application to that land.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved, at the end of subsection (5) to insert: and the development value of any interest in land upon which estate duty has been paid on the excess principal value thereof, as defined in the Finance Act, 1925, shall be assumed to be not less than the amount of the excess principal value of such land upon which duty has been paid.

The noble Viscount said: This is a perfectly simple Amendment, though unfortunately it involves a degree of technicality. Its purpose is plain. It is to ensure that which I believe to be just; that is, that a man should not have the development value of his land taxed on one basis and then assessed for compensation on another basis. The problem arises through the Finance Act of 1925 which took the unrestricted value of agricultural land and called it the excess principal value. That Act laid down that that excess principal value should pay a higher rate of duty. I suggest that it is unjust and unfair that the difference between the restricted and the unrestricted value should be assessed for taxation on one basis, and that when you come to compensation it may possibly be assessed on a lower basis. I would emphasize that no question whatsoever of taxation is involved. There is no question of proposing or suggesting that any rate or incidence of taxation should be varied. The rate of incidence of development charge is not affected. It is purely a question of establishing a minimum basis for a claim on the £300,000,000.

The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that the Amendment appealed to him, and he gave your Lordships a skilled, and if he will allow me to say so, a somewhat complex answer. He invited me to seek a further opinion on this matter, and I sought the best advice I could obtain. I went to the largest firm of surveyors and valuers I knew, and in order to satisfy myself as to what they said, I re-checked it with another equally powerful and eminent body; and I may say, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Viscount, that both of them were unhesitating in their answer that the difficulties which were adduced did not amount to quite what the noble and learned Viscount felt, on the instructions of his advisers, that they would amount to.

These objections amounted, I think, to three things. First, it was suggested that the excess principal value under the 1925 Act was not the same thing as the development value in the present Bill; but whether you are taking land as subject to a perpetual agricultural covenant as in the 1925 Finance Act, or whether you are accepting the definition in this Bill, it boils down to one and the same thing; the existing use value. That really eliminates that point. The second point was that timber presented a difficulty. I do not know how this can be so for I believe it to be the case that timber is separately valued in every instance, and its value is perfectly easily ascertainable. The third point was that difficulty would arise in the event of an estate being separated afterwards —if, after the Estate Duty had been paid, the land were divided between, let us say, four different people. But here again I believe, with great respect, that the difficulty is non-existent. My advice, which is supported by those of your Lordships who spoke on this matter on the Committee stage, is that it is the practice of valuers to value land in several parcels, that they make a note of the separate parcels and that the value of these parcels can readily be ascertained.

I am in the position of not being touched or affected by this matter in any shape or form, but some of your Lordships are affected by it; and I hope that if you feel as strongly as I do you will not be deterred by that reason from speaking. It is simply a matter of justice and the Government objections are illusory. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will see his way to accept the Amendment with which I believe, if I may say so, in his heart he is in sympathy. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 73, line 31, at the end insert the said words.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, I feel, and I think everybody in your Lordships' House feels, that this Amendment, apart from possible technical difficulties, is absolutely just. I am not quite sure that the noble Viscount who moved it would not be willing to meet to some extent the difficulties that were mentioned on the last occasion by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, by limiting the date at which the Estate Duty had been paid on the excess principal value. I can conceive some difficulty in doing that in practice in the case of a death in, we will say, the year 1926, but, if the Amendment were limited in some way to a period of years shorter than that, the difficulty would largely disappear. The most unkind case of all is that where somebody has inherited an estate, we will say a few months before the coming into force of this Bill, he finds himself immediately after that confronted with the fact that the value of his property is far less than he had to pay under the Act of 1925 for the excess principal value of the land, and the amount of compensation which would be given under this clause would be assessed on a totally different value. Accordingly, I suggest that if the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is willing to meet my noble friend, Lord Buckmaster, in that respect, a good many of the difficulties which have been mentioned would cease to exist.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Lords, I would beg His Majesty's Government to give this Amendment as favourable consideration as they can. It seems to me that it is a matter of great justice that those who have had to pay Death Duties on a value of land should be compensated at the value, or thereabouts at least, upon which they have already paid the Death Duties. There is nothing less than common plain justice in the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Buckmaster, and as I believe His Majesty's Government are sincere in their desire that they should be just and that there should be fair dealing over the legislation which they are introducing, I beg of them to look at it from that point of view. I know perfectly well that in this Bill, and in the other Bill dealing with land which is now before your Lordships, the unfortunate landowner is the grist between the nether and upper millstones, and he is coming out at the bottom to be consumed, I was going to say, by Moloch, although that is not quite the right term—perhaps the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will find the right word—but, at any rate, to be consumed subsequently. Even grist likes to have a fair deal, even when it is between the millstones. It likes to be ground fairly and evenly, and the proposal that the owner of land should pay Death Duties at one value and that the land should be valued for subsequent leases on quite a different basis seems to me to be not a fair way of doing it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, let us see first of all what is the Amendment that the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has moved. It is very simple. If I understand it aright, it is simply this: he is saying that the amount of the claim to be assessed on the £300,000,000 should not be less, broadly speaking, than the excess principal value. That is the amount assessed; he is not saying anything about the amount of the payment to be made, which depends on whether you get a dividend of 100 per cent. or some smaller sum out of the £300,000,000. I can quite see that in regard to some of the recent deaths there is a strong case for consideration as to whether they ought not to be in the special category of what I have called "preference shareholders." That is what the noble Viscount claims and on the face of it it looks sound enough. But I should think that in the great majority of cases, unless there has been some change of circumstances, this will be the fact. After all, you have got to have valuers now, and they have got to assess the value that must rank. It depends on the amount of the development value. As, speaking broadly, the value of land tends to rise, it is a high probability that in the great majority of cases the value at which the land will rank for its claim against the £300,000,000 will be higher than the value at which it ranked some years ago for the payment of Death Duties—how much higher depends very largely on how far you go back.

One of the difficulties here, as has been pointed out, is that this Amendment goes back to the imposition of the 1925 Finance Act. In those cases where there has been any change of circumstance, which is the sort of case that I have been considering, I do not think this Amendment is necessary, because in the vast majority of cases the values will be higher. In the small number of cases where the value of the land has gone down since the death, it is quite clear that that should not happen. We all agree about that. If, because of any deterioration in the neighbourhood or something of that sort, the value of the land has gone down, there is no reason why the value against the fund to-day should be assessed at the same figure at which it was assessed fifteen or twenty years ago. Therefore, in most cases it is unnecessary, and in some few cases it would be quite wrong.

Then we get back— and I really have considered this again with my valuers—to the old question as to what may have happened between 192:5 and the present time. All sorts of things may have happened since then. The land may have been developed. What was then a field may have became an area covered with cottages. But, observe, there is still development value in that land, because potentially you might have a right to erect factories, and the right to erect factories must be taken into consideration in assessing present development value. You have different matters altogether to consider. Suppose, for example, that part of the land has been sold off. In the great majority of cases the land would have been changed either in extent or in conditions or by reason of the fact that part of it has been developed. I am assured by my valuers that it is quite impossible to apply a standard derived from a different Act with different criteria to the new standard which we have under this Bill.

This is the fact—and I do not think that any surveyor can get away from it. Let me put it quite accurately. Even in this limited range of cases there would not be a real correspondence between the two values. Both, broadly speaking, represent a difference between a restricted and an unrestricted value, but the restricted value for the 1925 Act is not the same as for the present Bill. The restricted value in the first case—that is to say for the purpose of Death Duties—assumes a permanent restriction to farming uses, whereas under the Bill it assumes a restriction to the while range of agricultural uses as defined by the Bill, including forms of agriculture which are more profitable than farming uses. Other things being equal, therefore, the develop- ment value under Part VI of the Bill will be less than the existing principal value, and that is logical and right, since the Bill leaves the owner with a more valuable existing use than that on which Estate Duty is charged. So that apart altogether from the probability of a change in a unit of land, there are these other considerations which my experts tell me it is quite impracticable to consider.

Therefore I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, but I hope I give consolation to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, who knows much more about these things than I do, when I tell him that I am assured by my advisers that in normal cases where the value of land has tended to go up, in all probability the claims will be taken in as against £300,000,000 at at least as high a figure as the Death Duty figure. There will be some few cases in which the value of land has gone down, and there the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, would certainly not desire that that land should rank as against the £300,000,000 at a higher figure. The noble Viscount has not gone into the further question as to whether there is to be any sort of preferential call upon the Fund, and I am not going to make a statement. It would be quite idle to speculate about this until we see what the figures are. We will have to go into that when we see the scheme, but I realize that where you have a man who has paid Death Duties at £x, it would be unfair that the compensation he got should be one-quarter of £x. I realize that that point arises at a later stage when we are considering what we will do about preferential claims against the Fund; but as regards ranking, the vast majority of claims will rank against the £300,000,000 at generally a higher figure than the figure for Death Duties, assuming that since the time of the payment of Death Duties the value of land has gone up. I have considered this very carefully and with a real desire to help, but I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, as the noble and learned Viscount said, there are two points here. The first is at what valuation a claim is put in, which is the point the Amendment we are dealing with seeks to make firm. The second point is whether in the share-out of the £300,000,000 the people who have paid Death Duties at a higher value should get preferential treatment. There are reasons, although I think they could have been overcome, for not accepting this Amendment, but it seems, especially in the case where a man is still liable to pay Death Duties when this share-out is taking place that he will have to pay the Treasury with one hand, say £10,000, and perhaps get only £4,000 to £5,000 back. When that kind of thing comes to light it will quite clearly have to be altered, because the Treasury simply cannot with one hand reap Death Duties at a certain valuation and refuse to pay out of the £300,000,000 a similar sum in respect of exactly the same property. There is an extremely strong case for this class of claim to come into the category of preferential treatment. Certainly if anybody suffers hardship it will be the man who is asked to pay out double as much as he is receiving in respect of exactly the same kind of interest. It is for those reasons that I hope His Majesty's Government will look into this most carefully before their scheme of preferential duties comes before this House, because I am quite certain that people will not bear this injustice of the Treasury taking with one hand and refusing to pay out a similar amount from the Central Land Fund in respect of the same land. I hope that matter will be dealt with in the scheme. If it is not, I am certain that it is one of the things that will just have to be corrected at a later stage in the history of Parliament.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

My Lords, I listened with great interest to the courteous answer of the noble and learned Viscount, who, indeed, has been very patient over a matter which is technical and somewhat wearisome. I am encouraged by the fact that he appeared to me to abandon his stand on the points which he had originally taken, and adduced other apparently cogent arguments. With one of those arguments I must confess I cannot agree. The noble and learned Viscount said that if the value of land has fallen, then it is only reasonable that owners should be assessed on a lower basis for their claim on the £300,000,000. Surely, with respect, that overlooks a fundamental point. The landowner is not handing over his land or anything else freely; he is being forced to hand over his develop- ment value. If you are buying a man out at the bottom against his will, surely you are creating an injustice. A parallel illustration would be the case of people who owned American securities which had heavily depreciated, and which were requisitioned by His Majesty's Government. If there be cases where land has depreciated in value, surely the landowner is entitled to say: "I am not prepared to part with my development value. I do not want to lose it on this basis; I would rather keep it." That, if I may say so, answers the point that if the landowner's property has depreciated in value he has no right to any more sympathetic treatment. However, in view of the consideration which the noble and learned Viscount has given to this matter, and the fact that even now it seems to present technical difficulties, I can only beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 61 [Supplementary provisions as to development values]:

VISCOUNT GAGE moved after subsection (2) to insert the following new subsection: (3) Where under the provisions of the Tenth Schedule to this Act an agreement for restricting the planning development or use of land made under section 34 of the Act of 1932, with any such authority as is mentioned in subsection (2) of that section or made or having effect as if made under a planning scheme with the responsible authority for the purpose of the scheme, is modified or rescinded at any time within the period mentioned in subsection (1) of section 59 of this Act the unrestricted value of any interest in the land shall be treated as if such agreement had not been subsisting immediately before the appointed day excepting in so far as the owner had received any payment or other consideration in respect of the agreement.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on the Committee stage I moved an Amendment on the subject of these Section 34 agreements. I had occasion to express a somewhat poignant sense of disappointment at the fact that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, did not seem to me to deal with the arguments I advanced. However, from reading the debate in Hansard it occurs to me that a possible explanation of the matter is that, although I think the speech I made was quite a good speech, it did not entirely relate to the Amendment I had put down and, naturally enough, the noble and learned Viscount dealt with the Amendment rather than with my speech. I am now hoping, perhaps by making almost the same speech over again but by relating it to a different Amendment, that I may have a little better luck.

The point I am trying to make is really a simple one. It is this. I submit to your Lordships that if an owner has made an agreement and if that agreement is brought to an end by the Minister using the powers conferred upon him by this Bill, that agreement ought to be completely washed out, and the owner ought to be treated in matters of compensation as if he had not entered into the agreement at all. That really seems to me to be perfectly fair. Ii the owner's agreement is cancelled he can get no further benefit from it. In fact, the local planning authority may not only remove the advantages he has got, but they may prejudice him. If these agreements are scrapped it must mean that the local planning authority wants to re-zone the land. They might possibly—to put an exaggerated case—want to put a sewage disposal works on his land. I really think it is quite probable that with all these boundary extensions taking place a council of a borough might take a different view from that of a council of a county, and they might wish to cancel the open space agreement an owner had made and put council houses on that land.

If that happens the owner might say, "Well if houses are going to be put here I really might never have made this agreement. I might have sold my land for housing in the past and made a profit out of it, but I have not done so. But when now I try to claim compensation I am told that, because I have committed this clime of making an agreement in the past, therefore I do not qualify for any share in this £300,000,000." That is what the Bill says in Clause 60 (2) (b), and I do not think there is any dispute about it. This does seem to be a complete travesty of justice. When the noble and learned Viscount answered before, he was referring as much as anything to the case of where agreements are carried on by the new provisions, as they may be under the Tenth Schedule of the Bill. At the time I put down my Amendment those new provisions were not in this Bill, and since they have appeared in the Bill I quite agree that my original Amendment might have had that construction. Actually what the noble and learned Viscount said in regard to that case was that if an owner has made such an agreement, he …has consented to restrict himself in the way in which he is going to deal in land. He has, to use a piece of jargon which is now popular, voluntarily sterilized a piece of land. That land is not sterilized by this Bill but by the voluntary act of the man which, no doubt, as I have said, is a public-spirited act. The question therefore is whether some part of the £300,000,000 fund which is provided for the owners of land who are damaged by the Bill ought to be utilized to compensate those owners of land who are not damaged by the Bill, but who are already affected because they have made this covenant.''

What I am suggesting to-day is that this Amendment relates solely to people who will be damaged by the Bill. It refers solely to people whose agreements are brought to an end because of the passing of this Bill. Further, it relates solely to people who have made some sacrifice in order to be, as they imagined, public-spirited. I am not asking that anything should be given to those who have already received either compensation or some quid pro quo. All I want is that they should be put into the same position as those other owners who have made no such agreement. I think the noble and learned Viscount earlier on expressed some fears that the sum of £300,000,000 might not go round if there were so many claimants on it, and this small class of owner would add to their numbers. I think that the number of owners who are likely to put in their claims is not very great, and I am quite certain that, if the noble and learned Viscount wants advice as to how he can reduce the payments on this £300,000,000, my noble friends will be able to make some excellent suggestions to that effect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 74, line 23, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Gage.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I have given very careful consideration to this question. I am sorry that the speech I made on the last occasion was not the right speech, but perhaps I turned up the wrong piece of paper. I have not looked at it since, but I can afford to take, with regard to this topic, a detached and almost an Olympian view. This is a question as to who shall come in and claim on the £300,000,000. The more people who come in, the less there will be for each and all of them. The problem is: ought we to allow those particular people who are dealt with in this Amendment to come in? They are very worthy people, no doubt. The people dealt with in the noble Viscount's Amendment are people who have entered into agreement voluntarily to restrict the use of their land in some way or another. Ought they to come in and have a claim on the £300,000,000? There are two schools of thought about this, and I think there are two schools of thought also amongst my own advisers. One school of thought says: "These people, excellent people though they are, have really been injured not so much by the Bill but by the fact that they had already entered into a covenant, and that is the cause of their injury. Therefore, you ought not to let them come and claim on the Fund at all and leave less to the others."

The other school of thought is this. The Amendment deals only with those cases where the agreement is being altered or modified, and if you are altering or modifying the agreement in one respect, surely you cannot hold to the agreement in another respect and say, "By reason of the agreement you cannot claim on the Fund." I confess, if I may say so, that personally I belong to the latter school of thought, and what I am going to ask the noble Viscount to do, if he will, is to withdraw his Amendment now and I will see whether I cannot myself introduce an Amendment on Third Reading—it will have to be rather different from this, I think—to meet the point which the noble Viscount has in mind. I shall be very pleased if he will co-operate with me in seeing that I am able to introduce an Amendment which will meet his point. At any rate. I will do my best if, on that understanding, he is willing to withdraw his proposal. He has, at least, this assurance: that I will do my best to see whether I cannot introduce an Amendment of my own on these lines on the Third Reading.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I feel that I have been lucky, and I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. Naturally, on that assurance, I am very pleased to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 69:

Determination of development charge by Central Land Board.

(3) Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, regulations made under this Act with the consent of the Treasury may prescribe general principles to be followed by the Central Land Board in determining under this Part of this Act whether any and if so what development charge is to be paid thereunder in respect of any operations or use of land, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, such regulations may in particular provide for securing that the amount of the said charge shall be determined on different principles in relation to operations or uses of different classes, or in relation to operations or use carried out or begun at different periods.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, at the end of subsection (3) to add: and shall provide that the amount of the said charge shall having regard to the terms and conditions on and subject to which planning permission has been granted be determined without any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to one applicant over another.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move the Amendment on the Supplementary List to the Marshalled List of Amendments. I put down a somewhat similar Amendment on the Committee stage of the Bill, and I wished to ensure that the powers which the Central Land Board possessed should not be used to favour one claimant as against another when both of them were undertaking development of the same or similar localities. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was not unsympathetic, and he said he would certainly examine the matter again and see whether his advisers or he himself could find some words which would meet the point which I put on that occasion. I have put down this Amendment in the hope that it might have more success than the rather different Amendment which was discussed on the Committee stage. As I have said, I believe the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was in sympathy with it, and I trust he is in sympathy with it now. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 81, line 47, at end insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Munster.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I have always been in complete sympathy with the broad general principle that the noble Earl has in mind, but I have found it exceedingly difficult to find a formula or set of words which would translate that sympathy into practical effect. However, the ingenuity of the noble Earl has triumphed where mine has failed, and with a sincere tribute to that ingenuity I have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, and I will pass on his compliment to the persons who advised me.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

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

Amendment moved— Page 82, line 2, leave out ("by an order made").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved to insert after subsection (3): (6) For the purposes of an appeal under the last foregoing subsection the Central Land Board shall at the request of the appellant or of the Tribunal furnish to the appellant and to the Tribunal a statement setting out the particulars of the grounds upon which the development charge was determined by them, together with any facts and contentions relevant thereto.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will remember that we had a Division on the Committee stage of the Bill, in which we put in a provision for an appeal from the Central Land Board to the War Damage Valuation Appeals Tribunal. You will also remember that the Amendment which I had on the Paper just before that time set out the preliminary matters which had to be furnished, before it went to appeal, otherwise the appeal would not be effective. We discussed the two Amendments together and it was decided to take a Division only on the more important one. This Amendment is really consequential on what we did on Committee stage. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 82, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This, as the noble Lord says, really arises out of the little controversy we had about whether there should or should not be an appeal from the Central Land Board. I was opposed to an appeal, and I did my best to convince your Lordships that there should be no appeal, but your Lordships took a different view and an appeal provision was inserted in the Bill. I find myself in agreement, however, that if you are going to have the appeal provision then this clause is really consequential. Therefore if I may take this line, I will accept this Amendment, it being understood that by accepting it I am not weakening in my objection at all over the question of an appeal. I will accept it, if I may say so, with a grumble; but so long as I do accept it I dare say the noble Lord will overlook the grumble.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 70 [Payment and security for payment of development charges]:

LORD HENDERSON

This Amendment implements a promise made in Committee stage on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 82, line 36, at end insert ("after taking into account any representations made by the applicant").—(Lord Henderson.)

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for his Amendment, which absolutely meets the point I raise. I shall not move the next Amendment standing in my name.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

10.24 p.m.

Clause 72 [Variation of determinations and repayment of development charges in certain cases]:

LORD HENDERSON

This Amendment implements a promise which was made in Committee to bring the wording of Clause 72 into line with the Scottish Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 86, line 15, leave out from ("compensation") to end of line 16 and insert ("representing such proportion of the sums so paid by way of development charge as may be agreed between the Board and that authority or person, or, failing agreement, as may be determined by the Minister, to be appropriate in all the circumstances of the case."—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 74:

Existing development contravening previous planning control.

(2) Where any such works as aforesaid were carried out, or any such use as aforesaid was begun, during the war period as defined by the Building Restrictions (War-Time Contraventions) Act, 1946, then—

THE EARL OF RADNOR had given Notice of an Amendment to insert at the end of subsection (2): (c) Where the works were carried out or the use begun either by or on behalf of the Crown or of a local authority and the compensation payable in respect thereof, or the claim for such compensation was assessed or considered without regard to any requirement that the land would be required to be restored to its condition before such works were carried out, or that further works would be required to be carried out in order that the works would conform with planning provisions, any person who carries out works in compliance with an enforcement notice in respect thereto shall be entitled, on a claim made to the local planning authority within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act, to recover from the local authority compensation in respect of any expenses reasonably incurred by him on that behalf in excess of any compensation which has been received by him in respect of the failure to reinstate the land to its former condition.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a very similar Amendment to an Amendment which I moved in the Committee stage. The noble and learned Viscount then expressed considerable sympathy with the intention of the Amendment and, indeed, I think, agreed that something could be done at this stage of the Bill. I put this Amendment down only because I was a little afraid that the intentions of the noble and learned Viscount were not going to be translated into action. If your Lordships will look at the following Amendment, you will see that it is prefaced with a star, which means that it did get on the Paper rather late. I think, in spite of that lateness, it does cover the point which I wish to make in my Amendment, and therefore I shall not move my Amendment, and shall agree with the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved, after subsection (2) to insert: (3) Where, by virtue of this section, an enforcement notice is served in respect of any works being government war works within the meaning of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, then, subject as hereinafter provided—

1. (a) if the steps required by the notice are taken by the owner or occupier of the land, any expenses reasonably incurred in that behalf shall be recoverable from the authority by whom the notice was served;
2. (b) if the steps required by the notice are taken by the said authority, that authority shall not be entitled, under Section twenty-four of this Act, to recover the expenses incurred by them in that behalf:

Provided that where, under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section two of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, compensation has been paid equal to the full cost (as estimated for the purposes of that compensation) of taking the steps required by the enforcement notice, the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply; and where compensation has been paid under the said paragraph (b) (otherwise than as aforesaid), or under subsection (4) of Section three of the said Act, in respect of the land, the amount which, by virtue of this subsection, is recoverable from the authority by whom the enforcement notice was served or, as the case may be, is not recoverable by that authority, shall be reduced so far as may be just having regard to the compensation so paid."

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is my endeavour, belated it is true, but none the less sincere, to meet the undertaking I gave to Lord Radnor to look into this point, and to see if I could do something about it. It deals with the case where an owner is required by a local planning authority to remove works carried out on his land by a Government Department or local authority in the exercise of emergency powers. The owner will probably have received compensation in respect of the works under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, but, as we all know, if you have to remove a heavily reinforced concrete building the cost of removing it may be very much more than any compensation you get. The Amendment secures, broadly, that the owner will not be out of pocket if he is called upon to remove the works. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after Clause 77 to insert the following new clause:

Road and Other Works.

(".—(1) Where the construction of roads has been commenced before the 7th day of January, 1947, by the laying of sewers and the mating of a carriage way, and the plans thereof have been approved by the local authority under any bye-laws or other enactments applicable thereto and such works have been carried out in conformity with the provisions of a planning scheme, or in accordance with permission granted by or under an interim development order, planning permission shall by virtue of this section be deemed to be granted under Part III of this Act in respect of the completion of those works by the making of a proper surface to the carriage way and footways to the said roads.

(2) For the purpose of calculating the restricted and the unrestricted value of any interest in land fronting, adjoining or abutting on the roads, the construction of which has been commenced as aforesaid, the works referred to in the preceding subsection shall be deemed to have been completed immediately before the 7th day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and no development charge shall be payable under Part VII of this Act in respect of such land."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had a similar Amendment down to this, only a much wider one, on Committee stage, and I was rather reinforced in my views that this was most reasonable by the reply I had on that occasion from the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who was answering for the Government. He offered then to do something in regard to the point raised by my new clause which, he thought, raised a real problem that ought to be met. He said he hoped he would be able to find some suitable words to cover the questions involved.

As your Lordships will see, the roads to which this applies and the frontages are carefully limited. They have to be commenced before the seventh day of January, 1947, by the laying of sewers and the making of a carriageway, and the plans thereof have to be approved by the local authority. The work has to be carried out in conformity with the provisions of a planning scheme, or in accordance with the permission granted by or under an interim development order, and it can only be completed by the making of a proper surface to the carriageway and footways of those roads. My Lords, it is of no advantage to any man to build a road, or to complete a road, unless he is able to get some enhanced value for the land beside it, and that is the reason why I included subsection (2). Nobody is going to build a road for the sake of building a road, because you do not get anything back for that in these days. It is not like the days of old, when you might have been able to put up a toll gate on the road. You cannot do anything like that now, and you cannot get anything back unless it is from the surrounding land.

It seems to me that this is the kind of Amendment that the Government ought to accept, if they want to get on quickly with this kind of half-completed building development. If they do, they will free this from development charges. They will go on ahead and be finished, and get the houses up, because, after all, at this time, it is more important to get houses built quickly than that the Treasury should have a few more pounds by way of development value. That is the sole and simple reason for this extremely moderate little Amendment. I hope that the Government will now be prepared to accept it and so show that they are really as keen on the housing programme as appears from speeches which we hear at week-ends. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 77, insert the said clause.—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, and I hope that it will not be too much of a shock to him when I tell him that we cannot accept his Amendment. I quite realize the object of his Amendment, namely, to extend the principle of Clause 77, the "Unfinished buildings" clause, to the completion of roads which were in course of construction at the date of the introduction of the Bill. The new clause purports to provide that where sewers have already been laid and a carriageway made, the road may be completed by laying a proper surface; the frontage land will be free of development charge, and, of course, there shall be no claim against the £300,000,000.

If the purpose of subsection (2) of this Amendment is to exclude the frontage land from a share in the £300,000,000, the drafting, which is copied from Clause 77, is defective. The provision in that clause that an unfinished building shall be treated for purposes of calculating development value as if it had been completed before the appointed day, excludes from the £300,000,000 the land on which the building stands, since the completion of the building will, in practice, usually exhaust the development value of the land, and the difference between restricted and unrestricted value of the land will be nil, or nearly nil, In the case of frontage land the development value is likely to be greatly increased by the completion of roads, especially if at the same time the restricted value drops below agricultural value, and the effect of the clause as drafted would therefore be to give the developer the right both to make a claim on the £300,000,000 and to cash in on the development value when he sells off the building plots free of development charge.

Quite obviously, that is not what the noble Lord for one moment intends. Let us assume that that flaw could be repaired and further that the length of roads and sewers actually "begun to be laid or made" could be identified (no very easy task in some cases), then it is possible that the clause itself would only let into the dead ripe category a strictly moderate amount of land. But we cannot accept even that, because if this concession were made in a case of land on which roads were in the course of construction, it would be impossible not to extend the concession to all lands fronting on roads which were completed before January 7, 1947. Between the two, a very large proportion of the land in suburban districts and building fringes of big towns, which carry a great deal of the development value in the country, would be included. If all this land were excluded from payments out of the £300,000,000, the effect would be that the £300,000,000 would be left to be distributed very largely among claimants with highly speculative values, whose claim to any substantial compensation is at least doubtful.

The Minister has considered most carefully whether it would be possible to make a concession on the lines of the Amendment, but he knows that logically it is inevitable that the effect of this Amendment in a posteriori cases must mean that you would have to extend it to other cases and the result would be to take in a great deal of the land which should pay development charge. We are sorry but we cannot accept this Amendment. It is quite true that my noble friend, Lord Chorley, said in Committee stage that construction in progress at the appointed day must not be held up while planning permission to continue is sought. In most cases the work will be subject to an express post-1943 planning permission, which will be preserved by Clause 76; but this will not always be so in areas covered by an operative scheme. An appropriate transitional provision may have to be inserted in the first general development order allowing work to go on without individual permission, and, if necessary, an exemption from development charge could be provided for in the regulations made under Clause 68. On this latter point no decison has yet been taken one way or the other, but the matter is certainly going to receive careful consideration. For these reasons I cannot carry out the hope which my noble friend Lord Chorley gave in the best good faith.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, before we leave this point I would like to say that I do not see why it should not include roads that have been made. Take the case which happens in England quite frequently, I am told, where a man develops his own land and makes up streets to the conditions laid down by the local authority and hands the streets over in perfectly good order to the lessee or sells the land alongside these streets. During the whole time of the development of the land he has not the use of the money actually laid down for the streets. To-day he is not only losing all the money and interest on the money he is actually out of pocket; and he will also have to pay development charges on the land out of which he expected to be reimbursed for what he has already paid out. It is taking away honest expenditure in the public interest made by the man out of his own pocket. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will give this point a little more consideration if possible, in line with my noble friend's Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, one point which the noble and learned Viscount made was that he did not know how far these roads and works would go. I did point out to him that the plans have to be approved by the local authority. My Amendment deals only with the completion of those works by the making of a proper surface to the carriageway and footway to the said roads, so really you have quite a manageable problem, the extent of which you know because plans have already been approved for it. You cannot go, as was said about one of my other Amendments, from Land's End to John o'Groats. I appreciate that this will not be accepted here in the Bill but if the Government want to see these roads completed, they should not put them in the category of having to pay development charges and wait some five years for a share-out of this £300,000,000. If they desire that, there is not a single developer laying these roads at present who will spend another penny upon them. If you sincerely want roads to go ahead and houses to be built by the side of them, you cannot hamper development by requiring all sorts of permissions to be obtained. You can only do it by excluding these people by regulations from paying this development charge. We will just watch and see whether the Government do that, or whether their theories of what should be ripe land under this Bill are stronger than their practical will to build more houses in this country. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.40 p.m.

Clause 78 [Compensation, for abortive expenditure on refusal of permission for other development authorised before appointed day]:

LORD HENDERSON

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

Amendment moved— Page 94, line 5, after ("scheme") insert ("or of permission granted thereunder").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 79:

Land ripe for development before the appointed day.

79.—(1) Where planning permission is granted under Part III of this Act in respect of any development consisting of the erection, extension or alteration of buildings, or is deemed by virtue of section seventy-six of this Act to be so granted, then if the Minister is satisfied, on application made to him within one year after the appointed day or within such extended period as the Minister may in any particular case allow— (b) that a building Contract made in relation to that development within the period of ten years before the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, was in force on the appointed day, or that a byelaw submission or a building application, had been made in respect thereof within that period; or

Provided that if it appears to the Minister that proceedings should be taken with a view to the revocation of the permission granted or deemed to be granted as aforesaid, he may postpone the issue of a certificate pending the taking of such proceedings, and if the permission is revoked he shall not be required to issue the certificate.

(4) For the purposes of this section— (b) the expression "building application" means an application including such plans as aforesaid and made by any such person as aforesaid to a local or other authority under the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1932 and 1943, or under any byelaws or other enactment requiring the consent of that authority to be obtained for the construction, extension or alteration of buildings.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) after the second "made" to insert "or a licensing application has been granted." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple matter which was discussed in the Committee stage. It is just a question of whether, when a licensing application has been granted, that will show enough desire and willingness to complete the provision for which a licence has been given, and so bring the matter into the category of ripe land. Having had several attempts in this matter of ripe land, I appreciate that this might have been engraved on one of the tablets that was brought down from the top of the Mount, because it seems to me that the strict words which have somehow become enshrined in this Bill are thought of in much the same light as one of the Ten Commandments. This, after all, is a very small Amendment. The number of cases in which an application for a licence has been granted in this particular period of time seems to be quite minute. It seems to me to show a very strong intention to go ahead, as will be realized by any noble Lord who knows what opposition usually faces any application made under the Licensing Acts to the licensing justices. So it is not done vainly and vaguely, but with a real intention to proceed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 95, line 26, after ("made") insert ("or a licensing application has been granted").—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the noble Lord is trying to break into my fastness of dead ripe land. He is putting up a case for something which is not dead ripe land, but which just misses being dead ripe land. For instance, the grant of a licence does not absolve the applicant from taking other steps—application for planning permission, by-law submission, etc.—all of which are necessary before the building can be begun. No doubt normally all these steps will follow immediately. If that is so, there is no hardship in applying the tests laid down in the Bill. But if for any reason these steps have not been taken, the applicant will be in precisely the same position as any other intending developer who is nearly but not quite ready to develop; and there is no reason to single out one particular class of applicant—very estimable class though it may be—for favourable treatment.

We have asked the Home Office about their experience in these cases, and I gather that the common form of procedure is for the brewers to apply for a provisional licence under Section 33 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910. Once that is granted the licensing authority have no statutory duty to see that the work is carried out within any specified period; indeed, it is not uncommon that the brewers do not begin to build until a considerable time has elapsed. The only interest which the justices have in inspecting the finished building is to make sure that it conforms to the terms of the provisional licence before confirming the licence. Therefore, I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment. It would let in to the special category of dead ripe land, land which does not satisfy the requirements of dead ripe land. It is nearly ripe, but not quite ripe, and that being so we cannot let it in without letting in a whole host of other land and enlarging very substantially the precious category of dead ripe land. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, as far as I can see the sad business about this is having the expression "dead ripe land." If we had only had something like "Matured in bottle for five years," I feel that I might have got a little Amendment into that category. But as a different set of words have been chosen I will not press this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER had given Notice that he would move, in subsection (4) (b) to leave out "including such plans as aforesaid and", and to insert at the end of the subsection: which has been supported by such plans or particulars as were required to be furnished under the said Acts or the said bye-laws or other enactments, as the case may be, being an application in respect of development which was or would have been but for circumstances arising out of the emergency which was the occasion of the passing of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 5939, immediately practicable at the date of the application and for which there was at such date a demand for such development which 'it was the intention of the applicant to satisfy.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think it would probably be for the convenience of the noble and learned Viscount if I spoke on this Amendment and the other Amendment which stands in my name, because the two are closely associated with one another. Some of your Lordships may remember that during the Committee stage of this Bill I moved an Amendment somewhat similar to this. It was designed to amend an Amendment which had been inserted in the Bill in another place and moved by the Minister himself. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in the course of his reply, gave indications as to why the Amendment which I had then moved could not be accepted. The chief objection which he raised was that there was nothing in these two Amendments to indicate that the building application was in fact to be followed by the actual carrying out of the building work.

In the second of these two Amendments I have tried to make it clear that it covers any development which was or would have been practicable but for the emergency, which was the occasion of the passing of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939, and for which there was a demand which it was the intention of the applicant, when applying for the licence, to satisfy. I feel that by this I have met the objections which were voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, during the Committee stage of the Bill. I might add here what I said on the previous occasion. I am not seeking to widen in any way whatever the definition of ripe land, and although the noble Lord was not certain of my assurance on the previous occasion, I would now tell him that it is still my intention not to widen the definition of ripe land, but merely to amend the Amendment which was moved by the Minister in another place to bring it into accord with what I am given to understand is the general and usual practice. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 96, line 26, leave out from ("application") to end of line.—(The Earl of Munster.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will do with this Amendment what I have done with the previous Amendment—I will accept it with a grumble. My grumble is that I regard this Amendment as really consequential on the Amendment which was carried against the Government in Committee with regard to the definition of dead ripe land. So long as that Amendment is there it is part of the Bill, and I think it is not unreasonable to have this Amendment. But though I accept it, let no one hereafter ever say that in any way the Government are committed to adhere to it in all circumstances. So long is that is plainly understood—and the noble Earl will, I know, realize why I say that—and that nothing I here say is to be used in evidence against me hereafter, I will accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, but I still wish the Amendment could go back to another place not with a grumble but with his blessing. However, I am grateful that he accepts it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This is purely consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 96, line 32, at end insert ("which has been supported by such plans or particulars as were required to be furnished under tae said Acts or the said bye-laws or other enactments, as the case may be, being an application in respect of development which was or would have been but for circumstances arising oat of the emergency which was the occasion of the passing of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939, immediately practicable at the date of the aplication and for which there was at such date a demand for such development which it was the intention of the applicant to satisfy.")—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 80 [Mineral workings]:

LORD LLEWELLIN moved in subsection (3) (a) to leave out "terms of" and insert: "royalty or other payment required to be made under." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put in a manuscript Amendment which is rather in lieu of that Amendment that stands in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, who unfortunately has to be away in Scotland at this time. As I understand the drafting of this clause, it means that the tribunal shall alter the terms of a lease so far as they are affected by the new charge and not further, and so it seems to me that what they want to alter, or perhaps may want to alter, is the proportions of the royalty and the other payment required to be made under the terms of the lease. Probably we do not want the tribunal to go much wider than that. I am not quite certain that it will completely fulfil the wishes of my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch, who, as I say, has unfortunately to be in Scotland on duty. It may well be that he will come back before the Third Reading takes place and tell me that I have done all wrong, but then, in accordance with the practice of this House, he may well be able to put down a written Amendment in time to get it accepted. At any rate, for the moment I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 97, line 44, leave out ("terms of") and insert ("royalty or other payment required to be made under.")—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have looked at this manuscript Amendment of which the noble Lord was good enough to give me a copy. I am quite prepared to accept it. I hope it will meet the wishes of the noble Duke, but, if it does not, we can turn back to it on Third Reading.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection (6) after "of" ["working of minerals"] to "any such minerals as are mentioned in paragraph 5 of the Third Schedule to this Act, or to the winning and working of any." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is preliminary to the Government Amendment to the Third Schedule, dealing with existing use, which exempts from development charge the working of minerals for purposes incidental to farming operations. I promised the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that I would introduce this Amendment, and this is preliminary to the real business end of the Amendment which comes later in the Schedules. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 98, line 42, after ("of") insert ("any such minerals as are mentioned in Paragraph 5 of the Third Schedule to this Act, or to the winning and working of any"). —(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for this consequential Amendment that leads to one later on.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 82:

Land acquired by local authorities and development corporations for comprehensive development or re-devlopment.

82.—(1) No payment shall be made under Part VI of this Act in respect of any interest in land, being—

1. (a) the interest of a local authority in land acquired or appropriated by that authority under Part I of the Act of 1944 for the purposes of the development or redevelopment of any area as a whole; or
2. (b) the interest of a development corporation in land acquired by the corporation under the New Towns Act, 19.

LORD HENDERSON moved at the end of subsection (1) (b) to insert "and where a local authority or a development corporation have before the appointed day disposed of an interest in any such land, no payment shall be made under the said Part VI in respect of that interest." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is and the next five Amendments are all related. The object of the Amendments is to bring within Clause 82 the whole of any land in an area of comprehensive development or redevelopment that has been purchased under the 1944 Act, irrespective of whether disposals take place before or after the appointed day. Under Clause 82 as drafted, no payment is to be made in respect of the interest of a local authority in land in a redevelopment area and no development charge is to be paid in respect of approved development, but a "block" development charge can be settled up later on covering the whole of the area. It will be calculated, of course, with full regard to the financial results of the re-planning of the area, and in many cases—for example, where a congested area is being thinned out—it is unlikely that any payment will have to be made; on the contrary a grant may be payable under Clause 92 of the Bill.

A number of areas have already been purchased under the 1944 Act, or may have been purchased before the appointed day, and under the clause as drafted any person taking a lease or entering into an agreement for a lease before the appointed day would be able to claim on the 300,000,000 fund and would have to pay development charge when he carried out the development authorized by his lease.

Obviously it is undesirable to split up a war damaged area in this way and to treat some of the land in the area differently from other land in the area according to whether it happened to be disposed of before the appointed day or afterwards. The effect of these Amendments is to enable the whole of the area to be treated alike. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 09, line 46, at end insert the said new words.— (Lord Henderson.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

We have no objection at all.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, these are drafting Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 100, line 5, after ("in") insert (? paragraph (a) of").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 100, line 16, leave out ("is"), and insert ("has been").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 100, line 17, after ("corporation") insert ("whether before or after the appointed day").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 100, line 18, leave out from ("of") to the first ("of") in line 19 and insert ("the carrying out of any operations on the land or the institution").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 100, line 21 at end insert ("or, in the case of land disposed of before the appointed day, in respect of the carrying out of any operations on the land or the institution of any use of the land carried out or instituted in accordance with the terms of the instrument by which the land was disposed of.")—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment: agreed to.