TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

HL Deb 28 July 1947 vol 151 cc544-85

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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (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;
2. (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 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 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 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

1. (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;
2. (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 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- 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— (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (b), to insert: (c) that where—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) the land was land to which this section applies on the appointed day; or
2. (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,

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—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 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—

1. (a) an application for planning permission in respect of any development;
2. (b) an application for a determination of the Central Land Board in respect of that development;
3. (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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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— 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 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 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 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 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 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: