Lords Sitting of 28 July 1947

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the Clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made, and Bill passed and returned to the Commons.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is the usual Motion to be made at this stage of the Session.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended until the House adjourn for the Recess, and that, until that date, Government Business have, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TUNBRIDGE WELLS) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEEDS) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TORQUAY) BILL.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee on recommitment of the Bills (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment.

CITY OF LONDON (TITHES) BILL, [H.L.] HOVE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
CROWN PROCEEDINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
WELLINGTON MUSEUM BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
STATISTICS OF TRADE BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
HELSTON AND PORTHLEVEN WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
2.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
The Central Land Board.
1.—(1) In this Act the expression "Central Land Board" means the Board established under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
(2) The Board shall have an office in Scotland and shall maintain there such staff as may be necessary for the proper performance of their functions under this Act.
(4) The report made by the Board for any year under Section two of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, shall set out any direction given by the Secretary of State to the Board during that year unless the Secretary of State has notified to the Board his opinion that it is against the national interest so to do.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "the Board shall" and insert:
"(2) The functions of the Board under this Act, other than the functions thereof under Part V of this Act, shall be exercised on behalf of the Board by such members thereof as the Board may determine, and for the purpose of so exercising the said functions the Board shall."
The noble Earl said: Clause 1 deals with formation of the Central Land Board, or rather the application of the Central Land Board to Scotland. From the very first, particularly in regard to land tenure, it has been felt that special consideration should be taken to seeing that a separate Board deals with the special conditions in Scotland. In the course of the Second Reading of the English Town and Country Planning Bill that was frankly regarded as a serious consideration by the Lord Chancellor. This Amendment desires to create a Central Board who would be directly responsible for Scotland and if possible, resident in Scotland.
I am going to suggest that this is of assistance to the machinery of the Bill. We are endeavouring to set up a Board which can understand the nature of the
438
work they are doing and which will be available, if necessary, to make decisions. That I think is the major consideration: that there should be someone both to understand and make decisions in regard to matters referred to them. The noble Lord will observe we have excluded from the Amendment Part V, which deals with compensation. There is some doubt as to exactly who shall decide who is to pay, whether it is the Treasury or the Central Land Board. We have had a variety of entirely different opinions. I have sympathy with the Secretary of State for Scotland in not wanting to have control of this Board, which is levying a charge which, I say with great respect, is the most iniquitous charge, impost or tax ever levied in this country. Nobody knows what the charge will be or on what basis it will be levied. There is to be some unknown preferential tariff and I do not blame anyone for not wanting to regulate that. The administration should be quick and effective. A number of very pertinent considerations were put by the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, on Second Reading and I hope the noble Lord will be able to answer them. I ask him to accept this Amendment, because this Bill will be to the disadvantage of the proper development of land in Scotland unless people are available in the office who understand the conditions that exist in Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave cut from beginning to ("have") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: It appears that the Bill still starts with a very serious blemish. Under this Amendment, however, an opportunity is available to be Government to provide some better machinery in Scotland than exists at present in the Bill for securing a form of administration which will be most suitable North of the Border. This Bill is very complicated, confusing, and uncertain. It is therefore difficult to know what is the intention, and what will be the actual requirements of the Board or the administration in Scotland, It does look very much as if the Government are treating this measure rather as a taxation and revenue Bill, if they do riot find it necessary to have a better organization I or administrative purposes, which would naturally he required if the Bill really it a

439
Town and Country Planning Bill, as the title says it is. It was only on the Third Reading in another place that the Secretary of State, after much pressure, and with advice from all directions, appeared, with reluctance and at the last minute, to have made a short step forward, which is surely not adequate.
My chief difficulty in being able to pass judgment upon this is due to uncertainty as to what are the intentions of the Minister and of the Government under this Bill. If those who are responsible for it, and for the Scottish side, do understand, I am sure they could do better than they have done so far. There was no hostility from the London end, either on the English Town and Country Planning Bill or on the Second Reading of this Bill. There seems to have been complete freedom left to us on the Scottish side to make arrangements as we think best; in fact, I think there has been every encouragement to us to do so by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and others. It does look as if the Secretary of State and his colleagues wish to leave as much as possible to be controlled from London, which surely is a bad principle. I think there is agreement that the position is not satisfactory at present. One is inclined to be surprised at the timid acquiescence on the Government side, and at their proposals. It shows more a desire on their part to pass a Bill than to secure one which effectively ensures the carrying out of what is conveyed by its title.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I do not want to take up unnecessary time but, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, I did refer to this matter on the Second Reading. I am anxious to make this point. I do not press, and I do not think any of my noble friends press, for the extreme measure suggested by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor—that is, divorce. We are looking more for a happy alliance with understanding. In order that we may get that understanding, we must press for some control to be given to people who understand Scotland, Scottish conditions and Scottish law, and not merely to rely upon a member of the Board, who may have to travel between Scotland and London in order to attend the Boards, at considerable expense of
440
time and money to himself, and who when he has arrived in London, may have to persuade other members of the Board who are not cognizant of the facts. It is for that reason that the Amendment has been put down, in order to suggest to the Government some machinery of devolution to Scotland of these important matters which refer to Scotland, and which Scotland alone can interpret.
LORD MORRISON: I am grateful to the three noble Lords who have spoken on this Amendment for the brevity with which they have outlined their case, which, as they will all freely admit, has been very well discussed prior to the present occasion. This point was discussed at length on the Second Reading in another place, on the Scottish Committee in another place, and again on the Third Reading in another place. In your Lordships' House it was discussed not only on Second Reading of this Bill, but also on the Second Reading of the English Bill. Therefore, as I say, the point has been very well debated. However, with great ingenuity—upon which I congratulate him—the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has now produced this Amendment. I am sorry to inform the noble Earl that, while it would appear to achieve a great deal, in reality the Amendment would achieve nothing at all. The noble Earl's intention is clear, of course, although his Amendment would not achieve it.
What he desires—and he will correct me if I am wrong—is that the Scottish members alone should decide the Scottish business. In some respects this idea is very attractive to me. While I was looking through the Amendments in my garden yesterday, it occurred to me that it might be an attractive idea that the whole of Scottish Lords from your Lordships' House should adjourn to Scotland—I hope I should be invited to come along—in order to transact the Scottish business there on our native heath, so to speak. I am sure we should do it very expeditiously and very well, if we had a free hand to make our own decisions; and when we had finished, we should no doubt come back to help our English and Welsh colleagues to settle their business. The noble Earl's Amendment says that the functions of the Board under the Bill (other than functions under Part V, as he pointed out) "shall be exercised on behalf of the Board by such members thereof as the

441
Board may determine." On the face of it, therefore, the Amendment would seem to require that the Board must delegate Scottish business to certain members of the Board. But in fact it does not do so, because under this Amendment it would be open to the Board to determine that Scottish business should be discharged by all the members of the Board. Supposing Scottish business was delegated to a few members of the Board, the Board as a whole would be precluded from considering any Scottish question (other than one arising out of Part V) even although that question was a most important one affecting Scotland and England equally.
I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment. I would ask the noble Earl and noble Lords who have supported him, to consider what they and their friends have gained from the lengthy discussions to which I have referred, which have taken place in both Houses at various stages. The position now is briefly as follows: Firstly, that at least two Scottish representatives will be appointed members of the Board, and there may be more than two Scottish representatives if the full complement of ten members is appointed. Secondly, the Board will be subject to the directions of the Secretary of State, and no one else, in the carrying out of their functions under the Scottish Bill. Thirdly, the Board will have an office in Scotland, and will maintain there such staff as is necessary for the proper discharge of Scottish business. There will be a senior administrator in charge of the Scottish office. Fourthly, in particular, the Board will determine within the framework of general policy the amount of development charges to be paid in Scottish cases, and will decide such other matters as to how develop-merit charges are to be secured, and how land should be disposed of—that is, whether by way of sale, feu or lease. Fifthly, the Scottish members of the Board will be available for consultation on difficult issues by the Board's Scottish staff.
The Government are satisfied that these arrangements are the best practical arrangements for ensuring that Scottish business is expeditiously handled through the Board's Scottish office by people with a knowledge and experience of Scottish conditions, including in particular the Scottish form of land tenure. I believe
442
public opinion will be satisfied with these concessions, for which credit is due to those who have advocated them, and I believe public opinion in Scotland be grateful to the noble Earl and his friends for all they have done. I regret that I have been unable to go any further.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: As the noble Lord very rightly said, this matter has been considerably discussed. He then asked the most pertinent question: What do we get? I suppose the answer is a lemon—precisely and exactly nothing. I do not believe for one moment in representation in London. What I want are people on the spot who can make decisions. As I understand the noble Load, that is precisely what we shall not get; there will be nobody in Scotland who. in the last resort, can make a decision. When you have a very difficult case, where are you going to get a decision? If you have any experience of working with Government Departments to-day, you will realise that eventually you must go to the man at the top. You say to him "This is a peculiar and unusual case.
Will you consider it?" That happens to everybody. Does it mean to say that when such a situation arises everyone has always to go to London to get a decision?
It is very easy to pull this Amendment to pieces, but, if I may say so, there is not one clause in this Bill which could not be pulled to pieces. What I am trying to get is that there will be someone in Scotland who knows what he is talking about and who can give a decision. I do not think there is any gnat difference in principle about that. I am sure the noble Lord agrees that that is really what we want, and I would only ask him to think again between now aid the Report stage. I must repeat that I do not attach great importance to representation in London. There are a large number of Scotsmen holding very high posts in London, but I am not interested in that. What I am interested in is tare administration on the spot by people who understand. Can the noble Lord give any undertaking to go further into this matter?
LORD MORRISON: The difficulty in the Amendment, as I see it, is that it would in effect set up a Scottish Sub-committee with powers to override the

443
main body, and I know of nothing anywhere which would justify a subcommittee having power to overrule a main committee.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Where does the noble Lord get the word "override"? There is not one suggestion anywhere that this word "override" arises.
LORD MORRISON: I think that would be the effect of it. The noble Lord has abandoned the idea of a separate and distinct Board and he now falls back on having a committee with certain powers. Well, it is quite impossible for any Land Board to delegate power to one or two of its members to settle matters which are the responsibility of the full committee. As the noble Lord says, this matter has been discussed at great length in both Houses of Parliament, and there do not appear to be any new arguments. I was hoping that the noble Earl would not take the attitude that he had achieved nothing at all, but that in fact really he has achieved a great deal, because we are going to have a senior administrator in charge of the Scottish office.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Surely the Scottish office is only an office for paper. The noble Lord himself has said that it will have no power at all. I cannot agree with him that you cannot have a subcommittee delegated with certain powers. It was said that they are overriding powers, but they are not at all. You can have a sub-committee to deal with germane factors which are essential to Scotland without the necessity of sending them down to Whitehall. Surely that is the whole advantage of having sub-committees. I think my noble friend, Lord Selkirk drafted his Amendment very widely in the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, would be able to draft a better and tighter Amendment on the Report stage. The noble Lord has not been very helpful, and I do not think we have got anything at all.
LORD MORRISON: I can only add that my difficulty is that the point of this Amendment arises in practically every important Bill affecting the United Kingdom, which comes before your Lordships' House. I am afraid I cannot go any further than I have indicated. The matter has been exhaustively discussed, and the Government have come to the conclusion
444
that they are unable to go any further and have advised me accordingly. We have over two hundred Amendments to get through in on this Bill, and frankly I do not think that we shall get any further by continuing to discuss this one. The responsibility is not with me.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am obliged to the noble Lord, and I will not press this matter any further. I understand him to say that there will be an officer of administrative grade in charge of the Scottish office.
LORD MORRISON: I said "senior administrator in charge of the Scottish office."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Not necessarily of administrative grade?
LORD MORRISON: "Senior administrator" is the phrase.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Every single development requires a development charge, and that is the immense significance of having someone on the spot who knows what he is doing and who will take a decision. That is why I pressed this Amendment so much. I make no apology for taking up time over this matter because I think it is very important. In the circumstances, however, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "national interest" and insert "interests of national security." The noble Earl said: In moving this Amendment I find myself, if I may say so, in the peculiarly happy position of running in harness with the noble Lord who looks after Scottish affairs on the other side of the House. Whether he is taking me for the buggy ride or whether I am taking him, I do not quite know, but I am sure the result is the same. It is with very great pleasure that I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("national interest") and insert ("interest of national security.").—(The Earl of Airlie.)
LORD MORRISON: I am sure that neither the noble Earl nor myself is trying—I think the English expression is—to "pull a fast one" over the other in being associated with this Amendment.
The expression "national interest" was criticized in another place vague, and accordingly Amendment substitutes the present of national security." That is the expression used in Clause 8 of the Electricity Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Local planning authorities.
(3) If it appears to the Secretary of State that the combination of any local planning authority with any other local planning authority or authorities for any of the purposes of any provision of this Act would be of public or local advantage he may make an order combining those authorities as respects their districts or parts thereof for such of the purposes aforesaid as are specified in the order:
Provided that the Secretary of State shall not make such an order except after holding a local inquiry unless all the authorities concerned have consented to the making of the order.
2.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "or" ["public or local advantage"] and insert "and." The noble Earl said: This is a small point but in a way I think it is an improvement on what has formerly been the practice. It is the question of the forced combination of planning authorities. Up to now the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that it is desirable in the public or local interest. I am suggesting that it should only be done where you have both public and local interest. May I take an example? Supposing you want to combine Greenock and the Port of Glasgow. Should you combine them simply because it is local interest and against the broad national interest? I would say, No. Supposing it is for the national interest that you should combine them, but contrary to local interest: would you combine them then? I would say, No. I say that you should only combine them when you have the combination of both the national interest and the local interest. For that reason I beg to submit that the word "and" is an improvement. Whether or not these words have been used in a formal Act or not does not seem to me to be relevant, provided that there is an
446
improvement on what has been said in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: It might well be to the public advantage that development plans for a large area—for example, the new coal-mining area in the Lothian—should be prepared by one executive body and that two or more local authorities should be combined for that purpose. On the other hand, the question of purely local advantage might be the overriding. factor Public advantage and local advantage are two quite different matters, and it would be quite wrong to restrict the Secretary of State's powers of combination to cases where both conditions were satisfied. I would also remind the noble Earl that the expression "public or local advantage" occurring in this clause is taken direct from the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, and from the Local Government (Consolidation) (Scotland) Bill which is at present before Parliament. There is therefore ample precedent for the use of the expression. It is only a small point, and perhaps tae noble Earl would not desire to press it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not desire to press it and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, to add to subsection (3):
"and provided that any such order shall be laid before Parliament and if either House within a period of forty days after the order is so laid before it resolves that the order he annulled, the order shall thereupon cease to have effect, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there-under or to the making of a new order."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment was accepted in parallel circumstances in the English Bill. It concerns the order which deals with combinations of planning authorities and it is already accepted and standing in the English Bill. I therefore ask the noble Lord if lie will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, at end insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: The noble Earl has moved this Amendment in such convincing terms that he makes it very difficult for me to turn it down. But as the noble Earl knows well I had no knowledge of it until a few moments ago, and I have had no opportunity, therefore, of contacting the Department. The noble Earl knows how much I respect his views, but obviously he would not expect me to accept the Amendment without some consultation. Perhaps he would be good enough to withdraw the Amendment now and put it down on the Report stage, when we shall be in a better position to give it the consideration which it merits.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Surveys of planning districts and preparation of development plans.
3.—(1) As soon as may he after the appointed day, every local planning authority shall carry out a survey of their district, and shall, not later than three years after the appointed day, or within such extended period as the Secretary of State may in any particular case allow, submit to the Secretary of State a report of the survey together with a plan (hereinafter called a "development plan") indicating the manner in which they propose that land in that district should be used (whether by the carrying out thereon of development or otherwise) and the stages by which any such development should be carried out.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any regulations made under this Act for regulating the form and content of development plans, any such plan shall include such maps and such descriptive matter as may be necessary to illustrate the proposals aforesaid with such degree of particularity as may be appropriate to different parts of the district; and any such plan may in particular—
(a) define the sites of proposed roads, public and other buildings and works, airfields, parks, pleasure grounds and other open spaces, or allocate areas of land for use for agricultural, residential, industrial or other
(c) designate as land subject to compulsory acquistion by the appropriate local authority—
(ii) any other land which, in the opinion of the local authority, ought to be subject to compulsory acquistion for the purpose of securing its use in the manner proposed by the plan.
(4) The Secretary of State may approve any development plan submitted to him under this section either without modification or subject to such modifications as he considers expedient:
Provided that—
3.5 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "appointed day" and insert "commencement of this Act." The noble Lord said: As the Bill stands, local authorities have to go ahead and prepare a development plan for their area within three years from the appointed day mentioned by the Bill; and that appointed day, as far as we understand, is put sometime early next year. This clause lays down also that they are to start to prepare their plan immediately after the appointed day. It seems to me that this is going to be a task of some magnitude, and the object of this Amendment is to enable local authorities to go ahead the moment this Bill becomes law, because it may give them another six or seven months or more in which to accomplish this task.
This is particularly important in Scotland, because I believe that the number of skilled personnel available to do the job in Scotland is much less in proportion to the task than in England. It is impossible to get exact figures, because they change from day to day, but one authority has suggested that the number of town planning officers available is in the proportion of about 1,300 in England to 33 in Scotland. I will not swear to those figures. In any event there is not much probability of these planning experts enjoying a forty-hour week if they are going to achieve the task in the required time.
I am told there is some objection on the ground of administrative difficulty—something to do with the fixing of salaries. But, as so many things are the subject of administration, there are bound to be administrative difficulties, and we should not be able to get very far if we did not overcome some of them. I would ask the noble Lord therefore to see whether he cannot accept this Amendment and get his officials to overcome those difficulties and make it statutory for local authorities to go ahead with the job right away. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("appointed day") and insert ("commencement of this Act").—(Lord Polwarth.)
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I should like to support this Amendment. I realize that the usual procedure is to start from the appointed day—which, unfortunately, is going to be some time early next year. That being the case, from what the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has said about the shortage of town planners, I understand it is going to be very difficult indeed and the whole of the work may be held up if we do not deal with this on special lines. I hope the Government will see their way to do something about it.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: I beg to support the Amendment from the point of view of the planning authority I represent. They are very anxious for this Amendment to go through.
LORD MORRISON: I am not able to accept this Amendment, but I think I can give the noble Lord a very substantial reason—namely, the practical difficulties which stand in the way. If this Amendment were accepted, it would mean that between the passing of the Act and the appointed day local planning authorities would be required to administer two planning systems, the new system and the system under the existing Acts. It would not be right to impose such a requirement on local planning authorities. To allay the fears of noble Lords, I think it is well to point out that if any local planning authority wishes to begin survey work immediately after the passing of the Bill, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. In point of fact a good many local planning authorities are carrying out surveys at the moment, so that there is nothing to prevent local authorities from getting on. I hope this may satisfy noble Lords who supported the Amendment.
LORD POLWARTH: It is certainly strange that we cannot say what we mean in the Bill, but in view of the noble Lord's assurance, and as long as local authorities can go ahead with their surveys in spite of what is said in the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "grounds," to insert "nature reserves." The noble
450
Lord said: Under Clause 3 (2) a development plan may define the land to be used for such purposes as parks, pleasure grounds, and other open spaces. Tie object of the Amendment is to include nature reserves among the types of land that may be so defined. The effect will be to secure that the conservation of nature and of natural objects is recognized as one of the things for which provision should be made in a development plan. May I add that a similar Amendment to this was moved in the English Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and w as accepted? I would like to thank Lord Hampton for having brought it to our notice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 10, after ("grounds") insert ("nature reserves").—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to omit sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (c) in subsection (2). The noble Earl said: I am raising this question largely as a matter of inquiry to ascertain exactly what is intended by the somewhat wide terms of this sub-paragraph (ii), regarding the extension of the designation of land. I think it is rather important that we shout d have some idea of the sort of land it is intended that local planning authorities should designate. Under paragraph (c) sub-paragraph (i), they have power to designate everything that they want themselves, which any Ministry would want or which any Statutory authority would want. Having got that power they go on and say:
"any other land which, in the opinion of tie local planning authority, ought to be subject to compulsory acquisition… ."
It is a tremendously wide power, and I think we all agree—there would be no division between us on this—that designation has a very sterilizing effect. I am raising this point because I should like to have some idea of what is the sort of condition in which that provision would cone into play. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 30.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I think there ought to be a little more information as to the

451
extent of land which is intended or likely to be designated in Scotland. After all, the differences become much greater the farther north you go, and whereas around London and the larger cities and in the South of England there is a special reason for this, one could say that in Scotland, apart from a few of the larger cities in the more populated areas, there is very little need for this designation. Land has been acquired and can be acquired very easily now by local authorities for public purposes. The effect of designation has been very thoroughly discussed on the English Bill, and there is no need to go into it at any length; but you are removing from agricultural landowners the excess value under this Bill which was available before for equipment and development of farms and agriculture generally. Under "designation" you are also further reducing the value of what is left to them. There are, therefore, a number of disadvantages, and serious adverse financial effects. I think that this designation ought to be confined as nearly as possible to the areas which I mentioned. The noble Lord might possibly be able to give us some idea of what is intended.
LORD MORRISON: The designation of such land makes available the "reserve power to purchase" which was advocated in the Coalition Government White Paper Control of Land Use (paragraphs 16 and 39), and in the Uthwatt Report (paragraph 149). This is the power to purchase compulsorily, for purposes not covered by powers in other Acts, in order to secure that land required for a project included in the plan is available for development at the right time. It is essential to have power to prevent owners from sabotaging the carrying out of an approved plan by refusing to make their land available for the purpose. I hope that after that explanation the noble Lord may not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I understand the noble Lord to say that it is a reserve power?
LORD MORRISON: Yes.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That means that it is not intended for general use?
LORD MORRISON: No.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The other question I have to ask is this: How can
452
a proprietor of land under this Bill sabotage a plan? Once a development plan has been made, how is it possible for any proprietor to sabotage that plan? He could not do it. I fail to see the purpose of this, because every development must take place according to plan. Is the noble Lord able to answer that?
LORD MORRISON: I can only say that those who have advised me on this point probably would not have recommended this to be put into the Bill unless they were assured that there was some method by which owners could sabotage a plan by refusing to make their land available for the purpose. That is the only answer I can give the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am bound to say, because of that paragraph in the Bill, I cannot assume that that is necessarily right, and I cannot accept that from the noble Lord for one moment. At the same time, I do not propose to press this Amendment. I am grateful for having some idea of what is intended, and that it is only a reserve power. It is a very wide power and should be only used with great restraint.
LORD MORRISON: Before the noble Lord withdraws, I might say that the owner could, by refusing to sell, delay and hold up the planning scheme.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Under Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1947, I think not. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON: My next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, leave out ("whether") and insert ("for any one or more of the following purposes, that is to say").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved to insert in the proviso to subsection (4):
"(b) he shall not approve a development plan which designates as subject to compulsory acquisition land, for the development of which in accordance with the development plan, permission under this Part of this Act has been granted and in respect of which he is satisfied that such development will be carried out within three years."
The noble Duke said: I beg to move this Amendment which stands in my name.

453
Since the object of acquisition following upon designation is to ensure development in accordance with the plan, it follows that, when development in accordance with the plan is already taking place or about to take place, designation is unnecessary and, indeed, harmful. Accordingly, where permission has been given for the planned development and the Minister is satisfied that the development is fairly imminent, there ought to be no power to designate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment appears to me to be very similar to the point raised in the last Amendment. I hope I can convince the noble Duke that this Amendment would be unduly restrictive. Planning permission for the development of land might be granted to someone other than the owner of the land. The intending developer might be able to satisfy the Secretary of State that he would, in fact, carry out the development within three years, but the owner might then refuse to sell the land for the purposes of the proposed development. If the land were not designated for compulsory purchase, it would be impossible for the local planning authority in such circumstances to secure that it was made available for the proposed development. Again, planning permission might be granted for a temporary development only. In such a case it might well be necessary for the land to be designated as subject to compulsory purchase for some permanent form of development. In short, it is essential to retain the reserve power of purchase conferred by designation to ensure that the local planning authority will always be able to make land available for desirable development as and when it is needed.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I really do feel that the noble Lord has not read this Amendment very carefully, because he has said that some other person might have the right to development and he might be not willing to sell. This Amendment says that the Secretary of State must be satisfied, first of all, that the owner will develop according to plan; secondly, that permission is granted; and thirdly, that, in fact, it will be carried out. In those circumstances, if I may say so with
454
very great respect, a failure to sell has really nothing whatsoever to do with it E t all. There may he some very good reasons, but they are not the reasons the noble Lord gave us.
LORD MORRISON: I can only add that my objection to the noble Duke's Amendment was that, in my opinion, it was unduly restrictive. If the noble Duke can, between now and the next stage, think out something which would be less restrictive, I am quite prepared to consider it.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I thank the noble Lord for his observations, and beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment, the first of a series of Amendments substituting references to Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act, 1947, for the references to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 23, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947").—(Lori Morrison..)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
3.22 p.m.
Clause 5:
Additional powers of the Secretary of State with respect to development plans.
5.—(1) Where, by virtue of any of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, or of any directions of the Secretary of State thereunder, any development plan, or any report or proposals for alterations or additions to a development plan, are required to be submitted to the Secretary of State, then—

(a) if within the period prescribed in that behalf by those provisions or directions no such plan or report or proposals, or no such plan or proposals satisfactory to the Secretary of State, have been so submitted; or

(b) if at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that the local planning-authority are not taking the steps necessary to enable them to submit such a plan or report or proposals within that period,

the Secretary of State may, after carrying out any survey which appears to him to be expedient for the purpose, make such a, development plan, or, as the case may be, amend the development plan to such extent, as he considers expedient.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (1) after "the Secretary of State may," to insert:
"cause a public local inquiry to be held and if, after the inquiry has been held, he is satisfied that there has been a failure or default on the part of the local planning authority to carry out the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, he may make an order declaring such authority to be in default and".
The noble Earl said: As this clause stands at present, if the Secretary of State feels or suspects that the local planning authority are not discharging or are not likely to discharge their obligations under the Act, he has the power to make use of his powers in relation to default. I suggest that in a matter where local opinion is probably likely to run pretty high and be pretty sensitive, provision should be made whereby a local inquiry could be held before these powers are actually used.
There are other cases where local inquiries have proved very beneficial on controversial points. I could give your Lordships instances of inquiries which have been held on very controversial matters, and so no doubt could other noble Lords. There was the Tummel scheme and the hydro-electric scheme, where a great deal of good was done and a good deal of trouble was mitigated by reason of the fact that the really controversial issues were brought out by public inquiry, which makes the matter much more satisfactory to everybody concerned. You do feel that the matter has been properly brought out. I would suggest that a local inquiry should be held, first of all, for making the plans themselves, and secondly, for authorizing another local authority to do it, and the defaulting authority should be charged with the expense. Such cases as that might easily be necessary sometimes, and I feel that great care should be exercised on these occasions. The Minister can already do something by way of combination, but I think it would be wise if possible to hold a local inquiry before the decision is given. In that way you clear up many misrepresentations and many misunderstandings, and also a lot of gossip. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 15, after ("may") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
LORD MORRISON: I find myself in general agreement with what the noble
456
Earl has said, but he may have overlooked the fact that his Amendment is already fully covered in the Bill. His Amendment would not achieve anything, as Clause 99 of the Bill incorporates Section 5o of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, which enables the Secretary of State to hold all such local inquiries as he thinks necessary. The noble Earl will also be aware that the Secretary of State may take action if it appears to him that the local planning authority are not taking the necessary steps to enable them to prepare a plan. In this particular type of case the Secretary of State might feel that a local inquiry was necessary and he has full power to hold such an inquiry by virtue of the provisions of the 1945 Act incorporated within the Bill by Clause 92. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will agree that his Amendment is fully covered and is not necessary to be inserted at this part of the Bill.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I must accept the noble Lord's assurance that it is covered and, that being so, I will withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That, of course, is only permissive. This Amendment makes it obligatory to hold an inquiry.
LORD MORRISON: I have already given an assurance that the Amendment is, in every way, fully covered already.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment says that he shall not approve until an inquiry is held. I think Clause 99 merely authorizes the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry where he may think fit; in other words, in conditions which are permissive instead of making them obligatory. There is a very big difference between them.
LORD MORRISON: I think the answer to that would be that it would be unnecessary for the Secretary of State to hold a local inquiry before exercising default powers.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I take the noble Lord's assurance, and I did beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
3.26 p.m.
Clause 6:
Incorporation in development plans of orders relating to trunk roads and new towns.
6.—(1) Where an order is made by the Minister of Transport in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Trunk Roads Act, 1946, directing that any road proposed to be constructed by him shall become a trunk road, or authorising him to construct or improve any road under Section four of that Act, any development plan which relates to land on which a road is to be constructed or improved in accordance with that order shall have effect as if the provisions of that order were included in the plan.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (1), after "Act," to insert "the Secretary of State shall direct that." The noble Lord said: This raises a question of principle and, with your Lordships' permission, I would like to take with this a number of other Amendments, in particular the Amendments to Clauses 32 and 83. So far as this Amendment is concerned it is a comparatively small matter, but with regard to the others it is somewhat wider in scope. The same principle, however, exists in each one. If I may draw your attention, first of all, to Clause 6, the first subsection says:
"Where an Order is made by the. Minister of Transport in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Trunk Roads Act, 1946, directing that any road … shall become a trunk road, or authorising him to construct or improve any road under Section four of that Act, any development plan which relates to land on which a road is to be constructed or improved in accordance with that Order shall have effect as if the provisions of that order were included in the plan."
That means, to put it very simply, that the Minister of Transport has authority to alter in effect the development plan as he thinks fit. That means, when it is read in line with Clauses 32 and 83, that not only the Ministry of Transport, but also seven out of ten Government Departments may each of them put their finger in and alter the development plan of the local authority as they think fit. That includes, of course, not only the Ministries of Civil Aviation, Transport, Fuel and Power, but the Army, Navy and Air Force, all of whom can go in and do exactly what they like with that development plan. The difficulty which is generally suggested here is said to be a constitutional difficulty. I submit that there can be no constitutional difficulty which involves bad government, and there
458
can be no constitutional point which it is not possible to overcome if in fact that is what is involved. I do not think there is any difference of opinion in principle between ourselves and the Secretary of State in regard to what is required.
If I may I would just refer to what he said in the course of the Committee stage in another place, that the final responsibility is the Secretary of State's. I am entirely in agreement with that. I am not an endorser of the Pooh Bah scheme, but there must be an over-all responsibility of the Secretary of State. Something has happened in this Bill which is entirely new. The whole land has come under planning control. Indeed, you may say that it is almost an administrative responsibility of the Secretary of State. I go further, and your Lordships may remember that in some remarks about inquiries into land the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, said that this was an administrative matter. He refused to admit that there was any judicial or quasi-judicial element in it; it was an administrative matter for the officer or the Department concerned. Surely it is quit. impossible to say that two Departments have co-extensive administrative functions. If the planning is the responsibility of the Secretary of State—and I think we all agree that it is; there is no question that he is the Planning Officer for Scotland—I say that he ought to be the sole channel through which every Government Department should put their instructions to local authorities. I think that this is very important.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, may say that this is a new principle. It may be a slightly new principle. But this Bill is the embodiment of a new principle. Never before has the whole of the land come under one planning organization, and it seems to me very important that the Departments should put their orders through one channel. What I am asking for, in effect, is that the local authority should receive notice of what may amount to variations or deviations of the planning development through the Secretary of State, and, if necessary, should have the opportunity of making representations to the Secretary of State. The way that I have done it is simply by adding words to subsection (1) sc that it shall read:

459
"the Secretary of State shall direct that any development plan which relates to land on which a road is to be constructed or improved in accordance with that order shall have effect as if the provisions of that order were included in the plan."
And now one word about the constitutional question which may give the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, an idea as to whether my ideas are sound or not. We have gone quite a long way in this matter, and land is no longer a common substance which anyone can take and do what they like with. That, after all, is the position. What we are trying to do in the Bill is to prevent any landowners doing this, that and the other and thereby producing a chaotic state of affairs in our cities. But we are leaving it open to every Government Department to do exactly the same thing. Not one of us here does not know of cases in which a Government Department has acted in what, to put it mildly, is an unwise way in regard to planning. This is a matter which comes under the broad general responsibility of the Secretary of State. Take another example, that of the Minister of Labour and National Service. He is responsible for the manpower of this country, but he cannot go to any soldier or sailor and tell him to go down a coal mine. That is an administrative function which belongs to the Minister of War. The same thing applies to the President of the Board of Trade, who cannot interfere in a matter pertaining to a Royal Ordnance Factory, which comes under the Ministry of Supply. So, I say that the land to-day is substantially under the administrative control of the Secretary of State, and there ought to be a positive way of ensuring that he is the one channel through which instructions are given, and of ensuring that protection is given from interference by other Government Departments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 14, after ("Act") insert ("the Secretary of State shall direct that").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I should like to support this Amendment very strongly. Not only do we in this House feel very strongly upon this matter, but I venture to suggest that there is not a single local authority in Scotland which
460
would not welcome this Amendment. They get bewildered by reason of the number of Departments which they have to consult. Take for example the matter of the derequisitioning of land which is the opposite of what is aimed at by this Bill—that is practically the requisitioning of land. You will find if you have land which is being derequisitioned that after you think it has been derequisitioned the process is not nearly complete, and that perhaps six other Departments or Ministries have to be consulted. And you will have exactly the same thing in reverse here.
You may well find, for example, that the Ministry of Transport can and will produce a plan from London which may well be at variance with the ideas of, or unnecessary to, the locality. I remember well during the war seeing a plan for a road being made—it was to be a traffic route of the Ministry of Transport. The project was never carried into completion. Indeed, it was never even passed for various reasons, principally because of the duration of the war. But I am sure that that was a road which would never have been approved by the Secretary of State if he had had the opportunity of considering it.
There are constitutional difficulties in connexion with this Amendment, I am told, but honestly I cannot see why there should be. Consider the case of the Minister of Agriculture. He is responsible, broadly, for the agricultural plans for the country, but when it comes to Scotland the channel is the Secretary of State for Scotland. The same applies with regard to housing and other things. So I, myself, can see no real reason why these directions should not be canalized into one channel—the Secretary of State. It would mean that the long pourparlers which might otherwise take place after the original direction has been given should all take place in consultation with the Ministries before the direction is given, and then the direction will be given by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I cannot see any objection to that. The Secretary of State is a Cabinet Minister and he has, or should have, the requisite authority for giving the directions in Scotland. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will help us in this matter, which, after all, we think is most important for Scotland. Some of our views with regard to Scotland do

461
not seem really to be understood down here, and it may perhaps be thought that this is a nationalist question. It is not so at all. What we want is clarification, and we cannot get clarification for the benefit of our local authorities unless we have one person to give us our orders.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I should like in a few words to support this Amendment and to give three direct illustrations taken from local government in Fife, which I think are relevant. In one instance there was a case of widening a pier bordering on the sea-shore of the Firth of Forth. No fewer than six Government Departments had to be consulted and their decisions taken. It is most essential that, with this new atmosphere of town and country planning, the Secretary of State for Scotland should be the man responsible for drawing the thing together and making the ultimate decision. The second illustration I think may well be taken from Rosyth. When Rosyth was established many years ago, the local government of Dunfermline were ordered to produce a town plan for the whole of the country involved, but of course excluding the Admiralty's own property. They got out this town plan at very great expense. They produced an elaborate plan setting out main streets and other thoroughfares, drainage, water, gas and electricity mains and so on, only to find in the end that the Admiralty, when they came to build the town of Rosyth, said: "We cannot be bothered with all these restrictions, we will have the place on our own ground and look after it ourselves."
Another case of Departments not pulling together may be taken from more recent history—the planning of the bridge across the Forth. This was eminently a step which ought to have been carried about by the town and country planning authority but they were told that this was a matter for the Ministry of Transport, and until the Minister of Transport and his engineers had decided on certain plans which they thought appropriate, the Secretary of State for Scotland would take no action whatever. I think that was an illustration of administration gone wrong. For these reasons I support the Amendment very strongly.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I will not detain your Lordships for more than a
462
few moments but I should like to say that I consider this a very important: Amendment. I am quite confident that we ought to insist that the Secretary of State should be the sole channel through which local authorities get their directions so far as planning is concerned. What we desire is that the Secretary of State, who after all is the kingpin in Scotland, should be the man responsible. We do not want him, to use a common and rather nasty expression, to pass the buck to the Minister of Transport; and that is exactly what will happen again aid again. We cannot have the various Departments of the Government issuing orders and instructions to different local authorities and to every Tom, Dick and Harry who comes in. The Government ought to pay real attention to this question, unless they are merely paying lip service to de-centralization of Scottish affairs, as they are always saying they are doing. The Secretary of State must have the responsibility and we must be able to hold him responsible.
LORD MORRISON: I agree that this is a very important Amendment, much more important than members, apart from the noble Lords who have spoken, appreciate. It would make the Minister of Transport order subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, so far as its inclusion in the development plan was concerned. I think your Lordships will accept the view that, as a matter of general procedure, the Minister of Transport will consult with the Secretary A State before making any order for designation, and therefore no question A orders being at variance with the proper plan arises. We come to the important point on which the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, with unerring instinct, put his finger—the constitutional difficulty. It is somewhat surprising to me, as one belonging to a Party that is sometimes called the Party of the Left, to find that a suggestion which is both improper and unconstitutional should come from the opposite side of the House. I am sure that noble Lords there would not wish me to do anything improper and unconstitutional. For the Bill to make the actions of one Minister subject to the approval of another Minister would he both improper and unconstitutional. That is why I am not able to accept this Amendment. I would add that this is

463
an important problem which may have far-reaching consequences—far beyond this Bill. I have no authority to resolve this point on this Bill. I am not saying that these consequences would not be good for Scotland—I am not expressing any opinion—but in view of the fact that it would be improper and unconstitutional, I have no authority to accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Surely, before the noble Lord categorically turns down this important Amendment, having heard the extremely important points put forward by the noble Lords he will agree to look into the matter with his Department and have it brought up at a later stage. I wonder if this really was discussed with the higher departmental officers from whom the noble Lord received his authority on this point. Could he not agree to go back to his Department, possibly then, at a later stage, he may have a further decision from them.
LORD MORRISON: I am perfectly willing to look at it again, always provided that the House understands that I am not making any promise beyond having it looked at.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: As the noble Lord mentioned me as having pointed to whether or not this was a constitutional matter, I would say that I did bring up the point but I hoped that I had demolished it. I mentioned the Minister of Agriculture. If I may make this point before the noble Lord has it reconsidered; what about the Minister of Health, who is in exactly the same position? He cannot make an order as Minister of Health. It is the Secretary of State who administers the Department of Health of Scotland. It requires a direction of the Secretary of State for an order in health, agriculture, and police and other Departments. I can see no constitutional reason why the noble Lord should not accept this Amendment. I want to make that clear because the noble Lord rather inferred that I was doubtful about it.
LORD MORRISON: Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that I will take further advice. I do realize its importance and that it is probably a question which goes
464
beyond the Scottish Department. On that basis I am willing to have further consultation.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord, who is very helpful indeed. I do not go quite so far as the noble Lord, who says that it requires approval; all I ask for is co-ordination. It is a very popular word, perhaps too often misused. This is an occasion when we want co-ordination. If the situation were as the noble Lord described, it would mean that the War Office could go into Scotland and do anything without the approval of the Secretary of State. Is that really true, because if it is, it is totally contrary to what the Secretary of State said himself? He said that the final responsibility is with the Secretary of State. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw, but hope the noble Lord will look at it very seriously. There may be other words which are better than mine, but it is a very important matter which will make a great difference to the whole incidence of land tenure.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
3.48 p.m.
Clause 7:
Modification of development plans in relation to land designated as subject to compulsory acquisition.
(2) Where any such notice is served as aforesaid, then unless within six months after the service of the notice either—

(a) notice to treat in respect of the interest to which the notice relates has been served by any such Minister, authority, or undertakers as aforesaid; or

the development plan shall have effect, after the expiration of the said six months, as if the land were not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, to add to subsection (2): "and thereafter the land shall not be so designated again until after the end of five years from the expiry of the said six months." The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns the designation by local authorities of land liable to compulsory acquisition. At present land which is so designated can remain designated for up to twelve years—in the case of agricultural land up to eight years—and at the end of that period, if it has not been compulsorily

465
acquired, the owner may demand that the local authority should purchase that land within a further six months or, if it has not been so purchased, that the land ceases to be designated. Your Lordships will agree that this is a very fair provision, but there is nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent local authorities, having freed the land, to designate it again. If they did so, they would completely nullify the protection afforded.
This business of designation all sounds very cold and formal. Think what it may mean. A farmer liable to compulsory purchase knows that within the next eight years, though at what time he does not know, the local authority may want his land to build a housing estate. That is a very serious position for anybody to be in. He is unable to sell out at a profitable price unless he can find someone sufficiently foolish to take it on. He is unlikely to make further capital developments on his farm because he does not know when it may be taken from him, or on what terms. Assuming that we must have this, and that he has to wait up to eight years, I feel that there should then be at least a respite if his land is freed from designation. I do not say that it should be free for ever. Circumstances may change, and a fresh plan may have to be made. I think it would be fair that there should then be a certain time during which that land could not be redesignated. I submit, for consideration, a period of five years. That may not meet the wishes of the noble Lord, but I do ask him to consider this and see if something cannot be done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 21, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Polwarth.)
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I would like to support this Amendment. I think the noble Lord has been very reasonable in suggesting that there should be a moratorium of five years. As the noble Lord has explained, what we want to bar is the immediate redesignation of land which has been designated under the alternative provision of this subsection. I cannot imagine that the Government want immediate redesignation of land, and I think the noble Lord has been very reasonable in his suggestion.
LORD MORRISON: I do not think there is a great deal between us on this matter, except that the Government wish
466
to reserve to themselves the right to deal with rare and exceptional cases, which would be taken away from them if this Amendment were accepted. Under the Clause as it now stands, land cannot be redesignated unless the development p an is amended, and any such amendment would require the approval of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would undoubtedly see that the land was not again designated, unless there was some strong and compelling reason for doing so. It would he in only very rare cases indeed that he would permit redesignation, but this right might be essential where the whole proposals for the planning of the area had undergone considerable change because of fundamental change of circumstances. If the Amendment were accepted it would mean that in such rare cases the whole proposals for the replanning of an area might be stultified. While I am unable, for the reasons I have given, to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, I am authorized to give him a definite assurance that the Secretary of State will see to it that land which has ceased to be designated by virtue of the provisions of Clause 7 is not again designated, except in exceptional circumstances and for very strong reasons. I hope that assurance will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD POLWARTH: I appreciate the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, is in, because when one sets out to try to do so much in one Bill there are obviously bound to be cases which cannot be completely covered. In view of the definite assurance which the noble Lord has given, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Supplementary provisions as to development plans.
8.—(1) Before preparing a development plan which relates to any land comprised in a small burgh in their district or proposals for alterations or additions to any such plan the local planning authority shall consult with the town council of that burgh, and shall, before submitting any such plan or proposal to the Secretary of State, give to such town council an opportunity to make representations with respect thereto and consider any representations so made.
(2) Provision may be made by regulations under this Act with respect to the form and content of development plans, and with respect

467
to the procedure to be followed in connection with the preparation, submission, approval, making and amendment of such plans, and such regulations shall in particular make provision for securing—

(a) that before preparing a development plan or proposals for alterations or additions to any such plan the local planning authority shall consult with such bodies or persons as may be prescribed by the regulations.

(b) that notice shall be given by advertisement of the submission to the Secretary of State of any such plan or of proposals for the amendment of any such plan, and of any proposal by the Secretary of State to make or amend such a plan and of the place or places where copies of the plan or proposals as so submitted, or of any such proposals of the Secretary of State, may be inspected;

(c) that objections and representations duly made in accordance with the regulations shall be considered, and that such local inquiries or other hearings as may be prescribed by the regulations shall be held, before such a plan is approved, made or amended by the Secretary of State; and

(3) if as the result of any objections or representations considered, or of any local inquiry or other hearing held, in connection with a development plan or proposals for amendment of such a plan submitted to or prepared by the Secretary of State under this Part of this Act, the Secretary of State is of opinion that the local planning authority or any other authority or person ought to be consulted before he decides whether to approve. or make the plan either with or without modifications, or to amend the plan, as the case may be, he shall consult that authority or person, but shall not be under any obligation to consult any other authority or person, or to afford any opportunity for further objections or representations or to cause any further local inquiry or other hearing to be held.
(4) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may give directions to any local planning authority, or to local planning authorities generally—

(a) for regulating the performance of their functions under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act;

(b) for requiring them to furnish to him such information as he may require for the purpose of the exercise of any of his functions under those provisions.

(5) The provisions of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, with regard to the publication of notices in the Edinburgh Gazette and in a newspaper, shall, notwithstanding anything in that Act contained, not apply to any order made in pursuance of paragraph (c) of the proviso to subsection (3) of Section three of this Act if the requirements imposed by regulations under this section with respect to the publication of notices in relation to the development plan have been complied with.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved in subsection
468
(1) to leave out "comprised in a small burgh in their district," and insert: "in their district comprised in a small burgh or a district of a landward area of a county." The noble Duke said: The next three Amendments in my name, if passed, would bring district councils into the picture rather more than is really appropriate. I therefore move the first Amendment more by way of inquiry. The duty of consultation by a county council or a county borough council with non-county boroughs and county districts is provided for in the English Bill. The Scottish Bill provides only for consultation with small burghs and not with district councils. I recognize that the functions of the district councils in Scotland are very different from those in England, and much more restricted, but I would like to ask for some information as to the general intention and opinion about the inclusion or exclusion of district councils, in regard to consultation on planning matters in Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 2, leave out from ("land") to end of line and insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: Before the noble Lord replies to the noble Duke I would like to say a few words, because I have sympathy with the district councils, having served on one for a number of years. It is true to say that the district council in Scotland has practically nothing to do. If under this Bill it could be given a more interesting job, that might be all to the good. It is probable that the noble Lord will say that the district council has no status in this Bill and, therefore, he cannot see his way to accept the Amendment.
LORD MORRISON: May I answer the noble Earl's point first? I think the only reply I can give is that, while I agree with him that these councils have very little to do and are not of great importance, if the noble Earl wants to improve their status I am afraid this is not the Bill in which to do it; it would have to be done under a Local Government Bill. The object of this Amendment is to require the authority to consult district councils. The noble Duke who moved it knows better than I do that the functions of district councils in Scotland are very limited indeed, and consist

469
mainly of the provision and maintenance of public recreation grounds and the care of public ways, not being highways. It would accordingly be quite inappropriate that they should be consulted about the whole planning of the landward area of a county.
I can, however, assure the noble Duke that the regulations to be made under Clause 8 (2), laying down the procedure in connexion with the preparation of development plans will provide for advertisement of the submission of the plans to the Secretary of State for approval, and it will then be open to district councils, if they so desire, to make representations to the Secretary of State with regard to the proposals contained in the plans. Moreover, when the local inquiry takes place into the plans, they will be able to attend and voice their objections. It has also to be kept in mind—again as the noble Duke knows better than I do—that members of the county council in a landward area are also members of the district council and, therefore, can look after district council interests on the county council. I hope that explanation will suffice. I take it that the noble Duke is embodying the following two Amendments in this one.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I did not anticipate that it would be appropriate to pass this Amendment in its present form. I thank the noble Lord for some useful information which he has been able to give me on the points which I raised. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment, and I will not move the two which follow.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) to add:
"and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this provision, with the appropriate county agricultural executive committee"
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is submitted following a warning given to the Government on the Second Reading of the Bill. I think it right to say that this Bill, in essence, is an urban Bill which has been spread over to cover great areas of agricultural land. Perhaps that makes it more difficult to apply. We appreciate that difficulty. However, I do not think there is doubt in anyone's mind
470
that the danger to agricultural land is considerable, as there is a feeling prevalent among townspeople, and others, that agricultural land is a sort of much cow which can be drawn upon at will and goes on milking for ever with gut getting dry. Of course, that is not the case in farming. After all, there is o 71117 one official body which can speak authoritatively on the needs of agriculture
It is true that we have the concession which they have already made, that county agricultural executive committees will be duly recognized by regulation. but what is against putting that in the Bill so that it can have statutory effect? After all, it is not going to prejudice the recognition of any other group or groups. It is obvious to all that agricultural committees stand alone, in that they represent specific interests, and interests which, it has been repeatedly stated, will be likely to suffer by the application of this Bill. I understand that the objection of the Government to this proposal up to now has been that the specification might De read as a limitation; therefore, this Amendment has been drafted with be special view of obviating this objection. I hope His Majesty's Government will accept it, because I think it is important. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 19, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH QUEENSBERRY: I would like to support this Amendment. I would ask the noble Lord to strengthen the position as it stands now and provide greater security for maintaining agricultural land as such, and, in particular, land which is really good and productive. There is a necessity for this, as evidenced by our experience in the past. There is the possibility of carelessness in taking away bits of really good agricultural land when other land not far away would be suitable.
LORD MORRISON: This question, amongst many others, was discussed another place at two stages of the Bill, and the difficulty appears to be that if provision is made in the Bill for consultation with county agricultural executive committees, it is felt that other bodies, who also have some right to be consulted, such as the Chambers of Commerce, the Association for the Pre-

471
servation of Rural Scotland should also be included. After the discussion which took place in another place, and as a consequence of it, the Secretary of State put down an Amendment on Report enabling him to make regulations requiring local planning authorities, in the preparation of their development plans, to consult with such bodies or persons as may be prescribed by the regulations. In moving this' Amendment on the Report stage, the Secretary of State gave a definite assurance that the regulations would specify the county agricultural executive committees as one of the bodies to be consulted. For the reason I have already given, that to put this specific body into the Bill might make it difficult to keep others out, I am unable to accept the Amendment. I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied if I repeat the assurance—as I am authorized to do—that county agricultural executive committees will be specified in the regulations as one of the bodies to be consulted. I think that is fairly specific.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I cannot say that I am satisfied, because, after all, the argument appears to be that there are other bodies who would be dissatisfied if special bodies were mentioned in the Bill. The reason why we press this Amendment is that agricultural interests will be more harmed than anybody else by this Bill. I can appreciate that Chambers of Commerce would appeal to another place more than they do to us, but we are all intimately connected with agriculture, and we appreciate the dangerous position. I do hope that the noble Lord will go back and reconsider this matter, because it is one which does need seriously reconsidering. I gave evidence in Dundee on an expiration order, where the object was to acquire more land. The authorities there cannot help themselves, because the districts are growing. They tried to take in vast wedges of the most valuable agricultural land, and I am thankful to say that—maybe not because of my evidence—we were able to defeat them. They asked for so much that they got nothing at all, and I think it served them right. In view of the food situation, that tendency to take agricultural land has to be curbed and I think the Government is nothing short of mad in not curbing it.
LORD POLWARTH: There is a distinction to be drawn between agricultural
472
executive committees and other bodies of the type to which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, referred. I think I am right in saying that an agricultural executive committee is constituted officially and is charged with certain powers by the Government, whereas these other bodies, such as chambers of commerce and associations for the preservation of the countryside, are voluntary associations. Therefore, I see no reason why agricultural executive committees, with their statutory existence, should not be included.
LORD MORRISON: I think noble Lords might be satisfied with the specific assurance which I am authorized to give by the Minister himself, that in the regulations the county agricultural committees will be specifically mentioned.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Can the noble Lord give one reason why it should not go into the Statute?
LORD MORRISON: It is not customary in a Statute to mention specific bodies of that kind. It is usually done by regulation.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The noble Lord says "specific bodies of that kind." Of what kind? These are agricultural executive committees which are sponsored by the Government. I understand the noble Lord to say that the Secretary of State is diffident of putting them in the Bill because it might upset the susceptibilities of chambers of commerce. Surely we must have some stronger reason than that. As the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, said, we want to safeguard agriculture in this country at the present time, because of the shortage of food. I can assure the noble Lord that his refusal to put this in the Bill will be construed very differently in Scotland.
LORD MORRISON: I can only add that I will bring the statement to the notice of the Minister and see whether he can meet it before Report stage. Obviously I cannot give any promise.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: In view of the assurance that it will be reconsidered between now and Report, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) after the

473
word "advertisement" to insert "in at least two local newspapers circulating in each part of the area to which the plan relates." The noble Earl said: This is a very small Amendment and relates to the question of advertisement. In the English Bill this wider specification was accepted in regard to advertisement. I think it is the eminently reasonable and proper course to take. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 20, after the word ("advertisement") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: The noble Earl knows that I have not had an opportunity of considering this Amendment, and therefore it would be foolish if I were to give him a promise. If he will withdraw the Amendment and put it down on the Report stage, I will consider it and see whether anything can be done to meet his point.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (2), after the second "that" to insert:
"unless tin Secretary of State is satisfied that the objection or representation is frivolous or relates only to a matter which can be dealt with by an arbitrator by whom compensation is to he assessed."
The noble Earl said: In connexion with a development plan certain actions have to be taken before it is approved. One is that the plan should be advertised. It is stated in Clause 8, subsection (2) (c) that objections may be made. I am suggesting that in the event of objections being made the Secretary of State should hold some form of local inquiry, unless the objections are frivolous or relating purely to compensation. These plans are very comprehensive. They include a great many details, and those details are probably known only by people who live close to the ground. It is of the greatest importance that they should receive the widest possible information, and that those who know of the advantages to which certain areas can he turned should have the fullest opportunity of suggesting, or of making objections to, the purposes to which it is proposed to put land.
It is important that in every area those who live there should realize that matters are not to be imposed upon them. They are part and parcel of the plan, and is is for them to work the plan. There is nothing worse than the feeling that everybody has to lean back and wait for the Secretary of State to do something. I: is up to them to feel that they are thus part and parcel of the plan which is to be developed, otherwise the Secretary of State will find it quite impossible to work out a plan which has not the full and ready cooperation of all the people who live in fiat area. That co-operation will come only if they have the opportunity of giving expression to their feelings. It is a very intimate and detailed matter, and it is right and proper that objections—and submit that my definition of objections is a very reasonable one—should be put forward. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 30, after ("that") insert the, said new words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I should like to support this Amendment. The noble Earl used the expression "part and parcel," and one might add to that that we want these people to be partners. The Secretary of State, I am sure, would wish that those who live in the area should be partners in the development plan. Unless they are consulted and given an opportunity of seeing the plan, and of airing their views, they are much more likely to be objectors than partners.
LORD MORRISON: I think almost all of us would accept, in principle, the sentiments expressed by the noble Lords who have just spoken, but, at the same time, I think the Amendment is probably unnecessary: for two reasons. In the last two lines of the Amendment there occur the words "or relates only to a matter which can be dealt with by an arbitrator by whom compensation is to be assessed." No question of compensation can arise in connexion with the approval of development plans. With regard to the other point, it seems to me that the proper place to make it clear that frivolous questions should not necessitate the holding of local inquiries is in the regulations made under Clause 8. Those regulations will deal with this. I hope this explanation will satisfy noble Lords.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am not quite clear about this. The noble Lord is objecting to my two restrictions, which endeavour to narrow down the area which will apply to a local inquiry. I am suggesting that a local inquiry should be limited to a comparatively narrow sphere; that is to say, that the Secretary of State will not have to consider frivolous objections or any matter dealing with compensation.
LORD MORRISON: I think my argument must have been put clumsily; I was endeavouring to convey that I thought the Amendment unnecessary—not that it was undesirable.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My main point is that some inquiry should be held. At the present time a development plan can go forward without any inquiry unless the Secretary of State so desires. I am suggesting that it is desirable to hold a local inquiry, and I have not had any answer to that. I am still left with what is, to me, an objection; and that is the matter of bringing into partnership the people on the spot, as the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, said. I think there is a point to answer. If the noble Lord agrees to that, I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I would like some further idea of what is intended.
LORD MORRISON: I will think over it again.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: In that event I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (3), to omit "or of any local inquiry or other hearing held." The noble Lord said: There are occasions on which a local inquiry may be held before a development plan is finally passed, but I am sorry to hear that we are not invariably to have a local inquiry. Objections to a plan may also be raised to the Secretary of State by an individual or a body before the plan is confirmed, in addition to the cases in which there is a public local inquiry. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State has power, after he has heard objections, to make further inquiries among any of the people who may be concerned with the scheme before he comes to a decision. In addition, the Bill gives him power, after a public local inquiry has been held, to go privately
476
and consult any party interested in the plan before arriving at his decision. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that if there has been a public local inquiry and the Secretary of State wishes to make further inquiries into the matter, such inquiries should be made in public, so that all the parties to the original public inquiry should know exactly what is going on. It seems to me that this is an elementary principle of justice, that if you hear a case in public any further investigations should also be carried out in public, and that all those who were parties to the original inquiry should be parties to any further inquiries that are made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 42, leave out from ("considered") to ("in").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD MORRISON: I am sorry that it is quite impossible for me to accept this Amendment. The object of this subsection is to enable the Secretary of State, after holding a local inquiry into a development plan, to consult any body or person on any matter arising out of the inquiry, without necessarily affording a further opportunity to other parties to the inquiry to be heard or to submit counter-observations. The subsection thus enables the Secretary of State to conduct inquiries in an expeditious manner, while protecting him from any challenge that his methods, which in the circumstances are the only practicable ones, violate the principles to to be followed in connexion with judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. I am sorry: it is quite impossible to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Is this a new procedure, that the Secretary of State is allowed to conduct other public inquiries after he has heard a local inquiry; is that new? Would the noble Lord find that out for me?
LORD MORRISON: If after an inquiry has taken place the Secretary of State finds it necessary to obtain other information.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Is that a new method of procedure; has he always been able to do so?
LORD MORRISON: I could not answer that.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Would the noble Lord let me know?
LORD MORRISON: I certainly will.
LORD POLWARTH: I cannot say that I am very satisfied with that reply, because it does seem very strange. In normal judicial procedure such a course would never be tolerated, and it seems to me that this is further evidence of the possible intentions of the Government as reflected in certain recent remarks made by the Attorney-General in public as to the future workings of our legal system; if so, that is very disturbing. In view of the technical difficulties and my lack of knowledge of the law, I am afraid I shall be obliged to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "give directions to" and to insert:

"(a) by regulations make rules for the performance by local planning authorities of their functions under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act;

(b) require."

The noble Earl said: With your Lordships' permission I will take these Amendments which stand in my name together. They apply to the making of a development plan. In, order to do so, the Secretary of State is entitled under Clause 8, subsection (4), to do two things: first of all, to give directions with regard to the local authority's functions, and, secondly, to request them to furnish him with information. I am going to submit that those two functions are entirely separate. One is a regulatory function, seeing how the plan should be carried out, and the second is an ad hoc function-asking each authority for specific information with regard to certain definite subjects. There should be a standardized form for the regulatory function; that is to say that regulations with regard to the way in which the development plan should be put through should be fairly well standardized.
I quite agree, as regards information, that the Secretary of State should be free to do what he wants to. Accordingly, for that reason, I am moving this Amendment which would make it obligatory for the regulations with regard to the performance of their function in completing the development plan to be subject to negative Parliamentary power. That means to say that there should be a standardized form which could be
478
criticized by Parliament but it should be standardized throughout the whole country. It is a very simple point and I submit that it is really reasonable. I do not think it is restrictive on the Secretary of State; I think it is proper that the request to have the publicity which is given to anything published in Parliament should be standard throughout the country. For these reasons, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page line 8, leave out from ("may") to ("any") and insert the said new words. —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: I think the noble Lord did accept the proposition that it is essential that the Secretary of State should have power to issue directions for this; purpose in this clause. These directions will often be local in character. The Secretary of State may, for example, wish to give directions on a particular aspect of the planning of a particular area, but he might also need to give directions applying to all local authorities in Scotland dealing with technical matters such as survey priorities, a standard code of reap notation, and so on. In giving directions of this kind, the Secretary of State is simply performing an act of day-to-day administration not essentially different from his action in, say, allowing or dismissing a planning appeal, calling in an application for central decision or approving or amending a development plan. The Amendment proposes that, instead of giving directions, the Secretary of State should by regulations make rules for the performance of the functions of local planning authorities under Part I of the Bill. Clearly matters such as those I have mentioned—special directions on a particular aspect of the planning of a particular area or standard codes of trap notation—are not matters which could appropriately be dealt with by way of formal rules. For these reasons, I regret that I am not: able to accept this Amendment..
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: With great respect, I would ask the noble Lord to look at his own Amendment which comes next, in which he says "formulating the procedure for the carrying out." Is it possible to say that formulating the procedure for carrying out a development plan could be called a method of map notation? It has no bearing at all. I

479
entirely agree that there may be directions into some particular plan, but I think there are ample provisions for that in other spheres. This is formulating the procedure. Would your Lordships not agree that the procedure should be made standard? I am talking only of the procedure by which the development plan should be drawn up. Should it not be the same all over the country? I ask that because I am bound to say that it did not seem to me that the noble Lord touched on the point in the answer which he gave.
LORD MORRISON: I was only smiling because the noble Lord was criticizing the next Amendment which I am going to move. That Amendment was put down at the request of the Opposition in another place. I will explain it when I come to it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I was not criticizing it. I was criticizing the noble Lord's statement that certain aspects of planning and map notation had anything to do with formulating the procedure. I will not press the noble Lord on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (4), to leave out
"regulating the performance," and insert "formulating the procedure for the carrying out." The noble Lord said: This Amendment enables the Secretary of State to give directions to local planning authorities, either generally or in particular cases, for regulating the performance of their functions under the Bill with respect to the preparation of development plans. The Amendment substitutes the words "formulating the procedure for the carrying out of their functions" for the words "regulating the performance of their functions." The revised wording expresses more clearly the intention of paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of Clause 8. It was inserted, as I said a moment ago, as the result of a point which was raised by His Majesty's Opposition in another place. A similar Amendment has also been inserted in the English Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 10, leave out from ("for") to ("of") and insert ("formulating the procedure for the carrying out").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 21, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsection (4)").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Obligation to obtain permission for development.
10.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section and to the following provisions of this Act, permission shall be required under this Part of this Act in respect of any development of land which is carried out after the appointed day.
(2) In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the expression "development" means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land:
Provided that the following operations or uses of land shall not be deemed for the purposes of this Act to involve development of the land, that is to say:—
(d) the use of any buildings or other land within the curtilage of a dwelling house for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such;
(3) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this Section
(b) the deposit of refuse or waste materials on land involves a material change in the use thereof, notwithstanding that the land is comprised in a site already used for that purpose, if the superficial area of the deposit is thereby extended.
4.28 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, in proviso (d) of subsection (2) to leave out "curtilage" and insert "policies." The noble lord said: This is a very minor point but I attach some little importance to it. I remember that there was some discussion before about this ugly word "curtilage" and it was discovered that some noble Lords had not even heard of it. This is a term which is not commonly known in the law of Scotland, and I am moving this Amendment to replace "curtilage" by the word "policies," which is a good Scots word and which, while it may not exactly fill the Bill, I do commend to His Majesty's Government.
Even if it will not meet their requirements, they may find some way of expressing it in language that is not alien to us. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 28, leave out ("curtilage" and insert ("policies").—(Lord Polwarth.)
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Would the noble Lord be so good as to tell us who found this word "curtilage" and where he got it from? Nobody seems to know anything about it. It certainly does not seem to apply to the whole of the country. What is against using a good old Scots word that every Scotsman understands? We do not want to be confused even more by going around and using a word that does not mean anything to anybody.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I support this Amendment, and I feel that the Government might do well to accept it. The word "policy" is well known in Scotland and, although it more frequently perhaps refers to land round about the country mansion, there is nothing in its history to prevent its association with all kinds of dwelling-houses. I found, for instance, these definitions of it. One was: "the pleasure ground of a country mansion; properly the place or tract within which one has authority to administer affairs." Another definition is contained in the words:" His Lordship's policy surrounds the house. The word here signifies improvements and demesne. When used by a merchant or tradesman it signifies his warehouses, shops and the like. "So I do feel that the word we have attempted to find is not only one which we all understand but also is a tradition.
LORD MORRISON: Never in my wildest flights of fancy did I imagine that there would come a day when I would find myself, as a mere London Scot, arguing in your Lordships' House as to the real meaning of Scottish words, and defining those words which appear to be well known to many of your Lordships. I have taken some trouble over this matter, and it is perfectly clear to me that the word "curtilage" is a more appropriate word than "policies." The use of the expression "policies" would be quite inappropriate, as this expression means park land round a mansion or country house. "Curtilage," on the
482
other hand, means any yard or garden or land attached to any dwelling house.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: But so does "policies."
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: This definition I read is dated 1769.
LORD MORRISON: I was going to add that the word "curtilage," which I understood the noble Lord had never heard of before, is used in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1932, in Section 52. I forget whether the noble Lord was Secretary of State for Scotland at the time.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I was not, and it was not invented by me.
LORD MORRISON: It was also, used in the Factories Act, 1937, in Section 151, and it has been used in other enactments. So there seems to be full precedent for the use of the word. "Policies," I am advised, is the wrong word. Many of your Lordships say it is the right word. If the noble Earl so desires, I will pursue my studies into the exact meaning of this word. I have not got a Scots dictionary here, but there is no reason why we should not pursue the matter a little further and, if I find that "policies" is a better word than "curtilage," I will certainly accept it on Report stage. At present I am advised that it is not.
LORD POLWARTH: This weed seems to have already become somewhat firmly rooted in our legal terminology, although I am very sorry to find that it has. If we cannot agree on "policies" as the word, I would ask the noble Lord to see whether he could find any other way of expressing this without having to import these Anglo-Norman honors. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (3), after "area," insert "or the height." The noble Lard said: In view of the amount of work we have to do, perhaps it might satisfy your Lordships if I say that a similar Amendment to this was moved by Lord Addington on the English Bill in Committee, and was accepted by the Lord Chancellor. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 4, after ("area") insert ("or the height").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to insert at the end of subsection (3):
"Provided that nothing in paragraph (b) of this subsection 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 Lord said: This Amendment frees from planning control the continued dumping of refuse in hollows, excavations, etc., as long as the refuse heap does not project above the surface level of adjoining land. It is similar to an Opposition Amendment that was accepted in the English Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 5, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Before we leave Clause 10 I notice that on page 13 the word "mining" is inserted. I cannot recall another Town and Country Planning Bill covering mining before. I am sorry not to have given the noble Lord opposite any notice of this question, but it does seem to me an extremely important departure from previous procedure. He may be able to tell me that it has happened, but I do not remember mining being included in country planning, and I do not think it would be in town planning.
LORD MORRISON: I am afraid I cannot answer the noble Earl off-hand, but I will see that a reply is sent to him.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Applications to local planning authorities for planning permission.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, conditions may be imposed on the grant of planning permission thereunder—

(a) for regulating the development or use of any land under the control of the applicant (whether or not it is land in
484
respect of which the application was made) or requiring the carrying out of works on any such land, so far as appears to the local planning authority to be expedient for the purposes of, or in connection with, the development authorised by the permission;

(b) for requiring the removal of any buildings or works authorised by the permission, or the discontinuance of any Lin of land so authorised, at the expiration of a specified period, and the carrying out of any works required for the re-instatement of land at the expiration of that period;

and any planning permission granted subject to any such condition as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection is in this Act referred to as planning permission granted for a limited period only.
(3) Provision may be made by a development order for prescribing the procedure by which applications may be made to the local planning authority for planning permission, and for regulating the manner in which such applications are to be dealt with by that authority; and in particular provision may be made by any such Order

(a) far dispensing with separate applications for permission in the case of development of which plans and specifications are submitted under building byelaws, and in other similar cases;

(b) for enabling the Secretary of State (or, in the case of development affecting trunk roads, the Minister of Transport) to give directions restricting the grant of planning permission by the local planning authority, during such period as may be specified in the directions, in respect of any such development, or in respect of development of any such class, as may be so specified;

(4) Without prejudice to any provisions included in the development order by virtue of the last foregoing subsection for restricting the grant of planning permission by local planning authorities, an application to the local planning authority for permission to develop land by the erection thereon of an industrial building of any class prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this subsection by the Board of Trade shall be of no effect unless it is certified by the Board that the development in question can be carried out consistently with the proper distribution of industry, and a copy of the certificate is furnished to the local planning authority together with the application.
4.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) after "applicant" to insert "being land within the area of the local planning authority." The noble Earl said: This Amendment means what it says if you read it. It is probably a point which has escaped the notice of all stages in both places. It is, I submit, not good legislation that conditions should be

485
attached to land in another planning authority, and that it would be a wise precaution to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page i6, line 26, after ("applicant") insert ("being land within the area of the local planning authority").—(The Earl of Airlie.)
LORD MORRISON: The effect of this Amendment of the noble Earl, as has been rightly stated, would be that the local planning authority could impose conditions only in relation to land within their area. I suggest to the noble Earl that such a provision would be much too restrictive. For example, the boundary of the local planning authority might run through the middle of a person's land and, in such a case, the effect of the Amendment would be that, if the local planning authority were granting permission for the carrying out of development on that part of the land within their area, they would be unable to impose conditions regulating the development of the remainder of the land. The imposition of restrictions on the development of the land out with the local planning authority's area might, however, be essential in the interests of good planning and, if they were not to have power to impose these restrictions, the local planning authority might have no alternative but to refuse permission altogether. It is for that reason that I am unable to accept the noble Earl's Amendment.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Surely the noble Lord is not going to insist that this is good legislation, that you can have a scheme put forward which actually is inside the local authority for planning land which is outside in the land of another authority? Ought not you to apply it that way as well.
LORD ROSEBERY: Surely one local authority cannot plan another local authority's land without any reference to them whatsoever? It seems very odd, because the other local authority might be planning something entirely different.
LORD MORRISON: As I understand it, it would only apply where the land proposed to he taken would have the effect of dividing the person's land in two.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not think that has got anything to do with
486
it. A man might own quite a considerable amount of land. He might be under three local authorities. That has happened, but it still does not alter the tact that, unless the Government accept the noble Earl's Amendment, one kcal authority can plan another local authority's land without having the slightest regard to that other kcal authority, and this would cause great resentment.
LORD MORRISON: As I have pointed out, difficulty would arise in cases where the boundary of the local authority r ins through the middle of someone's property. But if the noble Earl so desires, I am prepared to take steps to see whether there is any possible way of getting round the difficulty that he has indicated. At present I am advised that there is not, but I am quite prepared to give this consideration.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and on twat assurance I beg leave to withdraw Amendment.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, understand; that he is taking the part of the landowner now. I hope that that will continue to be the case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "Provision may be made by development order" down to the end of paragraph (a) and insert "regulating the manner in which applications for planning permission are to be dealt with by local planning authorities and in particular." The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment, with two which I will move later, is to substitute for provisions in this clause and Clause 71 the new clause, Clause 98, enabling provision to be made by regulations for the combination in one document of an application for planning permission, an application for the determination of the development charge, and any other application required to be made to a local authority under any enactment with respect to the proposed development. I think that the Amendment will commend itself to noble Lords, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16. line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 17, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg to thank the noble Lord for Clause 98 which I cordially welcome.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, at the end of subsection (5), to insert:
"Provided that—

(a) no such certificate as aforesaid shall be required in respect of the erection of any industrial building which will have an aggregate floor space not exceeding five thousand square feet; and

(b) the regulations made by the Board for the purposes of this subsection may direct that no such certificate as aforesaid shall be required in respect of the erection, in any area prescribed by or under the regulations, of industrial buildings of any such class as may be so prescribed."

The noble Lord said: It may save your Lordships time if I say that a similar Amendment to this was made in the English Bill when it passed through your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 2, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for this Amendment also.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert:
"Provided that the Board, before refusing an application for the issue of a certificate under this subsection, or before the end of six months after the receipt by them of such application, whichever shall be the earlier date, shall, if the applicant notifies them in writing that he so desires, afford to the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) the opportunity to make representations to the Board in respect of that application."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment has a little more substance in it. Under Clause 12, it is possible for the Board of Trade to refuse permission to any factory to start work. This, of course, is part of the policy, which we have accepted in this country, of the distribution of industry, and I do not want in any way to cavil at that policy. I agree with it as a policy. At the same time I think there are certain rather more complex matters which apply in regard to industry than are sometimes generally appreciated. It seems to be thought sometimes that industry can be spread over the country like butter over a piece of toast. In fact, that is not so. Industry, unlike butter,
488
has to take root. That is very important. What I am suggesting is that a measure of responsibility should be given to certain people in the locality for seeing and understanding the nature and quality of the industrial set-up in their area.
It is necessary to retain within that setup—as I have stressed in a different context earlier—a sense of local responsibility. A great many people to-day watch with a sense of mystified uncertainty and wonderment the activities of the Board of Trade in setting up a very large number of buildings. That is not a satisfactory way of looking at what is, or ought to be, a part and parcel of their own organization. I am suggesting that the local authority should be given some statement before the Board of Trade refuse to allow a particular development to proceed. I suggest, very respectfully, that it is not desirable that industrialists and undertakers, and representatives of the Board of Trade, should meet, say, in London, discuss different parts of the country, looking at maps of, for example, North Wales, South Wales, the North-West of England, perhaps Cumberland, Durham, Northumberland, parts of Scotland and parts of the Midlands, and finally take a pin, stick it in the map, and say that a factory shall be put at that spot. That, I consider, is not a very fair way of proceeding. I think, however, that that is often the sort of thing that happens. I am suggesting that anything which enables a local organization to have a real say in the development of their area is well worth careful consideration.
The body mentioned in my Amendment—the Scottish Council—is no ordinary body. It is a body which has wide representation, and it can, to a large extent, be said to be an official body. I am asking the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, to consider this very seriously. This is a proposition that has been put up before. I would emphasize, however, that the fact that it has been put up before does not mean that it is wrong or unimportant. It means that the answers given were unsatisfactory. I think that the granting of some measure of responsibility—and it is a very moderate measure that I am asking for—would be very acceptable. I believe that the assistance which could be given would be extremely useful to the Board of Trade. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 2, at end insert the said new proviso.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I have a little diffidence in speaking of this, because I happen to be a member of the body concerned, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will consider this Amendment, and that he will not use against it the argument he used before in respect of the agricultural executive committees. There can be no question that this body has not only official recognition, but also has general recognition throughout Scotland. It comprises constituent members from all the local authorities, from the T.U.C., from chambers of commerce, from banks, from trades, from trade organizations, and, indeed, from anyone or anybody having the interest of Scotland at heart. It is recognized by the Secretary of State as a channel through which he likes to obtain information. It has constant dealings and meetings with the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour and other Government Departments. The Council are, therefore, I think, the appropriate channel to deal with any such matter as would be concerned here.
LORD MORRISON: I am glad that the noble Earl who is a member of the Scottish Council has found it convenient to be here to-day, and I hope that he will bring to the notice of the members of the Council what I am now going to say. I have to say that while I appreciate the object of the Amendment, I would respectfully point out that the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) do not require any statutory authority to make representations at any time to any Government Department on matters affecting industry or employment in Scotland. In fact they are in close touch with the Departments concerned with those matters. An industrialist proposing to establish a new factory in Scotland would be able to send to the Scottish Council a copy of his application to the Board of Trade for a certificate, and the Council would be able to support the application if they so desired, either by making representations direct to the Board of Trade, or to the Board of Trade through the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The Amendment, it seems to me, is not desirable because it might imply that the
490
Scottish Council would not be free to take steps to support an application right at the outset, but would have to wait until the expiry of the period mentioned in the Amendment, and until the industrialist specifically asked for their support. Hay I also remind noble Lords, that it would not be altogether appropriate, and that, in fact, it would be out of place, to make statutory provision requiring the Board of Trade to consult a body which has been set up to advise another Minister of the Crown namely, the Secretary of State for Scotland? In the circumstances, I invite noble Lords to leave the clause at it stands, hoping that I have convinced them that the Scottish Council are free at all times to support applications for establishing new industries in Scotland.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask the noble Lord if he is speaking for the President of the Board of Trade, as well as the Secretary of State for Scotland?
LORD MORRISON: I am speaking for the Secretary of State for Scotland.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Surely this has nothing whatever to do with the Secretary of State for Scotland. It relates to a power of positive denial by the Board of Trade, without reference to anyone, of any industrial development. That is what the Secretary of State has given to the President of the Board of Trade, and that is the point upon which we wish to have some statement made. Will the noble Lord agree that the Scottish Council has a right at all times to access to the President of the Board of Trade? I thank the noble Lord for this very valuable concession of access to the Secretary of State but in view of this clause I do not think it goes far enough.
LORD MORRISON: I thought I had already made it clear that the Scottish Advisory Council were responsible for advising the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sure that it would not be appropriate to make statutory provision for them to go over the head of the Secretary of State, who had appointed them, direct to the President of the Board of Trade. But I have no doubt whatever that the Council could approach the Board of Trade through the Secretary of State. I speak subject to correction, but I should think that would be the position
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am not satisfied with the noble Lord's answer.

491
The noble Lord is being rather obdurate to-day, and I hope that later on we shall find him more willing to accept what we are suggesting. It is not enough simply to have representations to the Board of Trade in London. It is much better that people who have a much fuller knowledge of economic development should have a real say in the line that matters are to take. I believe that this Amendment, or something like it, is very much in the interests of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Appeals to the Secretary of State.
(2) Where an appeal is brought under this section from a decision of the local planning authority the Secretary of State may allow or dismiss the appeal or may reverse or vary any part of the decision of the local planning authority, whether or not the appeal relates to that part, and deal with the application as if it had been made to him in the first instance; and the provisions of the last foregoing section shall apply, subject to any necessary modifications, in relation to the determination of an application by the Secretary of State on appeal under this section as they apply in relation to the determination by the Secretary of State of an application referred to him under that section.
4.53 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment fixes a minimum period for appeal related to the date of receipt of the notice of the authority's decision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 38, after "time," insert "(not being less than twenty-eight days from the receipt of notification of their decision)."—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "whether or not the appeal relates to that part, and" and insert "to which the appeal relates, and may in relation to that part." The noble Duke said: The two Amendments in my name to Clause 14 concerning appeal to the Secretary of State are alternatives, but I think it would be better to discuss them
492
together. It is not clear why the Secretary of State, in acting upon an appeal against a decision of the local planning authority, should have the power to reverse or vary other decisions. If such power is necessary, then the reversal or variation should be open to representations both from the applicant and the local planning authority. This is clear from a comparison with Clause 13, which refers to the determination of applications by the Secretary of State in the first instance and introduces an opportunity for representations from an applicant or authority. In acting under Clause 14, subsection (2), the Secretary of State is acting as if the application had been made to him in the first place. I hope the noble Lord can meet us on this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19. line 6, leave out from ("authority") to ("deal") in line 7 and insert the said new words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
LORD MORRISON: I am obliged to the noble Duke for taking both Amendments together. Would he forgive me if I do not go into a detailed explanation and merely content myself with saying that while unable to accept the first Amendment, I will accept his alternative.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I beg to move the next Amendment and thank the noble Lord for signifying his readiness to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 14, at end, insert: ("Provided that where the Secretary to State proposes to reverse or vary any part of the decision of the local planning authority to which the appeal does not relate, he shall give notice of his intention to the local planning authority and to the applicant and shall afford to them an opportunity to make representations in regard thereto").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 31, at end, insert: "and as if notification of their decision had been re-

493
ceived 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."—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Supplementary provisions as to grant of planning permission.
(3) Where planning permission is granted for the erection of a building, the grant of permission may specify the purposes for which the building may be used; and if no purpose is so specified, the permission shall be construed as including permission to use the building for the purpose for which it is designed.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (3) after "specify," to insert "in general terms." The noble Lord said: This clause states among other provisions that where planning permission is granted for the erection of a building the permission may specify the purposes for which the building may be used. This is a minor Amendment to insert the word "general" before the purposes for which the building may be used. I agree that it is desirable that when a building is to be put up there should be some sort of specification as to what it is to be used for. Obviously, you do not want a factory in the middle of a residential area or some other building which is going to constitute a nuisance; but on the other hand it is a little rigid when the permission says for specific purposes. For instance, as it stands at the moment, it would seem that if a man wanted to erect a shop, the planning permission would have to state a certain kind of shop. I may be wrong and I should be glad to be told that that is so. I think it would be sufficient if a broader indication were given. If the permission said "retail shop" that would prevent the possibility of any manufacturing business being conducted. I do not see that there should be any difficulty in accepting something on these lines. A similar Amendment was moved in another place and was rejected, and we have tried to alter it to make it acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 32, after ("specify") insert ("in general terms").—(Lord Polwarth.;
LORD MORRISON: I have taken a little trouble over this Amendment and I think the intention is to ensure 1 hat planning permission may be granted for broad classes of purposes, say, the use of a building as a retail shop. I would point out, however, this is possible under the clause as it stands. The expression "purposes" is clearly wide enough to enable the local planning authority to specify classes of use. If the clause were amended as the noble Lord suggested it might be construed as limiting the power of the local planning authority to the specification of broad classes of purposes only, and prevent them from stipulating in any particular case that planning permission was for a particular purpose: for example, the use of a building attached to a hospital as a laundry, or the use of a building attached to a shop for repair work in connection with the particular business of that shop. Clearly, the local planning authority's powers should not be limited in this way.
While I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment, at the same time may I suggest that the noble Lord's point has been already made in Clause 10 (2) (f), which enables the Secretary of State to make an order as regards buildings or land used for the purpose of any class specified in the order, providing that the use of the buildings or land for any other purpose of the same class shall not be deemed to constitute development. This is the proper way of meeting the point raised by the noble Lord's Amendment. For example, the Secretary of State will be able to specify in an order that buildings used as retail shops may be used for any purpose falling within the class of retail shops, other than, possibly, fried fish shops, over which it is necessary to exercise a special control. I hope that after that explanation the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD POLWARTH: I appreciate the difficulty the noble Lord is in, and in view of his assurance I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause i6 agreed to.
5.1 p.m.
Clause 17 [Obligation to purchase land on refusal of planning permission in certain cases]:
LORD MORRISON: My first Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 40, leave out ("paragraphs (a) to (c) of").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to insert:
"(3) If within the period of six months from the date on which a purchase notice is served under this section the Secretary of State has neither confirmed the notice nor taken any such other action as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the proviso to the last foregoing subsection, nor notified the owner or lessee, as the case may be, 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 authority on whom the notice was served shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire the interest of the owner or lessee compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of Part III of this Act, and to have served notice to treat in respect thereof at the expiration of the said period."
The noble Lord said: The broad effect of this Amendment is that if at the end of six months the Secretary of State has not taken action on a purchase notice under Clause 17 (1), or announced his decision not to confirm the notice, the notice is deemed to be confirmed. This is similar to an Amendment to the English Bill which was accepted in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think this is a most admirable provision. Broadly, it means that if someone does not get an answer from a Government Department in six months the answer is "Yes." I would like to see that incorporated in all Acts of Parliament. I would like to draw attention to the fact that it is the opposite to what we have seen at page 19, line 31, in subsection (3) of Clause 14, which the noble Lord passed off as drafting. It is not quite drafting. There, when no answer is available, the answer is "No," on the specific date relative to that. I would like to thank the noble Lord for this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Compensation for refusal of planning permission in certain cases]:
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 23, leave out from ("extent") to ("it") in line 26 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, as the case may be").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Enforcement of planning control.
21.—(1) If it appears to the local planning authority that any development of land has been carried out after the appointed day without the grant of planning permission in that behalf, or that any conditions subject to which such permission was granted in respect of any development have not been complied with, then, subject to any directions given by the Secretary of State, the local planning authority may, if they consider it expedient so to do having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations, serve on the owner, on the lessee and on the occupier of the land a notice under this section.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (1), after "may," to insert "within four years of such development being carried out." The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment which was carried in the English Bill in circumstances which I think can be said to be entirely parallel. The effect of this Amendment is that four years after some use has been initiated the planning authority cannot come down and say that that is in fact wrong, and an enforcement notice can be carried against it. I think I am correct in saying that that is the effect of the Amendment, and I think it is a right effect. It is what we call "prescription" in Scotland, and the liability for being proceeded against for non-conforming use is proper without any doubt at all. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 44, at end insert ("within four years of such development being carried out").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: As the noble Earl knows, I have had a limited opportunity

497
for considering this Amendment. I know that a similar Amendment was accepted in the English Bill. The noble Earl has just said that the circumstances are similar, but I am advised that they are not. This is one of the cases in which it: is not appropriate to Scottish conditions. The reason is that in the remote Highland areas development might well be carried out without consent, and not be discovered by the planning authorities for far more than four years. An offence is an offence notwithstanding that it is not discovered for four years, and in the circumstances there should be no limitation of the time after carrying out a development within which the authority should be able to enforce planning control. If, however, the noble Earl wishes to impose some limit of time within which the authority should be hound, I can give him an undertaking to consider the point before the Report stage and see if I can then give him a more satisfactory reply.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is really an outrageous statement. The noble Lord said that it takes more than four years for "Nosey Parkers" to get round to the Western Hebrides. That is a shameless statement to be made from the Government Front Bench, and I think the noble Lord should withdraw it. Am I to understand that, because in an outlying croft some development has taken place which is not according to the planning decision, they are liable to be prosecuted in order that the law may be upheld? I will concede to the noble Lord that his answer has had to be given rather hurriedly. I do not want to press the point too far, but I must ask the noble Lord to think again. This will not hold water for one moment. In many cases is quite possible that the details of the planning scheme will be unknown, and a man may go against the planning scheme in some small matter. It is in those circumstances where the enforcement provisions should not apply. I ask the noble Lord to think again, and in the meantime I will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MORRISON: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I am sure the noble Earl and I are not going to fall out on this point. I have in my mind some information about Scotland, some of which has come to me from the Registrar-
498
General, that the population of the County of Sutherland is less than seven per square mile. I think in a case where the population is less than seven per square mile it is quite possible that some period of time might elapse before anything that was going on was discovered.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I would remind the noble Lord that, although there may be only seven people to the square mile in Sutherland, that has not stopped the Government from putting the National Fire Service there.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23:
Agreements regulating development or use of land.
(3) Nothing in this section or in any agreement made thereunder shall be construed as restricting or requiring the exercise, in relation to land which is the subject of any such agreement, of any powers exercisable by any Minister or authority under this Act.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "or requiring." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next one go together. I think it might save your Lordships' time if I content myself by saying that the Amendments correspond to Amendments made to the English Bill on the Committee and Report stages in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 15, leave out (or requiring").—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I have nothing to say except to ask the noble Lord to look at the wording. If he stars at the first line of his second Amendment it says: "so long as those powers are exercised." It then goes on in the last line but one: "or as requiring the exercise of any such powers." It looks to me as if that is rather clumsy wording. I do not want to say more than that.
LORD MORRISON: I will look at that. On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to add to subsection (3):
"so long as those powers are exercised in accordance with the provisions of the development plan or in accordance with any directors which may have been given by the Secretary

499
of State under Section thirty-three of this Act, or as requiring the exercise of any such powers otherwise than as aforesaid."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 2, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Provisions supplementary to s. 24]:
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 8, leave out ("then state of development") and insert ("existing state").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 20, leave out ("paragraphs (a) to (c) of").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
5.11 p.m.
Clause 26:
Orders for preservation of trees and woodlands.
(2) An order made under the last foregoing subsection may provide for the payment by the local planning authority, in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, of compensation in respect of damage or expenditure caused or incurred in consequence of the refusal of any consent required under the order, or of the grant of any such consent subject to conditions.
(5) If any person contravenes the provisions of a tree preservation order, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds; and if the contravention is continued after the conviction, he shall be guilty of a further offence and liable on summary conviction to an additional fine not exceeding forty shillings for every day on which the contravention is so continued.
Provided that nothing in a tree preservation order shall render unlawful the felling or lopping of any tree if such felling or lopping is urgently necessary in the interests of safety, so long as notice in writing of the proposed operations is given to the local planning authority as soon as may be after the necessity for the operations arise.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "in such cases and subject to such" and insert "subject to such exceptions and." The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment is to reverse the present arrangements under which a tree preservation order may provide for the payment of compensation in all cases except those specially excepted by the order. This is exactly similar to an Amendment accepted by your Lordships' House on the English Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 28, leave out from beginning to ("conditions") and insert ("subject to such exceptions and").—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would like to thank the noble Lord for this Amendment, which certainly improves the clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment corresponds to an Amendment which your Lordships will recall was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, in Committee on the English Bill and which was accepted by the Lord Chancellor. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 32, at end insert:
("(3) A tree preservation order shall not be made in respect of woodlands which are the subject of a forestry dedication agreement under the Forestry Act, 1947, or in respect of which advances have been made by the Forestry Commissioners under the Forestry Acts, 1919 to 1947.")—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is also similar to an Amendment to the English Bill which was accepted by your Lordships during the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 20, after ("if") insert ("in the case of a continuing offence").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 25, leave out ("render un. lawful") and insert ("prohibit").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The words proposed to be inserted by this Amendment cover a point which would normally be dealt with in each tree preservation order. Their inclusion in the Statute will obviate the need for special provision on the matter being made in the order. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 26, at end insert ("or is necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance").—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would like to thank the noble Lord for that Amendment, which is an improvement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is a similar point to the last. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 29, at end insert ("or if such felling or lopping is carried out in compliance with any obligation imposed by or under any Act of Parliament").—(Lord Morrison
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Orders for the preservation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest]:
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 10, leave out from ("authority") to ("conditions") in line 11 and insert ("subject to such exceptions and").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is a similar Amendment to one accepted by your Lordships on the English Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 20, after ("expedient") insert:
("Provided that such an order requiring the consent of the local planning authority to be obtained for the execution of any works shall not be made by the authority or confirmed by the Secretary of State, unless the authority or the Secretary of State is satisfied that the execution of the works would seriously affect the character of the building.").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28:
Lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.
28.—(1) With a view to the guidance of local planning authorities in the performance of their functions under this Act in relation to buildings of special architectural or his toxic interest, the Secretary of State may compile lists of such buildings, or approve, either with or without modifications, such lists compiled by other persons or bodies of persons, and may amend any list so compiled or approved.
(2) Before compiling or approving, either with or without modifications, any list under this section, or amending any list thereunder, the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him appropriate as having special knowledge of or interest in buildings of architectural or historic interest.
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is similar to an Amendment which was accepted by the Government on the English Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 28, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would like to thank the noble Lord for the improvement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved after subsection (2) to insert:
"and shall afford to the owner, lessee or occupier of any building which it is proposed to include in the list, and of any building which the owner, lessee or occupier thereof considers ought to be included in the list, an opportunity of making representations with respect to the inclusion of such building a the list, and shall duly consider the same."
The noble Earl said: I rise to move this Amendment, not very hopefully but rather wearily, because we do not seem to be getting much out of the business we are pursuing this afternoon. By this clause the Secretary of State can place on the list any building which is of architectural or historic interest. There are two points I wish to make. The first is that, as I understand the subsection, the owner of a house can wake up and find that his house has been listed, and that he has no means of representation under the Bill. That he should have representation is surely reasonable, but there is no provision in the Bill at the present moment. The first thing he hears is that his house is registered for all time with apparently no opportunity of his being

503
able to get it off the list. We are getting quite used to these shocks of waking up in the morning and finding that something which belonged to us has gone.
I do not want to appear unsympathetic to this method of procedure, but I do think it is perhaps a little arbitrary and a trifle inflexible at the present moment. If the Secretary of State wants to take immediate action to meet a case of urgency, I think it is perfectly reasonable that he should; but I do think that pending a final statement the owner should be given a full opportunity to represent some special circumstances either one way or the other, otherwise it is entirely arbitrary. Representations are allowed under Clause 27 (4) (b), and I would suggest that the same procedure should apply here—namely, that the Secretary of State should first consult whom he likes, then tell the local authority and finally serve notice before registering with the Register of Sasines. That would give an opportunity of making representations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 37, at end, insert the said words.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
LORD MORRISON: The noble Lord will realize that he said something to the effect that it might sometimes be necessary to list a building without delay so as to stop imminent work on the demolition of the building or other work which would spoil the character of the building. If the Amendment were passed, the owner or occupier could delay the coming into force of the list, and might carry out the injurious work even while he was presenting his case. When a building has been included in a list, the owner, lessee or occupier receives notice and must thereafter give two months' notice of any proposals for the demolition of the building, or for the alteration or extension of the building. The local planning authority or the Secretary of State must decide during that time whether or not to make a preservation order, and full opportunity will be given to the owner or occupier by regulations under Clause 27 (4) to object to the proposed order.
With regard to the second point of the Amendment which deals with the position of an owner or occupier who considers that the building ought to be
504
included in the list, I would point out to the noble Earl that there is no need to make statutory provision for this. It is always open to any owner or any occupier to represent that a building should be listed. Before I ask the noble Earl not to press his Amendment, may I acid that I was a little astonished to hear him say at the outset—if I may paraphrase his words—that they did not seem to be getting much out of this Bill, particularly as his Amendment comes after a whole series of Government Amendments which were put in as a result of representations made by the noble Earl and his friends.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I was referring to the Amendments put forward now. I do not quite understand the point the noble Lord is making. The procedure in cases of urgency is entirely different from the compilation of a national list of protected buildings; and, of course, that could not give any opportunity for dealing with urgent cases. That is an entirely different matter, and must have been intended for ordinary compilation. I maintain that the owner should have the opportunity of making representations when he learns that his house has been put on the list.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I should like to support this Amendment. I remember that during the war, when I was Regional Commissioner for Scotland, I was asked to compile a list of buildings which should be protected in case of bombing or other enemy action. I had a list compiled by each county, and I found to my surprise that the counties differed very materially in their ideas of what was a building of historic interest. In one place a local town hall which had been built in 1870 was put on the list. Are we to have such lists published? So far as I can see we are to be kept in entire ignorance.
LORD MORRISON: I should not like to risk giving a definite answer on that point, but I will see that an answer is given before the Report stage.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Lord has based his argument on the possibility that buildings may be destroyed, and says that buildings must therefore be put on the list quickly; yet I cannot think of many buildings of historic value which would be destroyed by their owners. It

505
would be rather the other way about. My experience has been that hundreds and thousands of pounds have been expended on ancient buildings in Scotland to try to preserve them, and though the noble Lord bases his argument on the suggestion that buildings might be destroyed, I should think that would seldom happen. I think the argument is based on false premises.
LORD MORRISON: I think the noble Lord is probably right; that is why it is necessary to insert a provision to prevent this sort of thing happening.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29:
Control of Advertisements.
(3) Regulations made for the purposes of this section may make different provision with respect to different areas, and in particular may make special provision with respect to areas defined for the purposes of the regulations as areas of special control (being either rural areas or areas other than rural areas which appear to the Secretary of State to require special protection on grounds of amenity); and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision may prohibit the display in any such area of all advertisements, except advertisements of such classes, if any, as may be specified in the regulations.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to subsection (3):
"Provided that regulations made for the purposes of this section in respect of any area shall not impose any less restrictions than are imposed by any local enactment in force in that area on the appointed day."
The noble Earl said: This is a very short point. This Bill introduces a control of advertisements which should be welcome; but there are some people who have long had over advertisements a control more stringent than exists in other parts of the country, and than may exist even under this Bill. They are concerned lest regulations may be less stringent than those already in existence in their districts, and they want an assurance that that will not be so. I have in mind particularly the City of Edinburgh, which has always maintained a very high standard as regards advertisements, particularly in the main streets. The authorities there would welcome an assurance that the regulations imposed will lead to a control no
506
less stringent than exists now. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 7, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: This is indeed a difficult Amendment to resist, but at the same time I hope the noble Earl will not press it. It would be difficult, if not almost impossible, to reconcile it with the provisions of Clause 29 (5), which provides that certain existing advertisements may be exempted from control for certain specified periods after the date on which the regulations come into force. The intention is that there should be a general advertisement code applying to the country as a whole. In some respects this code will be stricter—say in areas of special amenity dealt with under Clause 29 (3)—than any existing code, but because of the difficulties I have mentioned, which would arise under Clause 29 (5), I am not able to accept the Amendment, and I hope the noble Earl will see his way to withdraw it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I have asked for an assurance, particularly in regard to one place, and there must be others of our cities which are also concerned that the restrictions shall not be less stringent than they are at the present.
LORD MORRISON: What the noble Earl is asking for is that there shall not be any less restrictions than at present, and I would point out that I intended my argument to show that there would be very great difficulty because of the proviso in Clause 29 (5), in tying ourselves down to the appointed day. There may be long-term contracts and other circumstances which would make it very difficult.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Would the noble Lord accept the Amendment if I said "before the appointed day"?
LORD MORRISON: If between now and the Report stage the noble Earl can think of a way in which the difficult. I have indicated could be avoided I will certainly consider it. I cannot make arty promise to accept it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: In view of what the noble Lord says, I beg leave, to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31:
Powers relating to ruinous or dilapidated buildings, waste land, etc.
31.—(1) Where it appears to the local planning authority that the amenity of any land is seriously injured by reason of the ruinous or dilapidated condition of any building in their district or by the condition of any derelict, waste, neglected or other land in their district, then, subject to any directions given by the Secretary of State, the authority may serve on the owner, on the lessee and on the occupier of the building or land a notice requiring such steps for abating the injury as may be specified in the notice to be taken within such period as may be so specified:
Provided that no such notice may be served with reference to any building which is—

(a) a building which is the subject of a scheme or order under the enactments for the time being in force with respect to ancient monuments, or

(b) a building for the time being included in a list of monuments published by the Minister of Works under any such enactment as aforesaid.

(2) In relation to any notice served under this Section the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) of Section twenty-one of this Act, and of subsections (1), (2) and (5) of Section twenty-two of this Act shall, subject to any necessary modifications, apply as those provisions apply in relation to an enforcement notice served under the said Section twenty-one.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "waste, neglected or other," and insert "or waste." The noble Duke said: This Amendment and the one following are closely linked. They have to do with powers relating partly to derelict and waste land. There is still much doubt as to the working of Clause 31. The land in question is ex hypothesi incapable of beneficial use; nevertheless, local planning authorities are given powers to require the owner to take steps for abating any injury to the amenities on land which may be required. It is easy to see that under this clause conditions might be imposed which would be unreasonable and onerous, especially in areas of declining industrial activity, which might impose upon any individual a very serious and unreasonable expense. It follows, therefore, that the category of the land itself should be more carefully defined and that safeguards against un, reasonable requirements should be included. The original words "waste or
508
other land" were amended on Report in the case of the other Bill to "derelict, waste, neglected or other land," which has the advantage of bringing the word "other" under the rule ejusdem generis. Nevertheless, the term "neglected" appears still unduly wide, and I would ask the Minister if he would try to confine it somewhat. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 41, leave out from ("derelict") to ("land") in line 42 and insert "or waste."—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thoroughly approve of this clause as it stands; I think it is a very valuable one, particularly in certain areas. I do think, however, that it requires some slight restriction, and that we ought to make it rather less wide. This is an extremely reasonable Amendment, giving reasonable, shall I say, appeal to the sheriff in certain circumstances.
LORD MORRISON: If I am right, the effect of the Amendment which the noble Duke has moved would be to limit the authority's powers to derelict or waste land. He wants to exclude the words other land." As the noble Duke knows, the clause as it was originally drafted referred only to "waste or other land." There was an Opposition Amendment in another place to omit the reference to "other" land. This was withdrawn on an undertaking being given to examine the wording; and following on this the present expression—that is, "derelict, waste, neglected or other land"—was substituted by a Government Amendment on Report stage in another place. "Other land" in the context is land of a similar description to derelict, waste or neglected land. I am advised that it would not be feasible to delete altogether any reference to "other land" as injury to amenity might welt arise through the failure of an owner to look after land which was of the same sort as derelict, waste or neglected land, but which could not be said to come within these precise categories. It is a small point, but perhaps the noble Duke would not desire to press it.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I am pleased to hear

509
the observations with which I would like to conform. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that the sheriff, in considering an appeal under this section, shall satisfy himself that the requirements of the notice do not exceed what is reasonably necessary for preserving the amenity of the land referred to in subsection (1) and shall also satisfy himself that the cost of complying with such requirements is reasonable having regard to the value of the land to which the notice relates."
The noble Duke said: The accompanying Amendment is to provide a safeguard by directing the sheriff to take into account not only questions of fact but also the reasonableness of the notice in relation to the value of the land and the situation of the owner, and by importing the provisions of Clause 17 which enable an owner to enforce a local planning authority to acquire his land if that authority's action has made it incapable of beneficial use. The safeguard is not free from objections and it might lead to objections by local planning authorities with large areas of industrially devastated land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 42, line 14, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
LORD MORRISON: An Amendment similar to this was also discussed and was withdrawn in another place after discussion; the first part of it, I am advised, is unnecessary, as this is already secured by the application of Clause 21, subsection (4). It is also undesirable to concede the second point of the Amendment, because it would mean that an owner who had neglected his land and allowed it to become an eyesore and to injure the amenity of other land could not be required to abate the injury if the cost of doing so were high in relation to the value of the land. Thus, if the value of a piece of land were small the owner could probably be required to remedy only minor nuisances and not major ones. In other words, the greater the neglect and dilapidation, the less chance would there be of the owner being compelled to remedy it. This is a principle which could not be accepted. It would be particularly objectionable in rural areas of high amenity but low land
510
value. In these circumstances, I regret that I am not able to accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Referring, to one point which the noble Lord has made, he said we ought to look at it more closely; he refers to Clause 21.
LORD MORRISON: Clause 21, subsection (4), and it is also necessary to look at Clause 31, subsection (2).
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Clause 21, subsection (4) has nothing to do will it at all. It refers to planning permission and conditions before development. This is to deal with derelict and waste laid. Accordingly, appeal to the sheriff under Clause 21 has no application to this. The noble Lord has also referred to Clause 31, but I am afraid at the moment I do not know what it contains. I do not quite understand the application when it refers to rural areas. I understood that it was primarily to do with what I might describe as derelict sites in urban or semi. urban areas. It is so vague; it does not give us any idea of what is required. So far as one can see, from what the noble Lord has said, there is no limit to what the local authority may demand the proprietor of this land to do.
As the section stands at present there is no limit to what can be demanded by way of improved amenity—it may be only a safeguard against growing roses on a coal-shed. That is what seems to tie unreasonable. I press this because it is thoroughly sound. We want to see this derelict position cleared up. We would welcome it. It is reasonable that there should be some limit, because sometimes local authorities get a little excited over some small matter, and perhaps put an undue emphasis on it and require more than is really reasonable in the circumstances.
LORD MORRISON: I am sorry if I have misled the noble Earl; it was my desire not to have these proceedings too prolonged. When I referred to Clause 21, subsection (4) of the Bill, I said that it was necessary to look at Clause 30, subsection (2) which says:
"In relation to any notice served under this section the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) of Section twenty-one of this Act, and of subsections (1), (2) and (5) of Section twenty-two of this Act shall, subject to any necessary modifications, apply as those provisions apply in relation to an enforcement notice serve] under the said Section twenty-one."
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to subsection (2):
"and the provisions of Section seventeen of this Act shall, subject to any necessary modifications, apply as those provisions apply to a refusal of planning permission under the said Section seventeen."
The noble Earl said: In many respects this is much the same question. What I understand, if I may possibly pick up this argument where we left it, is that in fact the noble Lord considers that an appeal does lie to the sheriff, although the paragraph which is referred to has no direct bearing on this class or category of appeal; is that right? If the noble Lord says that there is appeal to the sheriff, then I cannot say that I am very worried.
Then there arises this other question, that there should be an application of Clause 17. Clause 17 is a clause which deals with the position when there is no reasonable beneficial use, and I am bound to say that what seems to me the best solution in most cases is that the local authority should take it over and properly develop it. That could be done, I think, most satisfactorily under Clause 17. I, therefore, suggest that Clause r7 should be shown to apply there in certain circumstances. The two things run together, but the sort of point which I have in mind is not, shall I say, lack of amenity by permission; it is rather a lack of amenity by ownership. I am not suggesting damaging rural land but omitting to look after good urban land. You cannot clear it up by a little tidying up. It means redevelopment, and that is better done under Clause 17. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 14, at end add the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: I am sorry that I must again resist the noble Earl's Amendment because it would be quite inappropriate to apply Clause 17 automatically in the case of land in respect of which a notice has been served under Clause 31. The land to which Clause 31 applies may already be developed; there may be buildings on the land or it may be wholly unsuitable for development. If the land can
512
reasonably be developed or re-developed, it is open to the owner at any time to apply for the necessary planning permission and, if that permission is refused, to take action in appropriate cases under Clause 17. To a certain extent, therefore, the noble Earl will see that his Amendment is not necessary. In reply to his opening question; I am informed that there is an appeal to the sheriff; I can give him that definite assurance.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I understand that in point of fact Clause 17 does apply in appropriate cases. That satisfies me entirely so far as that goes. Going back, however, I am not satisfied how the appeal to the sheriff can be effective in entirely different circumstances. I am going to ask the noble Lord if he will be good enough to look at that point, because I am not satisfied about it. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Application to local authorities and statutory undertakers]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The proposed Amendment to this clause is just another Amendment dealing with the powers of the Secretary of State in regard to planning, and I do not propose to move it. I have already discussed at considerable length these powers of the Secretary of State in regard to directing planning in Scotland in reference to other Government Departments.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34:
Compulsory acquisition by Ministers, local planning authorities and statutory undertakers.
(4) The Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, shall apply to the compulsory acquisition of land under this section, and accordingly shall have effect—
(c) as if references therein to the Minister of Transport and to the enactments specified in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section one of that Act included respectively references to any Minister and to the provisions of this section.
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 38, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947—).—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (4), to insert:
"Provided that section two of the said Act (which confers temporary powers for the speedy acquisition of land in urgent cases) shall not apply to the compulsory acquisition of land under this section, except in so far as it applies thereto by virtue of enactments other than this Act."
The noble Duke said: This Amendment deals with compulsory acquisition, Certain of the authorities which may be authorized to acquire land for the purposes of Clause 34 already, under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act of 1946, have powers of speedy procedure. The effect of the clause as it stands is to extend those powers to all other types of acquiring authority, and, in particular, to statutory undertakers. This looks to be a breach of the pledges which were given on the passing of the Authorization Procedure Act, that the procedure was required only in cases of the greatest urgency, either for social reasons, such as housing, or for industrial development. Would it not be more appropriate, if tile Government desire to extend these powers, that they should do so by an Amendment of the Act, and not incidentally to the provisions of this Bill? I hope the Amendment will be helpful, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 7, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I should like to support my noble friend in this Amendment. Day after day we are being confronted with new legislation which wrests from us things which belong to us. But it is not only the act of doing this, it is what I call the nasty way of doing it. Very often now an owner of some land, or whatever it may be, learns after the act has been clone that his land or his property, or whatever it may be, has been taken away from him, and he really gets no opportunity of putting his case, because the local authority, or whatever the authority may be, having once got it in their possession, will not give it up. Any number of appeals has no effect
514
whatsoever. Here is a clause which my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch is objecting to because, as he has said, and I have tried to supplement his statement the local authority may come in and take this land or this property without properly consulting with the owner thereof. I feel that the whole system is wrong—there is very strong feeling being aroused, not only in Scotland but in England and all ever the place, by these acts of confiscation almost, which are going on every day, because you can have confiscation with compensation. There is not only confiscation without compensation or with very poor compensation, but there is confiscation with compensation, and that is what is happening all the time. I register a protest with my noble friend in this particular clause on that count, and I haw very great pleasure in supporting his Amendment.
LORD MORRISON: This particular point was discussed in another place, to the extent of no less than ten columns, and I was hoping that your Lordships might see your way to set an example to the other place in trying to transact business expeditiously, and, for that purpose, I was going to ask the noble Duke if he would be prepared to accept an assurance that the speedy procedure will be used very sparingly. In the great majority of cases normal procedure will be sufficient, and the only reason. for having the speedy procedure available is to meet the needs of real urgency. On that assurance perhaps the noble Duke would not wish the debate in the Committee to go to ten columns,
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: What is the point of extending it at all? A great many Departments have this already. As far as I can see, the only point is to extend it to statutory undertakings. Is that the point?
LORD MORRISON: Yes.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That means the Coal Board, the Electricity Board, and the Transport Commission. Is that at the real object of it?
LORD MORRISON: Yes.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is the object of it?
LORD MORRISON: To extend speedy procedure of purchase to other Government Departments, and to statutory undertakings.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Then I am bound to express this view: The Acquisition of Land (Scotland) Act was passed in 1947; it came through this House only a short time ago. Why was it not repealed at that time? It is a very potent question. The second thing I should say is, that in this Planning Act we are supposed to designate land for ten years. What do we want this urgent procedure for? I think that these things are discussed for ten columns because His Majesty's Government are unable to give one satisfactory answer. If they could do that it would not go to ten columns.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I should have liked to receive rather more information but, at any rate, it is useful to know what is the intention of this clause. I hope that the assurance will prove effective in future, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
5.48 p.m.
Clause 35:
Compulsory acquisition by local planning authorities 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 Secretary of State 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 local planning authority to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of this section.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved in subsection (2), to leave out "for a" and insert—
"(a) for any"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next one go together. This Bill as drafted contains no provisions corresponding to those contained in paragraphs (c) and (d) of Section to of the Act of 1945, which are repealed by the Bill as from the appointed day. Under these provisions the local planning authority may be authorized to acquire land compulsorily for the following purposes: (a) to provide an alternative site for a person who has been refused permission to de-
516
velop, (b) to provide means for a person who has been affected or bombed out of his house or business premises, and whose return to the area or to a particular part of the area would be inconsistent with the proper planning of the area. While the powers of compulsory acquisition given to local planning authorities under the Bill are sufficient to enable the provisions in question to be dispensed with after the development plan has become effective, it is necessary to keep these powers in paragraphs (c) and (d) alive until the development plan has become effective. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 31, leave out ("for a") and insert ("(a) for any").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 35, after ("enactment") insert:
("(b) for any other purpose for which, by virtue of paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection (1) of Section ten of the Act of 1945 a local planning authority could be authorised to acquire land before the appointed day.).—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: An Amendment similar to my next has already been moved several times. I think that it will be found generally acceptable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 45, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
5.51 p.m.
Clause 36:
Power to expedite completion of purchase under s. 35.
36.—(1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied, in the case of a compulsory purchase order submitted to him under the last foregoing Section by a local planning authority, that it is expedient to empower that authority to enter on the whole or any part of the land to which the order relates and secure its vesting in them before the expiration of the time which would be required for the service of notices to treat, he may include in the order as confirmed by him a direction that the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Act of 1945 shall apply to the order so far as it relates to that land:
Provided that no such direction shall be so included in a compulsory purchase order unless application in that behalf is included in the order as submitted to the Secretary of State.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "expedient" and insert "urgently necessary in the public interest." The noble Lord said: It may save your Lordships' time if I say that a similar Amendment of the English Bill was accepted on behalf of the Government in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 11, leave out ("expedient") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 40, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Power to acquire buildings of special architectural or historic interest]:
LORD MORRISON: These next Amendments in my name are either drafting or consequential Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 47, line 28, leave out ("required") and insert ("are not being taken");
Page 47, line 28, leave out ("maintaining") and insert ("preserving");
Page 47, line 29, leave out from first ("building") to first ("the") in line 30;
Page 47, line 34, leave out ("maintaining") and insert ("preserving");
Page 47, line 39, leave out ("required") and insert ("are not being taken");
Page 47, line 39, leave out ("maintaining") and insert ("preserving");
line 40, leave out from first ("building") to ("that") in line 41:
line 46, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to 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) (Scotland) Act:, 1947, apply to the sheriff for an order staying further proceedings on the compulsory purchase order, and if the Sheriff is satisfied
518
that reasonable steps are being or will be taker for properly maintaining the building he shall made an order accordingly.
Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Sheriff under this subsection may appeal against that decision to the Court of Session."
The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment which is designed to put this matter on all fours with what is in the English Bill. It simply allows that anyone whose house, being an ancient monument or of architectural or historic interest, is acquired, may have an appeal or may present his case before the sheriff. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, to accept this Amendment. I do not propose to say any more about it now, as I understand that the noble Lord will probably ref H. this to the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 9, at end insert the said sub-section.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: The noble Earl is quite correct. A similar Amendment was made in the English Bill, but the drafting of the noble Earl's Amendment has to be considered in relation to Scotland, particularly as there are other provisions in the Bill regarding appeals to the Court of Session. I will certainly have this considered before the Report stage, if tin noble Earl will withdraw it now, and will bring the matter up again then.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank tin noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.55 p.m.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to add to the clause:
"(5) Where any building as respects which a building preservation order is in force is acquired by a local planning authority under the provisions of this section the authority shall observe the provisions of that order.'
The noble Lord said: This Amendment covers the next Amendment which is in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie. I think he will agree that, substantially, it covers his point. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that a local planning authority who acquire a building of special architectural or historic interest, as respects which a building preservation order is in force, with the object of maintaining the building, shall not themselves do anything to the build-

519
ing which would be contrary to the provisions of the building preservation order. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 18, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Perhaps it would be in order if I spoke upon this and upon my Amendment at the same time. I should like to be able to say that I thought that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, covers my point but I do not think that it does at all. The point that we feel strongly is that local authorities should be obliged to maintain a building of which compulsory acquisition has taken place. The Amendment to which the noble Lord has just referred, which was accepted by the Government in the English Bill, is really inadequate because it refers only to buildings already subject to a preservation order. However, the local authority have power, by subsection (4), to acquire buildings in respect of which a preservation order not merely is in force but can be made. We feel, therefore, that it is not unreasonable that there should be an obligation on the acquiring authority to preserve the buildings, and that that obligation should apply to all acquisitions under this section.
LORD MORRISON: My difficulty in regard to the noble Earl's Amendment is that it would mean that a local planning authority would have to preserve in all time coming any building acquired by them and would never be free to demolish or alter it, even though this might be necessary in the interests of public health or safety. I think that the noble Earl would agree that I have substantially met his Amendment.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: But you are allowing the local authority to get away with not maintaining certain buildings upon which compulsory acquisition has taken place. That seems to me to be the unfair part of it.
LORD MORRISON: If I am allowed to speak again with the permission of the Committee, may I say that the noble Earl's Amendment would in fact impose upon a local planning authority more onerous conditions than those resting on
520
the owner of the building in respect of which a preservation order has been made?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK: moved to insert:
"(5) Where an authorisation under this section relates to a house in respect of which a clearance order or a demolition order under Section sixteen of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 593o, has been made, that order shall be of no effect.
"The noble Earl said: In the course of the Committee stage in another place the Lord Advocate made a remarkable statement. He said—and it applies particularly to certain houses—that where a demolition order under the 193o Act has been made there is no means of stopping it. A demolition order may very well include an area in which there are houses of architectual interest such as are described here. I am suggesting that it will be greatly for the benefit of those interested in planning and interested in the working of this Bill, when it becomes an Act that there shall be some limitation, some means of getting out of the automatic provisions of the 193o Act. I suggest that the Amendment which I am proposing will be a very easy way out. As the Committee will see, it sets out that:
"Where an authorisation order under this section relates to a house in respect of which a clearance order or a demolition order under Section sixteen of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, has been made, that order shall be of no effect."
I suggest that this Amendment would be of value.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 18, at end add the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: The noble Earl said correctly that this Amendment was fully discussed and the Lord Advocate gave an undertaking to reconsider the provisions of the clause as it stands. It has not been found possible to give effect to the principle of the Amendment. Clearance orders are orders made under the Housing Acts requiring the demolition of all dwelling houses in an area because they are unfit for human habitation, or because by reason of their bad arrangement, narrowness of streets, etc., they are injurious or dangerous to health. The whole object of a clearance order is to

521
secure the complete demolition of all houses in an area so that it may be developed afresh. A demolition order under the Housing Acts is made only where a house is unfit for human habitation and cannot be rendered fit at reasonable expense.
Where a clearance order or a demolition order has been made there is no alternative to the demolition of the building as this is essential in the interests of health. In these circumstances it would not be appropriate to make a preservation order in respect of any such building. The noble Earl may be anxious to ensure that demolition orders or clearance orders are not made in respect of any house which is already the subject of a building preservation order. This is a desirable object, provided the necessary arrangements can be made for rehousing the people occupying the house. It is most improbable that a demolition order would be made in respect of any house in respect of which a building preservation order was in force. Clause 38 (1) is being amended to provide that the Secretary of State shall compile lists of buildings of architectural or historic interest and a copy of such list so far as it relates to the district of any local planning authority must be sent to the local planning authority.
It may be desirable, however, to provide that copies of such lists should also be sent to the housing authority, the authority with power to make clearance and demolition orders, if that authority is not the local planning authority. And I am ready to agree to put down an Amendment on Report, or the noble Earl can do so, whichever he desires, providing for this. This Amendment would ensure that the housing authority would in all cases know of all buildings in their district which were regarded as being of architectural or historic interest and they would then consult with the local planning authority before taking any steps for the making of demolition orders or clearance orders. I hope this promise will go some way towards meeting the point of the noble Lord's Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am a little astonished to find the reluctance with which the noble Lord accepts any Amendment whatsoever. This is simply in the interests of the Bill. It enables the continued action of the Housing (Scotland)
522
Act of 1930 to be stayed. Of course where there is a house of architectural or historic interest among buildings thoroughly dilapidated it cannot be made fit for human habitation at what is called reasonable expense. Everyone knows it is a very expensive business, but in some cases it is well worth while. There are plenty of examples. There is one place in Scotland full of this sort of stuff—the Royal Mile. I am riot sure the place has not been well planned at this present time, but mistakes might be made. For that reason it would be worth while to have something like this. The noble Lord says that actions such as this would not be appropriate. I really cannot see why it would not be appropriate or why it should be damaging to health. Here we have a contradiction. In Clause 27 the Secretary of State was in a tremendous hurry to get houses on his list. Nothing could stop him for a moment. And here in the case of a house of architectural interest he is not taking the necessary steps to get it altered. It seems to me the noble Lord has a certain reluctance to accept anything at all.
LORD MORRISON: The noble Earl knows well that the reluctance is not altogether attributable to me. I will certainly promise, because of the convincing case he has put up, to give this my personal attention. If it lies within my power to do something, I will get something done.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39.—[Power of local authority to appropriate certain land for planning purposes]:
LORD MORRISON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 29, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Acquisition of land by Central Land Board]:
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment makes it clear that a development for which land is disposed of must be development for which planning provision has been granted at the time of disposal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 13, after the first ("development") insert ("for which planning permission has been granted").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 27, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to add to the clause:
"(6) Provision may be made by regulations under this Act for requiring the Central Land Board to keep a register containing such particulars as may be prescribed by the regulations of land acquired and disposed of under this section, and for the inspection of any such register by the public on payment of such reasonable fee, if any, as may be so prescribed."
The noble Lord said: Under this Amendment the Central Land Board may be required by regulations to maintain a register of particulars of land acquired or disposed of by the Board and to make the register available for public inspection. The maintenance of the register by the Board was suggested by the Lord Chancellor during your Lordships' Report stage of the English Bill in the discussion on an Amendment by the Earl of Radnor that particulars of the Board's sales, etc., of land should be made available to the public. An Amendment similar to the present Amendment was made to the English Bill on its Third Reading in your Lordships' House.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sure I welcome the Amendment in principle but there is another question of principle at which I must ask the noble Lord to look. Never before has there been a register of land in Scotland in Somerset House or in England at all. There is an entirely separate register in the Register House. I ask that the register should be kept separate, and where is the register to be maintained? Is it intended that this separate register should be kept in Somerset House?
LORD MORRISON: I cannot give any indication, but I will make inquiry and let the noble Lord know.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It will be in Scotland, I take it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 40, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask where this register is to be kept—in London, in the Register House in Edinburgh, or where?
LORD MORRISON: I have no definite information, but I would be very surprised if it is not going to be kept in Scotland. That seems to be the proper place for it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: If it is not going to be kept in Scotland, can there be a copy of it. Or can we have the original in Scotland and a copy in England?
LORD MORRISON: If I find it is not going to be kept in Scotland I will let the noble Viscount know and he can raise the point. I have just been informed that it will be certainly kept in Scotland.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Amendment of 9 & 10 Geo. 6. c.49 in relation to acquisition of land under Part III]:
LORD MORRISON: I have three drafting Amendments to this clause. I beg to move the first.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 29, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.10 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved in subsection (1) after "the" ["the provisions"], to insert "general". The noble Lord said: The last time I tried to introduce similar words into a clause—in other words, to generalize it—I am afraid I met with singularly little success, and I cannot say I am very optimistic in attempting it here. However, the point is this. One of the provisions of this clause is that the Secretary of State may disregard objections made by the owner to the compulsory acquisition of his land after that land has been designated. I quite agree that once the development plan has been passed and the objections to that have

525
been heard it is right that the Secretary of State should not be bothered with objections to his general development plan. But I feel that there may be objections to points of detail concerned with the acquisition of the land to which the Secretary of State ought to listen. The sort of case I have in mind is this. To take an agricultural example, supposing an area of a farm is designated as being within the area of a development scheme, and three years later the authority promoting the scheme decide they want to build some houses on part of the farm. Suppose they did not require the whole of it, but only part of it, and it did not matter to them which part they took. In that case I think it would be right that the owner should be able to make representations to say: "From ray point of view, you should take this part as it will do less harm to my farm." If the word "general" is inserted in this subsection it will mean that the Secretary of State will have to give some attention to the small points of detail. I think it is right that they should be listened to when it comes to the actual acquisition of the land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 35, after first ("the") insert ("general").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD MORRISON: The noble Lord is certainly presistent in his efforts to find better words. The only thing I can say in reply to this effort is that I am advised that the word "general" is far too wide. I would, however, make a sporting offer to the noble Lord. If between now and Report stage he can think of a word or words better than "general," I shall be quite willing to look into the point again.
THE EARL. OF SELKIRK: I would like to ask one question on this matter. It is not clear to me from the wording of this Bill whether it is the intention that when land is designated the Secretary of State can dispense with all objections. It says in this clause: "to an objection to the provisions of the development." With great respect, what does the Secretary of State expect to have objections to, except "to the provisions of the development"? It is the development we are considering. The only thing one would object to would be the provisions of the development. At first I thought it meant that he did riot want to have objections to what might be called the general pro-
526
visions of the scheme, but would not mind hearing objections to something which affected only a portion of it. But when I read it again it seemed to indicate that one could have no objections to any part of the scheme whatsoever. If that is so, at least we know where we are, but I think it is most undesirable that objections to a scheme should be completely cut out by what amounts to the process of designation.
LORD MORRISON: I think there are plenty of things to which objection might be taken. Objection might be taken to the time; objection might be taken to the plan; and objection might be taken to the land. Those are three things to be going on with, to which objections might be taken.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: Would the noble Lord object to the word "specific"?
LORD MORRISON: As I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, I am advised that the word "general" is far too wide, but possibly he may find another word before Report stage which I can consider.
LORD POLWARTH: I thank the noble Lord for his statement, and I will endeavour to be more successful in my draftsmanship before the next stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON: The next two Amendments are consequential Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 51, line 46, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947").
Page 51, line 11, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947").— (Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to.
Clause 45:
Construction and improvement of private streets, etc.
(2) In relation to any such land as aforesaid situated in the landward area of a county the provisions of Sections one hundred and thirty-three to one hundred and thirty-five, Sections one hundred and thirty-seven to one hundred and forty-three, Sections one

527
hundred and fifty, one hundred and fifty-one and one hundred and fifty-four of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, and the provisions of Sections sixteen to twenty-two of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, Dm (which relate to private streets, the laying out of new streets and the improvement of streets), shall apply, subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be necessary, as if the land were a street to which those provisions apply.
6.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved in subsection (2) to leave out "subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be necessary." The noble Earl said: This is a very simple Amendment. Clause 45 says that Police Acts in Scotland—it refers to the Act of 1892 and the Act of 1903—may be made "subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be necessary." This is a question of giving discretionary power to modify a Statute, albeit a local Statute; still, it is giving complete power, and it does not, as a matter of fact, make it quite clear as to who has that power. I would like to ask the noble Lord whether he can say, roughly, what the intention is. Is it really necessary to use words as wide as this? Is it necessary to use words which mean that Statutes can be modified to an unlimited extent? Surely that is not the intention of a local Act of Parliament, or any other Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 25, leave out from ("apply") to second ("as") in line 26.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: If the noble Lord will accept a short answer, I can assure him that there is no intention at all of making any material alteration to these applied provisions, which is what the word "necessary" is intended to indicate.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If there is no intention to make any but minor essential alterations, I think it should be more narrowly circumscribed. I think the drafting here is very loose, and might lead to what would certainly be very extensive changes, to which there would he no challenge of any sort or kind.
LORD MORRISON: I will look into that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46:
Power to stop up and divert highways, etc.
46.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Section twenty-two of the Act of 1945, as incorporated with this Act, or Section three of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, the Minister of Transport may, if he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in order to enable development to be carried out in accordance with planning permission or to be carried out by a government department, by order made in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Act authorise the stopping up or diversion of any highway.
LORD MORRISON: I beg to move the three consequential Amendments to Clause 46.
Amendments moved—
Page 55, line 15, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947").
Page 55, line 42, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947").
Page 57, line 7, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved in subsection (1) to leave out "or to be carried out by a Government Department." The noble Earl said: I am moving this Amendment really to ask why, in fact, these words are necessary. Why is it necessary for the Minister of Transport to say "in accordance with planning permission or to be carried out by a Government Department"? I would like to know whether "to be carried out by a Government Department" is a contradiction of "in accordance with planning permission." I do not know whether it is intended that that should be so or not, but that is what it appears to be. I do not think it is good legislation or that it is really what the noble Lord wants.
LORD MORRISON: I am not sure whether the noble Earl fears that the Minister of Transport's order may facilitate development not in accordance with the development plan, but if that is his point, the answer is that while Government Departments are not subject to planning control, there are well established arrangements under which the planning implication of Government Departments' development proposals are carefully examined in consultation with the local planning authorities. All proposals for

529
developments in Scotland by Government Departments are communicated to the Secretary of State's Department, who examines them from the planning point of view and discusses them with the local planning authorities. This ensures that any planning difficulties are threshed out at the very earliest stage. If there were any difference of opinion between the Secretary of State and another Minister as to whether any development by the Minister should be allowed to proceed, the matter would be determined by the Cabinet in the ordinary way. The provision which the Amendment proposes to delete is also contained in the English Bill, and I hope the noble Lord will not press it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will the noble Lord say what that includes? Is that every kind of Government Department which may be doing work anywhere?
LORD MORRISON: Every Department under a Minister.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not propose to press this Amendment. I am bound to say that the organization which the noble Lord has outlined is very much what I have been trying to press should be adopted. In fact, I think it is within the knowledge of noble Lords that the procedure is not always carried out. It is quite clear that all communications are not passed on to the Secretary of State's office, nor does his office communicate with the local planning authority. Separate Government Departments deal directly with planning authorities, which I think is to the detriment of good planning. It is really the same point that I made before, and I will not repeat it. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
6.23 p.m.
Clause 48 [Compensation for compulsory acquisition after appointed day]:
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment and the next are in substance drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 8, leave out ("where") and insert ("(a) where").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 10, leave out from ("in") to ("has") in line 11 and insert ("Part If of the said Third Schedule").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 13, after ("conditions") insert ("and compensation has become payable in respect of the refusal, revocation, or conditions, as the case may be, under Section eighteen of this Act").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 17, at end insert:
("(b) where at any time before the said date an order has been made under Section twenty-four 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-five 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 Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
("4. Without prejudice to any rule of law affecting the assessment of compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition of land 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: The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that when designated land is compulsorily acquired any depreciation in value resulting from designation is ignored in the assessment of compensation. A similar Amendment to this was proposed to your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, on the Report stage of the English Bill and that Amendment was accepted by .be Lord Chancellor. It is therefore desirable to bring the Scottish Bill into line. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 17, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to thank the noble Lord for this Amendment, which is a very valuable one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 22, leave out ("unless") and insert ("except where").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
6.26 p.m.
Clause 49:
Temporary provisions for eliminating special value attributable to vacant possession.
49.—(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 (that is to say, agricultural land or agricultural buildings or a farmhouse as defined in this section) the value of that interest shall be calculated as if the land, or that part thereof, as the case may be, were subject to a lease for the term, subject to the conditions and at the rent specified in this section.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (1), after "section," where that word first occurs, to insert "or the interest to be acquired is the interest of an owner-occupier of a building." The noble Earl said: This Amendment aims at putting the owner-occupier in the same position as an agricultural holder. If his house is taken over at market value it gives him at least a reasonable chance of being able to get other accommodation because he will have a reasonably good price. It is admitted, and I think it is fairly well known, that a notional lease to 1954 means a price well under market value, and this is particularly the case in Scotland because under 10 per cent. of residential properties leased are so leased at an economic rent. The result of that is the astonishing incidence of Scottish rates.
Perhaps I may put it very briefly in another way. In order to avoid paying to a landlord for property compulsorily acquired the current high prices of vacant accommodation, this clause provides that such property shall be acquired at a figure based upon the rent which could be
532
reasonably expected from it over the next seven years. For the owner of this property it represents an investment and it is perhaps not quite so unjust—in fact, I suppose it is in a way just. But it does operate very unjustly against an owner-occupier who is actually deprived of his property at a lower price than that which he will have to pay to reinstate himself when he gets kicked out and has to find similar accommodation. I think no attempt was made either on the Report stage of the Scottish Bill in another place, or in your Lordships' House on the corresponding provision of the English Bill, to maintain that the application of the notional lease to an owner-occupier does not involve real hardship. It is for that reason that I bring this point forward and trust that His Majesty's Government will consider it favourably. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 13, after ("section") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
LORD MORRISON: I am sorry to say that I must definitely reject the noble Earl's Amendment. It has already been fully discussed by the Scottish Grand Committee, where it was negatived, and on the Report stage in another place it was defeated on a Division. I am afraid I can only repeat that the Government see no reason for changing their opinion. It would not be possible to exclude actual owner-occupiers from the notional lease provisions without making concessions to other people. The Government would be inevitably driven, as they were in the 1945 Act, to extend the concession to other persons; that is to say, the owner of war damaged property intending to reoccupy it as soon as he can rebuild, and the returning soldier or civil servant intending to reoccupy as soon as the short lease which he granted in his absence and expired. Yet those cases include many for whom the concession would not be justified, and to whom the payment of full current value, including value for the right to give vacant possession, would afford an unreasonable profit since it would be difficult to administer a law which required the intention of a person to be established. The owner occupier's case is not one which can he met in present circumstances by monetary compensation.
The real need is to provide, where practicable, alternative accommodation for the

533
owner occupier before he is displaced; in fact there is often an obligation on the acquiring authority to provide such accommodation—for example, Section 18 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, and Section 29 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, as incorporated with this Bill. In any event the new basis of compensation, even as modified by the application of the notional lease provisions, provides for owner occupiers more favourable compensation than they receive under the existing basis of 1939 value plus a maximum supplement of 6o per cent. of that value. I am sorry if I have not satisfied the noble Earl, but I have no authority to go any further.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I agree with the noble Lord when he says that monetary compensation is not enough. That argument was used with great vigour against the Government in the discussion about a haulier with only one lorry. It was pointed out that the Government were taking away the man's livelihood and offering him some cash—inadequate to give him back his livelihood. But I am rather doubtful whether the effect on the capital value of a house of the incidence of Scottish rates is quite appreciated. His Majesty's Government will surely not deny that they are doing an injury. They also open the door to the possibility of doing a lot more damage. What I am asking is, do the Government appreciate how much damage they are doing? Does the noble Lord appreciate what the value of a house as an investment is compared with the value of vacant occupation? This is a very important point, because it amounts to only about one-third of the value of vacant occupation if you buy a house as an investment.
Nobody in Scotland would invest money, if they could help it, in residential property, because it is an extremely bad investment owing to the incidence of Scottish rates. It is suggested in Clause 49 that the investor will get from his investment 5 per cent. or a rent which ever is the less. But what is the value of a house to-day? You will not get a house anywhere for less than £1,000, and for vacant occupation not less than £1,500. What rent would you expect from that? His Majesty's Government have said ten shillings a week, £26 a year. What do you do with owner's rates? You do one
534
of two things. You either take them off, in which case you bring the free rent to £15 a year; that: would mean that you have got left a capital value of possibly £300—against a house which cost £1,000. Suppose you put on owner's rates, that is £26 a year. You would have to raise the rent to £48 a year. You then get a capital value of about £500 and the owner of the house would have to pay the owner-occupier's rates.
Damage is being done under this clause. To what extent are His Majesty's Government prepared to go in that matter? The value of this residential lease means that you reduce capital value in order to meet the exorbitant prices of the day; or your replacement value is one-third—or slightly above one-third. It is wrong that a man who has spent to the extent of £1,000 should receive in fact only £300. I do not think that this point has been put at any stage of the discussion before but it is an important one because it represents the wide difference between a house as somewhere to live and a house as an investment.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I cannot say that the noble Lord opposite makes me very happy. I was sweating; now I am in a cold sweat. The noble Lord does not deny that the Government are doing an injury to a man. The Government say that the case is not met by monetary compensation but must be met by alternative accommodation. What hope have you got of getting alternative accommodation in these days to offer anybody? You might as well order a man a pound of butter a day. He would get nothing. I do not see that: the Government have done anything at all, but in the circumstances I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Compensation or compulsory acquisition of land attracting converted value> payments]:
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 6, after ("under") insert ("paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON 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: This new subsection is necessary in order to deal with a technical point which has come to light in working out a new Clause 53. Similar Amendments were made in the English Bill in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 20, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Compensation for compulsory acquisition after passing of this Act and before the appointed day]:
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 7, leave out ("the service of").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
6.38 p.m.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, after Clause 52, to insert the following new clause:
Special provisions as to war-damaged land where compensation assessed by reference to cost of equivalent re-instatement.
"53.—(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

(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

(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)
536
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 puruance 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 new clause is required in order to deal with a highly technical point which has just come to light in relation to the compulsory acquisition of war damaged properties covered by Rule (5) of Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, that is, properties devoted to purposes of a kind attracting no general market demand (schools, town halls, police stations, etc.). A similar clause was included in the English Bill on the Report stage in your Lordships' House. Rule (5) directs that in such cases, since the market value cannot be ascertained, the compensation on compulsory acquisition is to be

537
the reasonable cost of equivalent reinstatement. Clause 50 of the Bill provides that, in the case of any 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, and 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. The present new clause links together these two conceptions in the case of "Rule (5)" properties which have suffered "costs of works" damage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 52 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am advised that this clause is very fair and very reasonable. I propose to say nothing more about it. I thank the noble Lord for it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 53 to 55 agreed to.
Clause 56:
Establishment of claims for payments.
(3) A claim for a payment under a scheme made under this Part of this Act may be made in respect of any interest in land being the interest of the superior, or of the creditor in a ground annual, or of the person who is the proprietor of the dominium utile or, in the case of land other than feudal land, is the owner of the land, or of the lessee under a lease.
(4) Subject as hereinafter provided, a claim for a payment under a scheme made under this Part of this Act may be made in respect of such land as the claimant thinks fit, and different claims may be made in respect of the interest of the same person in different parcels of land:
Provided that the Central Land Board may direct that any two or more claims in respect of the interest of the same person in different parcels of land shall be dealt with together and treated as if they were one claim in respect of the interest of that person in the whole of the land included in the claims.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (3), after "annual" to insert "or of any person having a heritable security over the land." The noble Duke said: I move this Amendment very briefly. I assume that it must be by an oversight that those who have a heritable security over land have been excluded from the category of those who may apply for compensation for loss of development values. I feel sure that the Government will wish to
538
make good this omission and to include this point in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 40, after ("annual") insert ("or of any person having a heritable security over the land").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
LORD MORRISON: I am advised that this Amendment would appear to be unnecessary, as the rights of heritable creditors are adequately protected by Clause 54, subsection (4), of the Bill. That clause specifically provides that the Treasury scheme for the distribution of the £300,000,000 may apply the provisions of Section 24 of the War Damage Act, 1943. This enables the scheme to provide for payments to be made to heritable creditors in appropriate cases. The Treasury scheme of distribution wit. be subject to affirmative resolutions so that there will be full opportunity for Parliament to examine the detailed provisions and to satisfy itself that the right; of heritable securities have been adequately protected. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will not desire to press his Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: If that is so, and if it is already covered, there is no need for the Amendment. However, I would like to make sure about this, and, if I find that something further is required, I would like the opportunity of bringing it up again.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I must say I do not quite follow this point. This is in regard, if I may say so, to a passage which relates to the rights of heritable creditors, but the clause to which this Amendment applies says this:
"A claim for a payment under a scheme … may be made in respect of"—
the following people. It is not exclusive; it does not exclude heritable creditors. I feel there may be some reason for it, but I do not think it is the reason which the noble Lord has given.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, in the proviso to subsection (4), after "land" ["parcels of land "] to insert "in the

539
same neighbourhood." The noble Lord said: This is another point on which I am certain there is no difference in substance between the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, and myself; it is again a case of apparent inability on the part of the Government to find words in which to express themselves. This clause concerns itself with the payment of compensation to landowners for loss that they may have suffered. As drafted, the clause enables the Central Land Board, when assessing the amount of compensation, to aggregate together all the different pieces of land which the owner may possess throughout the whole of Scotland. I agree that it is absolutely reasonable that, where those pieces of land are near to each other in the same county, or even in adjacent counties, it is right that they should be aggregated together, but we do not know how the terms of compensation are going to be assessed. We have no idea yet; they are to be assessed in a manner prescribed by regulation. It may well be that compensation will vary with the amount of land owned by an owner; it may well be that the small landowner will he considered more deserving, and he may get a larger whack in proportion than the landowner with very large estates. In that case, surely, it is only fair that, if the proprietor has his estates at the opposite ends of the country, they should not be assessed together but assessed separately. Where the estates are close together, then they might be assessed together. That being the case, I suggest that the words which I propose would meet that case—"in the same neighbourhood." I know that another Amendment to the same effect was turned down in another place but I ask the noble Lord whether he will consider this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 3, after ("land") insert ("in the same neighbourhood").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD MORRISON: I was hoping that I would be able to say to the noble Lord that the third time was lucky, but unfortunately I cannot. I can only say this: that he might agree either to leave the clause as it stands or, between now and Report stage, to address himself to the task of trying to find some more apt expression which would not be open to the same objection as the words "in the
540
same neighbourhood." The Amendment, as he has indicated, is an adaptation of an Amendment which was discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee and again in another place. As a result of the undertakings which were then given, very full consideration has again been given to two expressions: "contiguous or adjacent parcels of land" (which was in the original Amendment), and "different parcels in the same locality." These two expressions and that suggested by the noble Lord now, "in the same neighbourhood," are all open to the same objection—namely, that they are too indefinite in meaning and would give rise to disputes and widespread litigation as to what was technically " in the same locality or neighbourhood "or technically" adjacent or contiguous." I assure the noble Lord that there is no desire to provoke a large amount of litigation, which is already considerable in Scotland, and I hope he will think, between now and Report stage, of a better phrase.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Can we have just one objection to these words?
LORD MORRISON: The objection which I gave was that it would provoke much litigation. Perhaps that is an objection which would not appeal to the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord should have voted against the Second Reading of this Bill.
LORD POLWARTH: I had a feeling that I was not going to be successful on this point. I must say that I am not convinced, because it seems to me that it must be bad legislation if we are unable to express in it what we mean. There is no difference between the noble Lord and myself on this point, but if we cannot put it into words, then I say it is bad legislation. Bad legislation it must be. Therefore, with the reminder to the noble Lord that, even though it is the third time, there are quite a lot of other times and quite a lot of other Amendments and we may be more successful on another occasion, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57:
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 he taken of the provisions of this Act except in their application to that land.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (5), after "as the case may be," to insert "but not being restrictions or other matters taking effect by virtue of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Powers) Act, 1946, or the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, or by virtue of any orders or regulations made thereunder." The noble Earl said: This Amendment refers to the distinction between restricted and unrestricted values. We have already had an Amendment which Lord Morrison moved in regard to designation, that is to say, that value should not be affected by reasons attributable to designation. I am suggesting that the value of property should not be affected by reasons of any transient or urgent matters which were carried on during the war. I have given here a number of Statutes under which such operations might be carried out. I am not prepared to say that they are exclusive, but I suggest that anything that was raised or carried out under this Bill should not operate to the detriment of discovering the difference between restricted and unrestricted values. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 14, after ("be") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: The noble Earl and I have been very candid with each other throughout these proceedings, and as we are now getting near the time when we shall have some well-deserved refreshment, may I say straight away that I have definite instructions—the noble Lord will understand the position—to oppose this
542
Amendment as it was opposed and negatived in another place. I am not sue whether the noble Lord has fully appreciated that, in some cases, the Amendment would have the effect of decreasing the development value, which I do not think he desires. For example, the restricted value of a house with development value deferred for some years, taking the requisition into account, would be comparatively low. If the restriction were left out of account, and it were assumed that the house was immediately available for disposal with vacant possession, tie restricted value would be much higher and the development value lower in consequence. This result, which is clearly not sought by the noble Earl, would be unfair. I am sorry I am unable to argue the matter further; I can only say that I have very definite instructions that in no circumstances can I accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59:
Exclusion of small claims.
—(1) Without prejudice to any provisions which may be included in a scheme made under Section fifty-four of this Act for prescribing the cases in which payments are to be made thereunder, no such payment shall be male in respect of an interest in land unless

(a) the development value of that interest, when averaged over the area of the land, exceeds the rate of twenty pounds per acre: and

6.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) after "land" to insert "in respect of which a claim is made". The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment which was accepted in parallel circumstances on the English Bill. It refers to the de minimise claims in respect of £20. It was said that the limit of £20 affects only certain matters, and that it is "in respect of the claim made," and it cannot be levelled out over a large area. I do not propose to press this point. I would ask for it to be considered, and I will leave it, if necessary, to the Report stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 37, after ("land") insert ("in respect of which a claim is made").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: It will be a surprise to the noble Earl, but I am happy to say that I am prepared to accept this Amendment if the words proposed to be inserted are inserted after the word "land" in line 35, instead of in line 37. This would achieve the desired effect, and would be much more satisfactory from a drafting point of view.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am quite willing to accept that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 35, after ("land") insert ("in respect of which a claim is made ").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 60 to 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Levy of development charge in respect of certain developments]:
LORD MORRISON: The next is a similar Amendment to an Amendment made to the English Bill in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 26, after ("continued") insert ("except with the consent in writing of the Central Land Board").—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would like to thank the noble Lord for this very valuable Amendment. I appreciate it very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66:
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 uses carried out or begun at different periods.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved at the end of subsection (3), to insert:
"and such regulations shall provide that the amount of the said charge shall, having regard to the other 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 Earl said: This is a very remarkable Amendment because it was moved from the Opposition and accepted with applause from the Lord Chancellor. Whilst I would not expect the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, to show the same emotion, I hope that he may accept it. This Amendment, in effect, puts a statutory obligation of non-discrimination in certain cases of development charges. It was accepted in the English Bill, and I very much hope that the noble Lord will find" his way clear to accepting it in this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 3, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: As the noble Lord knows, I have not had an opportunity of considering this Amendment nor did I have any knowledge of it until a moment before I came into Committee. I am hopeful that I shall be able to meet the point. I do not wish to be definite now, but if it is brought up on Report stage I will do what I possibly can to satisfy him.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[The Sitting was suspended at four minutes before seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, before the House resolves itself into Committee, I am authorized to say that it is not intended to deal to-night with the business relating to the Transport Bill which is on the Order Paper.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
LORD MORRISON: The next Amendment to Clause 66 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 5, leave out ("by an order made").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to insert after subsection (4):
"(5) Any person aggrieved by any assessment or determination of the amount of a development charge may appeal to a Tribunal consisting of a member or members of the panel constituted under Part I of the Schedule to the War Damage (Valuation Appeals) Act, 1945, selected in accordance with the provisions of Part II of that Schedule, and the provisions of Part III of that Schedule shall in so far as they relate to appeals to a Tribunal have effect in relation to appeals under this Act as if for any reference to the War Damage Commission there were substituted a reference to the Central Land Board and as if for any reference to the War Damage Act, 1943, there were substituted a reference to this Act and the Lord Chancellor shall make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of that Schedule, appeals to a tribunal under this Act.
(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 Earl said: This is an Amendment which deals with appeals from a development charge made by the Central Land Board, and allows them to be referred to a board set up by the War Damage (Valuation Appeals) Act, 1945. An Amendment of this kind was carried to a Division when the English Bill was under consideration here, and your Lordships then expressed the view that the Amendment should stand. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the Central Land Board deal fairly and openly with all development charges. The Board are in the position of having a monopoly, and it is obvious that in certain cases they can exercise pressure on those affected by development charges. Particular cases have been given as examples where considerable machinery has been set up in a given place. Clearly, it would either be expensive to remove the machinery or necessary to develop where that machinery is.
Examples have been given of land which is closely adjacent to a factory or
546
some such place where it is of considerable value to one person, and to one person only. In those circumstances, a monopoly of development such as the Central Land Board have could be exercised burdensomely or harshly. The selling of land values has been described variously by the Minister and others as "the higgling of the market"—that is to say, various adjustments will be made between a willing buyer and a willing seller. When you are faced with a monopoly which agrees, or refuses, to sell, as it pleases, then I think an appeal to some outside body is fair and just. Certainly it was done on the railways when they became a semi-monopoly in 1921. I submit that this arrangement is fair and just. In the circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will allow this Amendment to go through, even if he does not: agree with it, on the understanding that the Government reserve the right to take such action in future as they may wish. This House has expressed quite clearly the view that development charges should be subject to some appeal or arbitration. The case in the English Bill is parallel. While I recognize that the noble Lord will oppose this Amendment, I hope he will not force the Committee to a Division.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 14, at end insert the said new subsections.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I would like to support my noble friend on this Amendment. The right to an appeal such as he describes is part of the ethical custom of our country. Even when we disagree with our Income Tax—which to-day perhaps gives rise to the most important causes of appeal—we are entitled to appeal to the Income Tax Commissioners. I think it is only just that the Government should give us the right of appeal in this case.
LORD MORRISON: As has already been said, this Amendment is the same as one put down on the English Bill and carried against the Government after a Division. The noble Earl has already indicated that he desires to insert this Amendment in this Bill, and I can only say from the Government Benches that we are still strongly opposed to it. While the noble Lord is making up his mind as to

547
his subsequent action, let me put before your Lordships three brief points. The War Damage (Valuation Appeals) Act, 1945, does not apply to Scotland and payments thereunder do not operate in Scotland. Members are drawn from the English Bar and from English surveyors having a special knowledge of valuation problems, and all are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who has no power to appoint a tribunal intended specifically for Scotland. The second point is that the Lord Chancellor does not make rules affecting appeals in Scotland. This is done by the Lord President of the Court of Session. The third point is that tire principle of whether or not there should be an appeal against development charge was also debated at great length in the Scottish Grand Committee, where an Amendment such as this was defeated on a Division. I agree with the noble Lord that there would be no useful purpose served in discussing this Amendment at length, because both the Government and the Opposition have definitely made up their minds as to where they stand. We have been a wry harmonious Committee up to now and I hope it will remain so until the end. I only desire to say we are strongly apposed to this Amendment, but the noble Lord must do what he considers wise and prudent.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has put forward some perfectly proper and reasonable technical criticism of the structure of this Amendment. I recognize that there is a good deal of weight in every way in what he said. What I would like to suggest is this: that we accept this Amendment as it stands, and on the Report stage we make such adjustments as may be considered necessary. I say that because in principle the Committee has accepted this Amendment. I am not convinced that the principles of it cannot be adjusted, even as they stand, to Scottish requirements. The noble Lord has brought up this fearful question of the Lord Chancellor making an appointment in Scotland. I need not emphasize how fully I appreciate the difficulties which might or might not arise in those circumstances. None the less, in view of the fact that in essence this is a Central Land Board, supposing the noble Lord accepted this proposition, would he have separate arbitrations for England and for Scotland to deal with development charges of the
548
Central Land Board? I think it would be very difficult.
I do not accept the Central Land Board as necessary—but that is neither here nor there. if you accept that proposition, however—and I have to accept it—I wonder whether it is possible to have two entirely distinct systems of arbitration? I think the most sensible thing is to accept this Amendment as it stands, and if I can produce modifications which will fit more closely into the circumstances by the Report stage I will do so. I would ask the noble Lord, however much he may dislike this Amendment, not to force this House to a Division, but to accept the Amendment. I fully accept the responsibility for pressing the Amendment.
LORD MORRISON: If I may say one further word, it is this. I accept the position. I am not prepared to force the House to a Division upon this Amendment. The noble Earl is going to press his Amendment. We on this side of the House will express our views that we are not content, and we will leave it at that. On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67:
Payment and security for payment of development charges.
67.—(1) The amount of the development charge payable in respect of the carrying out of any operations or in respect of any use of land may be determined either as a single capital payment or as a series of instalments of capital, or of capital and interest combined, or as a series of other annual or periodical payments, of such amounts, and payable at such times, as the Central Land Board may determine.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to insert at the end of subsection (1) "after taking into account any representations made by the applicant." The noble Lord said: Subsection (1) of Clause 67, as it stands, enables the Central Land Board to require payment of the development charge either as a lump sum, by instalments, by annuity payments, or by some other method of periodical payment. This Amendment makes it clear that the Central Land Board must take into account any representations made by an applicant regarding the manner of paying the development charge before they finally determine on the manner of payment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 24, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would like to thank the noble Lord for this Amendment, which is very valuable.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69:
Variation of determinations and repayment of development charges in certain cases.
69.—(1) The Central Land Board may at any time, on application made to them in that behalf in accordance with regulations under this Act by the person entitled to an interest in land to which a determination under this Part: of this Act relates, vary their determination in such manner as appears to them to be appropriate having regard to any change of circumstances since the determination was made, and may amend, discharge, modify or release any agreements or securities made or given in respect of the determination, or repay any sums previously paid thereunder, so far as may be required in order to give effect to the variation:
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (1), after "since the determination was made," to insert "including the development, after the determination, of adjacent land in accordance with planning permission granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the development plan." The noble Lord said: Clause 69 (1) enables the Central Land Board, on application made to them, to vary a development charge in the light of any change of circumstances since the change was fixed. The Amendment makes it clear that if development is subsequently allowed on adjacent land which conflicts with the development plan, and the result is that the value of existing development for which a development charge has been paid is depreciated, the Central Land Board will have power to vary the development charge and make any appropriate repayment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 7, after ("made") insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This increases the elasticity of the Central Land Board's assessment, and I welcome this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71:
Provisions as to applications for determinations under Part VI.
71.—(1) Any application to the Central Land Board to make or confirm any determination under this Part of this Act shall be made to the Board in such manner, and accompanied by such particulars, as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, regulations made for the purposes of this section may in particular provide—

(a) for securing that, in such case and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by or under the regulations, an application for planning permission for any development may be treated as a sufficient application to the Central Land Board to determine the development charge payable in respect of that development;

(b) for enabling or requiring the Board to refuse to determine any matter which they are authorised or required under this Part this Act to determine unless there are produced to them such documents, and such information or evidence, verified in such manner, as the Board may require.

8.45 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved to add to subsection (2):
"(c) for requiring the Board to make available for inspection by the public, under such conditions, and subject to such exceptions and to the payment of such charges, if any, as may be prescribed, the particulars of all development charges assessed by them."
The noble Lord said: In view of the next Amendment on the paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, I am not quite sure what my position is regarding this Amendment, because the noble Lord intends to remove the clause in toto. However, I would like to raise one point here, and if the clause is removed we can decide afterwards whether my Amendment can be fitted in somewhere else.
The position is this. We feel that it is right that all people who are bona fide interested in the assessment of development charges should have access to formation which will show them what charges are being levied in particular cases. This applies to individuals as well as to local authorities, because individuals are interested to know how these charges are being assessed because it may save them making application on their own behalf. They may see that the charge levied on a certain form of development is such as to deter them from making an application themselves, and from that point of view it may save the Central Land Board a good deal of time and

551
bother. Local authorities are also interested because the manner of assessment of development charges will ultimately have an effect upon their finances.
We have been told several times that these charges are a form of revenue, and the difference between those and an ordinary tax—say Income Tax—is that there are definite rules by which that tax is assessed. They may be very complicated rules, but rules they are; and we know ultimately how our tax is arrived at. In this case we do not know the principles upon which this tax is being assessed. It is to be assessed in accordance with certain directions given to the Central Land Board, principally by the Treasury. If we do not know the principles upon which they are assessed, I think it is only right and proper that all those who are interested should be able to discover what the ultimate charges are. At least they can have some idea of how they are arrived at, and I ask the noble Lord to consider seriously whether we cannot have something in the Bill to give effect to this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 26, at end insert paragraph.—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD MORRISON: I have a good deal of sympathy with the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved, but as he himself has indicated, there are difficulties. The first difficulty is that there is no similar provision in the English Bill. As the Central Land Board will be a United Kingdom body noble Lords will appreciate that on a point of this kind Scotland and England must keep in step. The second point to which the noble Lord referred was with regard to my proposed deletion from the Bill of Clause 71. Taking these two points into consideration, I can give the noble Lord an undertaking that if he will withdraw the Amendment now, I will consider between now and the Report stage whether a provision can be included in the Bill to meet the point of his Amendment.
LORD POLWARTH: I thank the noble Lord for that assurance. I think it would be better if I left it now and looked into it to see if there was another way of fitting it in. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is preliminary to the introduction of a new clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 71.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 [Existing development contravening previous planning control]:
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, 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

(a) if the steps required by the notice are taken by the owner, the lessee or the occupier of the land, any expenses reasonably incurred in that behalf shall be recoverable from the authority by whom the notice was served;

(b) if the steps required by the notice are taken by the said authority, that authority shall not be entitled, under Section twenty-two 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 Lord said: This Amendment deals with the enforcement of planning control in the case of works carried out by a Government Department or local authority in the exercise of emergency powers. The compensation received by the owner in respect of the works under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, will often be less than the cost of their removal, and the Amendment accordingly secures broadly that the owner will not be out of pocket if he is called upon to remove the works. May I add that a similar Amendment was made in your Lordships' House on the English Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 20, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. It seems, I agree, that the point is fair and reasonable. Can the noble Lord say whether estates were pegged at the 1939 figure? Also, in the last line, the word "just" appears. Justice varies between individuals. There is no indication who is to decide what is and what is not just.
LORD MORRISON: I cannot answer at the moment, but I will see that the information is supplied.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 73 to 75 agreed to.
8.53 p.m.
Clause 76:
Compensation for abortive expenditure on refusal of planning permission for other development authorised before appointed day.
76.—(1) Where an application is made within six months after the appointed day for planning permission to complete or carry out any buildings or works begun or contracted for before that day, and that permission is refused by the Secretary of State, either on appeal or on the reference of the application to him for determination, or is so granted by him subject to conditions, then if, on a claim made to the local planning authority within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act it is shown—
(b) that the buildings or works in question were begun or contracted for at a time when no resolution to prepare or adopt such a scheme had taken effect; and
that authority shall pay to the applicant compensation equal to the expenditure so incurred or, as the case may be, to any sum reasonably paid by him in the discharge of any liability arising under the contract in respect of the abandonment a the work.
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 34, after ("scheme") insert ("or of permission granted thereunder").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved to add to subsection (1), "and to any consequential loss or damage sustained by him by reason of such refusal or conditions." The noble Duke said: In Clause 76, where a planning permission granted after the coming into force of this Act is revoked or modi-
554
fied, compensation for abortive expenditure has been extended by a Government Amendment, which was adopted on the initiative of the Opposition, to include consequential loss or damage. The present clause relates to revocation or modification of any permission granted before the commencement of this Act. The Government declined to make the same Amendment here on the ground that the old wording was the same as that in the 1932 Act, under which such permission had been given. But the reasonableness of covering abortive expenditure has been admitted, and compensation allowed for it. I suggest that the advantage of the Amendment should apply equally to planning permission already granted which may be revoked or modified in the future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 5, at end insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
LORD MORRISON: I am sorry that cannot accept this Amendment. Under the existing law, where permission granted for a planning scheme is revoked or modified by a subsequent scheme the developer, broadly speaking, receives compensation on the same basis as is provided by the present clause as it stands—namely, compensation in respect of expenditure incurred in carrying out work which is rendered abortive and in respect of any liability for abandonment of a contract for the work. Similarly, where planning permission granted under an interim development order prior to November 1943, is revoked the existing law allows compensation on the same basis as the present clause as it stands. I am advised that there is no real justification for paying compensation on any wider basis. In these circumstances, I regret I am unable to accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 77:
Land ripe for development before the appointed day.
77.—(1) Where planning permission is granted in respect of any development consisting of the erection, extension or alteration of buildings, or is deemed by virtue of section seventy-four of this Act to be so granted, then if the Secretary of State is satisfied, on application made to him within one year after the appointed day or within such extended period as the Secretary of State may in any particular case allow—

555
(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 an application for permission to build had been made in respect thereof within that period.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) to leave out "within the period of ten years before the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven. The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns the part of the Bill which defines "land ripe for development" and exempts it in certain cases from development charges. As it stands, development charges are not levied in cases where a building contract is still in force and has been entered into during the period of ten years preceding January 7 of this year—that is, since 1937. Frankly, we cannot see why this should be limited to contracts which have been entered into since that date and I would like the noble Lord to give an explanation, at any rate, why this restriction cannot be removed and why the exemption cannot be applied to building contracts entered into at any time, provided they are still in force at this stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 2, leave out from ("development") to ("was") in line 4.—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD MORRISON: I think I can give an explanation which will be satisfactory to the noble Lord. The Amendment is unacceptable for the simple reason that it would enable the owners to enter into building contracts at any time before the appointed day, solely with a view to qualifying for the benefit of the clause. I am sure that the noble Lord would not desire that, and I hope that he will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Really, I think it is quite extraordinary. I do not know how you can enter into a contract which is more than ten years old before the appointed day. Perhaps the noble Lord could explain that.
LORD POLWARTH: If I may speak again, the position at the moment is that the clause applies to contracts entered into within the period of ten years before the appointed day; in other words, since 1937. We are asking that it should be
556
extended to contracts which were entered into before 1937, because I think, especially in Scotland, there may be cases where contracts for building were entered into before that date, where, for one reason or another, work could not be started, and then the war broke out. Those contracts may still be in force. That is what I am referring to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Probably the Government would like notice of this matter again, because it is clear that the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, does not affect the position as disclosed by noble Lords who have spoken on this side of the Committee. He was referring, quite rightly, to contracts made now; but the Amendment is to cover over ten years in the past, which is quite a different point. There is the Report stage coming, and the noble Lord might like to look at the point before then.
LORD MORRISON: In that case, so that there will not be any misunderstanding as to what the noble Lord intended, I will look into it again.
LORD POLWARTH: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after paragraph (b) of subsection (1) to insert:
"(or,
(c) that the land together with any land contiguous or adjacent to such land was on the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, 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, 1939. in the course of development as a residential commercial or industrial estate and that the proposed development is or would be immediately practicable but for such circumstances as aforesaid and that there is a demand for such development.)"
The noble Earl said: This is another Amendment which was carried to a Division on the English Bill. This Amendment proposes to extend the definition of "ripe land," but, above all, I think its importance lies in the fact that it makes it more clear what is intended to be ripe land. May I shortly explain what the Amendment does? It extends ripe land, in the first place, from land whose value is attributable to the prospects of development, and land where a building contract is already in operation, to land in regard to which the Secretary of State is satisfied

557
that (i) it was under development; (ii) that that development started before the war, and (iii) that there was a demand for such development.
It is extremely difficult to think of any land which is more obviously ripe than that. I submit therefore that this Amendment is very reasonable indeed, and I hope the noble Lord will accept it. This was carried to a Division in the discussion on the English Bill, and the noble Lord may be unwilling to accept it at the moment. I ask him not to force us to a Division, however, but to agree, with any appropriate protestation which may occur to him, to allow this Amendment to be incorporated in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 6, at end, insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: As the noble Earl has said, this is exactly the same suggestion as arose a few moments ago, and what I said then applies precisely and exactly to this Amendment, with the exception that there do not appear to be the same Scottish complications with this Amendment as there were with the last but one. This Amendment is identical with the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in Committee on the English Bill, which was resisted, but which was carried against the Government on a Division. There is little point, at this late hour of the night, in recapitulating the arguments against the present Amendment. They were very fully stated by the Lord Chancellor in Committee—much better than I could do it—and, for the reasons given by the Lord Chancellor on that occasion with regard to the English Bill, I am unable to accept this Amendment. If the noble Lord desires to follow the course that he did on the last occasion, we shall follow the same course.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I may say that the course we followed on the last occasion was entirely acceptable.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), after "person," where that word first occurs, to insert "or persons." The noble Duke said: This and the next Amendment go together, and I will move them very briefly.
It is the custom in Scotland, perhaps more than in England, to make building contracts, not only with one head contractor but also directly with several contractors for different parts of the work, and this Amendment is designed to ensure that the term "person," in the singular, will not be held to restrict building contracts to those made with one person only. It seemed a necessary adjustment, and I hope it will be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 28, after the first ("person") insert ("or persons").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I would like to support my noble friend in this Amendment. At the present moment certain repairs are being done to my house in Scotland as a result of the bad winter, and these repairs are not being done by one person but by three or four; yet it is all practically the same contract.
LORD MORRISON: I think I can briefly satisfy the noble Duke that this Amendment is quite unnecessary. Section 1 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, makes it quite plain that in an Act of Parliament words in the singular include the plural. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Duke will be satisfied.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH QUEENSBERRY: I thank the noble Lord for that assurance. I am glad twat it is quite clear and that the point is covered, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78:
Mineral Workings.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, any such regulations as aforesaid may provide for securing—
(3) Regulations made for the purpose of this section shall provide for securing—
(a) that where a development charge is payable in respect of the winning and working of minerals comprised in a mining lease which was in force on the appointed day, the terms of the lease may be varied, by such tribunal as may be prescribed by the regulations, so far as may be just having regard to the amount of the charge;
(6) The provisions of this section and of any regulations made thereunder shall not apply to the winning and working of minerals vested in the National Coal Board, and

559
nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the prerogative right of His Majesty to any gold or silver mine.
9.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (b), to insert:
"(c) that where—

(i) a mining lease was in force on the seventh day of January nineteen hundred and forty-seven, having on that day an unexpired term of not less than ten years, or

(ii) minerals were being won and worked immediately before that day by a person having an interest therein otherwise than under a mining lease.

no payment shall be made under the said Part V in respect of any interest in the minerals comprised in the said mining lease, or in any minerals which form part of the same seam or deposit as that in respect of which the operations mentioned in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph were being carried out and in respect of which an interest was held as mentioned in the said subparagraph, as the case may be, and that no development charge shall be payable under the said Part VI in respect of the winning and working of the said minerals under the mining lease referred to in sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph of in respect of the winning and working of any minerals referred to in the said sub-paragraph (ii) in respect of which no payment has been made under the said Part V as aforesaid."
The noble Earl said: This is another Amendment which was carried to a Division in the English Bill, and it deals with minerals. There has been wide expression in this House that the inclusion of minerals was not only wrong in principle, but was an afterthought which entered the Minister's mind at the last moment. That is amply borne out by the fact that almost the entire question of minerals is dealt with by way of regulations. Although the Bill has been worked out fairly fully—and I may say that the drafting on all planning matters has been good—there is a complete void in regard to minerals. The suggestion is, therefore, that minerals were imported into the Bill at the last moment.
The Lord Chancellor said that minerals were brought in for two reasons—first to give planning control, and, second, compensation against betterment. This, of course, was dealt with by the Uthwatt Committee, and they came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to include minerals at all. Whatever view you take about those two points, this Amendment does not touch either, because it deals only with leases already
560
in existence. If these are the reasons why minerals are included there is no need to object to an Amendment such as this, which merely excludes from the operation of the development charges leases which are already in operation. If I may say so, it does not carry it very far, because they are clearly circumscribed by the area of lease in operation. I do not wish to develop this further, but I merely ask the noble Lord to accept the Amendment on the same dubious basis as he accepted a previous Amendment of mine. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, line 20, at end, insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I would like to support this Amendment very strongly indeed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will also do much better that he has done in regard to the previous rather similar Amendment, and that he will not only accept this voluntarily, but will use his influence so far as he can, to secure agreement among his colleagues in another place. This particular clause and the Amendment are, after all, unlike anything else in the Bill, and no principle whatever is affected. The arguments were fully and forcibly expressed in the discussion on the English Bill, and I will not attempt to detain the Committee by repeating any of them now. I would merely emphasize that they were clear and sound arguments, and they are equally applicable to the Scottish Bill. Throughout this debate we have been very accommodating, and we have kept our discussions very brief on a large number of important points. But we are dealing now with two most important clauses—Clauses 77 and 78—and if the noble Lords wish to secure this Bill quickly—as they are doing now, thanks to our co-operation—I think we can fairly ask in justice that they should do the best they can to. meet the views of a large number of people on these important matters.
LORD MORRISON: I am afraid that the noble Duke is too much of an optimist in thinking that I am likely to accept this Amendment; also that he greatly over-rates my powers of influencing my colleagues. This Amendment is identical with an Amendment which was moved by Lord Llewellin on the Committee stage

561
of the English Bill and which was carried against the Government on a Division. I do not wish to go over all the arguments again, but I will content myself with stating four reasons for which, amongst others, the Government are unable to accept the Amendment. First, from the start it was the Government's intention that mineral owners should come under the scheme to be made under Part V of the Bill, and the £300,000,000 was decided on with this in mind, The second reason L that regulations to be made under the scheme can deal adequately and equitably with any special features of mineral values by including them in the preferential treatment to be accorded near ripe land with such adaptations as may be necessary.
The third reason is that from a planning and amenity, point of view the singling out of this especially destructive industry for the retention of full development value would throw a heavy burden of compensation on local planning authorities every time planning permission for the carrying out or continuance of mining operations was refused. Lastly, this compensation might become intolerably heavy, in view of the fact that in the case referred to in the Amendment a proprietor is to be assumed to have the right to continue working to the end of his scam or deposit without development charge. The noble Lord must now take such action as seems to him and his friends wise and prudent and we will take like action on the last two similar Amendments.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that the last two objections he gave can be quite easily overcome.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: What the noble Lord says about seams is hardly true. It applies to leases in force and does not extend over undeveloped deposits. This is the first time that we have heard that minerals were intended to be included from the beginning. It was not stated before.
LORD HENDERSON: I think it was.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: As the main mineral which has caused difficulty to local authorities is coal, and as that is specifically excluded from the Bill, I do not
562
think the inclusion of minerals would give local authorities one moment's difficulty. I beg to press my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) to insert, "the liability for restoration of the surface, the value of the land after the winning and working of the minerals, and any other relevant circumstances." The noble Earl said: This was an Amendment the Government accepted on the English Bill. It was moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch. It is an important and very proper Amendment. In re-assessing any lease, account should be taken of restoration. As I emphasized in my Second Reading speech, one of the main reasons for bringing in minerals at all is because there is nothing in the Bill regarding restoration. This is the only point at which it is mentioned at all. I very much hope the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, line 35, at end insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.).
LORD MORRISON: As the noble Earl knows and appreciates, we have not had time to consider the implications of his manuscript Amendment, and if the noble Earl will withdraw it I will look at it between now and Report stage without committing myself in any way. We have had no effective notice.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (6), after "of" ["of minerals"] to insert "any such minerals as are mentioned in paragraph 3 of Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act, or to the winning and working of any." The noble Lord said: This Amendment falls to be read along with the Government Amendment to the Third Schedule so as to include within "existing use" and therefore exempt from development charger (a) the working of minerals for purposes incidental to farming operations, the digging of lime for use as fertilizer, and the extraction of sand or gravel for the purpose of repairing farm roads or farm buildings; and (b), the winning and working of peat by any person for the domestic requirements of that person.
May I add here that the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth has an Amendment later, at page 124, line 3, which deals with peat only. I do not know whether the noble Lord has had time to consider whether he prefers my Amendment to his own. I do not mind. If the noble Lord considers now he prefers his own Amendment, I will amend mine at the Report stage so far as it relates to the cutting of peat. Perhaps he would say now if he prefers his own and I would not move mine.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 30, after ("of") insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Does it not seem that they are alternatives? I would like to see both in. Is there any objection to that?
LORD MORRISON: If I withdraw my Amendment now, I think it will be necessary to insert on Report the first part of my Amendment, which refers to the working of minerals for purposes incidental to farming operations. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, refers to peat only. There would be no point in putting the reference in my Amendment to the winning and working of peat, if the noble Lord is putting it in his. If the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, would indicate whether he will accept that suggestion and, when the time comes, move his own Amendment, which I will accept, it will be necessary on the Report stage to insert the first part of my Amendment, which deals with matters outside those with which that of the noble Lord deals.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Would the noble Lord agree to let this Amendment go as it stands, and then deal with peat later?
LORD MORRISON: If the noble Earl prefers it, I will move the first part of my Amendment, and leave the second part, which has also been put down by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for him to move. I will merely move that part of the Amendment dealing with the working of minerals for purposes incidental to farming operations. There will have to be some alteration. I am endeavouring to help the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, to get in his Amendment on peat. If he does
564
not wish to press it, I will move the whole of my Amendment.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: What I should like to know is: what are these minerals to which the noble Lord refers—gravel, sand, or what?
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: Everything.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Everything? The noble Lord said that this Amendment refers only to those minerals in connexion with farming operations. If I remember rightly, at which stage it was I do not know, but on a recent stage of this Bill we referred to minerals which were situated in the grounds of proprietors—in the "policies," as we call them in Scotland, and so on. What is going to happen to those? The noble Lord gave no answer on that occasion, but I understood from a conversation I had with him afterwards that those particular minerals in woods, on estates, and so on, would be excepted and not included in the Bill. At the moment the noble Lord refers to nothing but farming operations. What is going to happen to the others to which I have referred?
LORD MORRISON: The inside story of this is that the English Bill went through all its stages in your Lordship's House and nobody thought of peat. After it had gone through, someone did. The Government were anxious to make provision in this respect, and an Amendment was inserted in the English Bill covering peat. I informed the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, when we had the conversation to which he referred, that I was advised that there was no objection at all to including in the Bill—as they are included in one of the Schedules—other minerals, and I then referred to the digging of lime for use as a fertilizer, the (extraction of sand or gravel for the purposes of repairing farm roads or farm buildings, and the winning and working of peat for domestic requirements. I now confirm what I think I told the noble Viscount in our conversation, that if it was intended to work these things for commercial purposes they would not be exempt from development charge, but only if worked for domestic purposes.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: That was included in the Bill in another place?
LORD MORRISON: Yes.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: The only possible objection I have to the Amendment is that it seems to be very limited. I am not quite clear how far the Amendment about peat goes. I hope and assume that it does include the working for peat by anyone, not only for the domestic purposes of his own family, but for other families for whom he may also be cutting peat at the same place. After all, a person cuts peat not only for himself and his family, but by mutual arrangement for many other people also.
LORD MORRISON: The Amendment goes wider than merely the person cutting peat for his own personal use. It includes a person cutting peat for his employer, for the whole of the people living on and around the land, but not for cutting peat on a commercial scale.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I am very grateful for that explanation. I am sorry that it is not allowed in a much wider sense, because I do think it is one of those things which ought to be encouraged and not handicapped or restricted by this charge.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would ask the noble Lord this question. He has given a description of peat which hardly seems to me to reconcile with the Amendment he has down in his name. I do not know whether his description is meant to cover his Amendment or that standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, but I want to make it quite clear that the description the noble Lord has just given is exactly what I am willing to accept. But I have grave doubts as to the Amendment as it stands. At the same time I do not know if it is the appropriate time to discuss this point.
LORD MORRISON: I come later to a fuller Amendment; this one is preliminary. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, says "provided that it shall not include peat cut for purposes other than sale." That is exactly the point that I have just explained, and therefore if the noble Lord prefers his own Amendment I am perfectly willing to accept q when the time comes.
LORD POLWARTH: We seem to have had lengthy discussion on this small point, but I frankly prefer my own Amendment
566
because I think it achieves the aim as regards peat. It also removes peat from the category of minerals, which I t is correct. I do not think peat could be regarded as a mineral. If the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, is agreeable, I will have my Amendment.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I prefer the noble Lord's Amendment to that of the Government.
LORD MORRISON: In that case I will not press my Amendment.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I can see the time coming where peat cutting is going to be a very special process, and you do not want to curtail that sort of thing. I think you will find that peat cutting will be a big industry one day, but under the Bill you are actually stopping it and making it more difficult.
LORD MORRISON: Then I will withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Surely the noble Lord is going to move his Amendment because it covers many other points.
LORD MORRISON: These points are covered later on.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Why not insert "and 4" because that takes Feat out. Surely up to there it is all right. The noble Lord's Amendment says:
"any such minerals as are mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act, or to the winning and working of any."
Paragraph 4 applies only to peat. We could deal with that on Report, and I suggest the Amendment should stand as it is.
LORD MORRISON: I accept the noble Earl's excellent advice.
LORD KINNAIRD: May I ask the noble Lord one question? I am not clear if he has accepted the noble Duke's point, because I think it is very important, if peat is going to be used for commercial purposes.
LORD MORRISON: What I said was that peat could be used for domestic purposes in the widest sense of the word. If it were used for commercial purposes or a large scale it could become subject to development charge.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I have not seen any argument yet why peat should be treated differently from timber and trees which grow on peat land, or from heather, which grows on peat fields. They are all part of the agricultural industry.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after Clause 79 to insert the following new clause:
"Where any land which is held by any local authority on behalf of the common good is compulsorily acquired under this or any other Act in pursuance of a notice to treat served on or after the appointed day compensation shall be assessed under the terms of Subsection (5) of the foregoing section."
The noble Earl said: I move this Amendment to provide for ascertaining what is to be the position, after the appointed day, of land held for the common good fund in boroughs and cities of Scotland. I am asking for information because I think this is a proper subject on which information should be given. I am not clear which land is subject to development charge, and I should like to know whether it is intended that land held under a common good fund should be treated on the same basis or not. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 79 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: I know the noble Earl does not expect me to accept this Amendment—which of course is a manuscript Amendment—knowing that I have had no opportunity for considering it. The fact that he has moved it will be placed on record, and on the Report stage we shall have an opportunity of discussing it. I hope the noble Earl will agree.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I accept that, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80:
Land acquired by local planning authorities and development corporations for comprehensive development or redevelopment.
80.—(1) No payment shall be made under Part V of this Act in respect of any interest in land, being—
(b) the interest of a development corporation in land acquired by the corporation under the New Towns Act, 1946.
9.28 p.m.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) to insert:
"and where a local planning 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 V in respect of that interest."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and four other Government Amendments are all related. The object of them is to bring within Clause 8o the whole of any land in an area of comprehensive development that has been purchased by a local planning authority under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, or by a development corporation under the new Towns Act of 1946, irrespective of whether any part of the land has been disposed of by the authority or corporation before or after the appointed day. Similar Amendments were made on the English Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 30, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is another of the Amendments to which I referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 35, after ("in") insert ("paragraph (a) of").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is another of the Amendments to which I have referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 1, leave out ("is") and insert ("has been").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is the next of the Amendments to which I have referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 2, after ("corporation") insert ("whether before or after the appointed day").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 4, leave out from first ("of") to second ("of") and insert ("the carrying out of any operations on the land or the institution").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 6, 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 deed by which the land was disposed of").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Land held for charitable purposes]:
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to leave out Clause 82 and insert the following clause:
82.—(1) This section applies to land an interest in which is held for charitable or ecclesiastical purposes of any description if the land, as distinct from the rents and profits thereof, is used in any manner (including use in a manner involving the beneficial occupation of the land by any person) for or in connection with the purposes for which the said interest is held, and not otherwise, or if the land would be so used but for the occurrence of war damage or but for the fact that the land is for the time being requisitioned land.
(2) No payment shall he made under Part V of this Act in respect of any such interest as aforesaid in land which, on the appointed day, is land to which this section applies, and no development charge shall be payable under Part VI of this Act in respect of any operations carried out on such land by the person entitled to any such interest for or in connection with the purposes for which that interest is held or in respect of any use of the land by that person for those purposes.
(3) Where any land which, on the appointed clay, was land to which this section applies ceases at any time thereafter to he such land, no development charge shall be payable under Part VI of this Act in respect of any development by virtue of which the use of the land is made to correspond with the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land, if planning per. mission for that development has been granted under Part II of this Act before the land ceases to be land to which this section applies.
(4) Where any such interest as is mentioned in subsection (r) of this section in land to which this section applies is compulsorily acquired under this or any other Act in pursuance of a notice to treat served on or after the appointed day, then if—

(a) the land was land to which this section applies on the appointed day; or

(b) the land is being used at the time of the notice to treat for a purpose of such a nature that there is no general demand or market for land for that purpose,

570
it shall be assumed, in assessing the compensation payable in respect of the acquisiton of the said interest, that planning permission would be granted under Part II of this Act for any development by virtue of which the use of the land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land, and that no development charge would be payable under Part VI of this Act in respect of any such development.
(5) If, upon application made to him at any time within three years after the appointed day, the Secretary of State is satisfied—

(a) that any interest in land was herd on that day for charitable or ecclesastical purposes of any description, but that the land was not then used in any such manner as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section; and

(b) that it is reasonable, having regard to any proposals for its future use, that the land should be treated for the purposes of this section as if it had been so used,

he may, if he thinks fit, direct that the foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to the land, so long as that interest is so held, as if the land was land to which this section applies and had been such land on the appointed day:
Provided that subsection (3) of this section shall not apply by virtue of any such direction if the interest in question ceases to be held for charitable or ecclesiastical purposes before the land has been actually used in the manner aforesaid.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section any interest in land which is held by the National Trust for Scotland shall be deemed to be used for the purposes for which that interest is held, and not otherwise, if, and only if, that interest is held by the Trust inalienably.")
The noble Lord said: This long new clause extends the scope of the present Clause 82 and reduces it to a more logical structure. There are two main differences between the new clause and the present clause. First, the existing clause is confined to land used for charitable purposes for which there it no general demand or market and to lard contiguous or adjacent to such land used for an ancillary purpose.
The new clause applies to any land used for charitable or ecclesiastical purposes. The clause thus covers: (a) club rooms and camping grounds of youth organizations, such as Boy Scouts. (These are outside the existing clause because it cannot be said that there is no general demand or market for land for club rooms or camping grounds;) (b) The manse which is some distance from the church; and (c) playing fields which are some distance from the parent school. These last two categories are outside the existing

571
clause because they are not in themselves in the "no general demand" class, and they are not "contiguous or adjacent" to land which is within the clause. If your Lordships wish me to go through the new clause in detail I will do so, but perhaps you will not desire that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 82 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I had a manuscript Amendment down to the original Clause 82. It was really an Amendment moved by Lord Hampton and was accepted in principle by the Lord Chancellor. It reads as follows: at page 97, line 16, at the end to insert:
"(b) land used for the purpose of any national youth organization (not being land which is held as an investment by and such organization) or.
I gather from what the noble Lord has said that the meaning of that is, in fact, included in the new Clause 82. I ask the noble Lord if he would give that assurance. He said, further, that "manse" was included if it was a long way from the church. I do not know whether that meant it was a restrictive clause or not.
LORD MORRISON: No.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The same thing applies to playing fields. Playing fields are excluded quite definitely. What I took this clause to mean—I do not regard it as entirely satisfactory, though I think it is, in a way, less unsatisfactory to Scotland than it is to England—was that it included land held as investments and, in so far as Scotland is concerned, I think there is a comparatively small amount of land held in investments for charitable purposes. It does include in development charges any land which might be generally called operational land—that is, land which is actually used, using language in another sense.
There are two other points I should like to put to the noble Lord. First, Subsection (6) deals with the National Trust, and I think that is a valuable and important paragraph. Secondly, in line 2 of this clause, there was inserted, I think I am correct in saying, on the Third Reading of the English Bill, the words "on charitable trust or". Those words, I
572
think, were in the English Bill and I would ask the noble Lord to look at those words. I am not moving anything at the moment. I am not quite certain in my mind exactly how important they are, but I believe it was thought that it had some importance. I would ask the noble Lord to examine that point and see whether it could be included.
LORD MORRISON: I am quite prepared to do so, and I can assure the noble Earl that the terms of the new clause . completely cover the manuscript Amendment of which he has given notice.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Thank you.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 83 to 86 agreed to.
Clause 87 [Land acquired by notice to treat served before appointed day]:
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 15, after ("acquired") insert ("on or").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This again is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 8, after ("before") insert ("on").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment should be read along with the next three Government Amendment's. They are purely technical and are consequential on the insertion of the new clause after Clause 52. They give rise to no point of controversy or policy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 9, leave out ("and") and insert ("then—(a) where").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"(b) where the compensation so payable falls to be assessed in accordance with Rule (5) of the rules set out in Section two of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as amended by subsection (2) of Section fifty-three (Special provisions as to war-damaged land where compensation assessed by reference to cost of equivalent reinstatement) of this Act, the provisions of the said Rule (5), as so amended, shall apply, subject to any necessary modifications, for the purpose of calculating under the said Part V the restricted value of that interest."
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 16, leave out ("thereunder") and insert ("under the said Part V").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is also included in the same series of Amendments.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 37, after ("Act") insert:
("(b) the provisions of Rule (5) of the rules set out in section two of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as amended by subsection (2) of section fifty-three of this Act, shall not apply for the purpose of calculating the restricted value of any interest acquired as aforesaid except in the cases provided by subsection (3) of the said section fifty-three;".)—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 88 and 89 agreed to.
Clause 90:
Other Exchequer grants to local planning authorities.
Grants payable under regulations made for the purposes of this section shall not exceed an amount equal to sixty per cent. of the amount of the expenditure or loss in respect of which the grants are made.
LORD MORRISON: If your Lordships wish me to explain this Amendment in detail I will be happy to do so, but, as your Lordships probably remember, a similar Amendment was made in the English Bill in your Lordships' House.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, line 26, leave out ("sixty") and insert ("fifty").—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I understand that this Amendment in fact means an increased burden on the rates. In another place it was stated that the reason for inserting this Amendment was because the variation of payments was changed from one extending from 10 to 60 per cent. to one of 20 to 50 per cent. of the grant. In so far as it reduces the variation, on the whole I welcome it, though I think it is fair to say that in fact it does reduce the maximum grant which under this clause can be made to local authorities. Is that correct?
LORD MORRISON: Yes.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I regret that the grant should be reduced, but at the same time, I think that the process of getting nearer to equal grants to all local authorities is very desirable.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 91 to 97 agreed to.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, after Clause 97, to insert the following clause:
"Applications for planning permission, determination of development charges,
98.—(1) An application to a local planning authority for planning permission under Part II of this Act, and an application to the Central Land Board for the making or confirmation of any determination under Part VI of this Act, shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act and shall include such particulars and shall be verified by such evidence as may be required by the regulations or by any directions given by the local planning authority or the Board thereunder.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, regulations made under this Act may provide for the combination in one document of—

(a) an application for planning permission in respect of any development;

(b) an application for a determination of the Central Land Board in respect of that development;

(c) any application or submission required to be made to a local authority in respect of that development under any enactment specified in the regulations;

and for the making of any such combined application in such form and manner and to such authority as may be prescribed by the regulations, and for the transmission of copies of the application by that authority to such other authorities or persons as may be so prescribed.
(3) Any regulations made for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection shall be made by the Secretary of State after consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned; and different provision may be made by such regulations in relation to areas in which different enactments are in force.
(4) An application or submission required to be made to a local authority under a ay enactment specified in regulations made under subsection (2) of this section shall, if male in accordance with the provisions of the regulations, be deemed to be valid notwithstanding anything in that enactment prescribing r enabling any authority to prescribe the form in which or the mariner in which such on application or submission is to be made, hilt without prejudice to the validity of any application or submission made in accordance

575
with that enactment, and without prejudice to any provision of that enactment enabling any such authority to require further particulars of the matters to which the application or submission relates."
The noble Lord said: This new clause will enable regulations to be made providing for the combination in one document of an application for planning provision, an application for the determination of the development charge, and any other application required to be made to a local authority under any enactment with respect to the proposed development. An arrangement on these lines, based on a model comprehensive application form prepared by the Secretary of State, has been in operation in many areas in Scotland for some time. The new clause will not only enable the existing arrangement to be extended and made applicable to all districts but will also ensure that the minimum inconvenience is caused to intending developers in their dealings with the Central Land Board and with local planning and other local authorities. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, at an earlier stage welcomed this provision, and I am sure that he will welcome this new clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 97 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Morrison.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I presume the form will be issued in triplicate. It is a very long one.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: While I welcome this new clause, I am bound to say that I think it is rather a pious hope, and that it must have been drawn up by someone who has never made an application for a house in his life. Otherwise, I doubt very much whether he would have believed it to be possible to combine in one document all that is required. However, if it could be done it would be admirable, and I welcome this new clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 98 to 104 agreed to.
Clause 105:
Appointment of arbiters under 9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 57.
105. On appointing a person to be a member of the panel of official arbiters formed under section one of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, the Reference Committee may make it a condi-
576
tion of his appointment that while holding office he shall not himself engage, or be a partner of any other person who engages, in private practice or business.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to leave out Clause 105. The noble Earl said: I move to omit this clause rather by way of inquiry. I do not quite understand what the purpose of the clause is. It reads almost exactly the same as Clause 1 (3) of the 1919 Act, which lays down that all arbiters appointed by the Reference Committee shall not engage in private practice. Why this clause is in the Bill I do not know. It says that the Committee may "make it a condition." Is that intended to rescind the conditions laid down under the 1919 Act? What is more peculiar is that this is one of the clauses that come into operation on the day when this Bill is passed. It clues not wait for the appointed day. There is considerable urgency about it. I would be very grateful for some explanation in this connexion. I am not very clear exactly why the clause should be included. It seems to maintain substantially the same position as existed before, and I do not understand why there should be any great urgency for bringing the clause into operation at an early date. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 105.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: I thought that the noble Earl was in some little confusion about this matter, because this clause was inserted in the Scottish Grand Committee and no exception was taken to it by the Opposition. The noble Earl is moving this Amendment, I understand, merely with a view to obtaining information. The clause provides that after appointing a person to be a member of the panel of official arbiters under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, the Reference Committee may stipulate that that person must not engage in private practice or be a partner of any person who engages in private practice. In 1931 an amending Act repealed, so far as Scotland was concerned, the prohibition against private practice, and since that date part-time arbiters only have been employed.
But it may be desirable in order to secure consistency and uniformity in the treatment of claims to have one or more whole-time arbiters appointed under the

577
1919 Act who will devote themselves largely to the determination of disputes as to the amount of development values. The clause enables the Reference Committee to appoint one or more whole-time arbiters, or one or more whole-time arbiters and some part-time arbiters, or part-time arbiters only. For example, it might be desirable to appoint whole-time arbiters in the first instance to deal with disputes in connexion with development values, but after these disputes had been disposed of, the volume of work might not justify a whole-time arbiter and the Reference Committee might therefore revert to the system of part-time arbiters. The clause confers the necessary degree of flexibility. I hope with that explanation the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful for the explanation, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, 105 agreed to.
Clause 106:
Regulations and orders.
(1) Any power to make an order conferred by the foregoing provisions of this Act shall include power to amend or revoke that order by a subsequent order made in like manner:
Provided that an order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule to this Act shall not be amended or revoked at any time after the appointed day.
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is a drafting one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 117, line 36, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraph 3 of Part II.")—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved to add at the end of the proviso to subsection (4):
"unless such amendment or revocation is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament." The noble Duke said: I am sorry I am not able to understand the justification for the fact that the provisions of paragraph 3 of Part II of the Schedule cannot be amended after the appointed day. That paragraph enables the Secretary of State to specify the general classes of purpose from one to another of which land can be altered without carrying a development charge. Is
578
there not a weakness here which could be corrected? And does it not seem, subject to stringent Parliamentary safeguards, that there should be power to remedy any oversight or mistakes? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 117, line 38, at end add the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
LORD MORRISON: I will give an explanation which will probably, on reflection, satisfy the noble Duke. The proviso to Clause 106 (4) says that an order made by the Secretary of State specifying the general classes of purposes which are to be regarded within the same use for the purposes of the Schedule may not be amended or revoked at any time by the Secretary of State. The Amendment proposes to allow any such order to be amended or revoked if it is approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Paragraph 3 of Part II of the Schedule, as taken with Clause 57 (2), provides that the restricted value of land is to be calculated on the assumption that planning permission is to be granted in the case of any building or land used before the appointed date for a purpose falling within a general class specified in an order of the Secretary of State for the t se of that building or land for any other purpose falling within the same general class. Since the restricted value is to be taken as the value subsisting on the appointed day, it was essential, for the protection of owners of land, to provide that the assumptions on which that value is calculated shall remain unaltered and that any orders under paragraph 3 of Part II of the Schedule shall accordingly not be amended or revoked. In tie circumstances it will be quite wrong to enable the order to be altered in any circumstances. I hope that with that explanation, the noble Duke will agree not to press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has said that these orders should not be altered in any circumstances. What are these orders? Are they not part A Acts of Parliament? Why is it not included under this Act of Parliament? It seems proper that something which does; not require constant revision should be included within the corpus of the Bill itself. The purpose of regulations is entirely different. They are to give flexibility, and to give an opportunity for

579
changing and altering. But here you take away the one advantage you have. If the Secretary of State or His Majesty's Government know just what they are going to put in, why not do it now? 'Surely it would be simpler. If the Government have not yet made up their mind, it seems to me that they have been rather hurried in putting forward this Bill at all.
LORD MORRISON: I think the short answer is, as I have said, that it is essential for the protection of owners of land to provide that the assumptions on which the value is calculated shall remain unaltered.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I am sorry if I have not understood clearly yet what I should have understood. I am glad to hear that it is for the protection of the owners of land. I thought it must he so from the start. I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 107 [Assumptions as to planning permission]:
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 118, line 1, leave out ("paragraph 2" ) and insert ("paragraph 1 of Part II").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 118, line 9, leave out ("paragraph 2" ) and insert ("paragraph 1").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to insert at the end of the clause:
"(3) Any reference in the said Third Schedule to the cubic content of a building shall be construed as a reference to that content as ascertained by external measurement."
The noble Lord said: During the Committee stage in another place the question was raised as to how the cubic content of a building was to be measured. This Amendment places the matter beyond doubt, by defining cubic content for the purposes of the Third Schedule as that ascertained by external measurement.
This is the normal method of measurement, and is a simpler and more practical one than that of internal measurement. Lest any noble Lord should think that the proposed method of measurement has the effect of reducing the 1,500 cubic feet concession made in the Third Schedule at the Report stage in another place, Amendments have been put down to increase this figure to 1,750 cubic feet, which I will move later on. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 118, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I welcome clarification in any form, and in that sense I am grateful to the noble Lord for this Amendment. I think it shows the appalling depth of detail into which we are delving when we have to measure houses from the inside or the outside. However, I do not propose to offer any opposition to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 108 and 109 agreed to.
Clause 110 [Saving for Postmaster-General]:
LORD MORRISON: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment to remedy a printing error. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 119, line 40, leave out ("become") and insert ("became").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 111 [Application to land regulated by special enactments]:
LORD MORRISON: The next two Amendments are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 120, line 28, leave out ("Part III") and insert ("Part IV").
Page 120, line 31, leave out ("Part III") and insert ("Part IV").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 111, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 112:
Interpretation.
112.—(1) In this Act, except so far as the contrary is provided or the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say—

581
"engineering operations" includes the making of excavations and the formation or laying out of means of access to highways;
"minerals" includes all minerals and substances in or under land of a kind ordinarily worked for removal by underground or by surface working;
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in the definition of "engineering operations," to leave out "making of excavations and the." The noble Lord said: "Engineering operations" is defined in Clause 112 of the Bill as including the making of excavations and the formation or laying down of means of access to highways. This Amendment proposes the omission of the words "the making of excavations." It is now felt that these words are undesirable, in that they suggest that all digging operations, no matter how limited in scope, would require planning permission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 122, line 39, leave out from ("the") to ("formation") in line 40.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Do I understand the noble Lord to say "digging operations of whatever scope" would require planning permission. If I put my potatoes in the ground in the Spring, does that require planning permission?
LORD MORRISON: I said the opposite. I said that the clause as it stands might suggest that all digging operations, even limited in scope, would require planning permission. That is undesirable and I am moving this Amendment to make it clear that they do not.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I misunderstood what the noble Lord glad to welcome this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is little more than a drafting Amendment to avoid doubts which may arise as to what is meant by "improvement" in relation to roads. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 123. line 17, at end insert:
("'improvement' in relation to a highway has the same meaning as the expression 'improvement of roads' has in Part II of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 123, line 3o, leave out ("in") and insert ("or right in or over").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved in the definition of "minerals" to leave out the words "and substances." The noble Marquess said: I owe the Government an apology for putting this Amendment down at the last moment, but it was on a point which occurred to me as I read the text of the Bill on the Bench. I hope the Government will not think it a frivolous Amendment. The words "and substances" are a very sloppy bit of drafting, because they are far too wide. After all, what are these other substances apart from minerals, which are in or under land and ordinarily worked for removal by underground or surface working? These words mean almost anything. Turnips, for instance, are certainly substances underground which are removed by surface working. Take the case of a mole. It is true it is under land and it is ordinarily worked for removal by underground workings. This word "substance" does not say what it is intended to convey. We have already found that in the case of peat there seems to be doubt whether it is a mineral or lid. There may be borderline cases, and I should have thought some clearer definition was required. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, is one of the greatest experts on salvage. He would not say that all salvage is mineral, but it is all "mineral and substances." If the noble Lord, or the Government, will look at that definition they will find it is far too wide and may lead to all sorts of difficulties in the future. If they do not like the idea of leaving out the words "and substances" I suggest that they might say "includes all minerals and allied substances." I think this is a matter which is not quite so infinitesimal as it appears, and worth consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 124, line 1, omit ("and substances").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I consider the noble Marquess has a very real point

583
indeed. The definition of minerals is likely to lead to most extraordinary difficulties.
LORD MORRISON: I am sure the noble Marquess would not desire me to commence an argument on salvage, otherwise we shall be here for a very long time. I gather the point has occurred to him since he came into your Lordships' House. The first I heard of it was when he got up to move it, and I am sure he does not wish me to answer him now. Therefore, if he will withdraw his Amendment we will go into it between now and Report.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will certainly withdraw it, but I hope the Government will give attention to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved to add at the end of the definition of "minerals" the words: "provided that it shall not include peat cut for purposes other than sale". The noble Lord said: We return to the subject of peat, and I hope on this occasion we shall succeed in keeping out of the bog. The effect of this Amendment is to exclude from the definition of minerals peat cut for purposes other than sale. I think your Lordships will agree that this completely safeguards the position of those who cut peat for their own use or for their employees' use, or for any purpose other than commercial. Therefore I hope the Government will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 124, line 3, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Polwarth.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I hope this Amendment will be accepted. I should also like the position to be safeguarded for the Report stage, in the hope that something further may be secured; at any rate I hope that there will be an assurance at this stage that if there has to be a development charge it will be a nominal one. It seems wrong that this subject should be chosen for development charge at all. Many examples could be given to illustrate the point. Let me give one. There are many people who have to make roads across hill farms, through peat, and they have to get through several feet of peat to make the roads. Sometimes
584
they can sell that peat and it helps to pay the heavy expense of making the roads. There are many other such instances.
LORD MORRISON: I will certainly take note of what the noble Duke says. Meanwhile, I have pleasure in accepting the noble Lord's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 113 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 126, line 26, leave out ("sections thirty-four to forty-six") and insert ("Part III").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 126, line 29, leave out ("sections forty-seven to fifty-three") and insert ("Part IV").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: Clause 113 (2) (b) brings Clauses 34 (2) and 35 (2)—which enable the Minister of Works, the Postmaster General and local planning authorities to acquire land compulsorily during the pre-development plan stage—into force on the date of Royal Assent. It is necessary in connexion with the operation of these powers to bring into force on the same date the provisions of Clauses 95, 101, 103, 105 and 110, which deal with such matters as borrowing, the obtaining of information about land ownership, expenses of Ministers, the appointment of arbiters under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and saving for the Postmaster General. The Amendment provides accordingly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 126, line 34, at end insert:
("and
(d) sections ninety-five, one hundred and one, one hundred and three, one hundred and five, and one hundred and ten.").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule:

PART V.
Sub-Committees.
1. The planning committee of a local planning authority may, subject to any restrictions imposed by that authority, and shall if so required by that authority

(a) establish such sub-committees as the committee or the local planning authority may determine; and

(b) authorise any such sub-committee to exercise on their behalf any functions of the planning committee,

and any such sub-committee shall be constituted in such manner as may be determined (subject to any such restrictions as aforesaid) by the planning committee or by the local planning authority, but not less than three-fourths of the members of any such sub-committee shall be members of the local planning authority or of a local authority for any area forming part of the district of the local planning authority.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved in paragraph 1 of Part V, after "such sub-committee" where those words occur the third time, to insert "which consists of more than three persons." The noble Earl said: This allows for committees to be made up of fewer than four persons. It is convenient at times to have a subcommittee of fewer than four people. Often we are forced to have four persons where fewer would do. We are not very clever in Scotland, perhaps, but so far we have never been able to achieve making three-quarters of two or three-quarters of three in the human form. Where it is necessary we should like to be able to have a sub-committee of fewer than four. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 130, line 4, at end insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
LORD MORRISON: I have no great objection to this Amendment, but it seems to me to be somewhat finical (that is a good Scottish word). I am sure the noble Lord has no desire to make unnecessary work.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: We wanted to bring in the principle of fewer than four persons. You might wish to send the chairman and one co-opted engineer or doctor, or whoever it is.
LORD MORRISON: I was going to add that, subject to the noble Lord agreeing that it may be necessary somewhat to alter the wording, I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I think it is worth accepting. I think the correct expression for me to use now, after a long evening, would be to say "Whoopee! lie has at last accepted one of my Amendments."
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: Is there any reason at all why a local authority should not be allowed to decide who shall be on the sub-committees and how many there shall be? Why should they be dictated to as to how many there should be on a sub-committee?
LORD MORRISON: I have already accepted the noble Lord's Amendment. First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Excepted Enactments for the Purposes of S. 11]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is al-other Amendment which was accepted in the English Bill in the course of its discussion in this House, and I am mentioning it because I think the circumstances are parallel. The purpose of this Amendment is to limit modification of enactments, as I understand it, to local enactments, and not apply it to general enactments. I appreciate that the noble Lord has not had time to examine this very closely and I will mention it formally now so that he will have an opportunity of seeing it before the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 130, line 27, after ("enactment") insert ("contained in a local Act").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: I appreciate the noble Earl's attitude on this. I have not had an opportunity of considering it. If the noble Earl will withdraw it, it will come up again on Report stage.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule:
Excepted Classes of Development.

PART II.
Development included in Existing Use for All Purposes
2. The carrying out, on land which was used for the purposes of agriculture or forestry on the appointed day, of any building or other operations required for the purposes of that use, other than operations for the erection, enlargement, improvement or alteration of dwelling-houses or of buildings used

587
for the purposes of market gardens, nursery grounds or timber yards or for other purposes not connected with general farming operations, or with the cultivation or felling of trees.
LORD MORRISON: The effect of this Amendment is to increase from fifteen hundred cubic feet to seventeen hundred and fifty cubic feet the extension which can be carried out on rebuilding free of development charge. This is the Amendment which I indicated a few moments ago. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 131, line 6, leave out ("fifteen hundred") and insert ("seventeen hundred and fifty.")—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 131, line 19, leave out ("fifteen hundred") and insert ("seventeen hundred and fifty.")—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved in paragraph 2 of Part II to leave out "was" and insert "is used or intended to be." The noble Duke said: I think this and the next Amendment are quite important in that some further provision is still needed. The intention presumably is to relieve from development charge the improvement of agricultural and forestry land. The paragraph as it stands does so, however, only in respect of land being used for agriculture or forestry on the appointed day. Land, therefore, which is now waste or derelict or so called, which is subsequently brought under cultivation, will not enjoy these advantages. This is an anomaly which seems to have been overlooked so far on both Bills. The assumption that developments for agriculture or forestry are part of existing use can be made just as well in the case of land reclaimed in future as of that now being farmed. I find it rather difficult to visualize exactly what might be effected under the clause as it now stands. I can think of a number of examples, such as of new plantations on so-called derelict or waste land, and also where agriculture is brought into being by fresh drainage or operations where it is not carried on at present; and
588
also devastated surfaces, where iron ore or other minerals have been extracted, and where the land is, for the time being, derelict but will presumably be improved and restored subsequently. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 135, line 22, leave out ("was") and insert ("is used or intended to be").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
LORD MORRISON: The purpose of the Third Schedule is to define the types of development which are within the range of the existing use—that is, the developments which are assumed to be permitted in the calculation of existing use value for the purposes of Part V of the Bill. That is why the Schedule is related throughout to the appointed day. The Schedule is not intended to be an exhaustive list of developments which will be exempt from development charges, and any further exemptions will be effected by regulations under Clause 65 (2) (b). If the noble Lord has in his mind that farm buildings erected on land which was derelict at the appointed day, but which was reclaimed and brought into use for agricultural purposes after that day, should be exempted from development charge under the regulations, I am authorized to give the noble Duke an undertaking that this will certainly receive sympathetic consideration in the preparation of the regulations. Further than that I am unable to go.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I really feel that this is a little difficult. What the noble Lord has said is that existing use is determined once and for all. I must ask this question absolutely specifically: Suppose you turn a deer park into a sheep farm, does that or does it not attract a development charge? There is no doubt at all at the present time that as the Bill is worded now it does attract a development charge. You are bringing land in an inferior state into a superior state of agriculture. I think it is not the intention either of His Majesty's Government or of anybody else that that should be charged. I appreciate that the noble Lord is in a difficulty about it. He has better words than those which exist in the English Bill. These words are a great deal better. They meet a number of cases of reclamation of boggy land which were not covered, and which I feel it is the intention of the Government to cover. If the noble Lord has no authority to accept this Amendment, I ask that we should not be too

589
closely bound by what happened in the English Bill.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. I hope the situation is all right, but I am naturally not convinced. If any provision is needed in other parts of the Bill, I hope we shall be able to make it. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved in paragraph 2 of Part II, after "required," to insert "or appropriate." The noble Lord said: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will not consider that I am quibbling with words, because nothing would give me less pleasure at this late hour. I think that the wording of this paragraph should be altered. At the moment it includes in regard to existing use for development purposes any building or other operation required for the purposes of use in connexion with agriculture or forestry. It turns on the meaning of the word "required." "Required" involves an element of necessity. Certainly if we are required by Statute to do anything, then it is very necessary that we should do it, or else suffer a penalty in most cases. I wish to insert the words "or appropriate" so that the relevant words in that line will read "or appropriate for the purposes of that use". A man might wish to put up, we will say, a barn which could be held to be not strictly necessary for his working of the land, but which would be, perhaps, desirable. This may seem a small point but I hope that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 131, line 24, after ("required") insert ("or appropriate").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD MORRISON: I have a good deal of admiration for the persistence with which the noble Lord has tried to delete words from the Bill and to get others inserted. I am afraid that I am advised that the meaning of the word "appropriate" would be far from clear, and would give rise to disputes which would turn on matters of opinion and would be extremely difficult to resolve. This is a legal point. I am not able to accept the noble Lord's word "appropriate." I am sorry.
LORD POLWARTH: Will the noble Lord give me an assurance that the word "required" by itself will cover the case which I have mentioned?
LORD MORRISON: I will look into that point and inform the noble Lord of the result of my inquiries before the Report stage.
LORD POLWARTH: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord because I think we must have some assurance or some words to the effect which I have indicated. On the assurance which is given, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: The object of this Amendment is simply to secure the same undertaking of regulations to exempt agricultural cottages as was given during the discussion on the English Bill by Me Lord Chancellor. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—.
Page 131, line 25, after ("dwelling-houses") insert ("not being dwelling-houses to which the conditions set out in subsection (1) of Section three of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, apply").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
LORD MORRISON: The best that I can do on this Amendment is to give the noble Duke a definite assurance that in the framing of regulations under Clause 65 (2) (b) of the Bill—the regulations specifying the operations to be exempt from development charge—the Government will exempt from charge the erection of new houses for agricultural workers so long as they continue to be occupied by such workers, and the Government hope to be able to exempt also the improvement or enlargement of houses for agricultural workers, irrespective of whether or not the 1,750 cubic feet tolerance is exceeded so long as these houses are continued to be occupier by such agricultural workers. I think that that is a reasonable assurance, and I hope the noble Duke will be satisfied with it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Can the noble Lord give us any idea what he means by the term "agricultural workers"? What does he intend to cover by that?
LORD MORRISON: I could not answer off-hand. I should assume that it would be fairly easy to identify agricultural workers in these days of national

591
health insurance and insurance through the labour exchanges. I do not think that there should be any difficulty. If the noble Earl thinks that there will be difficulty in identifying the genuine agricultural worker, I will look into the point. But, as I am advised, there will not be any difficulty.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: What I am asking is whether the term "agricultural worker," in this connexion, is to be held to mean a person engaged directly in agriculture or in the agricultural industry. There may be people who are tradesmen—carpenters, joiners, tilers, slaters, and so on—who are engaged in the agricultural industry as such, but are not directly engaged in what would be described as "tilling the soil."
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: The point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is a very important one, to which I did not refer. It makes a great deal of difference whether these people are included. They are, I suggest, bound up so closely with the agricultural industry that it is necessary to include them.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: There is another important point. According to what Lord Morrison says, the "agricultural worker"—whatever that may mean—is apparently not to have a family who cannot get into the 1,750 cubic feet of space. Are you going to limit agricultural workers' families to two individuals, or whatever the appropriate number may be in view of that space? It seems an extraordinary restriction to impose that an agricultural worker may not have a family beyond a certain limit.
LORD MORRISON: Perhaps the noble Marquess misheard me. I said that irrespective of whether the 1,750 cubic feet tolerance was exceeded those houses would be exempt. In regard to the point of the noble Earl and the noble Duke, I have a fairly clear recollection that the Minister of Labour has a clear classification as to what is understood as an agricultural worker.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE had given Notice that he would move in paragraph 2, after "dwelling-houses" to insert "other than dwelling-houses as defined in the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1886." The noble Earl said: I apologize for a misprint in my Amendment. It should run, "other than dwelling-houses of smallholders under the Small Holders (Scotland) Acts, 1886–1931." I do not want to labour the point. Probably the noble Lord can give me the information I want. Would the crofter be included in the category raised in the previous Amendment by the noble Duke? I cannot help feeling that the Government would not wish to exclude the crofters and that no development charge should be put on the crofters' houses, which are often built of local stone by the crofters themselves. It is impossible to see any social value attaching to houses other than those which the crofters build. I would like the noble Lord to look into it.
LORD MORRISON: The best I can do is to give the noble Earl an assurance that in framing these regulations sympathetic consideration will be given to the possibility of exempting from charge the erection and improvement of smallholders' houses, so long as these houses continue to be used for agricultural purposes.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I asked for an assurance whether crofters come into that. If the noble Lord cannot give me that now, I will bring it up on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in paragraph 2, to leave out "or timber yards." The noble Earl said: It is clear that forestry is exempt. An integral and essential part of forestry is the timber yard, and I have the high authority of the Under-Secretary of State who stated specifically (Hansard, July 7, Col. 1825) that a timber yard is exempt. I appreciate that it may be necessary to put in a sawmill, but a sawmill is not essential to the cutting and harvesting of timber. I do not think it can be more clearly stated than by the Under-Secretary of State. I am sure the noble Lord does not want to let him down. He is a colleague and it would be a pity if he became known as unreliable. The Under-Secretary also said, "It is quite clear that a timber yard is

593
associated with forestry and is so exempt." Could we have anything more clear-cut or direct? I am glad to agree entirely with the Under-Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 131, line 27, leave out ("or timber yards").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: I do not think there is any great difference between the noble. Earl and myself and the Under-Secretary. All operations connected with normal forestry purposes will be exempt from development charge, and the provision of a yard for the stacking and seasoning of timber as part of forestry operations will therefore be exempt. That is fairly clear, but there is no reason at all why the erection of buildings for the purposes of an ordinary timber yard should be so exempt. These buildings might in fact consist of sawmills and other buildings for the treatment of timber for sale. There is no exemption in the English Bill, and I am unable to accept it in this Bill.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I think a great many people, and timber merchants in particular, will be very disappointed if, when they are felling timber in the scattered plantations in Scotland and they set up a small temporary sawmill adjacent to the woods, they find that a development charge is placed upon their operations in respect of this timber site. I hope very much that it will be made clear that these will not be subject to a development charge. We know what difficult economic conditions prevail in forestry in this country. Under the Transport Bill these people have already been injuriously affected, and it is greatly to be hoped that they will not be more so under this clause.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am glad the noble Duke has brought up this point. It is clear to me that a timber yard beside a clearing in a forest is subject to development charge. The noble Lord has said that he does not intend it to be subject to a development charge. Surely the noble Lord can express himself in an Act of Parliament. It seems to me to be unreasonable for him to say one thing, and to put an entirely different thing in the Bill. It is different. It says that every timber yard in the country
594
is subject to a development charge. Surely the noble Lord is not questioning that, is he?
LORD MORRISON: Yes. The timber areas that are exempt are those which are used as part of forestry operations.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Will the noble Lord put that in the Bill?
LORD MORRISON: I will consider that before Report stage.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: In those circumstances, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to insert after paragraph 3 in Part II:
"3. The winning and working, on land held or occupied with land used for the purposes of agriculture, of any minerals reasonably required for the purposes of that use, including the fertilisation of the land so used and the maintenance, improvement or alteration of buildings or works thereon which are occupied or used for the purposes aforesaid.
4. The winning and working of peat by any person for the domestic requirements of that person."
The noble Lord said: I have already explained the purpose of this Amendment, It brings within existing use the working of minerals for purposes dental to farming operations, and the digging of peat for personal domestic use.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 131, line 20, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has given Notice to move an Amendment to this Amendment which reads as follows:
"Page 131, line 4 of paragraph 3, after ("and the") insert ("erection")".
The latter part of the paragraph, your Lordships might like to know, as amended, would read as follows:
"of any minerals reasonably required for the purposes of that use, including the fertilisation of the land so used and the erection, maintenance, improvement or alteration of buildings" and so on.
LORD POLWARTH: I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, to accept this Amendment to-night, because he has not had notice of it, but I hope that it may be possible to accept it at the next stage. The object of the Amendment is to

595
include the use of minerals found on the premises for the erection of buildings, as well as for the maintenance, improvement, or alteration of them. I think it is reasonable that the owner of the land should be able to erect a building. There are many estates which are quite capable of doing the work themselves. I hope that when it comes to another stage the noble Lord will see his way to include this. Under the circumstances, I will not move the Amendment to the Amendment now.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am still in a state of uncertainty in regard to these minerals on private property. The noble Lord said that in this Amendment we would find what we wanted. I have looked at the Amendment which says:
"The winning and working of peat by any person for the domestic requirements of that person."
That is all right; I agree there. But what about the other minerals which he told us quite a short time ago were included in the same category? Why should he not add to the winning and working of peat the words, "and other minerals by any person for the domestic requirements of that person," because that is apparently not included in the Bill now?
LORD MORRISON: I can only add that the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and myself became a little involved with two Amendments with similar aims. I am advised that it may be necessary to tidy the whole thing up on Report stage, and during the process the point raised by the noble Viscount will be taken into consideration.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My noble friend says it is already in this Amendment, but so far as I can see it is not. This refers to land. I am talking about minerals such as gravel and sand, and so on, which are taken out of pits on an estate and perhaps used to do up the paths and that sort of thing. That is not agriculture; it is domestic purposes. This only applies, as far as I can see, to agriculture. I will not pursue it any further now, but perhaps the noble Lord, with that explanation, will understand what I mean.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 131, line 45, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 46.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is a further consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 131, line 47, leave out from ("minerals") to ("so") in line 48 and insert ("on any land comprised in a site which, on the appointed day, was being used for that purpose").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
10.32 p.m.
Fourth Schedule [Provisions relating to compensation under Part II]:
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 132, line 4, after ("eighteen") insert ("section twenty").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This also is drafting. I beg to move paragraph 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 132, line 5, leave out ("diminution") and insert ("depreciation").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This again is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 132, line 26, leave out ("diminution") and insert ("depreciation").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The next Amendment relates to cases where compensation is payable under the Fourth Schedule in respect of an interest subject to a heritable security. A similar Amendment was moved in your Lordships' House by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, during the Report stage of the English Bill, and was accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 132, line 35, leave out from ("security") to end of line 39, and insert ("shall be paid by the local planning authority to the heritable creditor or where there is more than one heritable creditor to the heritable creditor whose security ranks first and shall in either case be applied by him

597
as if it were the proceeds of a sale by him under the powers competent to heritable creditors").—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to thank the Government for the Amendment. I think it is a great improvement.

Enactments Amended.

Enactments amended.

Amendments.

The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, 8 & 9 Geo. 6. c. 33.

In section fifty

and in subsection (7) after the word "orders" there shall be inserted the words "as to the expenses incurred by the Minister in relation to the inquiry (including such reasonable sum as the Minister may determine for the services of the person appointed to hold the inquiry) and".

LORD MORRISON: A similar Amendment to this was moved on the English Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in your Lordships' House and was

("The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, 9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 100.

In section twenty-one, after the words 'local authority' in the second place where those words occur, there shall be inserted the words' and the local planning authority within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947' and after the words 'county council' in the second place where those words occur, there shall be inserted the words 'not being the local planning authority'.")—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The next two Amendments are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 142, line 51, column 2, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947")
Page 145, line 32, column 2, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to leave out the amendment to subsection (7) of Section 50 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945. The noble Earl said: I want to draw attention to the insertion here into the 1945 Act. If there is one thing which struck me about the attitude of His Majesty's Government, it was their attitude towards inquiries and the manner in which those inquiries should be conducted. There are three things which His Majesty's Government seem to dislike very much. One is to have an independent inquiry; the second is to have a report of that inquiry presented to the public; and third, that they should have to explain the reasons why they want an inquiry conducted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Schedules agreed to.
Eighth Schedule:
accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 140, line 3, at end insert:
We have seen these three objects laid down by an independent Committee as essential requirements for a proper inquiry. We now see the Government going one step further; they say that they will charge the people who raise objections with the Minister's costs in conducting the inquiry. Not only do they dislike the inquiry, but when they have one they will charge those who take part in it. This was excluded from the 1945 Act and now it has come back in Schedule 8, Page 151, of this Act. I regard this as a very stingy arrangement. Considering the number of inquiries the Minister may have to conduct he will be penalizing the small man rather than the big man. It is the small man who shrinks from going to trouble and expense. So far we have been unable to extract any undertaking that this will be used only in cases where the objections are unreasonable or litigious. I regret that this clause should be included now without any qualification of any kind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 151, line 36, column 2, leave out from beginning to end of line 42.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: This is nothing new. There is ample statutory precedent

599
for conferring power on a Minister to recover from the parties to the local inquiry the expenses incurred by the Minister in connexion with the inquiry. Such powers are contained in Section 37 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1932; the Housing (Scotland) Acts, Section 24; paragraph 9 of the Sixth Schedule to the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943; and Section 73 (7) and (8) of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946. Similar provisions are also contained in the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, which has recently passed through your Lordships' House. If objections are made without good reason and this leads to an inquiry the Minister ought to have power to recover his expenses from the party whose action has rendered the inquiry necessary. Ministers can be trusted to exercise a proper discretion in this matter and not to seek to recover their expenses in cases where such a course would not be justified. I do not know whether the noble Earl attaches great importance to this matter, but I am authorized to give an assurance that so far as the present Minister is concerned there is no intention of exercising this power except in cases where the inquiry has been brought about without any adequate reason.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has quoted certain Acts of Parliament. May I ask whether he intends to quote the definition of minerals given in this Act as a precedent in all future Acts of Parliament? It is very dangerous to quote a precedent which is extremely bad. The clause I complained of has been put back. We are, however, at one in principle; where objections are made for no good reason I quite agree that there should be appropriate action. But why is it not in the Bill? Why are we always to depend on the arbitrary power of the Minister? That is not the rule of law. It is a pity that it is not possible to include what we entirely agree upon in the terms of the Bill as it stands. I am not going to press this matter, but I would like the noble Lord to think it over. It will give great satisfaction if something can be done. I appreciate very much the assurance he has given me and I am entirely at one with the terms of it. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON: This is drafting; it cures a misprint. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 152, line 34, after ("Country") insert ("Planning").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 153, line 2, leave out ("order made") and insert ("decision given").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 154, line 21, column 2 leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This again is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 154, line 26, column 2, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act; 1947; and in sub-paragraph (2) of the said paragraph 3 the words or the draft of the order or the application therefore as the case may be 'shall be omitted").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This again is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 154, line 30, column 2, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 156, line 2, leave out from beginning to end of line 22.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This, too, is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 156, line 27, leave out ("interim").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is drafting, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 157, line 32, at end insert:

("The Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act, 1947.

In section two in subsection (6) for the words 'that Act' there shall be substituted the words 'Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947'.

10 & 11 Geo. 6. c.

In section three in subsection (2) for the words '1945, for the area' there shall be substituted the words '1947, for the district'.")—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Eighth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Ninth Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 158, line 11, after ("Act") insert ("and in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5

("10 & 11 Geo. 6. c.

The Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act, 1947.

Paragraph (f) of subsection (4) of section one; in section two in subsection (1), the words 'or of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945'; and in subsection (4) the words 'the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945'; and in the Second Schedule, in paragraph 8, the words or in subsection (4) of section seventeen of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945'.")—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Ninth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Tenth Schedule [Transitory provisions and provisions consequential on repeals]:
LORD MORRISON: The next batch of Amendments are complementary to similar Amendments to Clause 23 (3) and their object is to prevent an agreement made between a local authority and the owner of land regulating the development of the land from being overridden by a local authority or by a Minister unless the use to which the land is to be put is in accordance with the development plan or, if it takes place during the preplan stage, is in accordance with directions given by the Secretary of State under Clause 33. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 164, line 3, leave out ("or requiring").—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Is the noble Lord taking these Amendments together?
LORD MORRISON: Yes.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I appreciate these Amendments, which are admirable. I thank the noble Lord for moving them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
the words 'or the amount of any sum payable as a supplement thereto' and the words 'together, if any sum is payable as a supplement thereto, with the amount of that sum'").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Para 161, line 58, at end insert:
LORD MORRISON: This is drafting, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 164, line 5, 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 Secretary of State under section thirty-three of this Act or as requiring the exercise of any such powers otherwise than as aforesaid").—(Lord Morrison)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, after paragraph 9, to insert:
"10. Where any such agreement as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph is modified or rescinded (whether by agreement or by virtue of the exercise of any powers conferred by sub-paragraph (b) or (c) of the proviso to that paragraph) at any time within three years after the appointed day, then if it appears to the Secretary of State that it is reasonable so to do having regard to the terms on which the agreement was made and to any loss or damage sustained by any person having an interest in land affected by the agreement by reason of the provisions this Act or of anything done thereunder, he may direct that the development value of that interest in the land, or in any part thereof, shall be calculated for the purposes of Part V of this Act as if the agreement had been so modified or rescinded immediately before the appointed day."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment corresponds to an Amendment to toe English Bill made on the Third Reading

603
in your Lordships' House following upon an Amendment by Viscount Gage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 164, line 23, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My earlier remarks were intended particularly for this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is a purely technical Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 166, line 10, leave out from ("under") to end of line 12 and insert ("the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act, 1947, as applied by Part III of this Act.
17. For the purposes of the Act of 1945 as amended by this Act—

(a) any land acquired by a Minister in pursuance of any such order as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph shall be deemed to have been acquired under section thirty-four of this Act;

(b) any land acquired by a local planning authority in pursuance of any such order as aforesaid shall be deemed to have been acquired under section thirty-five of this Act;

(c) any land acquired by a local planning authority by agreement under the Act of 1945 shall be deemed to have been acquired under section thirty-seven of this Act.")—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Tenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Eleventh Schedule [Unrepealed provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, reprinted as amended by this Act]:
LORD MORRISON: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 170, line 39, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947") —(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 184, line 10, leave out ("order made") and insert ("decision given")—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 189, line 9, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947")—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 189, line 13, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947") —(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This again is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 189, line 46, leave out from ("submitted") to ("made") in line 47—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 191, line 17, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947")—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 191, line 35, leave out from beginning to ("is").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 191, line 45, leave out from ("compensation") to ("has") in line 47.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 192, line 32, leave out ("Act, 1946") and insert ("(Scotland) Act, 1947.")—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Eleventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending section one of the Act to the:

City of Stoke-on-Trent;

Borough of Bury St. Edmunds;

Borough of Crewe;

606

Urban District of Aldridge;

Urban District of Gainsborough;

Urban District of Willenhall;

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.