HL Deb 28 July 1947 vol 151 cc586-604

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

  1. (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;
  2. (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;
  3. (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.

Back to