HL Deb 31 July 1947 vol 151 cc918-25

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 dwellinghouses 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, with the cultivation or felling of trees.

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 al buildings or works thereon which are occupied or used for the purposes aforesaid.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in paragraph 2 of Part II, after "dwelling-houses," to insert "not being dwellinghouses to which the conditions set out in subsection (1) of Section three of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, apply." The noble Duke said: My Lords, a very similar Amendment was moved on the Committee stage when the noble Lord gave an assurance. I think the Government have informed us that all new dwelling-houses occupied by agricultural workers, so long as they are so occupied, will not be subject to development charge and that provision for excepting such houses from development charges will be made by regulations. The only point that is not really quite clear is as to what is meant by "agricultural workers." I think there is difficulty in defining these words, and it may be wiser to leave the matter fairly open—in fact as open as possible—so as not to prejudice agriculture and production, as will be done if the words "agricultural workers" are too narrowly construed.

I suggest in fact that these words should cover all workers for the agricultural industry who are necessary not only for the actual work on the farm but for good estate management, for providing the conditions necessary for good husbandry—both those are included in the Agriculture Bill which has just been passed in respect of England and will be brought forward for Scotland later on—and also for the maintenance of agricultural estates thereby making full agricultural production possible. I hope that the definition will be kept as wide as possible, and therefore I beg leave once again to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 137, line 21, after ("dwellinghouses") insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, the noble Duke will remember that an assurance was given in your Lordships' House, which I can repeat now, that in framing the regulations under Clause 66 (2) (b) of the Bill—regulations specifying operations to be exempt from development charge—the Government would exempt from charge the erection of new houses for agricultural workers so long as they continue to be occupied by such workers, and that the Government hope to be able to exempt also the improvement or enlargement of houses for agricultural workers irrespective of whether the 1,750 cubic feet tolerance is exceeded, so long as these houses continue to be occupied by such workers.

The noble Duke then rightly raised the question which has given us some trouble—and in fact is still doing so—as to the exact definition of what is an agricultural worker. The question was asked whether "agricultural worker" will be defined widely in the regulations, whether it will include people like fencers and dykers and other estate workers whose services are essential to enable actual agricultural operations to be carried out, although they themselves are not actually carrying out agricultural operations. The answer is that this matter will be most carefully considered in the regulations. I would also like to assure the noble Duke that the regulations will be discussed in draft with the National Farmers' Union and other appropriate bodies, and the regulations themselves will, of course, require to be approved by an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Before that is clone they will be discussed in draft with the bodies concerned. There will, therefore, be full opportunity for discussing in Parliament the provisions of the regulations. I hope that that assurance may be helpful to the noble Duke.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, when we were discussing these agricultural workers before, and we got exactly the same assurance, I was under the impression that they were covered by the definition of "agriculture" in this Bill. That was the kind of worker that we thought was going to be covered. If the noble Lord will at some time look at page 127 of this Bill, he will see what the definition is.

LORD MORRISON

I will certainly see that this is brought to the attention of those who will be responsible for drafting regulations.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

My Lords, I think the noble Lord's assurances are very helpful. I submit that all the examples given by him can be fairly argued at the proper time. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.43 p.m.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved in paragraph 2 of Part II, after "yards," to insert "not being timber yards used in connexion with forestry operation on the said land." The noble Duke said: My Lords, this matter also was discussed at some length on Committee stage in reference to timber yards, and I will not repeat what was said before. I would, however, like to make it clear that new timber yards which owners will use and occupy for the conversion of their timber, or for a normal part of their forestry operations, might well be free from a development charge. It is the purpose of this Amendment to frame the paragraph accordingly. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 137, line 22, after ("yards") insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, this also is an Amendment which has given us some worries. The whole object of paragraph 2 is to include within the range of "existing use" development building operations required for ordinary forestry purposes, but not development required for special purposes. The provision of a yard for the stacking of timber as part of forestry operations would, therefore, be exempt under the clause as it stands. The effect of the Amendment, however, would be to exempt also the erection of buildings for the purpose of timber yards, used in connexion with forestry operations. This might well exempt from development charge the erection of buildings to accommodate saws and machinery used for preparing timber for sale, as it would no doubt be argued that the timber yard was being used in connexion with forestry operations. Such an exemption would not be justified, and I am sorry that in this case I am not able to accept the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord takes exception to the extended use which is really required in the course of normal forestry operations, but if the Amendment cannot be accepted there is nothing more to be said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD POLWARTH moved, in paragraph 3 of Part II, after "land so used and the" to insert "erection." The noble Lord said: My Lords, as a result of very valuable concessions which we got during the passage of this Bill, the owner of agricultural land on which there are minerals is allowed to work them without development charge for the purpose, as stated in the Third Schedule, of maintaining buildings or works on that agricultural land. The object of my Amendment is to enable the man not only to do those things, but also to use the minerals without charge for the erection of new buildings on that land. The position at the moment is this. Take the case of a farm building. Suppose the owner wishes to erect a new cow-house and that he has available on his land stone and sand which will be used in the process. It appears that if it is a new building and he uses this material, he will be liable to development charge—not for the erection of the building, because that is already exempted in the preceding para- graph of the Schedule, but for the fact that he is using those minerals for the erection of the new building. If he wishes to repair improve or enlarge that building he may use those minerals without becoming liable to development charge. That is one instance.

Another case is that which was mentioned earlier in the discussion by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie—namely, the case of the crofters. A crofter may wish to build his own house—that may sound rather a strange thing in these days, but it is a thing that does happen in the North of Scotland—and to build it of stone won in the local surroundings. It would appear that if he does build a new house in the way he will be liable for development charge: not because he has built the house (it is an " agricultural worker's house") but for having taken the stone with which to build it. It seems a little anomalous that there should be this distinction between use of these minerals for erection, and their use for improvement and maintenance. Therefore I ask the noble Lord if he can see his way to include "erection" in the paragraph. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 137, line 28, after ("land so used and the") insert ("erection").—(Lord Polwarth

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, as this is the last Amendment in this very complex Bill I should have been very pleased if I could accept it, but unhappily I advised that it would add very considerable complications if it were accepted. The Amendment moved by the noble Lord seeks to bring within "existing use" working of minerals for the erection of buildings associated with agriculture. This could not be accepted, as it might open the door to argument on compulsory purchase that the "existing use value "of farm or estate included a substantial mineral value for the purpose of extracting sufficient stone, sand, gravel and so on, for the building of an unspecified number of farm cottages, estate buildings, market garden buildings, and other buildings. No such provision as this appears in the English Bill, and because of the complications that would arise I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, is it not possible to make a special exception and to put in crofters' houses? Crofting conditions do not exist in England; they exist only in the North of Scotland. They are not estates in the ordinary way; they are just patches of arable land where crofters can live. I should like to ask whether it is not possible to put in the Bill something to meet these cases, so that these charges will not apply in the case of crofters' houses—confining it to the North of Scotland, if you like. I am sure it would be a very simple thing to do, and I think that that is largely what my noble friend is asking. At any rate it would relieve those people from development charge.

LORD POLWARTH

My Lords, I must frankly admit that I am disappointed in the noble Lord's reply. I appreciate the position and I do not think there is very much between us. I did not think that he would object to this Amendment. I have a nasty feeling that the nigger in the woodpile is the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he is afraid that there is a loophole here which is going to lose him a source of revenue. I cannot believe that this provision is one that will be easily enforced. I do not think that it is good legislation to make crimes which will in fact be very difficult to detect. In view of this I am not at all surprised that His Majesty's Government wish to have longer than four years in which to detect such transgressions; I appreciate that. It is undesirable to persist in this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 28):

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Third time. As there are only a few moments before we adjourn may I just say that I am very much indebted to members of the Opposition, and in particular to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for the way in which they have made it possible to get this Bill through in a reasonable time and, if I may say so, in a good temper? I think we have improved the Bill somewhat.

Moved. That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Morrison.)

5.52 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I entirely agree that we have got this Bill through in what actually amounts to a record time. We started the Committee stage only last Monday, and the Bill will have its Third Reading on Thursday: that is pretty good going, considering the complexity of the Bill. There are, however, one or two things that I would like to say now. First, I would like to make the point that I complained about when I started--namely, the complexity of the Bill. The more I have gone into it, the more complex I have found it and the more artificial its distinctions have seemed. For instance, a crofter may mend his house by taking stones from the hillside but he cannot build himself a new house by the same process. I think that there is running through this Bill the feeling that the dominant interest is the Treasury and not planning. I am afraid I must say that some of the planning considerations have suffered on account of that.

There are two more points I should like to raise. First of all, there is no question of land being cheaper; secondly, there is no question that site values will be passed on to the tenant, as indeed is the case now, and not always absorbed by the building. I believe that we have incorporated 16o Amendments in this Bill—that is, of course, counting the consequential Amendments—and of those only three were not by agreement. That is a fairly good testimony to the way in which we can get things done if we try hard. I would take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, for the assistance he has given me. We have given him rather a gruelling, I am afraid, and he has taken it extremely well.

I would like to make one suggestion here which is really important. It is that there should be published a pamphlet on Planning without Tears, so that as many people as possible may realize exactly what is happening. I mentioned the word "designation." I do not know that many outside these rooms know what it means, and I think it is important that as many people as possible should be encouraged to understand exactly what it is that we are trying to do. Those who are executing the provisions of this Bill have an immense task and a big trust to the whole community of the country. I hope that they will fulfil that task and trust, and be given the power to fulfil it with both imagination and understanding.

On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

House adjourned during pleasure.

House resumed.

6.0 p.m.