TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

HL Deb 31 July 1947 vol 151 cc880-918

4.9 p.m.

Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT ADDISON)

My Lords, In moving that this Report be now received, I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, has been pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament the interests of the Crown in so far as they are affected by the said Bill.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Viscount Addison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.

Clause 1:

The Central Land Board

(2) The Board shall have an office in Scotland and shall maintain there such staff as may be necessary for the proper performance of their functions under this Act.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to subsection (2): and it shall be the duty of the Board to take such steps as may be necessary to secure that their functions under Parts III and VI of this Act including without prejudice to the foregoing generality their functions as to the fixing and determination of development charges shall normally be carried out in Scotland.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this first Amendment carries out very much what Lord Morrison promised yesterday, and that is to extend to the representatives in Scotland upon whom the Minister is to delegate authority the right to have all their business settled on the spot.

If I may say so, the answer I received in Committee was not very satisfactory. It was said that there would be two Scottish representatives in London. That is certainly not the answer. It was said that directions will be received from the Secretary of State, and from no one else. I think anyone who is familiar with this Bill must be aware that a large number of the instructions and directions will come from the Treasury, and not from the Minister of Town and Country Planning or from the Secretary of State. There will be an office in Scotland. That was hardly avoidable in the worst possible circumstances. It is said that the Board will be available for consultation for officers who live in Scotland. I submit that this provides—or shall I say, in a most mild and delicate manner, suggests?—that there will be a resident decision to take. We have had this all before, and I do not want unnecessarily to take up your Lordships' time. I think this matter is one of importance and, although it may not be entirely what the Secretary of State would like, I am quite certain that if the best use is to be made of this Bill the people who are making the ultimate decision must be very near the subject with which they are dealing. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 12, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, alter lengthy and good-tempered discussion I think we have reached a stage when there does not appear to be much between us. I think the noble Earl himself described it as a mild Amendment. I am advised that it really adds nothing to the provisions already contained in the Bill. Clause 2, as it stands, already provides that "the Board shall have an office in Scotland, and shall maintain there such staff as may be necessary for the proper performance of their functions" under the Bill. These functions include, in particular, the acquisition and disposal of land under Part III, and the determination of development charges under Part VI. As already announced by the Secretary of State in another place, the Scottish Office of the Board will, within the framework of general policy, carry through the day-to-day administration of the Board's functions under the Bill; in particular they will fix the amount of development charges payable in Scottish cases, and will determine the method of securing development charges, and the method of the disposal of land. In all this work they will be advised by the Chief Valuer of Scotland, and the Scottish members of the Board will be available for consultation by the Board's Scottish staff. I hope the noble Earl will be assured by this statement. I do not think we can get any further on the point, and I hope that he will be good enough not to press this Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I said in the course of my Second Reading speech that this Bill was setting up a synthetic and absentee landlord. I hate done my best to persuade the noble Lord to take away the absentee part of it, arid he has declined to do so. I will leave it at that, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 [Local planning authorities]:

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, consequential an the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill which will become law this, Session. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 34, leave out from ("subsection") to the first ("the") in line 35 and insert ("(1) of Section one hundred and eighteen of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947,")—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (3), to insert: (4) Any such order shall be laid before Parliament and if either House within a period of forty days after the order is so laid before it resolves that the order be annulled, the order shall thereupon cease to have effect, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order. In reckoning for the purposes of this subsection any such period of forty days, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which in principle has been approved in the English Town and Country Planning Bill. The object is that in any combination of local planning authorities to become one planning authority the order will be laid before Parliament in the ordinary way, and be subject to disapproval if required. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, the noble Earl moved this as a manuscript Amendment in the Committee stage in your Lordships' House, and withdrew it on the understanding that he would put it down again on Report. Having had an opportunity of considering it, I have pleasure in accepting this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6:

Incorporation in development plans of orders relating to trunk roads and new towns.

6.—(1) Where an order is made by the Minister of Transport in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Trunk Roads Act, 1946, directing that any road proposed to be constructed by him shall become a trunk road, or authorising him to construct or improve any road under Section four of that Act, any development plan which relates to land on which a road is to be constructed or improved in accordance with that order shall have effect as if the provisions of that order were included in the plan.

4.15 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (1), after the second "Act" to insert "the Secretary of State shall direct that." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to bring up this question once again, because I think it is very important. I would like to draw the noble Lords attention to one of the recent publications of His Majesty's Government entitled Scots at Work (perhaps a very curious thing to think of) in which it says: Town and country planning. The Minister responsible for Town and Country Planning in Scotland is the Secretary of State. His job is made the easier because he is also Minister in charge of housing, water supply, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and hydro-electricity, all of which have an important bearing on the economic development of Scotland and all require co-ordinating in a national plan.

That is all very nice, but the fact is that, although the Secretary of State approves the development plan which takes place, under this Bill any Government Department can take any action in the development plan which they care to take. In other words, they can ride roughshod over the development plan in any way they like. I know the noble Lord says that in fact they will be polite enough to ring up the Secretary of State's office and ask if there is any objection. I know that is the theory, but I suggest that it is absolutely essential to carry that further. Here is a duty which the Secretary of State has, and I think that it should be included in principle in a Bill of this nature. I do not think it is enough to say that this is not the place to put it. This is essentially a part of the Bill where coordination is required for the protection of the local authorities and, if I may say so, for the protection of individuals, too. I think this is exactly the place where some measure of co-ordination should be inserted. I know that the noble Lord is not going to accept this Amendment. I am raising this as a matter of principle, and asking him to consider this as something which I am certain will have to be dealt with in the near future. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 14, after ("Act") insert ("the Secretary of State shall direct that").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for having drawn my attention to this literary masterpiece Scots at Work, of which I had not previously heard. Now that he has mentioned it I will take an early opportunity of possessing myself of a copy so that I may be acquainted with its contents. The noble Earl has said quite candidly that he knows I am unable to accept this Amendment. The reason I am unable to accept it is that it is one of those things which do crop up. I have taken advice upon it, and have asked for instructions; and the answer I have had is that it would be improper and unconstitutional for this Bill to make the actions of one Minister subject to the approval of another Minister. That is why I am advised that in no circumstances can I accept this Amendment. I hope that having made his point so effectively the noble Earl will be satisfied.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, I was going to rise to support my noble friend the Earl of Selkirk when the noble Lord opposite got up. I am glad now that tie noble Lord rose first because, having listened to his argument as to why he could not accept this Amendment, I am not at all convinced by it. First of all, he said that this was something that had cropped up. I felt that that was treating my noble friend's Amendment with some liberty, rather than with the seriousness which it demands. The noble Lord also said that it was quite unconstitutional for one Minister to have any control over the actions of another Minister. The noble Lord knows as well as I do that the Secretary of State for Scotland is in a very peculiar position so far as Scotland is concerned, and it is always understood that in any important matter of policy—I think the noble Lord will admit this is the case where trunk roads have to be designated, or where matters are connected with new towns—the Secretary of State should be consulted. That is all I understand my noble friend is asking; that the Secretary of State should be consulted.

LORD MORRISON

No.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

If that is not all my noble friend is asking 1 will give way to the noble Lord.

LORD MORRISON

The noble Earl's Amendment would have the effect of making the Minister of Transport's Order subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

Even so, as far as Scotland is concerned we have always been accustomed to the fact that some Minister could not come in from outside and say what we had to do in Scotland about these things. I think the Government ought to consider this Amendment very seriously. If the wording is not absolutely correct we might adopt the wording which has been so often adopted during the last week or so in connexion with the Electricity Bill and the Transport Bill, that it should be in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sure that my noble friend would be willing to accept an Amendment of that kind, so that in a matter of this description the Secretary of State for Scotland is not entirely ignored, that he has his say in it, and that it is put in the Fill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will riot go away with a dirge in his heart about this particular Amendment. I hope rather that he will go away in a spirit of trying to help us get an Amendment giving the Secretary of State an opportunity of saying, in important issues of this kind, whether something is good or bad.

LORD KINNAIRD

My Lords, I should like to add one word to support. this Amendment. It is within my knowledge that where the Ministry of Transport are in control certain very valuable agricultural lands are at the present time in danger of being absorbed for by-passing and increasing the size of trunk roads, whereas it would seem wiser in the present circumstances of food shortage to delay these things. I hope this point will be carefully considered and that careful inquiry will be made before the Ministry of Transport can take valuable agricultural land without consulting the Secretary of State for Scotland.

LORD MORRISON

If I may say S), by leave of the House, I do not think there is any likelihood that any decision upon this matter will be taken without ft 11 consultation between the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Transport. But the point which has been raised, which goes further than that, and about which I am a little worried, is that the noble Viscount appealed to me to do something which I am advised by the highest authority would be most improper and unconstitutional—namely, that one Minister should be put under the authority of another Minister. This is not the time nor the Bill——

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to misrepresent me. I never suggested for a moment that one Minister should be under the authority of another. What I did say was that in Scotland, in matters of this kind, the Secretary of State has hitherto been paramount, and that I hoped he would remain so. I then went on to suggest to the noble Lord that there was a way out, which was by inserting that the Minister should act in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I say that, subject to what my noble friend the Earl of Selkirk thinks about it.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, seems to be in a difficult position, because he says that this Amendment makes other Ministries subject to the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland. What are we controlling? We are controlling planning, and the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for town and country planning. Not only that, but he has said himself that he is the final authority. If he is the final authority, in some measure other Government Departments must be subject to his control.

All I am asking is that he should be the chairman from whom the directions should go out to the local authorities, and that the local authorities should be in a position to make representations to him. I do not believe that there is anything unconstitutional about that. I think one has to recognize that, under this extensive planning measure, in a sense the whole of the Scottish territory comes within the administrative sphere of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am not saying that that is desirable, but since it is so, I think he should accept his responsibility over other Government Departments. I am quite aware that the noble Lord has no authority to go further, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

My Lords, before the noble Earl withdraws his Amendment, would the Government undertake to consider this again before Third Reading? The Secretary of State for Scotland is really in quite a different position from that of other Secretaries of State, who have only one or two departments under them. He is responsible for the whole of Scotland, and I do ask the noble Lord most seriously to consider this before he refuses the request from this side of the House.

LORD MORRISON

Perhaps the noble Marquess is not aware that it is proposed to take the Third Reading of this Bill to-day, and that therefore there will be no opportunity.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

There is opportunity of consulting with a Scottish Law Officer even in the next sixty minutes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8:

Supplementary provisions as to development plans.

(2) Provision may be made by regulations under this Act with respect to the form and content of development plans, and with respect to the procedure to be followed in connection with the preparation, submission, approval, making and amendment of such plans, and such regulations shall in particular make provision for securing—

1. (a) that before preparing a development plan or proposals for alterations or additions to any such plan the local planning authority shall consult with such bodies or persons as may be prescribed by the regulations.
2. (b) that notice shall be given by advertisement of the submission to the Secretary of State of any such plan or of proposals for the amendment of any such plan, and of any proposal by the Secretary of State to make or amend such plan and of the place or places where copies of the plan or proposals as so submitted, or of any such proposal of the Secretary of State, may be inspected;
3. (c) that objections and representations duly made in accordance with the regulations shall be considered, and that such local inquiries or other hearings as may be prescribed by the regulations shall be held, before such a plan is approved, made or amended by the Secretary of State; and

4.25 p.m.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (2), to insert: "and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this provision, with the appropriate agricultural executive committee." The noble Duke said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to provide that before a development plan is prepared or altered the local planning authority shall consult with the agricultural executive committee of the area concerned. A statutory obligation to do this is therefore placed on the local planning authority, instead of dealing with the matter by regulations. I think it is an advantage to safeguard the best and most productive agricultural land in this way rather more than is now the case. The area agricultural executive committee should have the right to express an opinion and to have that opinion considered. The words just spoken to the last Amendment by my noble friend Lord Kinnaird about the Ministry of Transport taking good land rather reinforces what I have been saying. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 19, at end insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I am still a little doubtful whether there is any good reason for singling out the agricultural executive committee, as other bodies and persons will also require to be specified in the regulations as persons to be consulted in the preparation of development plans. But as the noble Lord apparently feels strongly on the point, and as the noble Duke has given me reasons which I think are adequate, I am happy to accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord. I am sorry that he does so reluctantly, because both here and in another ^place this was agreed to almost unanimously.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "advertisement" to insert "in one or more newspapers circulating in the area concerned." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment makes it obligatory on the Secretary of State to advertise the development plan or any amendment to it in one or more of the local newspapers circulating in the area. The Amendment is exactly the same as was moved at the last stage, but the notice was then too short. I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will see his way to accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 20, after ("advertisement") insert ("in one or more newspapers circulating in the area. concerned,").—(Lord Polwarth.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I have not the slightest reluctance on this occasion. From the drafting point of view I am advised that this is now a much more satisfactory Amendment and I lave pleasure in accepting it.

LORD POLWARTH

I thank the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved in subsection (2) (c), after the second "that" to insert: unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the objection or representation is frivolous or relates only to a matter which can be dealt with by an arbitrator by whom compensation is to be assessed.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am relating this Amendment primarily to the purpose of obtaining a little more information. The information for which I am asking is in regard to the nature of the inquiry which can and will be held at the appropriate time. It appeared to me on reading the clause that the inquiries were entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State and that he might or might not use the power given. It is very much in the interest of the Secretary of State himself and of all localities that the purpose and extent of the development should be as fully known as possible. I should like to know what happens when, every fifth year, the plan comes up for reexamination; that is to say, if there is another inquiry held, is there permission at that time for any representations to be made? And if so what can be done?

This is particularly important in view of Clause 42, where it appears that when a compulsory purchase takes place following designation there is no opportunity, or very slight opportunity, for objecting or making any representations. For that reason it is very important that the nature and quality of the examination which is to take place before the development should be clearly understood. It should also be clearly understood that when the application is made before the original designation policy is laid down, that is the time when any representations should be made. It is no good knowing of them at a much later date, when it is necessary or desirable for the compulsory purchase to be put into force. I should be grateful the noble Lord can give us some indication of the nature and the occasions of the inquiries which it is in the mind of tie Secretary of State to initiate. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 30, after ("that") insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Earl such information on this point as I have available. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that the Secretary of State should not be required to hold a local inquiry or hearing on a development plan if he is satisfied that the objections or representations lodged against the proposed plan are frivolous or relate to compensation questions within the jurisdiction of an official arbiter. I am advised that the wording of the Amendment is not satisfactory, as no question of compensation can arise in connexion with the approval of development plans. I am also advised that the Amendment is unnecessary, as the proper place for making it clear that frivolous objections should not necessitate holding of local inquiries or hearings is in the regulations to be made under Clause 8. It is therefore much better to leave the Clause as it stands and to make this provision in the regulations.

In reply to the question as to whether inquiries or hearings will in all cases be held in connexion with development plans or proposals for the alteration or modification of such plans where objections have been made, the answer is that such inquiries or hearings will certainly be held in these cases unless the objections are, on the face of them, frivolous. Moreover, it may sometimes be desirable to hold inquiries or hearings, even although no objections have been made to the development plan, so that the Secretary of State may get any necessary information to enable him to decide whether or not the plan should be approved, subject to modifications. The Secretary of State has already stated in another place that whenever a development plan is submitted to him for approval there will he a public inquiry and that so far as the genuine objector is concerned he will be entitled to be heard. The noble Earl asked whether there can be any further reconsideration. I am advised that any proposals for amendment of a plan to which there are objections will also be subject to inquiry. I hope this explanation may help the noble Earl.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I thank the noble Lord for his reply; I am glad to hear that there will be some opportunity, as I presume is provided in subsection (2) of Clause 8, for inquiries to be held. I am also glad to hear that unless objections are frivolous it is not the intention of the Secretary of State to hold a local public inquiry in each case, and that he may even hold an inquiry where there is no objection. I am satisfied with that explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12:

Applications to local planning authorities for planning permission.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, conditions may be imposed on the grant of planning permission thereunder— (a) for regulating the development or use of any land under the control of the applicant (whether or not it is land in respect of which the application was made) or requiring the carrying out of works on any such land, so far as appears to the local planning authority to be expedient for the purposes of, or in connexion with, the development authorised by the permission; and any planning permission granted subject to any such condition as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection is in this Act referred to as planning permission granted for a limited period only.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved to add at the end of subsection (2): Provided that conditions may not be imposed by a local planning authority under paragraph (a) of this subsection for regulating the development or use of any land within the area of another local planning authority except with the consent of that authority. The noble Duke said: My Lords, this Amendment provides that a local planning authority shall not impose conditions regulating the use or development of any land within the area of another local planning authority except with the consent of that authority. The Amendment differs slightly from the Amendment moved during the Committee stage, but goes a considerable way to meet the criticism that was made of that proposal as at present included in the clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 46, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I take it that the noble Duke is dealing with this and the next Amendment, which is consequential on it, together. He has explained it so clearly that it is not necessary for me to detain your Lordships and I gladly accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13 [Reference of applications to the Secretary of State]:

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

My Lords, this is consequential on the previous Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 31, leave out ("subsections (1) and (2)") and insert ("subsection (1) and of subsection (2) other than the proviso thereto".—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21:

Enforcement of planning control.

21.—(1) If it appears to the local planning authority that any development of land has been carried out after the appointed day without the grant of planning permission in that behalf, or that any conditions subject to which such permission was granted in respect of any development have not been complied with, then, subject to any directions given by the Secretary of State, the local planning authority may, if they consider it expedient so to do having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations, serve on the owner, on the lessee and on the occupier of the land a notice under this section.

4.38 p.m.

LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (1), after "may" to insert "within two years after it has come to their knowledge that such development has been so carried out or that such conditions have not been complied with." The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, moved an Amendment, the effect of which was to limit to four years after the development was carried out the period within which enforcement action could be taken. In resisting this Amendment I explained that although a corresponding Amendment had been made to the English Bill, the Amendment was not appropriate to Scottish conditions because of the fact that in remote Highland areas development might well be carried out without consent and not be discovered for more than four years. I also pointed out that an offence was still an offence, in Scotland as well as in England, even if it was not discovered. I gave an undertaking, however, to consider the matter further before Report stage.

The point has been further considered, and the present Amendment sets out the arrangement which it is thought would. be more suitable to Scottish conditions. It is accepted that there should be some limit to the period of time within which. the local planning authority should be able to take enforcement proceedings against contraventions of planning control. It is considered, however, that the period should begin to run from the date when the contravening development first comes to the knowledge of the local planning authority and that it should be restricted to a period of two years from that date. I hope the noble Earl will agree that I have done my best to meet his point, and that the Amendment will at least partially satisfy him. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 35, after ("may") insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, it is not my desire to look a gift horse in the mouth and I am not going to complain very much. I do think it is fair to say this, however: that now, on an occasion when it is desired to tighten up the law a little, the noble Lord calls in aid the remote Highlands as an excuse for making the law here rather more severe than elsewhere. When we came to deal with transport, there was no consideration for relaxing the conditions in the Highlands at all. It appears, therefore, that the Highlands are used merely for putting more severe measures in a Bill when the time comes. I will mention one thing on which the noble Lord agrees. there must be some limit. He will be aware that under this clause, if a local planning authority did not discover this offence or this non-conforming development for fifty years, they could still prosecute within two years: in fact there is no limit to the time in which they could prosecute. Will not the noble Lord try to think of a practical over-all figure of five or six years, or even the standard prescription of ten years which exists in Scotland? I merely throw out that suggestion because it seems to me that al over-all period (since this is really rather . different from other sorts of crime) is quite reasonable. I do not press the matter, and I thank the noble Lord for taking it as far as he could.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28:

Lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.

(3) As soon as may be after any list has been compiled or approved under this section, or any amendments of such a list have been made, a copy of so much of the list as relates to the district of any local planning authority, or of so much of the amendments as relate thereto, as the case may be, certified by or on behalf of the Secretary of State to be a true copy thereof, shall be deposited with the clerk of the local planning authority.

LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "planning authority" where that term first occurs, arid insert "authority being the local planning authority or the local authority for the purposes of the Housing (Scotland) Acts, 1925 to 1946." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, like the last, is also designed to meet a point raised in Committee stage by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. In Committee, the noble Earl moved an Amendment providing that a clearance or demolition order under the Housing (Scotland) Acts should have no effect in relation to any house which was the subject of a building preservation order and which was acquired by a local planning authority under Clause 38. In resisting the Amendment, on behalf of the Government, I explained that the object of a clearance order was to secure the complete demolition of all houses in an area so that it might be developed afresh in the interests of health; and that, similarly, the object of a demolition order was to secure the demolition of an unfit dwelling house. Accordingly, where a clearance order or demolition order had been made there was no alternative to the demolition of the building in the interest of health, and it was therefore inappropriate to make a building preservation order with respect to any such building.

On the other hand, the Government recognize that steps ought to be taken to guard against clearance or demolition orders being made without good reason in respect of houses which are already the subject of building preservation orders. The present Amendment accordingly provides that lists of buildings of architectural or historic interest, compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under Clause 28, shall be sent not only to local planning authorities but also to all housing authorities: that is, authorities with power to make demolition or clearance orders. This will ensure that the housing authorities will be aware of buildings which are regarded as being of architectural or historic interest and will consult the local planning authority before taking any steps to have the buildings demolished. I frankly admit that the Amendment does not entirely meet the noble Earl's Amendment in Committee, but it does go some way to do this. In those circumstances I hope the noble Earl may be disposed, as he said just now, not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 4, leave out ("planning authority") and insert ("authority being the local planning authority or the local authority for the purposes of the Housing (Scotland) Acts 1925 to 1946").—(Lord Morrison.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord for going as far as he can in this matter.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 7, leave out ("the local planning") and insert ("that").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29:

Control of advertisements.

(3) Regulations made for the purposes of this section may make different provision with respect to different areas, and in particular may make special provision with respect to areas defined for the purposes of the regulations as areas of special control (being either rural areas or areas other than rural areas which appear to the Secretary of State to require special protection on grounds of amenity); and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision may prohibit the display in any such area of all advertisements, except advertisements of such classes, if any, as may be specified in the regulations.

4.45 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to subsection (3): Provided that regulations made for the purposes of this section in respect of any area shall not impose any less restrictions than are imposed by any local enactment in force in that area before the appointed day. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this refers to advertisement control, and merely asks for a specific assurance, which I did not think was forthcoming in the course of the Committee stage, that areas which already have a rigid form of advertisement control will not have their power in any way reduced. I admit that I am referring particularly to Edinburgh in this matter, which already has considerable powers in regard to advertisement control. I believe the noble Lord finds it difficult to accept the wording of this Amendment, but I would be grateful if I could have a specific assurance that it is not intended in any way to reduce the powers of local authorities as existing before the appointed day or to reduce any local control which exists at the present time. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 15, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I think I can satisfy the noble Earl in regard to this point; I think it should be put on record with a rather more detailed explanation of what is proposed. On the last occasion we discussed this, I explained that it would be difficult to reconcile the, terms of the Amendment with the provisions of Clause 29 (5) of the Bill, which provide for exempting existing advertisements for certain specified periods after the date on which the regulations come into force. The object of this provision is to give local planning authorities time to consider just what advertisements in their districts ought to be removed or controlled, and to allow a "free period" to existing advertisements displayed under existing contracts. Local enactments do not contain provisions corresponding to the provisions of Clause 29 (5), and accordingly in this respect the regulations made under the Bill may apply less stringent conditions than the local enactments.

Again, it has been stated on behalf of the Government that the advertisement regulations to be made under the Bill will not impose any censorship on the content of advertisements. In this respect, the regulations may, therefore, be rather less stringent than the provisions of local enactments. Generally, the intention is to have one code of advertisement control applying to the country as a whole. This will provide an effective control, although, as already indicated, it may be somewhat less stringent in certain respects than the control imposed by local enactments. On the other hand, in some respects—for example, in special amenity areas—the regulations to be made under the Bill will provide a stricter control. I would add only that the provisions of the regulations to be made under the Bill will be discussed with the local authority associations and the trade interests, and in preparing these regulations full regard will be had to the provisions of local enactments, such as those in force in the City of Edinburgh.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord for those remarks. What I am really interested in is that in the amenity arias strictness will be maintained; that is all I am asking. I am very grateful. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38 [Power to acquire buildings of special architectural or historic interest]:

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, after subsection (3) to insert: (4) Any person having an interest in tins' building which it is proposed to acquire compulsorily under this section may, within twenty-eight days after the service of the notice required to be served under paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Lend (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act, 1947, apply to the sheriff for an order prohibiting further proceedings on the compulsory purchase order, and if the sheriff is satisfied that reasonable steps are being taken for properly preserving the building, he shall make an order accordingly. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this clause empowers local planning authorities, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to acquire any buildings which are the subject of a building preservation order. The Amendment provides that any person having an interest in such building may, within twenty-eight days from the date of the service of the notice compulsorily to acquire the building under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act, apply to the sheriff to have the proceeding stayed. If the sheriff is satisfied that reasonable steps are being taken to preserve the building, he is empowered by this Amendment to make such an order. I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, it may save time, and meet with no objection from the noble Duke, if I say at once that I have pleasure in accepting his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

Once more, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his acceptance.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39 [Power of local authority to appropriate certain land for planning purposes]:

LORD MORRISON

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

Amendment moved— Page 50; line 15, leave out from ("Section") to ("which") in line 16, and insert ("one hundred and sixty-three of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947") —(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40:

Acquisition of land by Central Land Board.

(6) Provision may be made by regulations under this Act for requiring the Central Land Board to keep a register containing such particulars as may be prescribed by the regulations of land acquired and disposed of under this section, and for the inspection of any such register by the public on payment of such reasonable fee, if any, as may be so prescribed.

LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (6) after the first "register" to insert "in Scotland." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is to ensure that the register of land acquired by the Central Land Board in Scotland should be kept in Scotland. In the Committee stage the noble Lord was good enough to give an assurance that that would be the case, and I hope that in the circumstances he will have no objection to including this in the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 21, after ("register") insert ("in Scotland").—(Lord Polwarth.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly correct: I did give him an assurance in the Committee stage that it would be kept in Scotland. However, the noble Lord prefers that it should be in the Bill, and I accept his Amendment.

LORD POLWARTH

I thank the noble Lord for his acceptance.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42:

Amendment of 10 & 11 Geo. 6. c. 49 in relation to acquisition of land under Part III.

42.—(1) Where any land is designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition for any purpose, then, if a compulsory purchase order relating to that land is submitted to the confirming authority in accordance with Part I of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act, 1947, or, as the case may be, is made. in draft by a Minister in accordance with Part II of that Schedule, the confirming authority or that Minister, as the case may be, may disregard for the purposes of that Schedule any objection to the order or draft which, in the opinion of that authority or Minister, amounts in substance to an objection to the provisions of the development plan defining the proposed use of that or any other land.

4.55 p.m.

LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "provisions" and insert "principles." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for returning to this subject which, I submit to the noble Lord, is not just a matter of words, but a rather important principle. As the Bill stands, when it comes to the acquisition of land that has been previously designated the owner of that land may not have his objections heard if they are to the provisions of the development plan. What is at the bottom of this trouble is this word "provisions."

"Provisions," I gather, are taken to include every detail of the development plan, with the exception of the time of acquisition of the land, and of the actual amount of the land previously designated which is to be acquired. When the development plan is first made, it cannot be in an extremely detailed form; there are bound to be subsequent minor modifications. I know that every five years the plan must be reviewed, and that if there are alterations on those reviews, and objections are made to those alterations, then the Secretary of State will probably hold an inquiry. But I am thinking of smaller things than that which may well happen.

It may be that, when it comes to building a new by-pass, it will be discovered that some of the land over which it was planned to take it is unsuitable as a foundation, and it may be necessary to divert it slightly; and there are other small details in which the plans may very well be altered. At the same time, the circumstances of the owner of the land may also have altered in that period, because it may be quite a number of years from the publishing of the plan until the land is acquired. If that is the case, I do submit that the owner should have a chance to be heard on matters which might well be included in this word "provisions." I ask, if the noble Lord is not able to accept this word "principles," that he will give an assurance that the owner will have an opportunity to be heard on points such as 1 have mentioned. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 52, line 12, leave out ("provisions") and insert ("principles").—(Lord Polwarth.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I regret that on this occasion I am not able to give the noble Lord so favourable a reply. I am advised that, as it stands, the Amendment is quite inappropriate and unacceptable. In the context the expression "principles of the development plan" would have no real meaning. The whole object of the clause is to enable the confirming authority to disregard objections to the provisions of the plan which have already been ventilated in the consideration of objections to the development plan itself. For example, if objection has been taken to the development plan on the ground that it zones land for local authority housing, it should not be open to an objector, when a compulsory purchase order is made in respect of his land, to object to the order on the ground that the land should not have been zoned for local authority housing.

With regard to the last statement of the noble Lord, however, I think I can give him some satisfaction by pointing out that it would be open to anyone to object to a compulsory purchase order on grounds which do not amount to objections to the provisions of the plan. For example, even although land was zoned by the development plan for a particular purpose, objection might be taken to that land being acquired for that purpose at a particular point of time; or objection might be taken to the whole of the land being acquired at a particular point of time. Perhaps, to some slight extent, that does meet the noble Lord's point, and I regret I am not able to go further than I lave indicated.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Perhaps I may make one observation. The noble Lord has suggested that if an area is zoned for housing it would be improper to object to that as a zone for housing. I should quite agree. But when you zone an area for housing there is a great deal of detail that, as I see it, has not been filled in when the designation of the land lakes place. In the first instance, one may assume that the plans will be of a general character only, and, as the plans become clearer, so the objection may become more necessary. What I am getting at is that some fact in the plan was no: revealed with the original development plan. If that fact were not clear in the original plan, and were one which was perhaps a legitimate subject for objection, would it not then be permitted to make an o objection at the time of compulsory purchase?

I am trying to find some principle to say what should remain; or is it the intention that all objections should be dealt with at the time of designation? I think this is a rather important point. We ought to remember that few people understand what is in this Bill, and this matter of designation will mean nothing to the great body of people in this country. If it means really that all objections to a certain line of conduct in the land will be finished when designation is complete, it is important that that should be fully understood, and that when compulsory purchase comes along it is merely a question of timing. That is really the only concrete point which the noble Lord has raised which can be objected to. That is only a small matter; there are many main objections, such as that the ground is unsuitable, and I suspect there w:11 be many variations of plans before they are put into effect. If they vary, am I to assume that an objection can always be made?

LORD MORRISON

I think there is something in what the noble Earl has said, and I am advised that, in all these cases, the plans would be in fairly close detail, but I should think that if the point has not been clearly indicated on the plan, then objection could be taken. I am speaking without any consultation, but I should think that that would be a point as well as the point that I mentioned in regard to time.

LORD POLWARTH

My Lords, I am sorry that it has not proved possible to find some way of putting this in the Bill, and it seems to me that again it is a difficulty of words. However, I am grateful for such assurances as the noble Lord was able to give, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49:

Temporary provisions for eliminating special value attributable to vacant possession.

(3) The conditions of any such lease as aforesaid shall be deemed to be conditions by virtue of which the tenant would be liable to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes and to bear the cost of repairs and insurance and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the land in the state in which it was on the date of the notice to treat, and the rent payable thereunder shall be deemed to be either a sum equal to five per cent. of the capital value of the premises together with such additional sum as might reasonably be expected to be payable annually by way of owner's rates during the term of such lease, or a sum equal to the rent which might reasonably be expected to be payable by a tenant in occupation of the premises, under a lease for the term and subject to the conditions aforesaid, whichever is the less.

(4) In this section the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say— agricultural land," means any land used for agricultural or pastoral purposes only, or as woodlands, market gardens, orchards, allotments, or allotment gardens, and any land exceeding one-quarter acre used for the purpose of poultry farming, but does not include any land occupied together with a house as a park, garden or pleasure ground, or any land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for sporting purposes; and the expression "agricultural purposes," shall be construed accordingly;

5.0 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved at the end of subsection (3) to insert: provided that in the case of an owner-occupier compensation payable in respect of the subjects compulsorily acquired shall not be less than half of their market value. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I bring forward this Amendment to Clause 49, which deals with notional leases, because I feel very strongly that there may be cases of extreme hardship in this connexion. I do not think that anyone is really aware what will be the exact effect in valuing land of the notional lease. Accordingly, I have put down this Amendment asking that in cases where, under the terms of Clause 49, it is found that the house is valued at less than half its market value, compensation will be assessed at that figure—that is, at half the market value. It may be that that will very rarely happen, but my own guess is that it will happen quite often. I think that the effect of notional leases—that is, changing a house from something that is used into purely an investment proposition—is a very fundamental change, and especially in Scotland where the effect of owner's rates makes house property, residential property particularly, something which is quite uneconomic. That has been so for a long time.

In this connexion, I would like to call in aid figures which the Secretary of State for Scotland gave only the other day. They reveal this fact—a fact which I am sure will interest the supporters of His Majesty's Government. Between the war periods, out of every three houses built in Scotland two were built by the local authorities, the municipalities, and one was built by private enterprise. In England, out of four houses built—I think that I am correct in saying this—three were built by private enterprise and one by a municipality. In this House, where we like to view these matters with perhaps more dispassionate objectivity than is always in evidence elsewhere, may we pause to examine why that was the case? Is it to be supposed that the Scottish municipal authorities were more enterprising than the English ones, or that private house builders in England were more enterprising than those in Scotland? I do not know, but I think not, as a matter of fact. I believe that when we view this objectively we shall appreciate that a major factor in this matter is the incidence of rates. That is going to affect the notional lease aspect of this valuation very much more severely in Scotland than in England.

Therefore, I think it is fair for His Majesty's Government to consider whether, as a safeguard, they should not set this proportion as a limit. There is no dispute but that this method of compulsory acquisition will bring about a measure of injustice. But we do not want to allow such injustice to be increased in the case of one person because someone else is enabled to suffer less. As I have said, there is no disagreement about the fact that there will be a large measure of injustice. By this Amendment I am asking that there should be a limit to the extent of the injustice. This is an urgent and important question. I am certain that there is a difference in this matter between the position as it is in England and the position as it is in Scotland. Anyone can tell you—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will agree—that investment value is much what the notional lease implies. The investment value of a house is considerably less, I suggest—one-third probably—than vacant possession market value. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 61, line 46, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I think the noble Earl knows well, in view of the discussions that we had upon this matter before, that I am not able to go any further than we have already gone. It would not be possible to make a concession to owner-occupiers without making concessions to other people. The Government would inevitably be driven to extend the concession to other persons—for example, to the owner of a war damaged property intending to re-occupy as soon as he could rebuild it, and the returning soldier intending to re-occupy his property as soon as the short lease which he has granted in his absence has expired. Yet these cases include many for whom the concession would not be justified. In any event, the new basis of compensation, even as modified by the application of the notional lease provisions, does provide for owner-occupiers more favourable compensation than they receive under the existing basis of 1939 value plus a maximum supplement of 6o per cent. of the 1939 value of the building. I am sorry that I have no authority to go further, and so the Amendment cannot be accepted.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, surely there is some distinction between the different classes enumerated by the noble Lord. The owner-occupier is a man IN ho, by this notice to treat, is going to Le turned out of the house in which he living at the time. He will immediately have to find some other place in which to live—by no means an easy matter in these days. The others are people who, unfortunately, have lost their property owing to war damage. But they have not been living in it, as it is destroyed. So here there is surely a complete distinct-on. The people with whom my noble friend's Amendment is concerned are solely those who will be turned out of the houses in which they are living by this very notice to treat, and who may, at present prices, have great difficulty in getting alternative accommodation in which to live.

THE EARL or SELKIRK

My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's difficulty. But 1 do think that it is something to record that His Majesty's Government not willing to accept an obligation to Day half market value to an owner-occupier of a house who is compulsorily turned out of his dwelling. We have seen some pretty hard things, but I do not think anything really harder than that has come out in this connexion up to the present time. I regret very much that principles of compensation in this respect should have been allowed to fall quite so far as they have. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment:.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MORRISON moved in the definition of "agricultural land" in subsection (4), after "gardens," where that word occurs a second. time, to insert "any garden exceeding one-quarter acre occupied together with a house and used mainly or wholly as an allotment garden." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet an undertaking given in another place by the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State that he would reconsider the definition of "agricultural land" in Clause 49 of the Bill. The Amendment makes it clear that the exemption from the seven years' lease shall apply to gardens exceeding one quarter of an acre occupied together with a house and used mainly or wholly as allotment gardens—that is, gardens for the growing of food. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 6, after ("gardens") insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should like to thank the noble Lord for this extention. This matter has been something of a shuttlecock, but in any case we have now got a little further than we were when we started.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 67:

Determination of development charge by Central Land Board.

(2) In determining whether any and if so what development charge is to be paid in respect of any operations or any use of land, the Board shall have regard to the amount by which the value of the land with the benefit of planning permission for those operations or that use (calculated without regard to any charge payable in respect thereof under this Part of this Act and on the assumption that the operation or use can lawfully be carried out or made apart from the provisions of this Act) exceeds the value which it would have without the benefit of such permission.

LORD MORRISON moved in subsection (2) after "Board," to insert "(a)". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and the next one, which is consequential, are designed to give effect to an Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in your Lordships' House during the Committee stage. That Amendment was withdrawn on the understanding that it would be considered by the Government before the Report stage. The noble Earl's Amendment was to the effect that regulations under the clause must provide that the amount of development charges must be determined by the Central Land Board without any undue or unreasonable preference to one applicant over another. It is considered that it would be better to include a substantive provision in the Bill imposing this obligation on the Central Land Board, and the present Amendment, and the next Amendment, I am advised, provide accordingly. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 80, line 27, after ("Board") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Morrison.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I think I should congratulate the noble Lord on taking courage to put into this Bill what the English Bill does only by regulation. I should like to thank him very much for doing so.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 80, line 34, at end insert— ("and (b) shall not give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to one applicant over another.").—(Lord Morrison

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 68:

Payment and security for payment of development charges.

(2) Except where the development charge is determined as aforesaid as a single capital payment which is then discharged, the Central Land Board may require the applicant to enter into such agreement as they may direct for the payment of any sums payable by virtue of the determination (whether with or without interest in default of due payment), or to give such security as they may direct for the payment of any such sums as aforesaid, or may require the applicant both to enter into such agreement and to give such security:

5.10 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to insert in subsection (2): Provided that any agreement under this subsection shall be recorded in the appropriate Register of Sasines. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is intended to clarify the position in regard to the occasions when the development charges are not paid in one sum but in a series of payments which may extend over a period of years. What I am asking is, do these payments attach to the land and constitute a land burden or are they in fact merely a personal obligation undertaken by the person who has made the agreement with the Central Land Board? This is rather important, because if they attach to the property, in the event of the property changing hands they remain with the property.

Land burdens in Scotland have to be registered before they take effect, or at all events before they have priority over bankruptcy or any proceedings of that nature. I would like the noble Lord to tell us exactly what would be the position in the event of certain payments due as development charge not having been paid at the time when the person who owns the land goes bankrupt. What will be the position unless he accepts the Amendment I suggest here, which provides that agreements such as are specified under Clause 68 (2) are registered in the Register of Sasines? If they are not, what priority will be given to them against other heritable securities that exist?

Amendment moved— Page 82, line 2, after ("security") insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I will do my best to give a satisfactory explanation. I am advised that the Amendment would be inappropriate, as agreements entered into under Clause 68 would simply be agreements under which the applicant undertakes to pay a development charge either in a lump sum, or by way of periodical instalments. There will simply be a personal undertaking by the applicant to pay development charge and it would be clearly inappropriate for such an agreement to be recorded in the Register of Sasines. If, as an alternative to an agreement or in addition thereto, the applicant gives security for payment of a development charge, and it takes the form of a security over land, the security deed will, and indeed must, for the protection of the Board, be recorded in the Sasines Register.

If I understand the noble Lord correctly, he finally wants to know whether a charging order made by the Central Land Board under the provisions of Clause 71 of the Bill would rank prior to the rights of existing heritable creditors. The answer is that the charging order would have preferential ranking. Clause 71 applies the provisions of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, relating to charging orders and that Act provides that a charging order shall have (a), priority over all existing interests and incumbrances, with the exception of feu duties and tiends; (b), any charge created by charging orders under the Housing Acts; and (c), any charge created in any other Act authorizing advances of public money. I hope I have succeeded in giving further information to the noble Lord.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am very glad to have that information. I had no idea it went so far as that. I am glad to know that where heritable security is given it will be registered. In that way it will be known and it is very proper that it should be known. I am glad to have the information about charging orders, whether it is desirable or not. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 78 [Mineral workings]:

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY had given Notice of an Amendment to add to paragraph (c) of subsection (3), "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 Duke said: My Lords, because the words are not such as I had intended, I do not wish to move this Amendment, but I would like to say a few words about it if I am in order in doing so. The reason for my endeavour to find appropriate words was the anxiety caused by words which give power to a tribunal to vary the terms of a lease and which it was feared might lead unintentionally to the extension of a lease enabling one side or the other to include land for working which was not previously in the lease. I have been assured that the intention of these words is very limited, and only for the purpose of enabling such adjustments of terms as may be necessitated by development charge, and I do not, therefore, propose to move, because at this late stage I feel it is impossible to put in the correct words. I may say that an alternative Amendment in the corresponding place in the English Bill was moved by my noble friend Lord Llewellin and was accepted by the Lord Chancellor. I think that an assurance that it is riot necessary would be sufficient.

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I do not think the noble Duke is correct. My information is that the Amendment in the English Bill was withdrawn on the promise to look into the point, but as a consequence of it being looked into, no Amendment was made in the English Bill.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, I think the noble Lord is incorrect on that. The words proposed actually were that the terms of royalties and payments under a lease may be varied. These were inserted in the English Bill and I was rather surprised not to see them in this Bill. But it is a point that perhaps the noble Lord would look at. I think if an arced Amendment were put down, it would still have an opportunity of going into the Bill.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

My Lords, I am sorry that I did not draw attention to this beforehand, and thus obviate any difficulty. I am content to leave it as it is.

LORD MORRISON

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

Amendment moved— Page 99, line 3, after ("3") insert ("or paragraph 4").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment 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: My Lords, this is again largely a search for information, in regard to the common good. On a former occasion the common good was not regarded as part of a corporation. I am asking now whether in this case the noble Lord is going to say the common good is part and parcel of the assets of a corporation and will be treated as such for compensation and development charge, or whether he is going to say, as can be said—and I admit there is some basis for the argument—that the common good is, in fact, a separate charity and should be regarded as an investment fund. But I must warn the noble Lord there is no question as to the way in which the common good was treated in the Transport Bill. It was treated as part of a corporation and was confiscated. In the case of the City of Glasgow it was confiscated to the extent of £10,000,000 which, if it had been a private investment fund, would indubitably have been paid for substantially, but the citizens of Glasgow got £200,000 to £300,000. That may be irrelevant to this matter, but it is important to ask whether the Government in this Bill are going to suit their own convenience or whether they are going to follow the common policy towards this characteristic fund which exists in almost all Scottish burghs and cities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 79 insert the said clause.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I am afraid all I can do at this stage of the pro- ceedings is to give the noble Earl some further information as to the attitude of the Government towards common good land. Common good land is not land held for statutory purposes and, accordingly, Clause 79 does not apply to it. In other words, a claim can be made on the £300,000,000 in respect of common good land. It would obviously be quite improper that a local authority owning common good land should be able to claim on the £300,000,000 in respect of the loss of development value, and at the same time be able to realize that value over again on compulsory acquisition of the land. There is no essential difference between common good land and any other land held by a local authority or any other person for ordinary investment purposes and, that being so, there is no case for any preferential treatment of common good land. I regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Am I to understand that common good land is treated on all fours with other property of the local authority?

LORD MORRISON

Yes. I will repeat what I said. There is no essential difference between common good land and any other land held by a local authority or any other person for ordinary investment purposes.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

If that is the case, then His Majesty's Government are, at least, pursuing a similar policy in regard to common good as under Transport, which they regard as part of the corporation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.24 p.m.

Clause 95 [Expenses of, and borrowings by, local authorities]:

LORD MORRISON

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

Amendment moved— Page 114, line 1, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

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

Amendment moved— Page 114, line 11, leave out ("purpose") and insert ("purposes").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill which will become law this Session. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 114, line 13, leave out from ("function") to end of subsection (3).—(Lord Morrison.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this is a new Amendment which we have not seen before, although this is the Report stage.

LORD MORRISON

It is only a drafting Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I would like to have some information about this. Subsection (3) of the clause says: … and any expenses incurred by a local authority under Section forty-four or Section ninety-four of this Act, shall be defrayed out of such rate payable by owners and occupiers in equal proportions as the authority may determine. I do not know whether there is any real significance in that, or whether it will be covered by the Local Government Act. I am not aware whether it is covered by the Local Government Act or not. I shall be very grateful to have some information as to why it is now possible, or necessary, to regard this as a consequential Amendment, and one which can be moved without having any effect on the Bill in any other respect.

LORD MORRISON

I am afraid the only information I can give the noble Lord is that this is purely a consequential Amendment, and the words proposed to be omitted will become unnecessary on the passing of the Local Government (Scotland) Act.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, the next is a similar drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 114, line 19, leave out from ("of") to end of subsection (5) and insert ("Part XII of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947,-).—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 112 [Application to land regulated by special enactments]:

LORD MORRISON

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

Amendment moved— Page 126, line 18, leave out ("Town arid Country Planning (Scotland) Act") and insert ("Act of").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 113

Interpretation.

113.—(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— Act of 1932" means the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1932 Act of 1945" means the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945 advertisement" means any word, letter, model, sign, placard, board, notice, device or representation, whether illuminated or not, in the nature of and means of access includes any means of access, whether private or public, for vehicles or for foot passengers, and includes a street; minerals" includes all minerals and substances in or under land of a kind ordinarily worked for removal by underground or by surface working, provided that it shall not include peat cut for purposes other than sale;

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in the definition of "minerals," after "minerals," to insert ",for the purposes of this Act only,". The noble Earl said

My Lords, I put down this Amendment because the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on the Committee stage asked a question to which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, was unable to reply at the time. It particularly referred to the use of the word "substances" as part of the definition of "minerals." I have slightly reworded the Amendment in this form, because I wish to emphasize shat the definition of "minerals" as stated in this Bill shall be something which will never be repeated in any other Act. That is the purpose of the Amendment. I am fully aware, of course, that at the beginning of the clause there are the qualifying words, "in this Act," but I suggest that this interpretation of "minerals" should on no account have a wider circulation, because it is really a highly improper interpretation of the word. I would ask for a categorical denial that there is any intention to extend the meaning of "minerals" as it is here used. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 130, line 4, after ("minerals") insert (", for the purposes of this Act only,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I am advised that this Amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate, as the opening words of Clause 113 (1) make it plain that it is only in this Bill that the defined expressions—including the expression "minerals"—shall have the meaning assigned to them.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Cannot the noble Lord answer the question about the word "substances" raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury?

LORD MORRISON

I do not know about "substances." I have only dealt with the noble Earl's Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD POLWARTH moved to omit from the definition of "minerals" the words "provided that it shall not include peat cut for purposes other than sale." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I find myself in the somewhat Gilbertian situation of moving to delete from the Bill the same words that on Monday were inserted at my instance. I should like, first, to express the hope that the noble Lord opposite has not got into trouble for his generosity in accepting the words on that occasion. The object of this exercise is to replace the words which were inserted by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, which I am now assured would be more effective than the words which I had inserted. If your Lordships will look at the Third Schedule, paragraph 4 of Part II says: The winning and working of peat by any person for the domestic requirements of that person. I would like an assurance that that would include the winning and working of peat by any person, or by his agent. The example I have in mind is the case where a farmer contracts to cut peat for his farm servants. I think that is quite a frequent occurrence. It is a doctrine which I think is known to lawyers as qui facit per alium facit per se. If I can get an assurance on that point I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 13o, line 6, leave out ("provided that it shall not include peat cut for purposes other than sale").—(Lord Polwarth.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, there was considerable discussion about this on the English Bill, and there was a difference of view as to whether these words should go into the definition clause or into the Third Schedule, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will remember. As I understand the structure of these Bills, if it goes into the Third Schedule and the Third Schedule only, it merely releases the owner of the land from a possible development charge. On the other hand, if it . goes in there, he may still have to get planning permission before he can dig any peat. I must say it seems to be absurd when you look at parts of Scotland—which I certainly had in mind when I was speaking on the English Bill, as well as parts of England—that a crofter somewhere in Caithness or Sutherland would have to get planning permission before he digs the peat for his own domestic requirements in his own house. In the English Bill I urged the Government very strongly that we should put it into the definition clause. Whatever my noble friend may say, I still believe the right place to have it is where it has already been inserted in this Bill. At any rate, the two Bills will then be in line.

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I do not wish to be involved at this stage of the proceedings in anything to do with the English Bill. This is the Scottish Bill. The noble Lord has been good enough to move an Amendment which in effect withdraws the Amendment which was accepted previously. I admit that I was a little hasty in accepting the noble Lord's Amendment, but I did so because I was anxious, as he knows, that we should do something in this matter. Frankly, I do not think there is any difference between us; it is all a matter of getting the most suitable words. The Amendment proposes to delete from the definition of "minerals" in Clause 113 the provision inserted by an Amendment of the noble Lord that "minerals" shall not include peat cut for purposes other than sale.

The words which the noble Lord's Amendment proposes to delete from the definition are unnecessary in view of the additional paragraph, paragraph 4, inserted in the Third Schedule by a Government Amendment in your Lordships' House, providing that "the winning and working of peat by any person for the domestic requirements of that person" shall be regarded as development within the range of existing use and shall be exempt from development charge. I am able to give the noble Lord a very definite assurance that the wording of paragraph 4 is sufficiently wide to cover the winning and working of peat by an agent on behalf of his principal. That was the question the noble Lord asked me, and I give him the definite assurance that I am advised it would cover that.

LORD POLWARTH

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that assurance.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, I raised the issue about minerals used for domestic purposes, and I pointed out that according to the Schedule they were only exempted in the case where they were used for agricultural purposes. The noble Lord said that he would look into it. As things stand now, minerals such as gravel, sand or anything of that sort, if they are going to be used for agricultural purposes on a farm and so on, would not be designated. But if they are going to be taken from the same source and used in connexion with your mansion house, paths or garden, they are not exempted because one cannot call a garden a farm. At least, if you like to call it a farm that is all right, but I have never heard a farm described as a garden. The noble Lord said he would look into that. Has he done so?

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I am now able to assure the noble Viscount that the definition of "minerals" covers "all minerals and substances in and under land of a kind. ordinarily worked for removal by underground or by surface working." That is the definition of minerals." The effect of that will be that it will be possible to use these minerals except on a commercial scale. So long as they are used for securing improvements on the farm or on the estate there are no development charges.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

That is all I wanted.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

My Lords, I am afraid there will be wide regret that the working of peat, even if it is on a sir all commercial basis, is to be discouraged. It does seem a thing which the farmer should be encouraged to do.

On Question, Amendment agreed to

5.35 p.m.

Third Schedule—