Lords Sitting of 26 June 1947

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Moncrieff—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Preston Corporation Bill do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills: Read and agreed to.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRACTION BILL.
Reported without amendment.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Reported with an Amendment.
SWINDON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TRANSPORT BILL.
4.5 p.m.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:
Provisions as to Executives.
1. Each Executive shall consist of a chairman and not less than four nor more than eight other members appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Commission from among persons who appear to the Minister to have had wide experience and shown capacity
388
in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters, in administration or in the organisation of workers.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in paragraph 1, to leave out "the Minister after consultation with." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which is really consequential on a previous Amendment already agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 129, line 25, leave out from ("by") to ("the") in line 26.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): This is one of a number of consequential Amendments and I suggest for your Lordships' convenience that we might take the whole of them together. All of these Amendments to the Second Schedule, except the one in the name of the noble. Marquess, Lord Salisbury and other noble Lords, at page 129, line 28, relate to the same subject. They are consequential upon an alteration that has been already made. As your Lordships are aware, we differed from the majority of the Committee in this matter. I suggest that noble Lords on the Government Benches should formally register their dissent by saying "Not content" and that the whole lot should be taken together without a Division.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 129, line 27, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission"). — (Lord Beveridge.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment in the name of my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury.
Amendment moved—
Page 129, line 28, after the first ("in") insert ("inland waterways"). — (Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Our view is that this is amply covered by the other words. I should have thought myself it was not necessary.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We pat the Amendment down but I agree that by

389
inserting these words it might look as though we are excluding something else. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM: I beg to move the remaining Amendments to the Second Schedule standing in the name of my noble friends the Marquess of Salisbury and other noble Lords.
Amendments moved—
Page 129, line 34, leave out ("the Minister and")
Page 130, line 5, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission")
Page 130, line 5, leave out ("himself") and insert ("themselves")
Page 130, line 8, leave out ("Minister") and insert ('Commission")
Page 130, line 8, leave out ("himself") and insert ("themselves")
Page 130, line 10, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission")
Page 130, line 11, leave out ("Minister'') and insert ("Commission")
Page 130, line 12, leave out ("him") and insert ("them")
Page 130, line 12, have out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission")
Page 130, line 13, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission'')
Page 130, line 13, leave out ("his") and insert ("their").—(Lord Teynham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Bodies whose under-takings are transferred to Commission.]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The next two Amendments are purely verbal Amendments in order to make the matter clear. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 132, line 29, after ("The'') insert ("Company of Proprietors of the")
Page 132, line 29, leave out ("Company") and insert ("Navigation"). — (Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Securities to be replaced by British Transport stock]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The next Amendments clown to the one in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, are entirely verbal in order to make the designation specifically correct. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 135, line 9, leave out ("loans") and insert ("The L.M.S. Railway (Midland) loan")
Page 135,line 10, leave out ("account")
Page 135,line 11, after ("charges") insert ("Hartlepool and Clarence class C preference shares")
Page 135,line 25, leave out ("5 per cent. loans") and insert—
("5 per cent. Debenture bonds
5 per cent. First debenture stock
5 per cent. Second debenture stock ")
Page 135,leave out line 26.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The Amendment in my name at page 136, line 30, immediately following that in the name of Lord Falmouth, which has not been moved, relates to a stock which has been placed in the wrong list. It is a guaranteed stock, and therefore it should come in a later list. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 136, leave out line 30.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISSON: The remaining Amendments on this Schedule which stand in my name are all verbal Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 136, line 52, after ("The") insert "Company of Proprietors of the"),
Page 136,line 53, leave out ("Company") and insert ("Navigation").
Page 136,leave out line 54 and insert—
("Ordinary shares of £100 Ordinary shares of £140'')
Page 136,line 58, at end insert—
("The Lee Conservancy Board 3½ per cent. Mortgage loan."). — (Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth and Sixth Schedules agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [Wagons exempted from certain restrictions under Part II]:
LORD ROCHDALE: I think there is a mistake in drafting, and I understand that the Amendment I now move is going to be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 141, line 29, leave out ("ore").—(Lord Rochdale.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: We accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
4.12 p.m.
Eighth Schedule:
Orders giving effect to Schemes.
1.—(1) Where it appears to the Minister that the scheme submitted to him makes satisfactory provision with respect to the matters dealt with in the scheme, he shall prepare the draft of an order embodying the scheme and give notice of the preparation of the draft and that he proposes to proceed with the making of the order:
Provided that, in the case of a scheme under Part IV of this Act which provides for the transfer of the whole or any part of any undertaking, the Minister shall not regard the scheme as making satisfactory provision unless—

(a) where the person theretofore carrying on the undertaking is a local authority or is a joint committee, joint board, joint authority or other combined body, being a committee, board, authority or body all the members of which are, or are representatives of, local authorities it makes provision for compensation to local authority, joint committee, joint board, joint authority or combined body, is, in the opinion of the Minister, identical, as near as may be, with the provision made in the case of transfers under Part II of this Act from local authorities;

(2) Where it appears to the Minister in the case of any scheme submitted to him that it would not be expedient to give effect to the scheme in the form in which it was submitted to him, he may refer the scheme with his observations thereon to the Commission for their further consideration and thereupon they shall re-consider the scheme in the light of the Minister's observations and may again submit the scheme to the Minister with such amendments as they think fit.
2.—(1) A notice under paragraph 1 of this Schedule shall be published—

(a) in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette, or both, according as the scheme affects England, Scotland, or both; and

(b) in such local newspapers, and in such other ways, if any, as appear to the Minister best suited for bringing the notice to the attention of persons concerned,

and shall specify a place where the draft of the order may be inspected, and copies thereof Obtained at all reasonable hours, and the time (not being less than forty days from the publication of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, any objections to the draft may be made to the Minister, and the Minister shall consider any objections made within the time and in the manner specified in the notice:
Provided that the Minister shall not be required to consider any objection unless it
392
comprises or there is submitted therewith a statement in writing setting out the specific grounds for any amendments, additions or modifications asked for, or any objection which in his opinion is frivolous.
(2) Any such objection as aforesaid may ask for amendments, additions or modifications to or of the order which amount to amendments, additions or modifications to or of the scheme.
3.—(1) If there are no objections which the Minister is required to consider, or if all such objections are withdrawn, the Minister may make the order either in the terms of the draft or subject to such amendments, additions or modifications, if any, as he thinks fit, being amendments, additions or modifications which in his opinion do not effect important alterations in the draft as published.
(2) Where any such objection is made and is not withdrawn, the Minister shall cause inquiries to be made, and the Minister may, after considering the result of the inquiries, make the order either in the terms of the draft or subject to such amendments, additions or modifications as the Minister thinks fit.
(3) The amendments, additions or modifications referred to in this paragraph may amount to amendments, additions or modifications to or of the scheme.
4. Any power or duty of the Minister under this Schedule ause inquiries to be made shall be exercised or performed by causing a person, appointed the Minister for the purpose, to such inquiries (including, so far as the said person considers necessary, the hearing of oral evidence) as the said person considers necessary and to report thereon to the Minister.
5. The Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay out of moneys provided by Parliament to persons appointed to make inquiries for the purposes of this Schedule such fees and allowances, and to persons giving evidence such allowances, as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine.
VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, in paragraph 1 (i), after proviso (a), to insert:
"(b) in the case of an undertaking or part of an undertaking (not being an undertaking theretofore carried on by such a person as is referred to in subhead (a) of this proviso), the activities of which before the transfer by or under the scheme consist wholly or partly of operating passenger road transport services, and the activities, if any, of which after that transfer will not include the operation of such services, it complies with the provisions of Part II of this Schedule."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is necessary in order that the new Part II which I shall be moving later, may apply to passenger road transport services. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 142, line 3, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES moved, in paragraph 1 (i), after proviso (a), to insert:
"(b) if the scheme is a scheme under Section sixty-two of this Act,

(i) it specifies the undertakings or the part or parts of the undertakings to be transferred and the date of transfer which shall be a date not later than twelve months after the date on which the scheme takes effect; and

(ii) it complies in the case of any undertaking (not being an undertaking theretofore carried on by such a person as is referred to in subhead (a) of this proviso) with Part II of this Schedule."

The noble Earl said: The Amendment standing in the names of my noble friends and myself is in two parts, the first of which deals with a new point. We offer this suggestion which we really believe would be helpful and constructive in assisting all concerned in inaugurating a scheme. The suggestion has really two points. When a scheme is made, the undertakings affected should be set out by name in the scheme, and when the scheme takes effect, that is, when the body to operate it is set up, then those transfers should take place within a year. There seems considerable fear that if some procedure of that kind is not established, a body may be set up who, in due course, might specify the undertakings to be taken over, and again, in due course, call upon the undertakers to effect those transfers. If that were to happen I suggest there might be a period of delay, anxiety and friction to all concerned. We feel it to be most desirable that that should be avoided, and that the best way of avoiding it would be to set out in the Bill a clear-cut scheme for the smooth working of the take-over. That is the first point.
The second point I approach with very great diffidence because I find it extremely difficult to understand the wording of the noble Viscount's Amendment. It seems to me to contain two provisos. First of all, an undertaking must be carrying on a passenger road transport business, the whole or part of which is to be transferred under a scheme, and secondly, that after the corning into operation of the scheme it should not operate any such passenger road transport undertaking. The noble Viscount shakes his head, and I may be wrong, but that is how I understand it. It will be appreciated that an operator who has part of his fleet taken away and part left on his hands, would be placed in an extremely awkward and difficult position if he were to be prohibited from
394
carrying on the part which remained on his hands. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 142, line 3, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Rothes.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add a word on this, because I venture to think that it is exceedingly difficult to understand the last three lines of the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, which appears on page 3 of the Marshalled List of Amendments. Of course, it is very difficult for people who have not spent their-lives in passenger road transport services to understand exactly what we are dealing with here, and I should be very much obliged if my noble friend Lord Addison would explain it to a somewhat jaded intellect. I am glad to think that the noble Earl who has just moved his Amendment, and who is full of life and vigour which. I can no longer enjoy, is also puzzled. These are the words which puzzle me so much:
"(b) in the case of an undertaking or part of an undertaking"—
then there is a bracket which excludes certain undertakings, and in particular those of local authorities—
"the activities of which before the transfer by or under the scheme consist wholly or partly.…
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Could the noble and learned Viscount tell me from what he is reading?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: From the bottom of page 3 of the last Marshalled List. I am trying to help the noble Viscount by letting him know why I am "flummoxed," if I may use the term, by this provision. It continues:
"the activities of which before the transfer by or under the scheme consist wholly or partly of operating passenger road transport services.…
That is all clear; but then come these words which I do not understand:
"and the activities, if any, of which after that transfer will not include the operation of such services, it complier with the provisions of Part II of this Schedule."
What is the object of that qualification? What does it mean, and what is its effect? The noble Earl who moved this Amendment is naturally alarmed lest the effect of it should be to exclude cases in which the owner of such an undertaking does in fact do some work in respect of

395
passenger road transport services. But what is the process arising from the collocation of the activities in connexion with passenger road transport services and the activities which after that transfer will not include the operation of such services? I am baffled, though I have no doubt the explanation is quite simple and I shall do my best to follow it when it is made.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: There are two quite different subjects relating to the two Amendments. The first one relates to the specification of good undertakings to be transferred, and I think there is no doubt at all that they would be specified. If your Lordships look at paragraph 4 of the Ninth Schedule you will find these words:
"…having regard to the extent and nature of the property held in the year for the purposes of the undertaking as compared with the extent and nature of the property which vests in the Commission.…"
That is to say, they must specify the property which vests in the Commission, and as far as that is concerned it is already completely provided for.
Now I come to the much more tricky point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, and I will do my best to make clear what the difference is. This Amendment of mine, which has already been accepted by the Committee, is to enable the compensation to be payable to road passenger transport services which would not otherwise be provided for in the new Part II, which is coming later. If we look at proviso (a) in paragraph 1 it will be seen to relate to passenger services run by local authorities. Therefore we have got to have a new paragraph in order to bring in the passenger services that are taken over by other persons, persons who are not local authorities; and that is what the Amendment provides for. It then becomes proviso (b). Proviso (a) relates to local authorities. This one relates to other people running road passenger services; and they will become entitled to compensation as provided for in the Schedule. That is why it is put in.
Now I come to the words in the Amendment:
"in the case of an undertaking (not being an undertaking theretofore carried on by such a person as is referred in sub-head (a) of this proviso), the activities of which before the
396
transfer by or under the scheme consist wholly or partly of operating passenger road transport services, and the activities, if any, of which after that transfer will not include the operation of such services…"
That is to say, you may transfer and pay compensation for road passenger services which that concern previously ran, but after the transfer they will no longer run; they will then be organized by the Commission; and it is in order to cover that that this is provided. These are terms beloved by lawyers. What it means is that you will have transferred this man's road passenger undertakings to the Commission, and he will no longer run them. He will then become entitled to the compensation payable under the new Part II. I think it is all right.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I will take it home and consider it and sleep over it, but I should have thought that the words were wholly unnecessary if they mean only what the noble Viscount says they mean. I cannot see what more there is to say.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will certainly consult my legal advisers and if the words are not necessary I shall be very happy to leave them out; but I thought that we ought to make quite sure that these people became entitled to compensation.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I will say no more except that I am obliged to the noble Viscount.
LORD GIFFORD: There is one point which the noble Viscount has not dealt with and that is the question of the date of taking over. If the date is unduly delayed, it is going to put the private undertaker in a very difficult position. In the first part of this proposed Amendment it says the date shall be a date not later than twelve months after the date on which the scheme takes effect.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That relates to specifications of the undertakings which will be specified in the scheme—and they must be specified.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: While you may be specified in a scheme, the question arises as to when you are taken over. There are some provisions about carrying on in the meantime as agent for the Commission. One does not want to rush this thing unduly; on the other hand, a man may be going to contest the scheme. If

397
it is to take effect and he is to be out of business, I should have thought that in everybody's interest that ought to take place as soon as possible; and twelve months does not seem unreasonable. Is not some time limit desirable in this?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I was advised that it would be specified in the scheme. I will certainly have a look at it, but I imagine the scheme must contain those particulars.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Of course, the thing has got to be specified in the scheme, but a man may be specified and yet left in the air as to when the taking over is to take place.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: The scheme might contain a clause which would require a transfer not later than say a couple of years after the scheme; that would be most unreasonable and cause great hardship to the owners of the undertaking in question. The point of the noble Earl's Amendment, as I see it, is, so far as it relates to a date, not that the date must be fixed in the scheme—of course there must be a date fixed some way—but that it should not be more than a year later. There ought to be some limit to the possibility of postponing the date in question.
LORD BEVERIDGE: That really connects with a point I raised on Clause 44 respecting road transport undertakings. I said then that the acquisition must not take place earlier than a certain time but also not later than a certain time. I think the noble Lord who spoke for the Government is considering that point. The schemes can incorporate anything that is in the Act. The scheme for taking over road transport under Part IV can incorporate other parts of the Act, and therefore, if in any other part of the Act you have a provision which undertakes that there must not be undue delay in taking over, that will automatically come into the scheme. In any case, on this point—I am happy to agree with the noble Viscount the Leader of the House on the other point—the schemes, having in fact to come before a Joint Committee of both Houses, I should have thought that there would be ample opportunity for ensuring that the general principle, if it is accepted under Clause 44, is applied also to the scheme.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I understand that the point is that the men do not want to be left in a state of anxiety, and of course that is clearly reasonable. I am advised that it would be provided for in the scheme, but I will look into it and it will be made clear.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount. The real thing that we were frightened about was that there might be a period of delay during which the undertakers within the area of the scheme might have to run their undertakings subject to direction, and that friction and delay may arise therefrom. If I might say one more word regarding the Second Part, I followed very closely what the noble Viscount said. I had in fact appreciated how it applies to a road passenger undertaker who has the whole of his undertaking taken over; he cannot run it any more, because it has gone to the Commission. But the case that I am worried about is the case of the undertaker who only has part of his undertaking taken over, and is left perhaps with the major part on his hands. As I read the clause I understand that he would not be allowed to operate that part that remains in his possession. If the noble Viscount would be so kind as to look into that before the Report stage, with the other point, I shall be very pleased to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
4.34 p.m.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, in paragraph 2 (1), after "A notice under paragraph 1 of this Schedule shall be, to insert "sent to every local authority whose area or any part of whose area is within the area to which the Order relates and shall be." The noble Lord said: This point concerns the notice to be given with regard to schemes. Obviously there are going to be a great many schemes, and they are going to affect very different areas. There are probably few people who have got more power in the course of all this legislation than the legal advisers to all the local authorities. They are concerned with all the laws and regulations which are being dealt with at the present moment by different Government Departments. I think it would be helpful, instead of having to search the London Gazette, that a notice should be

399
sent to the clerk of the local authority concerned. You have only got the county borough and the county council, and it would not mean a very large addition for those who are drawing up these schemes, but it would be an enormous saving to the very overworked clerks concerned, who are having a very difficult time at the present moment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 142, line 23, at the end insert the said new words.—(Lord Addington.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I cannot imagine that the clerk of the local authority would not be informed. In the first place under Clause 62 of the Bill, at page 77, as the noble Lord will see, before a scheme is drawn up the Commission shall consult every local authority whose area is within the area under consideration, and they are statutorily obliged to consult them. Then paragraph (2) of the Eighth Schedule says:
"A notice under paragraph 1 of this Schedule shall be published (a) in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette, or both…and (b) in such local newspapers and in such other ways, if any, as appear to the Minister best suited for bringing the notice to the attention of persons concerned."
It is inconceivable to me that, with all those things being done, the town clerk would not know about it.
LORD ADDINGTON: I thought it might have been of help, but in the circumstances I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in paragraph (2) (i), after "Minister," where that word occurs for the third time, insert "(unless he considers any objection to be frivolous)." The noble Earl said: This Amendment relates to the type of inquiry, which is going to be carried out in certain cases under this measure, and one of the most important of those inquiries is that to be carried out under Clause 62. If I may make one or two preliminary remarks on the general position of this inquiry—because there are one or two Amendments where there are references generally to the same point —when we were discussing Clause 63 in particular the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, made a great point that, although the powers given were extremely wide, and he was undertaking to look
400
at some of them, even so there were a number of safeguards, and two in particular. One was that the scheme envisaged under Clause 62 would be approved by Parliament, and the other that an inquiry would be held.
The first remark I have to make is that the schemes do not have to be approved by Parliament. In so far as I understand the word "approved" to mean an affirmative Resolution, that is not necessary. In point of fact, representation on the general principle of the scheme can only be made after an affirmative Resolution has in fact referred the scheme to a special committee. That means to say that the other safeguard, the inquiry, must—and I feel sure your Lordships agree—be very thorough, because these schemes are important. A great many people with different attitudes are involved, particularly the local authorities, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said, will be extremely interested, and it is important that these inquiries should be conducted on a satisfactory basis. There is no hurry in this case, in the sense that it is quite clear that the Government do not intend to take action immediately. It is generally stated that it may be perhaps five years or more before schemes are put into operation. It is, therefore, all the more important that these inquiries should be well conducted, particularly as it is fair to say that the present system of road transport is not inefficient and it is certainly solvent.
The proposal in this Amendment is this, and if I may, with your Lordships' permission I will take the two Amendments which stand in my name, those at page 142, line 35, and page 142, to leave out line 37 to 41. The one at page 142, line 35, inserts that the Minister need not consider an objection raised to the draft scheme unless he considers it is sufficiently specific, or if he considers any objection to be frivolous. Then it changes its proviso clause here from, shall I say a negative position to a positive position. As the paragraph stands now it reads:
"Provided that the Minister shall not be required to consider any objection unless it comprises or there is submitted therewith a statement in writing setting out the specific grounds…"
My objection to that is that the Minister may object to, or may refuse to consider, an objection because the grounds are not sufficiently specific. In other words, he

401
would not be objecting to the merits of that objection but he is merely stating that the grounds and merits on which the case is put forward are not sufficiently specific. I think that is a poor reason for refusing to consider an objection.
If I may refer to the Amendment at page 142, lines 37 to 41, that says simply first of all, as I have said, that the Minister need not consider any objection which is frivolous; and secondly that objections must state the specific grounds for any omissions, additions or modifications asked for. I am moving this Amendment because I think it is important that those who are interested should have the fullest opportunity to state clearly their objections, and the Minister should not be able to by-pass those objections simply by stating on purely technical grounds that they are not sufficiently specific. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 142, line 35, after the second ("Minister") insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Earl has spoken on this and on another Amendment which is closely related to it. With great respect I think the first must be clearly a misunderstanding because in lines 37 to 41 the paragraph says:
"Provided the Minister shall not be required to consider…any objection which in his opinion is frivolous."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sure the noble Viscount would not wish to misunderstand me. The first part of the Amendment is to leave out lines 37 to 41 and to insert in their place the words which are printed in the Amendment. There is no repetition.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The paragraph clearly includes the words which the noble Earl wishes to have put in. The noble Earl raised the point that the words here are not sufficiently specific. He speaks particularly of lines 37 to 41 on page 142. I am advised that they are completely specific. They call for
"a statement in writing setting out the specific grounds for any amendments, additions or modifications asked for…"
That seems to me to cover the whole thing. But I will consult with my advisers and if they are of opinion that the noble Earl's case is a good one, and that this is not sufficiently specific, I will
402
gladly put some words in. But, as I say, I am advised that they are sufficiently specific.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Possibly they may be sufficiently specific, but I think that the point of the Amendment is, that they are not sufficiently positive. The Amendment as drafted leaves it open to the Minister to object to an application because it is not specific enough. The Amendment as my noble friend has drafted it, places a definite obligation on a person putting forward an objection to put it forward in certain terms. Those terms are the same as appear in the present draft of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will see his way to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The point is exactly as my noble friend Viscount Bridgeman has stated. This is not a question of words not being specific enough, but a question of the negative presentation of the case. However, if the noble Viscount will consider this matter, I will willingly withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 3, to leave out "inquiries to be made" and insert "in the case of a scheme under Part IV of this Act, a public local inquiry, or, in any other case, an inquiry, to be held with respect thereto." The noble Viscount said: This is to make it quite clear that the inquiries should be public local inquiries. As set out in my Amendment instead of "inquiries to be made" we have specified that there must be public local inquiries. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 142, line 52, leave out ("inquiries to be made") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Addison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to amend the Amendment by inserting at the end "by a competent and impartial person." The noble Earl said: I would like, first of all, to thank the noble Viscount for putting in the words "public local inquiry" which I think will result in a very great strengthening of this part of the Bill. I am most grateful to him. In my Amendment. I am endeavouring to strengthen the position perhaps a little

403
more. I am asking the noble Viscount to agree to the inclusion of the words "by a competent and impartial person." I do not think the noble Viscount would say that that would be an improper designation of the type of man who would, in fact, be appointed by the Minister to carry out such an inquiry. The Minister has the selection and it is quite clear that such a man should be appointed. I feel sure that the Amendment is in line with the noble Viscount's wish to make these inquiries as strong as they can possibly be. I beg to move.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
At end insert ("by a competent and impartial person").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am advised that if this Amendment were accepted it would mean that it would be necessary to show beforehand that someone was a competent and impartial person, and that might result in all kinds of difficulties. I cannot, of course, imagine any Minister appointing a person who was not competent and impartial. We all know the kind of people who conduct these inquiries, and I am sure that the inquiries will be conducted by competent and impartial persons. But I am advised that the insertion of these words would put a statutory obligation on the Minister, and who in the world is going to interpret it?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Two sorts of people hold these inquiries. The Minister may send one of his officials. He may be, and indeed he undoubtedly would be, quite competent, but, on the other hand, he is scarcely impartial in the sense that he is connected with the Ministry. I remember certain other cases which we have had in which a person was appointed by the Lord Chancellor. I am, of course, quite sure that the Minister should appoint someone competent who has nothing to do with either the Department concerned or the people objecting to the scheme. That, I think, is what is really required. The object of having this public and local inquiry—and I am very glad indeed that that is conceded—is that the matter is put forward in this way. There is a scheme and objectors can come forward and, I imagine, put their case and be questioned.
404
Supporters can come and make their case and be cross-examined. It is the other side, of course, that must be put to the proof of their objections.
The kind of inquiry that I have in mind is an inquiry of the sort that we had to deal with a matter of harbours, which resulted in that very successful amalgamation on the Clyde in 1945. That inquiry was conducted by someone who was obviously quite impartial and highly competent and the recommendations made as a result of that inquiry were accepted by everyone. If the thing is done in that way, not only is there no doubt that the inquiry is, in fact, an impartial one, but everyone is satisfied. It is, of course, as important to satisfy people who go to a court of law, that they are getting justice as it is that they should, in fact, receive justice. And that, I think, is what it is intended to ensure here.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): I am afraid that I am one who is strongly opposed to this. I should very much resent these words being put in here —very much, indeed. If the Minister is so misguided as to appoint a person who either incompetent or not impartial, then the Minister ought to be dismissed. It would be the worst possible example to assert that these words, which are always taken for granted in this country, should be put in for guidance in the administration of any form of justice. Competence does not seem to be an issue. It is obvious that an official of the Ministry may be, and undoubtedly would be, a perfectly competent person. Then we come to the word "impartial." Of course, it is an elementary principle of our system of justice that if any Judge, even if he does not know it, owns a single share in a company whose business is being considered, the whole procedings of a court of law would be void, unless, of course, he discloses the fact of his holding to the parties. Sometimes, the unhappy man does not remember until about the second day of a hearing that he is in that respect an interested party. That principle is elementary, of course.
But I dislike very much the suggestion that because the man to be appointed is an official from a Ministry, therefore, he is in some way partial. Just think of all the cases that can be cited here. The Ministry of Labour affords a very common

405
illustration. Frequently inquiries into all sorts of matters are carried out by officials of the Ministry of Labour. The more I see of the work of these civil servants the higher is the opinion I form of it. I think it is excellent. I consider that to suggest that because a man holding an inquiry is an official he might so far forget himself as not to make an honest and impartial report is a completely wrong idea. I should very much regret the insertion of these words. Impartiality is a foundation of our system of English law, and I think it would be a very bad example to have those words inserted in any particular place.
LORD SALTOUN: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, but may I say that I seem to remember some such words actually being in several Bills, possibly before the war? if I am not mistaken I think that the Scottish Agricultural Wages Bill was one of them. I hope I am not wrong, but I seem to remember having some discussion with my noble friend Lord Alness about it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am quite sure that was at a time before I was Lord Chancellor.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I cannot agree with the opinion of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. It is not a question of justice; it is not a court of law, but an inquiry. We forget that the Minister is personally interested, and is not in the impartial position which the Minister of Transport was in before. Formerly, with the operators on the one hand and the consumers on the other, he was in a position of impartiality. But now he is head of a very large monopoly and for that reason cannot be regarded as in quite the same position. If the noble and learned Viscount would himself accept the duty of appointing then of course I would be perfectly willing. If your Lordships will look at Clause 6 (4) you will see provision for an independent chairman. How would that appeal to the noble and learned Viscount? Does not that seem more desirable in itself? I. think that some of the new town inquiries, which I believe were not entirely fair to some of the people concerned—I know very little about the point but I believe it was felt that there was a certain amount of Ministerial pressure in this.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is quite wrong. The point made against the new town inquiries was that the Minister did not give evidence in chief, as it were, in support of his claim. I have never heard to this day the slightest suggestion made about either the competence or impartiality of the gentlemen who held these inquiries.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I withdraw.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is a rather invidious point why in these inquiries one does not want to accept that the civil servant is not completely impartial. May I say as a very old Minister the last thing I ever wanted to do was to be judge in my own case? If this was an inquiry into proposals made by me as the Minister, then frankly I should not tell any man in my office to go and do the job even though I know he would do it perfectly honestly. I would he definitely at fault and extremely unwise if I chose a subordinate of my Department to conduct an inquiry at which my proposal is being challenged. I should have thought it a very wise principle to lay down, without using the words "competent" and "impartial," that where you have an issue between a Minister and outside, and the whole object of the inquiry is to decide whether the Minister's proposal is right or what the objector says is right, the man to conduct the inquiry should be someone appointed not by the Minister's Department or by the Minister. If I were in the Minister's position, I would prefer not to appoint the man myself but much rather that the Lord Chancellor should appoint him.
LORD BEVERIDGE: Before this Amendment is put—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The Amendment has been put. We are discussing the Amendment to the Amendment.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I thought it had been withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: As my name was associated with the Amendment I would like to say my views are the same as those of my noble friend Lord Swinton.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sorry to interrupt, but the noble Earl has withdrawn—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord did not withdraw the Amendment. He did withdraw his remarks about Stevenage.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I withdrew those remarks.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I should like very briefly to support the views my noble friends, the Earl of Selkirk and Viscount Swinton, have put forward. If you will look at the next Amendment but one standing in the name of the Earl of Selkirk and myself, you will see that we feel that this inquiry should be one conducted as a proper public inquiry with both sides represented. That I think adds point to our view that the Chairman should be competent and impartial and in any case should be independent. If the person appointed were an officer of the Ministry, however impartial or competent he might he, the appointment would not fail to start creating a bad impression among the public. I hope very much that this principle of an independent person may be accepted.
LORD ROCHESTER: As a member of the Port of London Authority, I want to ask the Government to reconsider this point, because we feel very strongly that it is not a question altogether of impartiality but that the Minister will be a party to the inquiry. I hope, therefore, the Government will see their way to accept some variation whereby some other authority could appoint this person. If the Leader of the House would agree that the inquiry should be held by some person appointed by the Lord Chancellor, I think all parties would be satisfied. Certainly the General Council of British Shipping and the Docks and Harbour Authority Association would be satisfied. But they are certainly not satisfied at present because they feel, without calling in question the partiality or otherwise of the person appointed, that if the Minister is a party he ought not to be the judge in his own affairs.
LORD BEVERIDGE: Since the Amendment is not withdrawn I should like to say that I agree with the Government and not with those who moved the Amendment. The whole of this procedure for making schemes works up to a special Parliamentary procedure involving very elaborate controls ultimately by a Joint Committee of both Houses and a Resolu-
408
tion of each House, so that if the inquiry when made appears to be biased, it is for Parliament to exercise its control. That seems to me better than attempting to put in words which would limit the choice of person to make the inquiry, although if the Government thought that this was a good Amendment I certainly should not object. It appears to me that to leave the full responsibility to the Joint Committee and to the Houses of Parliament who must be able to examine the Report and the person who made the Report to satisfy themselves is really a better procedure than trying to insist on the character of the person chosen to make the inquiry.
LORD GIFFORD: May I remind the Lord Chancellor of some discussion which took place in this House on the National Health Bill as to the status of the tribunal and the question of a doctor remaining in the Health Scheme or not? I think the noble and learned Viscount accepted an Amendment on the principle that the chairman of the inquiry should be a barrister or solicitor of eight years' standing in order that he should be completely competent and quite impartial. I feel that the noble and learned Viscount has had sympathy with certain cases rather similar to this.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That was not a question of an inquiry but of judicial proceedings, and I do not think that had anything to do with this particular case.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Replying to the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, I would say that his reading of Parliamentary procedure is not correct. It is not necessary to have a Resolution of either House for this scheme to be put through. All that is necessary is for the scheme to lie for, I think twenty-eight days. It is only when an affirmative Resolution is passed that it may then be submitted, if it is a matter of general objection, to a Select Committee. Therefore, the regulations are not really more safeguarded than in the case of a normal regulation. I do not think that is a very great safeguard, if I am correct in what I am saying. I would like the noble Viscount to consider this question of independence. I do not know whether he is stating that he intends that these inquiries should be conducted by the officials. Is that the policy of the Ministry of Transport or

409
should someone outside conduct it? If the noble Viscount would say as to that, it would help.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: These inquiries must be left to the Minister in discharge of his statutory duties. I could not give any further undertaking, but I am sure, as I am advised by the Lord Chancellor, that we must adhere to our objection to the words.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My noble friend probably would wish to take this to a Division, but I am bound to say, and I say it with long experience, that I am quite certain that, if in these inquiries where the Minister is propounding a scheme and that scheme is objected to, the Minister does not appoint somebody entirely outside his own Department to conduct that inquiry, that inquiry would not give satisfaction although the man who is conducting the inquiry would certainly do his best. I think the Minister would be ill-advised to do so; I think it would load to constant appeal to Parliament by the special procedure, which is not what we want. We want these schemes to go through. It would have been perfectly easy for the Leader of the House to say on behalf of the Government that, where these inquiries are instituted, the person appointed, whether by the Minister of Transport or by somebody else, will be a person who has nothing whatever to do with the Ministry which is promoting the scheme or with the objectors to that scheme. If that is the object then I believe complete satisfaction will be given. If it is not, people will feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are labouring under an injustice, and that that is not the atmosphere in which we want to launch this Bill. I would beg the Government in the interests of the success of their Bill to make that pronouncement.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would like to thank the noble Viscount for that. These inquiries must be local, and it is not for Parliament at all. The big municipalities are intensely interested in this Bill and I think they are entitled to a full and open inquiry on the spot.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Leader of the House has given that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Lord Beveridge said that was not so important as the special Parliamentary procedure.
410
I appreciate that. If the noble Viscount would consider this I would beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ROCHESTER: I am very sorry to press the Government on this point, but it is very important to me. I do hope it will not be left as it is at present. The Minister will be a party to the inquiry and I cannot conceive that there can be any objection to inserting in the Bill words to the effect that the appointment should rest with the Lord Chancellor. I have not voted against the Government on this Bill and I have sat here for three nights this week up to eleven o'clock. I do feel that we are entitled to some consideration from the Government on a point of this sort. The Amendment that I seek to insert, as the noble Lord cannot see his way to accept the words "by a competent and impartial person "—I see the Lord Chancellor's difficulty in accepting such words—is that in place thereof there should be inserted the words "by a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor."
Amendment moved—
Page 142, line 52, at end insert ("by a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor").—(Lord Rochester.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should be very reluctant to accept that Amendment. These are highly technical questions and in practice they are much better determined by some kind of person who knows his particular business. As things are it is very difficult for me to find the right people to do the multifarious duties which I have to perform. If I am to find people also with the necessary qualifications and knowledge to advise on schemes on the running of transport undertakings, heaven help me. I could not possibly undertake the work. I must go to competent and skilled people in this trade; I do not know them, and I should have to ask the Minister: "Who on earth shall we appoint here?"
Noble Lords have repeatedly been speaking as though it was the Minister who puts forward the scheme. It is not the Minister who puts forward the scheme; it is the Commission who put forward this scheme and when the Commission put forward a scheme it does not come into force until

411
the Minister has approved it and before the Minister approves it he has this inquiry. It is not the fact that the Minister is a party. He has to decide whether he shall or shall not approve the Commission's scheme. If he follows the practice of other Ministers he will appoint some highly skilled person who understands this sort of business, maybe a person in some position in his own office who will spend a large part of his life going round and hearing these cases and will understand the business. I could not undertake this task of appointing people to perform such highly technical work in regard to which I myself have no personal knowledge at all. Therefore I should say we should be quite wrong in accepting the manuscript Amendment moved by the noble Lord.
LORD ROCHESTER: I am sorry, but I do not really feel entitled to withdraw my Amendment; I must be content with it being negatived.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I was just going to ask the Leader of the House whether he has anything to say on the second proposal of the noble Earl behind me as to the word "independent" which is already in the Bill in Clause 6, not quite in the same connexion. I think that word might avoid some of the difficulties that have been pointed out.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will certainly look into the point but the Minister must be allowed to appoint a type of person competent to conduct an inquiry, and I cannot imagine his appointing anybody in whose independence, impartiality and competence he had not the fullest confidence. We should be no better off if we put the word in. We do not do it in any other case that I have heard of.
On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
5.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, in subparagraph (2), of paragraph 3, to leave out "result of the inquiries" and insert "report of the person by whom the inquiry was held." The noble Viscount said: These new words are proposed instead of the somewhat ambiguous words in sub-paragraph (2).
Amendment moved—
Page 143, line 1, leave out ("result of the inquiries") and insert ("report of the person by whom the inquiry was held").—(Viscount Addison.)
LORD BEVERIDGE: May I ask whether the reference to a public local inquiry leading to a report means that the report is to be published. I notice that the Government have put down an Amendment to strengthen the inquiry, and there is an Amendment of my own later on requiring the report to be published.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am afraid I should require notice of that question. The inquiry is public, of course—that is provided for—so that everybody who wants can hear everything that goes on. As to whether the report is published, speaking for myself, as an old Minister who has been responsible for a great many of these inquiries, I do not remember that I ever published the report of anybody who held an inquiry. The reports are in the nature of confidential documents in the Department, and may contain all kinds of observations. So far as I know, it is not the practice for these reports to be published. However, I will inquire into it. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has been a Minister, and I do not think his reports were always published.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It entirely depended on the character of the report. The noble Viscount has just said something which filled me with alarm and despondency. What he said was that these reports are of a confidential character. There should be no obligation to publish a report of a confidential character, but that is an entirely different thing. Here what we have got is a public local inquiry on a scheme—it is true, not propounded by the Minister in person, but propounded by the Commission, whom the Minister appoints, and to whom, indeed, the Minister may give general instructions. It seems to me to be absolutely the essence of this case. The noble Viscount said that we may be quite sure that the Minister will appoint somebody who is not only competent, but of the most independent frame of mind, and the best man to make the report. What is this public local inquiry? It is right that it should be public, and it is right that it should be local. But what is it leading

413
up to? Surely, what it is leading up to is the report. Of course we must know what is in the report. If it is a wise report, it will say: "I find in favour of the Commission in this respect, and in favour of the objectors in that respect," and it will give reasons for those findings. It is a quasi-judicial report. It has then got to come up, if people object to it, and be the subject of this Parliamentary procedure. Is it really going to be suggested that we must conduct all our Parliamentary procedure without seeing the report? The answer to this must be that the report will be published.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not agree with the noble Viscount at all. We have both been Ministers, and we both have had considerable experience. I myself on a number of occasions have had inquiries of various kinds made—in fact, we both have. I do not remember any stipulation that the report should be published. It is of a semi-confidential nature in some respects. The Minister has to have the report, and what matters is the Minister's decision on the report. He can be challenged in Parliament, and he then has to justify himself as best he can. In order to form a correct opinion, he sends someone to make the inquiry and he has to decide accordingly, I do not know of any statutory obligation to publish all the reports of gentlemen who conduct inquiries of this kind. I well remember one case where there was a dispute on a water power scheme between Inverness and Argyll. How I was dragged into it I do not remember, but I was the Minister of Reconstruction. Apparently the two parties to the report were at such loggerheads with one another that they would not come into the room by the same door. They came in separately, by different doors, and this interesting incident was contained in the report. It did illustrate the kind of animosity that was prevailing on the spot, but it was not the kind of thing that I would have circulated in a report. I do not think it is reasonable, but I will inquire into it. It is news to me, as an old Minister, that you are compelled to publish the report of a man who is appointed to conduct an inquiry. It will certainly prejudice his report, if publication is compulsory. What matters is the decision of the Minister, and that can be challenged in Parliament. I should be very sorry to make this a statutory obligation.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Is there not a distinction between cases where a report is made on a public inquiry for the purpose of enabling the Minister to decide some particular administrative point, and such a case as this, in which the report is made for the purpose of enabling the Minister to make an order which will have the force of law, if the order survives criticism in Parliament? It really is not quite accurate for the noble Viscount to say that this report will be made simply to enable the Minister to make up his mind. I deny that. It is to enable him to make an order, which is to be subject to the criticism of Parliament. It may very well be that Parliament, when it understands the nature of the case—which can only be understood by Parliament on consideration of the terms of the report—may come to the conclusion that the Minister is wrongly exercising his discretion in the order which he may make, and accordingly the order should be quashed. I confess that I think it is very important that Parliament should not be obliged to discuss the propriety of an order of this sort, which may be considered of enormous interest in the locality where the matters are dealt with, unless the report is published. I should have thought that if this House had to consider an order of that kind, we should at once say that it was idle for us to proceed to discuss the matter without knowing the grounds on which the order was based.
LORD BEVERIDGE:May I say to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that if he will consult what was said on this Schedule in another place he will find that the Minister took a very different view from the one which he has just expressed. In opposing Amendments to strengthen the inquiry he said:
"This is unnecessary, because there is tremendous special Parliamentary procedure, and I do not want to interfere with the responsibility of Parliament."
I have an Amendment here requiring that the report should be published. I do hope the Government will accept that Amendment after consideration, because the vital thing is not for the Minister to decide, but for Parliament to decide on things which are, in fact, the alternative to legislation. Remember the Minister's powers given by these schemes, including the whole conditions of compensation for people expropriated. It is quite certain

415
that Parliament must control, and it is equally certain that Parliament cannot do that, except on Party lines, without knowledge. The way to get the knowledge is from the report. It has nothing whatever to do with the inquiries made by a Minister in the course of his Ministerial duties. It is the alternative to Parliament, and I am very glad that I asked this question. I regret to say that it is impossible for me to stay here and move my Amendment, but I hope one of my noble friends will move it for me and I hope the Government are prepared to consider it.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sorry to be obstinate, but I am really completely astonished—with the greatest respect to the experience of the noble Lord—that he should try to make it a statutory obligation that every report received by a Minister, made by a person holding an inquiry in order to enable him to be informed in his judgment, should be published. I am absolutely astonished. I am sure it is contrary to the best interests of the community. The Minister must exercise his judgment, because it is the Minister who stands responsible and he has to justify himself. He cannot pass it off on to this man who made the report—that would never do.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I do not wish to prolong matters, but may I ask one question on this? Did not the Committee on Ministers' Powers, in their unanimous Report, recommend that all reports of this kind should be made public?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have no knowledge of it, and I should be astonished if that were so. I am sure it is not so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3, to insert:
"(3) The Commission shall appear at any public local inquiry by counsel, solicitor or agent in favour of the scheme and shall tender evidence, and any objector may appear at any such inquiry either in person or by counsel, solicitor or agent and may tender evidence. Any witnesses appearing on behalf of the Commission or any objector shall be subject to cross-examination.
(4) Subsections (2) to (5) of 290 of the Local Government Act 1933 shall apply to any such public local inquiries."
The noble Earl said: This is a further Amendment in the same direction, and we very much hope that it will be more successful than the two previous Amendments. The point of this Amendment is really two-fold. The first is that in carrying out these inquiries the Commission shall be represented themselves, and that any objector shall be able to cross-examine and question any witnesses put forward by the Commission. If one wants to make the slightest comparison with the judicial system, it is obvious that the Commission must present their case and must be there to answer for it. It is only then that the inquiry officer, whoever he may be, can properly have the position placed before him; otherwise he would have to conduct the inquiry himself instead of being in a semi-judicial position, which I think we are all agreed is his rightful position. The second point is that certain subsections of the Local Government Act 1933 shall apply to any such public local inquiries. Those subsections simply provide for the production of evidence and the administering of the oath. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 143, line 3, at end insert the said subparagraphs.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment falls into three parts. The first is that
"The Commission shall appear at any such public local inquiry by counsel, solicitor or agent in favour of the scheme."
Of course they can appear. If they do not want to appear, then I should think they have a pretty bad case, but they can appear if they are so minded. More than that we cannot do. The second part is that they shall tender evidence. You cannot make a man speak—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: You can by shifting the onus of proof.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: You can do that, but, of course, he would probably exercise his right to tender evidence. But just to say "and shall tender evidence" is really an absolutely impossible proposition. Then we come to the next part which is:
"and any objector may appear at any such inquiry either in person or by counsel, solicitor or agent and may tender evidence.'
Do you really mean to say "any objector"? Is there to be no question of

417
locus standi at all? We do not let people do that in this House or in another place unless they have some locus standi to be here. Assuming the objector had a locus standi, he would obviously be entitled to appear either in person or by counsel. It goes without saying that any witness who does give evidence in chief is subject to cross-examination—of course he is. Then comes the obligation to apply Section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933. Why? Why not carry on the perfectly practicable and useful method which we apply here? Clause 120 of this Bill lays down that the inquiries held under this Bill are to be subject to Section 20 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919. That provides that the person holding the inquiry may require any person to attend, and he may require any person to give evidence or produce any document in his possession subject to a fine. He has power to take evidence on oath, administer oaths, and so on and so forth. That is a perfectly proper procedure, and it puts the man who is holding the inquiry in complete charge of the proceedings. He can order the proceedings as he thinks right and as he thinks proper. Further than that we cannot go.
It may be objected—as it was objected in the Stevenage case—that the scheme itself was not propounded and the objectors were therefore put at a disadvantage. I can say very little on that, because that case is still sub judice and it would be very unbecoming that I should say more. But I think it is an odd position if the objector, instead of being able to give evidence as to his own objection, has to rely upon the opposition giving evidence so that he may dig up something from cross-examination. Surely he has enough from his own substantive case to give his evidence, and then if the people propounding the scheme do not attempt to refute his evidence very likely the scheme would be knocked out. For those reasons we cannot accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble and learned Viscount has made some very interesting concessions. The first is that any objector with a locus standi can object. If you accept that, then I feel it should be incorporated into this clause. That is a very important concession, and if that is the view of the noble and learned Viscount, I would be very glad if that were put into the clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is provided for in substance by Section 20 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, which is incorporated into this Bill by Clause 120.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The second point the noble and learned Viscount made was that witnesses may be cross-examinee. That may be covered by the same rule. I am afraid I have not looked up that Act, and I apologize for not having done so. The only other point I would like to make is that the value of this inquiry must depend very much upon the nature of the evidence which is put in front of it. If the Commission are not there, then clearly the evidence is much less valuable. For that reason I should have thought it would add greatly to the value of the evidence that the Commission should appear and state their case. However, in the circumstances I will not press this Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I mention one thing which I hope the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will look into? My recollection is that although there was a communal right for objectors to attend in such a case, and that they must be heard by the person who is holding the inquiry, it is not the fact that at common law such objector has a right to appear by solicitor or counsel. Counsel have a right of audience in the High Court, but I think I am right in saying—although everybody's memory is sometimes defective—that persons at an inquiry like this have not a right to appear by counsel, although no doubt the person holding the inquiry might be willing to hear counsel, and would probably be well advised if he did. I venture to think that if it is found on inquiry that such a right does not exist, it might be in the interests of fairness and propriety to put in just a few words to say that an objector with locus standi should be entitled to appear by counsel or by solicitor.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 143, leave out lines 7 to 12.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: This also is a drafting Amendment, to make the matter more clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 143, line 14, leave out ("persons appointed to make inquiries") and insert ("any person appointed to hold an inquiry").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON moved to add at the end of the Schedule:

PART II.
6.Where, by or under a scheme made under Part IV of this Act, such an undertaking or part of an undertaking as is specified in subhead (b) of paragraph 1 of this Schedule is transferred to a body constituted or specified by or under that scheme, the scheme shall incorporate in relation to that undertaking the provisions of Section forty-seven of this Act and of the Ninth Schedule to this Act subject to the adaptations and modifications set out in the subsequent provisions of this Part of this Schedule.
7.The following references shall throughout the said Section forty-seven and the said Ninth Schedule be construed as follows—

(a) references to a goods vehicle shall be construed as including references to any vehicle registered under the Roads Act, 1920;

(b) references to the Commission shall be construed as references to the said body;

(c) references to a notice of acquisition, and to the giving of such a notice, and to the transfer resulting from or effected by such a notice shall be construed as references to a transfer by or under a scheme.

8.At the end of subsection (1) of the said Section forty-seven there shall be inserted the following proviso—
'Provided that, where the vehicle is a trolley vehicle or a tramcar, paragraph (a) of this subsection shall have effect as if, in the case of a trolley vehicle, the words "one-seventh" or, in the case of a tramcar, the words "one fourteenth" were substituted for the words "one-fifth," wherever those words occur.'
9. In subsection (3) of the said Section forty-seven for the word 'five' there shall be substituted the word 'seven.'
10. In paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of the said section forty-seven for the words 'vehicles authorised to be used under A licences or B licences' there shall be substituted the words 'public service vehicles, trolley vehicles or tramcars.'
11. The provisions of subsection (5) of the said section forty-seven shall apply where the rights of the hirer under a hire purchase agreement vest in the said body by reason of a transfer by or under the scheme.
12. The reference in subsection (8) of the said section forty-seven to this Act shall be construed as a reference to the scheme.
13. The said Ninth Schedule shall have effect as if—

(a)for sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 of that Schedule there were substituted the following sub-paragraph:—

'(2)In this Schedule, the expression "the last three financial years" means, in relation to an undertaking—

(a) where the undertaking has been carried on for not less than three years ending with the date in the year nineteen hundred and forty-eight to which the accounts of the undertaking for a period of twelve months were made up in the ordinary course, the three years ending with that date; or

(b) in any other case, the three years ending with the date in the twelve months immediately preceding the transfer to which the accounts of the undertaking for a period of twelve months were made up in the ordinary course;'

(b) the paragraph of that Schedule providing that in certain circumstances only two of the last three financial years shall be taken into account were omitted."

The noble Viscount said: This is a very important addition to the Schedule, and I move that it be inserted. It enables us to extend the compensation provisions, as provided for in this Schedule, to passenger transport undertakings. Your Lordships will notice, if you refer to Clause 47, which relates to other vehicles, that this proposed Part II is based upon that provision, with certain amendments relating to passenger vehicles. Some very important extensions of the compensation provisions, as formerly anticipated, are provided for in this Amendment of mine. If your Lordships will look at the top of page 58 of the Bill, Clause 47, you will see that from the compensation to be paid in respect of any goods vehicle vesting in the Commission there shall be deducted
"where one or more complete years have elapsed between the date when the vehicle was registered under the Roads Act, 1920, and the date of transfer, one fifth of the said cost in respect of the first year…"
The deduction applied to those vehicles is a fifth.
In these cases we have made the deduction substantially smaller. In the case of trolley vehicles the deduction is only one seventh; and the deduction in the case of tram cars is only one fourteenth. The proposal is, therefore, that much smaller deductions shall be made than the deduction of one fifth. This relates to buses. If your Lordships will look again at page 58 of the Bill you will see that there is

421
compensation provided in respect of cessation of business, based on a sum calculated on the average net annual profit. Here again we are extending the scope of compensation and enabling it in some cases to be as much as seven times tile net annual profit. The other provisions are really in order to make it apply to this class of vehicle, except that I must refer now to the last paragraph of all, which relates to the new part of the compensation scheme—namely, subparagraph (b) of paragraph 13 of the proposed Part II of the Schedule. That relates to the years that can be taken for the calculation of the profit.
If your Lordships will refer to the long Amendment in my name on page 9 you will see a new proposal. In the case of passenger vehicles it is provided in the scheme that the annual profit for the three years ending 1948 can be taken. These years are expected to be very good years. People have had to crowd into buses and have had to wait in queues; the buses have done extremely well. It is no doubt a very generous gesture to enable the bus companies to take three years which it is fairly certain should be exceedingly profitable years. I would like to refer to my Amendment on page 144, line 34. This relates to haulage vehicles. It has been contended that, owing to some special circumstances, there might be one year in the three years which can be taken for the ascertainment of the net annual profit which for some reason was a specially bad year, and this provides for that case. It is another very liberal concession, I think, that, by reason of abnormality of circumstance in any one of the three years, that year may be disregarded and you may take the average of the two good years, thereby enhancing the amount of the net annual profit.
There are a number of Amendments on the Paper and I must be allowed to speak with a certain measure of frankness on some of them without referring to them individually. They all have the result of increasing the amount of compensation in one way or another. I suggest that the scheme of compensation here provided is understood to be a very generous scheme. I am not a pundit on Stock Exchange matters; it is a column in the newspapers which I rarely look at. But in this particular case I was advised that if the column was looked at it would be
422
rather significant. I did not look at it myself, and the figures I now quote are those provided by my Department. It appears to have leaked out in the negotiations that the Minister was in rather an expansive mood, and I will tell your Lordships what the result was. It was at the beginning of June that this Amendment of mine appeared on the Order Paper. These are some of the effects. In the B.E.T. Omnibus Service the average price for 1946 to November 8, was 91; in May 1947, it ran to about 97. Then there came, apparently, an indication of favours to come, and it jumped up to 103. Then came the publication of my Amendment on the paper, and the price immediately jumped to 110. That does not look as if anybody thought it was going to do him much damage. Here is another important company—the Bristol Company. I see that their average last year was 91; at the beginning of May, 1947, it was 95; and then, at the first indication of this Amendment at the beginning of June, it crept up to 99. On June 18, after the period during which this had been printed, it was 108. So they seem to have had the same anticipation.
The whole list bears out the contention that the compensation is quite adequate; that whatever may be said as soon as this Amendment of mine was published the people who are concerned with Stock Exchange prices thought that shares were worth a good deal more than they were before, which does not look as if they thought it was a hard and flinty Amendment. As a matter of fact, I do not think it can be contended that the scheme of compensation is unfair. I think it is a very fair scheme of compensation, and you could not have better evidence of that than in the terms of the values attached to the different concerns to whom it applies. There it is, and I think I am quite entitled, just for once, to quote these estimates in our own support. I may say that we are so satisfied that this scheme of compensation is fair—and, in fact, I think it is almost generous in some respects—that I shall not be able to accept any of the Amendments which seek to increase the amount. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 143, line 17, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Addison.)
5.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES moved to amend the proposed Amendment, by inserting after paragraph 7:
"(8)In subsection (1) of the said Section forty-seven the words 'three twentieths' shall be substituted for the words 'one fifth' wherever those words occur."
The noble Earl said: I have listened with great interest to the words that have fallen from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, more particularly as I happen to be a director, as I think I have already disclosed to your Lordships, of the B.E.T. If I may say so with great respect, I always understood that the noble Viscount opposite did not place great reliance on Stock Exchange prices. But, quite apart from that, perhaps the noble Viscount is not aware that our annual report, which happened to be a fairly satisfactory one, was published almost concurrently with his Amendment, and I think that may have influenced, slightly more than his Amendment, any market prices that were influenced.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but may I make a correction? I see that the figure 100 per cent. was given as the average here, but these are the averages of pre-Election prices, based on 100 per cent. These are the inherences of the prices based on what occurred after the publication of the Amendment. The result is the same, but the precise form of words should have been different.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: In spite of the hard words that have fallen from the noble Viscount, that he does not feel inclined to consider these Amendments, I feel that they are of such importance that your Lordships will allow me at any rate to state my case. Perhaps I should say, in mentioning these Amendments, that they all deal with undertakings other than those owned by municipalities. It may clarify the matter if I say that to start with. The first point that is raised is the question of depreciation. I apologize to the noble Viscount, but I did not quite catch what he said then. I thought he said that the rate of depreciation for buses was to be less than that for hauliers' vehicles; I thought they were both to be one-fifth.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The depreciation in the case of a trolley vehicle is one
424
seventh, and in the case of a tramcar it is one-fourteenth.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I think a bus is one-fifth and a haulier is one-fifth.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: For the purposes of this depreciation the Government have taken one-fifth and it is the same for buses as for hauliers. In fact, in most of this Schedule they have taken the basis for hauliers and applied it to road passenger transport. I think it is only right to say that there is a considerable body of opinion which is doubtful whether that is the right basis on which to rely for the passenger transport section of the industry. When the final pay-out comes to be made it will probably be found that a much larger sum has been paid out for the road passenger transport section than for the goods section. Be that as it may, I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind, when considering these two sections of the industry, that there are fundamental differences between them—differences both as regards circumstances and conditions of running, and the lives and maintenance of vehicles—and since the basis for goods hauliers is being taken, that your Lordships should bear that in mind when considering the basis of compensation for the road passenger transport.
Your Lordships will appreciate that we feel there are places in which the two must be brought into line, and other places in which, owing to these differences, they ought to be brought into proper perspective. The life of a bus is quite definitely longer than that of a haulage vehicle. It is run to a fixed timetable, and it is, therefore, possible to ensure regular and constant maintenance. Before it goes on the road at all it requires a certificate of fitness from the Traffic Commissioners; and even then it is liable to examination by the Traffic Commissioners' officers at almost any time. They can order it off the road if it is not found to be in order. A bus is more robustly built. I think the care and skill that is put into the building of a bus body is well known. It was quite a common experience during the war for the industry to find itself running buses as old as fifteen or eighteen years. Even now, there are buses in first-class condition, twelve years old or more, running on the road. To a

425
large extent this has been made possible by the regular and careful major overhauls that take place, and during the overhauls it not infrequently happens that the bus body may be entirely rebuilt or an engine completely refitted. I think I have said enough to persuade your Lordships that the life of a bus is quite definitely longer than that of goods carrying vehicles, but, in case I have not done so, I would add one final word as to the wear and tear Income Tax allowance. For the seven years up to April, 1947, it was 31¼ per cent. on goods vehicles, and 25 per cent. on buses—a differential 25 per cent., the precise differential that we are asking for in this Amendment; namely, three-twentieths for buses against one-fifth for hauliers. I beg to move.
Amendment to proposed Amendment moved—
After paragraph 7, insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Rothes.)
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I should like, if I may, to support my noble friend Lord Rothes in the Amendment which he has just moved. As your Lordships will have heard, my noble friend explained the technical and commercial reasons why we thought these alterations of the percentages were well founded. There is a perfectly clear commercial case, which we have done our best to demonstrate, to show that the lives of buses are longer, and the stability of the passenger services as opposed to the stability of the road haulage services, is greater, and that therefore, as a commercial matter, it is right that the depreciation rate should be more favourable and that the multiple of the full profit should be more favourable than in the case of road haulage. Now that is something which should be considered purely as a technical matter. It is not a political matter. It is true that it is connected with the Stock Exchange, but not, I think, in the way which the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, tried to make the Committee believe. One should disclose an interest, and although I work in the City I am not a member of the Stock Exchange, nor have I bought any of the stocks about which we are talking this afternoon. But if we are to suppose in this Committee that a proposal put forward on technical grounds is bad merely because that proposal has been well received in the market, then I think is is a
426
matter into which we shall have to look more closely.
I suppose that Stock Exchange values are conditioned by two things. The first and the less important is the amount of stock available in the market for intending buyers. The second is the view that the market takes on the information it has at its disposal—and that information may be good or it may be bad—of the commercial state of a company. Let us leave aside nationalization for the moment. Suppose you have a company, whatever it may be, that is not going to be nationalized, and information reaches the market that that company has done extremely well. The market hears that the state of maintenance of the company's equipment is extremely good and the value of the company is higher than had at first been believed. That is the position in which we shall find ourselves if the case of my noble friends and myself is made out. It is a case which rests on technical considerations, and presumably the Minister and his advisers have looked into the question of the life of these buses. If their value is greater to the extent represented by our Amendments as opposed to the Amendments put forward by the Government—then we are right and they are wrong. But if our calculations are wrong, I hope the noble Lords opposite will address themselves to the question of the extent to which we are wrong. But do not let us obscure the issue by pointing to what the Stock Exchange have done, nor assume that because of a movement of Stock Exchange prices something must necessarily be wrong.
Lord Addison has referred to the last paragraph of his Amendment dealing with "the last three financial years." Here, we have two separate things. We have the question as to whether the depreciation should be at this figure or that, and that depends on the arguments we have been putting forward with regard to the increased durability of equipment. Then we have this other question, which is quite a different one, as to whether there is some overriding reason why one year should be abnormal. As we see it, that has nothing to do with the condition of buses or lorries. It is due to the state of the weather or the state of trade, or to something of the sort which we feel applies in equal measure to buses and

427
lorries. If, in the opinion of noble Lords opposite, it does not, we hope that it may be explained where we have gone wrong. But we do not think that we have. After all, the weather at the beginning of this year, which fell on the just and the unjust alike, was, if I may say so, prayed in aid by the Government because things did not go quite right in the fuel and power industry. But the weather affected lorries and buses, the road haulage and the passenger services, in equal measure. Therefore it is our contention that the Amendment to the Ninth Schedule which we are waiting to see come up for consideration, in so far as it affects road haulage does apply on its merits equally to the passenger services. For these reasons I would like to give strong support to the Amendment and to express the hope that some of the points which I have put forward may be answered.
LORD GIFFORD: Except on one point with reference to the Stock Market, I wish to speak quite shortly in support of this Amendment. Perhaps the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, might remember that before this announcement was made there was no scheme of compensation at all for passenger road transport operators. It was entirely at the discretion of the Minister. Surely that must have made owners of this stock very nervous and very worried as to what they were going to get, especially as their fellow stockholders, the holders of railway stocks, were particularly disappointed. In my view it is entirely the uncertainty, or rather the quelling of the uncertainty, which caused that slight rise which has been mentioned. As my noble friend Viscount Bridgeman has said, this particular Amendment is a purely technical matter. It is well known that the depreciation of passenger road transport vehicles is very much less than that of road haulage vehicles. That can be proved up to the hilt. Surely no further proof is needed than the fact that the Income Tax Commissioners, who are not easily bamboozled, do give a preference of slightly more than the amount asked to the passenger vehicle. Therefore it seems to me that it is a matter of complete equity that some such scheme of depreciation as is contained in this Amendment should be agreed to. It is quite certain that that is the amount that the bus does,
428
deteriorate, and the Income Tax Commissioners have accepted it. Therefore I do not see why His Majesty's Government are not able to do so as well.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I see that the estimate provided in the scheme of compensation is ten years' depreciation. The result of the Amendment put forward by noble Lords opposite would be fourteen years. That is really the difference between us. I am advised that ten years is a very liberal and fair period to accept. I should imagine—though I do not know the details of their business—that the London Passenger Transport Board do not have many buses running that have not been dealt with within ten years. I think that that is a reasonable period.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There is a rather interesting parallel there. I think from my general knowledge it has always been accepted that the depreciation of a lorry, of a road vehicle, is heavier than the depreciation of a bus. I think it is the universal practice of the Income Tax people to accept that. What the noble Lord appears to have done here is to have singled out trams and trolley 'buses and said that those are to have a more favoured and longer life. But he still leaves the life of the buses exactly the same as the life of the lorries. That is entirely inconsistent with all Income Tax practice. I say that it is and I challenge the noble Viscount upon it. Perhaps he will verify this.
It seems to me that if you had said:" I am going to give you for your business £x, or such valuation as an arbitrator may fix," then there would have been nothing to say because the whole thing is taken over at what is considered fair valuation. But here we are considering something that is in the Government's own structure. I would much rather have had a different structure, the ordinary structure by which we buy a business on the basis of what it is likely to go on making. This is being bought on an entirely different basis by splitting the thing up into the purchase of physical assets and the purchase of good will or compensation for good will. If you are going to do it on that basis you ought to do it fairly on that basis. The noble Viscount is really saying that these people are getting quite a lot of money because Stock Exchange values have gone up. Incidentally this

429
is a dangerous argument because, as you bring the money rate down the value of securities is apt to go up. The noble Viscount had better not base himself too much on the Stock Exchange position, otherwise he will have great difficulty in resisting proposals for maintaining the value of- his new Government stock.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It is a useful argument.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is a specious argument and quite irrelevant, because he has elected to split the business up and offer to buy the physical assets separately from good will. The Government ought not to have it both ways. They say, if the Inland Revenue regard a fair depreciation of a lorry as five years and five years is taken in the Bill, the lorry owner ought to accept that, because that, after all, is what you have been making in Income Tax. But as the Government themselves say that a bus has a much longer life, I think you ought to take that into consideration. And you ought to allow for depreciation what is the recognized amount.
LORD LATHAM: Is the noble Viscount quite sure that the rates of depreciation allowed by Inland Revenue for lorries or passenger vehicles are necessarily related to any given term of years? He ought to check that up.
LORD GIFFORD: I understand that the general tribunal for war damage claims take the life of 500,000 miles for a bus, which is approximately twelve years.
LORD LATHAM: Yes, but the War Damage Commission is not the Inland Revenue, which is what the noble Viscount prayed in aid.
LORD GIFFORD: But the terms he gave for Inland Revenue are perfectly correct.
LORD LATHAM: I am not saying they were not. I am arguing that there may be a difference in rate for goods vehicles from that allowed and accepted by the Inland Revenue for passenger vehicles, but dispute that either rate is necessarily related to the life of either type of vehicle.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Of course it is. The rate of depreciation depends on how soon you have got to renew. That is the Whole purpose of depreciation.
LORD LATHAM: No. If I may say so with every respect, the noble Viscount is getting into a most contentious field in the doctrine of accountancy—as to what in fact is the principle of depreciation. He overlooks the fact that the rate of depreciation may be based on diminishing value and not necessarily on the life of the article depreciated.
VISOUNT SWINTON: But the whole object here is agreement about replacement. I know that there are various theories of accountancy upon what depreciation should be related to, but I will not go into a long accountancy argument with the noble Lord, who would probably beat me on that, because he makes his living out of me—I employ him to audit my accounts—
LORD LATHAM: No objection to that.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: What the Government are proposing to do here is buy two physical assets, lorries and buses. In taking over the value of these things, they say, we are going to see, putting it quite crudely, how worn out it is and how much it is still worth. They are going to treat lorries—which wear out much more quickly than buses as everybody knows, whatever system of accountancy you apply to it—and buses both exactly the same. That is wrong. Everybody knows a bus has a longer life than a lorry and you have to take into account in making payment.
LORD LATHAM: I shall not go into the disputatious field of what depreciation should accomplish. It does not necessarily follow that, if a lorry wears out more quickly than a bus, a bus has a longer utility life than a lorry, because the standard required for a bus by the public who use it is considerably higher than the standard required for a goods vehicle. I would venture to submit that if experience were taken, and a comparison made between the accepted life of passenger vehicles in reference to the life of goods lorries there would be found to be little or no difference. Maybe it would be found that owing to the rising standard of requirements by the users of buses the effective life of a bus is in fact less than the effective life of a lorry.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am delighted to have the expert support of my noble friend who knows much more about

431
depreciation than I do. The Government Amendment allows ten years for depreciation of buses. The rate of expenses of a company in keeping its vehicles well upholstered and painted to meet the demands of passengers must be different from the demands made on a lorry. This has been gone into with great care. For example, a tram car which does not have the same wear and tear on its engine as a bus is allowed a longer period and that is quite reasonable. Noble Lords must not lose sight of the fact that this is not only payment for materials taken over, there is also payment of a percentage of the net annual income and the bus companies are allowed to pick three very plum years, the last three years to 1948, in which people have crowded on to buses and the companies have been unable to renew their fleets. They were especially profitable years. They are going to do very well out of that plum.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I do not want to follow the noble Lords who have spoken into the highly technical field as to how many years of depreciation there should be. The noble Viscount started this argument by saying that he bases the compensation for passenger road vehicles op the terms laid down for hauliers. All right, I say that the life of a bus is longer than that of a goods carriage vehicle and therefore, accepting his basis for hauliers, there ought to be a similar basis accepted for passenger vehicles and there ought to be a lower rate of depreciation. No argument from the other side of the House has dealt with it at all.
My second point is that the noble Viscount keeps on saying that these three years are very good years for bus companies. With great respect that is not the point. The point is not the total of the sum but the figures going into the sum. It is no use saying you will not get the answer you want, and therefore you are scratching out another "O" because that is not reasonable. With very great respect, I do not think I have received a satisfactory answer at all, in view of what the noble Viscount has said. As it is possibly an occasion for privilege in your Lordships' House, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.11 p.m.
LORD HACKING LORD HACKING moved to leave out paragraph 9 of the proposed Amendment and insert—
"9. In subsection (3) of the said section forty-seven, for the words 'not less than twice nor more than five', there shall be substituted the word 'seven'."
The noble Lord said: I have already declared my interest in passenger transport undertakings, and, on behalf of those undertakings in which I am interested, I think I can say that we are grateful to the Leader of the House for the concessions he has already made in connexion with the new Part II. I am not going to say that they go far enough, but we are grateful for small mercies.
With regard to the general position, which I must not discuss on this particular Amendment, I agree with every detail referred to by the Earl of Rothes and Viscount Bridgeman, but my proposal is to leave out the "two to seven" years and make something more definite, to give compensation which is based on the three years average profits on a certain fixed number of years—namely, seven. Various explanations have been given in the Committee as to why the Stock Exchange prices of certain undertakings went up when the noble Viscount Addison published his particular Amendment. There have been many reasons given for that increase, but let me add just one more, and that is that it may have been the feeling of the people who are interested in these particular shares that seven years would be granted, and not two. The Amendment of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is that it should vary from two to seven and that the Commission should decide whether or not the years in between should be two or seven, which are multiplied by the average profit over the three years. I would assert that you are much more likely to do away with these fluctuations on the Stock Exchange if the Leader of the House had to say here and now that the number of years which is going to be fixed as the purchase price is going to be seven.
I do not think for one moment that the noble Viscount will accept my Amendment. On the other hand, it is only right that I should put the position to him if only as an argument against this peculiar rise in the price of shares. There may be

433
another reason why the price of shares went up, especially in connexion with an undertaking in which I am interested—Bristol Tramways—and that is that the noble Viscount decided he was going to take over the manufacturing side of that particular undertaking: I hope he has not definitely decided that. Whatever the reasons for the increase of the price on the Stock Exchange, that does not affect my argument. My ambition is to have something more definite in the Bill than at present exists. "Two to seven" gives little security to those people who are concerned with those undertakings. If we knew exactly what the compensation was going to be in advance, it would naturally place us in a very much stronger position. How do we know what the compensation is going to be under the terms of the new Part II which has been moved by the noble Viscount? It may be that only two years are going to be paid. If that is so, we are put in a very difficult position, as in that event the Stock Exchange prices would come tumbling down once again. I want something more definite. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to meet us in some way, I doubt whether he will, but, at any rate, nothing will be lost in making an attempt and I can always hope for the best.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
Leave out paragraph 9 and insert—
(" 9. In subsection (3) of the said Section forty-seven, for the words 'not less than twice nor more than five', there shall be substituted the word ' seven'. ")—(Lord Hacking.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I congratulate the noble Lord on what he has said. We all know him to be frank and we are glad to see the concern that he has shown that the shares have jumped up eleven points. He has a fair amount of faith in this business. I am glad the noble Lord acknowledges that we did put seven, but these concerns must vary. You could not have a statutory obligation. You must leave the people room for estimating the different circumstances which affect the value. No doubt, there could be a good case for seven years, but there is a case to be made and therefore I think we must leave it open. We make it a minimum of two and I put a maximum of seven, which, I think, is quite a handsome gesture.
LORD HACKING: In the circumstances I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES moved, at the end of paragraph 9 of the proposed Amendment, to insert:
"Provided that in the case of an undertaking the activities of which in the period over which the average net annual profit is ascertained consisted to a predominant extent in the operation of regular passenger road transport services according to time tables approved by the licensing authority for public service vehicles, for the words twice nor more than five' there shall be substituted the words 'seven'."
The noble Earl said: I should like just to say a few words on the other Amendment, because it really is the most important one of them all.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: This is really covered by an Amendment of Lord Hacking; it amounts to the same thing.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: The noble Lord moved for a fixed seven for all buses. My Amendment tries to define a certain class of buses, but not all. The point is this—and I would like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking—that we do welcome this widening of the range from two to seven. It is an important point and an improvement on the whole matter being left to the complete discretion of the Minister. When you have a wide range, the question arises: "Who gets two and who gets seven, and why?" From Clause 47 I had gathered that it is the intention of the Government to employ the highest multiplication factor of "seven" in cases of undertakings which show stability of profit, and I suggest that the pavement type bus and the regular long-distance express coaches are, beyond any doubt, the staple end of the industry. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask that the highest multiplication factor of "seven" should be applied to the more staple end of the industry.
After all, as I have already pointed out, the conditions and the circumstances of running as between buses and goods hauliers are quite different. The buses are under the Traffic Commissioners; they are licensed and they cannot have a competitor unless he goes to the Traffic Commissioners, whereas the goods haulier can do almost as he likes. If it really is the

435
case, if I am correct in saying that the staple end of the industry is intended to get the highest factor, then I think there is a good deal to be said for the pavement type buses of the description given in our Amendment. I would earnestly ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, either to accept this Amendment or to give me some indication, because the industry really needs it, as to what type of undertaking is going to be given seven. It is a very wide range and it is a very difficult thing to decide. If no indication can be given, then I think a quite unnecessary condition of extreme uncertainty is bound to exist.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
At the end of paragraph 9 insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Rothes.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think that, if the company to which the noble Lord is referring have a good case, they will make their case. It will be open to them to do so, and, if they make a good case, I have no doubt they will get a longer term of purchase. But you could not discriminate between them in the Bill; it must be left open to them to make their case.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I would like to take the matter a little further. Does the noble Lord really think there is any need for so wide a range as the range between two and seven? If I understood him aright, he has just admitted that a large number of companies do make the case for the use of seven as the multiplier. But does he really think there will be cases in which so low a multiplier as two will be justified? If not, why should we have such an unnecessarily wide range as the present range between two and seven?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should like to reinforce that. I see the difficulty of being too precise, but surely you are making the worst of all worlds; you are encouraging uncertainty, on the one hand, and gambling, on the other, if you do not really mean to have two. If nobody is to have two, there cannot be any sense in putting in two. It does seem to me that if you have a range of two at one end and seven on the other, the most capable businesses will receive seven. I find it difficult to see who will receive two. Why encourage speculative gambling by putting in two, when nobody will come down to that?
LORD GIFFORD: There was a range fixed by the road hauliers from two to five, and after due consideration His Majesty's Government have agreed to raise the five to seven. Surely, on their own argument, the bottom figure should have been raised from two to four. The road hauliers, we know, are less stable in their profits, and everything like that. We have had all those arguments, and I do not intend to repeat them; I think they are generally accepted. Surely, if the top figure is to be raised from five to seven, on the Government's own reasoning they should raise the lower figure from two to four.
LORD HACKING: I would like to support this plea. This is a rather different Amendment from mine, but it has the same ultimate effect of trying to get more than two years' purchase price. It seems to me to be a desirable thing, if you are increasing the maximum from five to seven, that you should increase the minimum from two to at least four. I know the noble Viscount the Leader of the House says that you cannot have a hard and fast rule, because some undertakings may be very different from others. He may be referring to the small passenger undertakings. They are crippled in one way, as the result of having made only a small amount of profit on the average of two to three years; if you cripple them again by the purchase price of years, they will be crippled twice. If it is possible for the noble Viscount to increase the minimum it will go some way towards meeting our objection.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have no authority whatever to say more than I have said. I will give consideration to the noble Lord's point. I cannot say more than that.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: Will the noble Viscount give consideration to some possible definition as to who should receive seven?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I must say that I feel that very few of the points I have raised have been answered on this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I might save the time of the Committee by saying that we have great difficulty in understanding the next Amendment which is to insert the words "transferred by the scheme" in paragraph 10 of the new Part II of the Schedule after "tramcars." Perhaps the noble Earl would be willing to talk it over with us and we will see if we can arrive at some understanding. The same remark applies to the next Amendment. We really do not understand what is meant.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Does that apply right down to the end of the page?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: We shall be pleased to discuss them later.
6.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES moved, at the end of paragraph 13 of the proposed Amendment to insert—
"(b) in paragraph 4 thereof the words the Transferor' were inserted after the word 'property' where that word secondly occurs
(c) in paragraph 5 (3) (b) thereof the words 'of the Transferor' were inserted after the word property'."
The noble Earl said: This is the question of the abnormal year. I would very briefly like to say this about the abnormal year—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: May I interrupt the noble Earl? I think the particular point about the abnormal year is understandable, but it is dealt with by my Amendment on page 9 of the Marshalled List. I think that is the correct place for it. There the abnormal year is specifically provided for.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I had an Amendment down to leave out subparagraph (b) of paragraph 13, of the noble Viscount's Amendment dealing with the abnormal year.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The effect of that would be that everybody would be able to get the three best years. I think the fair way of dealing with it is by this new Amendment of mine, which is put down to meet the difficult cases.
LORD HACKING: Does that mean that if there is an abnormal year, then the two years' average can be taken in the case of passenger undertakings, in
438
the same way as road haulage undertakings?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Amendment to the Ninth Schedule, page 144, line 34, applies to all these undertakings. Passenger undertakings have three very good years.
LORD HACKING: Is that quite certain? One of the years is 1948. Nobody knows what is going to happen in the financial year 1948. It may be that that will be a bad year, for reasons outside anybody's control. If that is so, the passenger undertakings will perhaps have two good years, and one bad year, and if you are to make concessions for one bad year in the case of the haulage undertakings, I do not see why you should not do the same for the passenger undertakings.
LORD GIFFORD: As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has said, no one knows what will happen in the year 1948. The road hauliers have been given the opportunity of disregarding an abnormal year. Surely, road passenger transport is in exactly the same position? It might not mean a thing, but if, through lack of fuel, or something of that kind, there is an abnormal year, I cannot see why there should be the slightest difference in treatment. The road passenger operator ought to be able to take that into account in the same way as the road hauliers. I cannot understand the argument put forward by His Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Lord must be of a sanguine temperament. There is obviously a great shortage of buses, and I cannot imagine that that shortage will be overcome by 1948.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is not only a superfluity of buses that makes for a bad year. There may be a shortage of fuel, as my noble friend Lord Gifford has mentioned. All sorts of things are liable to occur. In these days in which we live, under our beneficent Government, we are encountering difficulties which we have never encountered before, not even in the war years. Therefore, we cannot regard present circumstances as so secure as they used to be before the war. I think my noble friend would be making a mistake if he ruled out the possibility of other abnormal events affecting bus companies in the same way as they affect hauliers.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Amendment by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House later on, will give something, and we do not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth. We have another stage to this Bill. The noble Viscount will have an opportunity of expounding to us how good or bad this horse is. When that has been put through its paces, if my noble friends are not satisfied and think something more should come in, it can then be discussed. I think we shall deal with it more intelligently if it is put down on Report, particularly as there are one or two other things which they have agreed to talk over with the Government.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES moved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting after paragraph 13:
"14. For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1945, the transfer effected by the scheme shall not be deemed to be a sale."
The noble Earl said: The industry has been left in uncertainty over very many points in this Bill, and I do think it might be considered fair to ask whether an assurance could be given that a transfer under a scheme is not a sale for the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1945, in order to ensure that no tax is payable on the balancing of physical assets. I beg to move.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
After paragraph 13, insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Rothes.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: This is clearly a matter which must be dealt with in the Finance Act. We cannot isolate a particular group of sales like this, and I am sorry I cannot possibly accept it.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: It may be quite true that we cannot have a provision of this sort in the Bill and that it should go into a Finance Act. But I do not think that answers the question, which was whether or not these particular payments were going to attract Income Tax. If we could have an answer to that question it would clarify the matter very much, and we would be obliged.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: This must be a matter which can only be dealt with in
440
accordance with the Income Tax laws in the Finance Act. We cannot deal with it here.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: It does not seem fair to have forcible taking over of these buses or hauliers, and then to say they have got to pay Income Tax on the sale. That is the effect of what the noble Viscount is suggesting.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It is not.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Viscount says that it may attract Income Tax. He will not go further and say that it will not.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: All I say is that this is not the place for a provision of this kind, whether it is good or bad. It is a capital asset, and not an Income Tax asset. Whether it is a good or bad Amendment, we cannot possibly put it into this Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is desirable that there should be certainty about this matter, because it is the Government who are producing a new situation from which certain legal results may or may not follow. No doubt the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is right in saying that this is a matter which should properly be dealt with in the Finance Bill, but can we have an assurance from the Government that either the matter will be dealt with in the Finance Bill or else some statement will be made authoritatively by the Government as to what, in their understanding, the legal position will be. Surely it is desirable in the interests of everybody that those companies and the shareholders of those companies should know how they will be affected in this respect by the legislation which the Government is introducing.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will certainly inquire into that and gladly furnish the noble Lord with a statement. But he must remember that these are capital assets which are changing hands.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount who has at last softened his heart a little, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
Eighth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
6.34 p.m.
Ninth Schedule:
Meaning of "Average Net Annual Profit" in Relation to Road Transport Undertakings.
4. When the amount of the profit or loss for any of the said three years has been ascertained, such adjustment, if any, of the amount thereof shall be made as may be just, having regard to the extent and nature of the property held in the year for the purposes of the undertaking as compared with the extent and nature of the property which vests in the Commission by virtue of the notice of acquisition, not being property duly disclaimed by the Commission.
5.—(1) The amount of the profits made in the said three years, ascertained and adjusted as aforesaid, shall then be aggregated, and the amount of the losses made in the said three years, ascertained and adjusted as aforesaid, shall also be aggregated.
(2) If there are no profits to be aggregated, or the aggregate of the profits does not exceed the aggregate of the losses, the average net annual profit shall be taken to be nil.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph 3, to leave out "such deductions shall be made" and insert:
"the amount of any liability to Excess Profits Tax or the Profits Tax (computed, in the case of Excess Profits Tax, without regard to any post-war refund as defined in Part IV of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1945) shall be taken into account and such sums shall be debited."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to make it clear that in ascertaining the average net annual profit in reference to which compensation to road transport undertakings for cessation of business is to be assessed, the amount of any liability to any Excess Profits Tax or Profits Tax shall be taken into account. There is little doubt that normal accounting practice would be to deduct these liabilities but it is undesirable that the point should be left in any ambiguity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 143, line 41, leave out "such deductions" and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I must say that we have had a singularly brief explanation upon what looks to me to be a very odd Amendment. Nothing was done about this in another place. The Bill went all through the Committee and all through the Report and this was not one of the things which suffered so much from the guillotine. If there is a doubt about this business, it is a doubt which ought to be resolved on its merits. On
442
the face of it this seems to me to be a very bad Amendment indeed. What it does is to say that win n you are assessing the value of the business for the purpose of taking over you have got to deduct the Excess Profits Tax during the Excess Profits Tax period. Now there are two criticisms of that. You can only do that where Excess Profits Tax has been paid, and where the business has attracted Excess Profits Tax. If you have a company it is attracting it, and if you have an undertaking which is not a company it is not attracting it. You may, therefore, have two people, one a limited company and the other a private partnership carrying on a bus business. When you come to assess the profits upon which this is to be based, one of them has his Excess Profits Tax deducted and the other does not get it deducted.
Another thing is that you have very varying standards. I am not an expert in bus undertakings, but I do know a good deal about other lines of the business. One of the most unfair things about the Excess Profits Tax—except in the sense that we wanted nobody to make a profit out of the war —is that where you have a business which is old and established and which had a large pre-war profit, it was entitled to make a big profit during the war. On the other hand, you may have a new expanding business. I was concerned in one myself which was doing extremely well, but because we had no pre-war standard we were on the 6 or 8 per cent. basis. That was a business which was of great value to the Government during the war. The moment the war was over, and Excess Profits Tax went, of course it was able to make a much greater profit than it had been allowed to make during the war years. It was a very odd case as a matter of fact, because it was amalgamation of a number of businesses and the amalgamation was so carried out that we could not take the individual businesses at what they had been doing. But that is by the way.
It is quite notorious that if you have a high-pre-war standard you get a low Excess Profits Tax. A new business might be much more efficient, but there, if you had a low pre-war standard you bear a high Excess Profits Tax. In those cases it would work entirely differently in accordance with whether it was a limited

443
company or not, and whether it had a high or low pre-war Excess Profits Tax standard. But observe what is now going to happen. You are going to take over these businesses when Excess Profits Tax has been abolished. I thought we were trying to see what was a fair price to pay for these businesses. You are putting them out of business, and you are then going to compensate them, presumably in relation to what they would have done had they been able to continue in business. I understand that that is what compensation means. In all ordinary walks of life when you have two people making a deal you put a fair valuation on a, business. How do you always assess that? You look at past profits and you look at future prospects. It may be that some of these bus companies did much better during the war and one year after the war than they are likely to do in the future. But when you get away from these artificial ways of handling business, and have either an agreement to purchase or a valuation by arbitration in default of an agreement, the things are worked out together. Now in the future the Government are gong to take over these businesses and run them.
This Commission will be subject to taxation like an individual; but it will not pay E.P.T. any more, because E.P.T. has been abolished. You are taking over a business which will not be subject to E.P.T. in future. But compensation will be settled with a man as if he were subject to E.P.T. It seems to me very unfair. Even in the war period, when the Minister of Transport set a ceiling on what these people were able to make under control, he gave them a high scale They were able to make more than they would have on the E.P.T. standard.
If the Minister of Transport thought in the war that that was what they ought to be doing, it seems wrong to take a different and lower standard now. I can quite imagine that there must be some cases in which if you paid on so many years' valuation of profits without taking into account E.P.T., some people might get too much, too generous compensation. But surely the right way to assess that is this. You have a margin of two to seven years; I should have thought that in deciding how many years' purchase you are going to pay, if the parties cannot agree
444
the matter goes to arbitration. Then it is for the arbitrator to decide. He could say: "You have, it is true, the right to choose these three years, and to be assessed on them; on the other hand I claim that those years are good years. Had you been carrying on in business you would not have done so well in the next three years and you never did so well before. A fair price for you is x pounds, and that, for you, is five years' and not seven years' purchase."
Is it possible to have a firm decision on this now? It seems to me that from bringing this E.P.T. business into it when E.P.T. has come to an end and when it must work inequitably as between different classes of companies, and still more between companies and non-companies, much injustice will result. The Government may be producing other similar measures and if this were to be set as a precedent I honestly do not think we ought to be asked to accept the clause in this form; certainly not with such scanty explanation as we have been given.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This is an extraordinary proposal, and I hope your Lordships will not agree to this Amendment. The Amendment seeks to influence the amount of compensation that is to be paid by the amount of E.P.T. that has been paid during the war. As the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said, it is notorious that E.P.T. was most unfair in its incidence. I think there is general consent among many people, on both sides of both Houses, that E.P.T. in many respects was a most unfortunate and indeed disastrous tax. Our present Chancellor of the Exchequer had, I think, the good will of everybody, irrespective of Party, when he abolished this tax. The only justification for E.P.T. was a moral one. It was vitally important that the men who were being asked to offer their lives in fighting the war should be assured that other people were not to be allowed to profiteer out of the war. That was a great moral issue; and this was the way in which Parliament, at the commencement of the war, attempted to deal with this moral issue. But at best it was a rough, crude and makeshift plan, and it was never very carefully thought out. In practice it was found to be, in many respects, extremely unfortunate and extremely inequitable. The Government are asking us now to perpetuate this in-

445
equity in the compensation terms of this Bill.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has pointed out, this may well set a precedent for other bills which His Majesty's Government are likely to introduce or have introduced. You really, can find no logical or moral justification for it at all. As Lord Swinton has said, you may have two undertakings who are doing exactly the same business and have done for the three years, who have a fleet of vehicles exactly the same, whose financial position and prospects are precisely similar, and yet one of these undertakings during the war will have paid a great deal of E.P.T. while the other may have paid very little or none at all. That inequity of the war has gone, and we cannot help it; but to try to perpetuate this inequity in the compensation to be allotted to the firms seems to be quite wrong. Therefore, I do hope that His Majesty's Government will not press this Amendment. If they do I hope your Lordships will not agree to it, because it seems to me that compensation ought to be dealt with exactly on the terms and in the way that Viscount Swinton has pointed out. Surely that is amply provided for in the Bill, and the question whether a company did or did not pay E.P.T. is quite extraneous and should not be entertained at all.
One other minor matter I would point out is that the figure of E.P.T. that is to be taken is the figure without the refund—which appears to me to be even more unjust, because the refund, I think, was introduced during the course of the war in an attempt to mitigate, as far as Parliament could in the circumstances mitigate, the inequalities of the incidence of E.P.T. Therefore deliberately to strike out the question of the refund seems to me to be perpetuating the inequalities of E.P.T. in the most aggravated form.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I wish to support the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in a very few words, and to emphasize how very unfair it will be if this Amendment is passed. It is notorious anywhere in the City, or anywhere else where E.P.T. applies, that it has operated in the most inequitable and unfair manner. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has pointed out that many companies who had been making big profits before the war were allowed to get off almost scot free, and on the other hand there were
446
companies who had just started up and were doing fairly well who came in and made large profits during the war and then found those profits very much reduced as a result of E.P.T. Not now, but at some time, I will give the noble Viscount a very interesting example of that. I wish to support what has been said about this matter and to ask the noble Viscount whether he will withdraw this Amendment and consider it again before the Report stage in the light of everything that has been said here this afternoon.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I
was going to say one word and it is this. I think it is clear that nobody in this Committee wants to take advantage of abnormal war profits. On the other hand, there is a case with which we are all familiar, where E.P.T. has been applied to expanding businesses which are expected to earn just as much after the war as they did during the war. It does seem rather unfair—in fact it seems very unfair—that you should attach E.P.T. to this provision in the rigid form in which it is here. I do not think anybody in this committee wants to press this matter to a Division if it can be avoided, and I would therefore suggest to the Government—and it would be very wise if the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, could see his way to do it, although I know responsible Ministers have to be consulted—that this should be taken back for consideration, and the Amendment drafted in a form which takes regard of abnormal profits. Then much public uneasiness would be avoided, and a great deal of unfairness would be avoided too.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I gladly respond to that suggestion, but may I say this about it? First of all, I do not think that whether this clause is in or not would make any difference. The Court of Appeal had to decide a case during the war in regard to an agreement which specified that the goodwill was to be calculated on a certain basis, and the basis was described to be certified by the auditors on the basis of ordinary commercial practice—nothing else. The question arose as to whether the auditors in certifying or not ought not to take as a deduction the E.P.T. They decided that they ought. They were supported by the first Court, and in the Court of Appeal; and therefore, in ordin-

447
ary commercial practice, I believe that this would be the case. That particular decision of the Court of Appeal did not come to your Lordships' House.
But it is obviously undesirable to leave this matter as an uncertainty, for this reason: that the arbitrators or tribunal who are going to pronounce on this matter, whether it be in two or three years, must know on what basis they are proceeding. If you say that they shall not deduct E.P.T., then they will give one multiplier; if, on the other hand you say they shall deduct E.P.T., it will be another multiplier. Therefore it seems to me that we should state quite plainly—and here we follow the ordinary commercial practice—whether we do or do not deduct E.P.T. On the merits of the thing, we all know cases in which E.P.T. worked hardly as between one business and another. But if we look at the thing by and large and as a whole, I think we can agree that E.P.T. was a fair tax. It was a fair tax on the whole because it prevented the war profiteer. The relevance of the date we are taking here, where we are using the past as an indication of the future, is that it is a yardstick by which we measure what is likely to happen in the future. That is the relevance of taking the past. You may find that the past had some abnormal features in it. It is notorious that all these passenger undertakings did extremely well during the war —we have only to think of the numbers of unhappy people standing in the buses, and so on. Those were, I hope and believe, thoroughly unhappy conditions which will not repeat themselves.
Therefore, if you are basing yourself at all on what happened in the past (which is relevant) as your standard for the future, it seems to me, speaking for myself, that it is perfectly fair to correct the past, to destroy the abnormalities; and that is why, by and large, it seems to me very much fairer to make it plain that we are going to deduct E.P.T. The noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, has asked me to consult the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no authority to say anything at all, and I have not yet consulted the Treasury about this point. I am perfectly prepared to see that the Treasury is consulted, to see whether they say or do not say that I have described it correctly, and I will put
448
to them the arguments that your Lordships have put to me. I cannot hold out the hope that the Treasury will accede to your Lordships' arguments; I feel they are more likely to accede to mine. But I will certainly put it to the test, and I will tell your Lordships what the answer is.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I say one word? The sentence in the speech which the Lord Chancellor has just delivered that affected my mind was that in which he said that he did not think it would make very much difference in the Bill; and the reason why I think that is perfectly right is that the arbitrator or the Tribunal which here has to determine, according to the terms of the Bill, and including, of course, the Schedules, the fair value of the property in question—in effect the fair value of the goodwill—has to take into consideration every relevant circumstance. If he finds, as he will do if this Amendment is passed, that during the two or three years which he has to consider there was an abnormal deduction called Excess Profits Tax charged by the Government, I am certainly of opinion that he would have to take into account those two abnormal payments of exceptional tax during those two years, and that it would affect his view as to the number of years' purchase which he ought to give.
Accordingly, my opinion is that, in a sense, if the Tribunal acted properly it would make no difference. The person who is the owner of the business to be transferred would be entitled, either on one side or the other, to have those things taken into consideration. The reason why, on my part, if I had any real influence in this case, I would say "Do not insert the Amendment," is simply this: that I am afraid that there are some Tribunals who would be misled by this Amendment and would not allow the consideration that there are those deductions of Excess Profits Duty to sway them into deciding on the years' purchase or any other detail that is involved in fixing the price. It would be wrong to say: "We will not consider E.P.T. We must deduct E.P.T. first, and we will not consider that that sum is deducted when we try to ascertain the true value of the business." That must be, and obviously is, wrong, and it is my fear that that might be the result of this clause. For what it is worth. I should be inclined to support

449
the suggestion that this Amendment should not he moved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope your Lordships appreciate that I must ask for the Amendment now. I will carry out my promise, but I must ask for the Amendment now. If not, we must divide on it. We must have the Amendment now, unless your Lordships prefer a Division, and then we will abide by the result of the Division. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, almost entirely. What I would point out is that if you do not have this in, then of course a tribunal in assessing how many years' purchase to give would have to consider another factor—the abnormality of the years. They would have to take into account the fact of people standing in the buses and so on.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: That has got to be considered in any case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Instead of considering the abnormality of the years they can take into account Excess Profits Tax. That is why we maintain that it is very much better to have the Amendment in to clarify the position. We have no authority not to press the Amendment, this being a Treasury matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do most earnestly appeal to the Government not to press this to a Division. Again and again during this Committee stage we, on this side, who are in a majority, have refrained from pressing Amendments to a Division with a view to getting a settlement by agreement. We have explained to the Government quite clearly to-night that we do not want to leave the Bill exactly as it is without this Amendment. We are quite prepared to consider an amended Amendment or a new proposal. We are quite prepared to consider this Amendment again on the Report stage, if it turns out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unwilling to alter his mind. We are perfectly reasonable about this, and surely it is not quite fair of the Government to force a Division. On this side we, being, as I have said, in the majority, have again and again postponed decisions in order to try to get agreement with the Government. To-day in this particular case where they have put down this Amendment why should they put us in this extremely invidious position?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: In reply to what the noble Marquess has said, may I say that I am willing to hold this over to the Report stage pending examination, as the noble Marquess suggests. But it must be understood that if my guidance and my instructions remain as they are at present we must insist on pressing this Amendment at the Report stage, and it will then be for your Lordships take a decision. It must clearly be understood that I am only taking this back for the time being in order to secure that examination for which the noble Marquess has asked. That does not imply any suggestion that we shall not bring the Amendment forward later.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course we entirely understand the position as the noble Viscount has stated it. I am very grateful to him and I have no complaint to make of any kind regarding the course which he has now agreed to take.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CARRICK THE EARL OF CARRICK moved, in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 5, to leave out "nil" and insert "such a sum as may be just having regard to the circumstances particular to each case." The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is quite obvious and I will not waste the time of the Committee by speaking on it at length. It is designed to remove some injustice and abnormalities that might well occur. It affects very few people.
Amendment moved—
Page 144, line 11, leave out ("nil") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Carrick.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Will the noble Earl forgive my interrupting him? The Amendments in this group all deal with matters which are covered in an Amendment which I have put down myself, That Amendment deals with the whole point. These only cover the same matter. I hope that the noble Earl will not press these Amendments seeing that they are on exactly the same point.
THE EARL OF CARRICK: If I may say so, I cannot agree with the noble Viscount about this. This Amendment affects exactly the opposite kind of man. A particular instance taken is of a man who had a fairly profitable business, who during the war had it completely

451
destroyed, and for the last two years of the war was not able to carry on his business. Now his losses are greater than his profits, but he may have a very fine goodwill.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Earl's first Amendment, which he has not moved, suggests that a year in which there were special abnormal circumstances not affecting the other two years shall be left out of account. That is exactly the point covered in my Amendment. There is no difference at all. I appeal to the noble Earl not to occupy our time on this. All these points are covered by my Amendment.
THE EARL OF CARRICK: In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON moved to insert after paragraph 5:
"6. Where, by the end of the last three financial years, not less than three years have elapsed since the undertaking began to be carried on, and the transferor satisfies the Commission, or, in case of dispute, the arbitration tribunal established under Part VIII of this Act, that in any one of the last three financial years, by reason of the abnormality of the circumstances of that particular year as compared with the circumstances of the other two years, the profit made was to a substantial extent less than, or the loss made showed a substantial fall from, the average profit made in the other two years, then only those other two years shall be taken into account for the purposes of the last preceding paragraph, and accordingly for the word 'three,' wherever that word occurs in the last preceding paragraph, except in the proviso thereto, there shall be substituted the word 'two.' "
The noble Viscount said: This deals with the case of haulage undertakings which are, of course, exposed sometimes to special emergencies owing, say, to bad trade, a slump in local trade or bad weather. There might be circumstances existing such as those which prevailed last winter in which it would not be fair to take that as a sample year. This allows for the taking of two other years, and for the average of those two years to be taken. It is not applicable in the same way to 'bus undertakings because they are not subject to the same kind of competition and affected in the same way. People in the cities and towns for the most part have got to go to and fro in bad weather just as at other times. I suggest that the
452
Committee will be well advised to give these people this option which is of course entirely in their favour. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 144, line 34, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Addison.)
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Half a loaf being better than no bread, some of my noble friends and I on this side of the Chamber would wish to welcome the Amendment which has just been moved. I rise to point out that we had an Amendment earlier on the Order Paper which would extend the same provisions as are contained in this Amendment to the passenger transport undertakings. I think it was agreed at that time that if this Amendment were passed—as no doubt it will be—it should be understood that we might revert to the question of passenger transport on the Report stage.
LORD GIFFORD: The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, said that people still had to get to work in bad weather. I would remind him that in the early part of this year during the fuel crisis a very large number of people did not go to work at all and therefore did not use the buses.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 144, line 44, leave out ("the last preceding paragraph") and insert ("this Schedule ")—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Ninth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Tenth to Fourteenth Schedules agreed to.
Fifteenth Schedule [Part 1: Enactments repealed as from the passing of this Act]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: There is an entirely drafting Amendment here. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 151, line 26, after ("ten") insert ("in subsection (1) of Section twenty-four, the words 'upon the railways' "). —(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifteenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
8.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 2:
The Central Land Board.
(3) The Ministers may appoint a Secretary to the Board and the Board may appoint such other officers and such servants as the Ministers may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
(4) There shall be paid to the members, officers and servants of the Board such remuneration (whether by way of salaries or by way of fees), and such reasonable allowances in respect of expenses properly incurred in the performance of their duties, as may be determined by the Ministers with the consent of the Treasury; and any such remuneration and allowances as aforesaid shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
(5) The Ministers may make regulations with respect to any of the following matters, that is to say:—

(a) the appointment of members of the Board, and their tenure and vacation of office;

(b) the quorum, proceedings and meetings of the Board, and determinations of the Board; and

(c) the execution of instruments by or on behalf of the Board, and the proof of documents purporting to be executed, issued or signed by the Board or by a member, officer or servant thereof,

and subject to the provisions of any such regulations as aforesaid, the Board shall have power to regulate their own procedure.
(6) The Board shall, as soon as possible after the end of each financial year of the Board, make to the Ministers a report on the exercise and performance by them of their functions under this Act during that year; and the Ministers shall lay a copy of every such report before each House of Parliament.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR had given notice to move, in subsection (2) to leave
454
out: "Ministers may appoint a Secretary to the Board, and the Board may appoint "and insert: "Board may appoint a Secretary from amongst persons recommended by the Ministers and". The noble Earl said: With your Lordships' permission I propose to move the first Amendment which stands in my name, and also the second, in a slightly different form from that which appears on the Marshalled List. My Amendment on page 2, line 10, should now read: "leave out Ministers' and insert Board, with the approval of the Ministers.' "In the next Amendment I shall ask the Committee to leave out "The Board may appoint" in line 11. The effect of these is that the subsection would read:
"The Board, with the approval of the Ministers, may appoint a Secretary to the Board and such other officers and such servants as the Ministers may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine."
Amendment moved,—
Page 2, line 10, leave out from the first ("the") to ("such") in line 11 and insert ("Board may, with the approval of the Ministers, appoint a Secretary and").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the first Amendment on this Bill, and I always like to start well, at any rate. Therefore I should like to say that I am prepared to accept this Amendment, it being understood, of course, that the noble Earl will allow me on the Report stage to look at the words which have been rather hurriedly put together, to see if they are quite right. I have been somewhat criticized for not being in my place on the Transport Bill yesterday. May I say that I was not at the Lincolnshire. I was, in fact, working behind the scenes on this Bill, trying to make myself available to those of your Lordships who wished to come and see me on various difficulties. I was not at Lord's nor at Wimbledon, though I would very much rather have been at either place. But I was not in any way neglecting my duties.
It is extremely important that this Board should be a really good Board. If, by any chance, we get—but thank God! we have not got in this country—any sort of funny business, or dirty work creeping into our scheme, the scheme would go to pieces, and it is right that the Civil Service rule should apply that the head of a Department such as this should be appointed by the Prime Minis-

455
ter himself, or at any rate with his approval. He will be an Accounting Officer, and the Prime Minister must have the last word. But in accepting this Amendment, I thought it would not matter very much whether the formal appointment was made by the Board with the approval of the Minister, or by the Minister who certainly would have the approval of the Board. In any case, the Minister, before deciding, would according to Civil Service practice, have to have the approval of the Prime Minister. This relates to the appointment of a very important officer, and if the noble Earl thinks it is no improvement I am willing to be guided by him. I am very ready to accept it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: If I may say so, I think the noble Viscount, although he started somewhat over promptly, has started very well. I thank him for having accepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"(4) For the purpose of the performance by the Board of the functions assigned to them by any provisions corresponding to the provisions of this Act which may be enacted in relation to Scotland the Board shall appoint a Committee which shall consist partly of members who are members or officers of the Board and partly of members, not exceeding three in number, who are not members or officers of the Board, and the Board may delegate, subject to such restrictions or conditions as they may think fit, any of their functions to the said Committee. The Committee so appointed shall be a body corporate."
The noble Earl said: We had an equivocal statement from the noble Viscount on the Second Reading, giving one reason for the divorce of Scotland from the Central Land Board. I gave two more in my Second Reading speech, but I am sure that only one reason for divorce is necessary. It is adequate in itself. I do not propose to recount the reasons for the divorce. The only question on this Amendment is the nature of the terms of that divorce. The terms which are proposed in this Amendment are substantially drawn from the model existing in the Forestry Act, 1945. It is not exactly the same, because it was felt, from the way in which the Bill was drafted, that it would be more suitable for Scotland if the Forestry Committee were to continue to exist and to carry out
456
their functions separately. This seems to me, if I may say so, a compromise that meets the essential feature, and the essential feature which the Lord Chancellor has already emphasized is the Central Land Board for dealing with certain factors which require consideration for the whole of the United Kingdom. This is for administration locally, but no doubt the Central Board will have a good deal of administrative control in one way or another. The Bill says that the Secretary of State for Scotland is the central figure for planning for Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I said before, from the planning point of view, speaking for myself, I see no objection to a divorce, but the Amendment which the noble Earl has moved is not a divorce, it is merely a separation; it is not even that. He contemplates one Central Land Board for the two countries, but he contemplates that a Committee should be set up under that Central Land Board for Scotland. The noble Earl, if he remembers his Biblical history—I have not verified my references—may remember that when Balaam the son of Beor was called upon by Balak, the son of Zippor, to curse the children of Israel, he said he could speak only what the Lord put into his mouth. The Lord in this case is the Secretary of State for Scotland, perhaps tinged with a little Minister of Town and Country Planning. So far as I am concerned, I think that this particular Amendment should find its place in the Scottish Bill. After all, the noble Lord is not here proposing separation; he is proposing one Central Land Board, and that the Central Land Board, so far as it operates in Scotland, should operate by means of a Committee.
There is now under consideration—I think it is still before the Grand Committee—the Scottish Town and Country Planning Bill, and in a few days' or a few weeks' time we shall consider it here. It seems to me that that is the proper time at which to move this Amendment. Speaking for myself, so far as I am responsible for planning, it does not matter what is done. I must, however, leave this to the Secretary of State for Scotland, to

457
take whatever decision he thinks right on the Scottish Bill, because it is purely of Scottish application. If he, and your Lordships, think that this is the best way to do it for Scotland, I have not the slightest objection. I would only add this, and I am sure that the Earl of Selkirk would agree with me: that whether we have one Central Land Board or two separate Boards—and the present proposal is for one Board—it is essential to observe that, so far as possible, the same sort of principles should apply both in England and in. Scotland. We want neither an injustice to Scotland nor an injustice to England. That is why presumably the noble Earl has left the idea of the one Board, in order to ensure that there may be that unity of outlook, though for practical local and administrative purposes he suggests that there should be a Scottish Committee on an analogy to the Forestry Commission.
I am not at all unsympathetic to the Amendment, but I think it is really a matter upon which I ought to get instructions from the Secretary of State for Scotland which I have not yet had. If the noble Earl had suggested splitting the Central Land Board into two, then that would have arisen on this Bill, but, as his Amendment is for keeping one Central Land Board and having, so far as Scotland is concerned, the machinery of the Committee, it seems to me that it is a Scottish question which had better be debated on the Scottish Bill. I would ask the noble Earl not to press his Amendment now. We are in no way disposed to quarrel with his Amendment, but I have no authority to accept it so far as Scotland is concerned.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: While thanking the Lord Chancellor for his reply, I am not at all clear as to how strong the assurance is that the point can be met in the same way. I hope it will be open to us on Report stage to press this matter further, if we are not able on the Scottish Bill to secure our objective. I would like to support my noble friend, and in doing so I would say that I am certain the feeling throughout Scotland would be very strong indeed that we in Scotland should have our own organization, whether a sub-committee or a Board. What we desire is something which is probably quite as far as separation, but not quite the same as divorce. I think
458
something between the two is essential. The question of distance and the question of differences have been referred to before; and also the great difference in land laws. I do not think a Committee composed almost entirely of Englishmen, sitting in London, would be well qualified to deal with that, or that they themselves would want to do so. I do feel, also, that reference to the Forestry Commission is very appropriate. Without a national committee in Scotland we could not possibly handle the forestry affairs in Scotland. This will also be on a large scale, and I am sure we shall need our own people there to deal with it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I give the noble Duke this reassurance. I am satisfied that it would be quite in order to move this Amendment on the Scottish Bill. It is entirely a Scottish matter, and the proper vehicle for this Amendment is the Scottish Bill. So far as I am concerned, if I am in charge of the Scottish Bill when it is introduced, and I receive instructions to accept this Amendment, I shall do so very readily. I have no idea what instructions I shall receive, and I have no reason to suppose that shall have them one way or the other. I am sure that the Scottish Bill is the proper place to move this Amendment, and not this Bill. The noble Duke knows that it was always contemplated that the Central Land Board should have an office in Edinburgh and conduct from Edinburgh their Scottish business. That is why I presume the noble Earl did not move that the Central Land Board should be split in two.
LORD SALTOUN: I am sorry to prolong this matter. I am quite satisfied with what the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has told us. I would, however, through the noble and learned Viscount, put one point to the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the course of my life I have often had occasion to discuss Scottish legal matters with English lawyers, and very often land matters. My feeling is that they always tend to assimilate points in our Scottish system to something of which they have experience, and to argue it on the lines of those legal principles of which they have experience. If I may give your Lordships my own feelings on that matter, it is supremely irritating to deal with a man who thinks he understands you, when

459
you are quite confident that he never does quite understand you. The Scottish land system is well understood by a large proportion of the Scottish people (I do not mean that everybody understands it, but a large proportion of the population do) and it would be supremely irritating to people in Scotland who had matters to represent to feel that they were not properly understood. If you feel that you have been, heard, you may take a decision you do not like with comparative equanimity; but if you feel your case has not even been understood, you feel a grievance. I hope I have not detained your Lordships too long in putting that point, which does seem to me to be of some importance.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not know if I understood the noble and learned Viscount correctly. If there were an Amendment moved in the Scottish Bill to meet this point, do I understand that no consequential Amendment would be necessary in the present Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
LORD LLEWELLIN: As I am assured on that point, it does seem to me that perhaps this is largely a Scottish question and had better be discussed on the Scottish Bill. Perhaps we should be well advised to leave it now. But I very much hope that the right honourable gentleman, the Secretary of State for Scotland, will bear in mind what has been said in this House in regard to giving some kind of a separate body, but largely connected with the other, for Scottish affairs. For myself, I do not see why we do not do something on the lines of the Amendment proposed by my noble friend, because then, with the three additional members appointed to act in Scotland, there would obviously be people who knew Scottish law and who knew Scottish customs. That seems to me to be highly important for the proper functioning of this Land Board in respect to Scottish affairs. I hope noble Lords opposite will press upon the Secretary of State the deep feeling which I know exists in this matter in this House, and will not take it that because we have shortened the discussion to-night it is any the less deeply felt.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am pleased to have the noble and learned Viscount's
460
sympathy, but I am afraid I must take a very brave course and differ fundamentally with him in regard to the impossibility of imposing an Amendment of this nature in another way. I must draw the noble and learned Viscount's attention to Clause 2, which says:
"For the purpose of the performance of the functions assigned to them"—
that is, the Central Land Board—
"by the following provisions of this Act, and by any corresponding provisions which may be enacted in relation to Scotland…"
Unless there is a divorce at this stage, it is quite impossible to get away from that.
I would also refer the noble and learned Viscount to Clause 3 (1), which says:
"The Central Land Board shall, in the performance of their functions under this Act, comply with such directions of a general character as may be given to them by the Minister."
It is perfectly clear that that refers to the Minister of Town and Country Planning. If it is not put in this Bill it will be ineffective.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would the noble Earl forgive me? I quite agree with him if he is proposing that there should be two Central Land Boards. He is not suggesting that. His Amendment is proceeding on the basis that there is one Central Land Board, and the passage he read out is consistent with their being one Central Land Board. But having secured and retained one Central Land Board he is then suggesting, by his Amendment, that there shall be a Committee, sub-committee or whatever you call it, of that Land Board in Scotland for Scottish purposes. All I am saying is that it is perfectly consistent with there being one Central Land Board. This is purely a Scottish question to be dealt with by a Scottish Bill.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I regret that I did not hear the beginning of this discussion, but what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount does not, if I may say so with the greatest respect, seem at all satisfactory. In Scotland, if you take this Bill as it stands, it says that there shall be a Minister and the Secretary of State in charge of certain functions connected with Scotland. Unless you have a Board or Committee in Scotland it will be quite impossible for Scotland to deal

461
with her own affairs on a Scottish basis. What the noble and learned Viscount says is that you have a Central Land Board or Committee, or whatever it may be, and that that Committee will be able to deal with these affairs under the Bill as it stands. As my noble friend Lord Selkirk points out, in Clause 3 of this Act it says that:
"the Central Land Board shall, in the performance of their functions under this Act, comply with such directions of a general character as may be given to them by the Minister."
It does not even say "the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland." It throws back to the Minister alone all these functions which are to be exercised under Clause 5. Why is it necessary, in the first instance, to have a separate Town and Country Planning Act for Scotland and at the same time to bring into this Bill part of their functions? Why not give to Scotland everything and not only three-quarters?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The reason for that is that we are proposing by this Bill to set up a Central Land Board and the Central Land Board are to operate in both countries; no one has any Amendment down to alter that. Will the noble Viscount realize that? No one is proposing to alter that Amendment. There is to be in this Bill, therefore, unamended as it is, one Central Board for the two countries. All that is proposed is that one unified Land Board shall have power in Scotland to appoint a Committee or sub-committee. All I am suggesting, and it seems to me obvious, is that this is a Scottish matter, to be dealt with in the Scottish Bill. If you were to split up the Land Board, then I quite agree it would have to be in this Bill; but in view of the fact that everybody is accepting the idea of a unified Land Board for the two countries, and all you are seeking to do is to set up a Committee for Scottish affairs, I suggest that that is a matter to be dealt with in the Scottish Bill and that no Amendment whatever is necessary to the present. Bill.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: In view of the noble and learned Viscount's explanation, may I suggest to him that Clause 2, so far as that wording is concerned, would not fit in with what he suggests? If Scotsmen are suspicious that they will not obtain their rights, surely it is perfectly obvious that Clause 2 is the cause of these
462
suspicions. I hope the Lord Chancellor will now say something about Clause 2 as well as Clause 1.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have said it, and I really cannot say it all over again. There really is nothing between us here. I wish the noble Viscount would not be suspicious of me.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I cannot help it, because the noble and learned Viscount is so persuasive.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The only way to be persuasive for any length of time is to be always completely candid. If there is any trick I assure the noble Viscount I will tell him, because I know that if I trip him up once I shall never do it again. I assure hire there is no trick. If he were moving to split up the Central Land Board I would tell him he ought to do it in this Bill. But as he is proposing to have one unified Board, then I say that so far as the Board in Scotland is concerned that is a matter for the Scottish Bill.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask whether the Secretary of State is to be included with the Minister?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount will see that the word is in the plural, "Ministers."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is quite clear that the noble and learned Viscount has not received his instructions from the noble Lord. I shall return to this on the Report stage because I am not convinced that this is a matter which can be settled simply in the Scottish Bill. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.2 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to leave out paragraph (b) of subsection (5). The noble Lord said: Mine is a simple Amendment to leave out paragraph (b) in subsection (5) of Clause 2. The effect of it is that if this Amendment be accepted the Board, which equally with the Lord Chancellor I hope will be strong and independent, and a thoroughly good body, will be thought fit to regulate matters such as its quorum, meetings, proceedings and determinations of the Board. That is the reason why I move this Amendment. Personally, when a body of this sort are set up, I like to be

463
able to trust them to be able to do the things that any ordinary board in other walks of life do. I do not think I need take up the time of the Committee any further. With those few words I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD HENDERSON: I am happy to emulate the noble and learned Viscount by starting with an acceptance. I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: The next Amendment standing in the name of my noble and learned friend is really consequential on the acceptance of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. Now that that Amendment has been accepted there will be no power to make regulations for prescribing the procedure on the determination of the Board. It is therefore necessary to make the Amendment in order to empower the Board to fix their own procedure in determining questions under the Bill. Similar words are included in paragraph 6 of the First Schedule of the War Damage Act, 1943. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, at end insert—
"including the manner in which matters subject to the determination of the Board are to be determined by or on behalf of the Board."—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged for this. As the noble Lord said, it is consequential on what has been accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: By the next Amendment I propose to leave out "Under this Act." This is a little more than a drafting Amendment. This part alone (and the £300,000,000) applies to Scotland. The rest does not.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("Under this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Minister" and insert "Ministers." The noble Viscount said: On behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I am moving this Amendment
464
because I believe that it affects the whole principle of this Bill so far as Scotland is concerned. I do not propose to reiterate the arguments which I made just now, and I will ask the noble and learned Viscount to say what are his reasons for not accepting this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 47, leave out "Minister" and insert "Ministers."—(Viscount Elibank.)
LORD HENDERSON: I think I can give a very simple explanation why this Amendment is unnecessary. The Bill, as it stands, gives the Minister power to issue directions to the Board so far as this Bill is concerned; it does not apply to Scotland, except in so far as the Board covers both countries. Clause 1 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Bill (Scotland), which applies only to Scotland, provides that the Secretary of State may issue directions to the Board in relation to land in Scotland, and gives the Minister, under this Bill, no power to issue directions in relation to such land. So there are corresponding clauses in the two measures, one enabling the Minister in this country to be responsible for dealing with land in this country, and a corresponding clause in the Scottish Bill which gives the Secretary of State power to deal with it so far as it affects Scotland.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: As I understand the Bill, this clause, as the noble Lord has said, gives the Minister power to issue certain directions. Those directions are bound up with the finances of the Bill. From what I understand of the finances of the Bill, there are so many millions of pounds which are allocated between the three countries, and the Minister has full power to decide with regard to that finance. If the Minister, under Clause 1, has the right of direction, in consultation with the Secretary of State, in regard to those other finances, why should the Secretary of State not have the power of direction in regard to the amounts allocated to Scotland? I do not know what they are, whether they are going to be the old Goschen eleven eighty-ninths, or not. I hope, at least, that they will be the Goschen equation. But, whatever they are, I submit, with great respect, that the Secretary of State for Scotland has as much right as the Minister here to decide how those moneys are to be allocated. Will the noble Lord

465
say whether the Secretary of State, under this clause, will have the right to give directions so far as allocations of those moneys are concerned?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We English are very slow to wrath, but really, I do think, if I may say so with great respect, that this is getting a little hard. Does the noble Viscount suggest that a Secretary of State for Scotland should be concerned in the issue of directions concerning England and Wales? Because I do not suggest that the Minister of Town and Country Planning should be concerned in any directions to Scotland. This is a direction to the Central Land Board, and anybody who has read this Bill—I say it with the greatest respect—must know that this direction to the Central Land Board is in no way concerned with the splitting of the£300,000,000, which is to be done by the Treasury and not by the Central Land Board. This is a question of directions to be given to the Central Land Board by the Minister of Town and Country Planning in England and Wales, and, under the corresponding Bill, the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland. Unless the noble Viscount is going to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland should have the right to concern himself in directions given in regard to England and Wales, I do not understand the scope of this Amendment. I certainly do not suggest that the Minister of Town and Country Planning should have any lot or part whatever in directions to be given to the Central Land Board in regard to Scotland.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I have not suggested for one moment—and I do not know why the noble and learned Viscount should have taken this view of the remarks I made—that Scotland should have anything to do with the direction or allocation or the moneys allocated to England or Wales. The point I made was that Scotland should have the right to have some directive in regard to the moneys to be allocated to Scotland. What the noble and learned Viscount says is that the Treasury has the right to decide that; but surely the Treasury must get the guidance and direction of the Government as to how they wish the money to be allocated and whether it is to be for England or Wales or Scotland. It is not for the Treasury to decide to allocate so much to this country or that. I cannot accept the
466
noble and learned Viscount's suggestion. It is quite a new idea. I have been connected with Governments and with public affairs for a great many years and I have never heard that it was the Treasury that directed the policy of the Government with regard to moneys to be allocated. I should like to hear the noble and learned Viscount say more about it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will try once more. Will the noble Viscount look at Clause 3? He will see:
"The Central Land Board shall, in the performance of their functions under this Act, comply with such directions of a general character as may be given to them by the Minister."
It is in the singular. Now we have to consider what other functions there are under this Bill. What I have not been able to get into the mind of the noble Viscount is that the functions have absolutely nothing to do with the division of this £300,000,000. If the noble Viscount will be good enough to turn to Clause 55 which sets up the Fund he will see that it is for the Treasury to divide the £300,000,000 between England, Wales and Scotland. This is in subsection (2). All I am saying is that this is not one of the functions of the Central Land Board and cannot be affected by any directions to be given by any Minister.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble and learned Viscount suggested in his reply that the Treasury give the directive in this matter. He did not refer to Clause 3 in his reply to me. He has now referred to Clause 55 and I agree with him that under that clause the Treasury give the directive in the allocation of this money. All I can say is that that is an entirely new form of policy for any Government. I agree that it is there, but I do not agree with the policy.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Perhaps I may say that I think my noble friend's Amendment is misconceived. If we were to put in here, as is attempted by this Amendment, that the Secretary of State for Scotland is to control the Central Land Board in regard to dealing with England and Wales, when the Scottish Bill comes before us I should join with the Lord Chancellor in putting in that the Minister of Town and County Planning together with the Secretary of State should deal with Scottish affairs. I do not think Scotland would like that. The Amendment

467
is really misconceived. It is quite true that both are going to have a say in setting up the Central Land Board. When it receives directions as to its functions, there is one Minister, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, dealing with England and Wales, and, as we shall see when the Scottish Bill comes before us, there is another Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, dealing with Scotland. That will be the position and, if I might suggest it, having explored the position thoroughly well, perhaps the noble Viscount would be good enough to withdraw his Amendment so that we may proceed to the next.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: In view of what has been said, I withdraw the Amendment, but as a great deal of money is concerned in this matter, I hope that what I have said will not be overlooked.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [General provisions as to functions of Central Land Board]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I understood the Lord Chancellor to say that the financial section, Part VI of the Bill, was entirely out of the purview of the Central Land Board, but surely they come into it in some respect in Clause 57. I find that the Central Land Board come into Clause 57, both in subsection (1) and subsection (4), and I rather think they also come in later in Clause 59, but I cannot immediately trace that. It is so in Clause 61. I cannot help thinking that the statement from the Lord Chancellor, as I understood it—but perhaps I did not understand it—was rather the opposite.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord has misunderstood me. Viscount Elibank seemed to think that the Central Land Board were in some way concerned with the splitting up of the £300,000,000; they are not. What the Treasury has to do is to formulate a scheme under Clause 56, subsection (4) (line 20, at page 66). The scheme has to be laid before Parliament and Parliament can annul it. All I was concerned to show for the moment was that the Central Land Board have nothing to do with the alloca-
468
tion of the £300,000,000. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that £250,000,000 is allocated to England and Wales and £50,000,000 to Scotland. The £250,000,000 for what is English or Scottish, as the case may be, is allocated and the Central Land Board do come in, because they have to present claims. But they are not concerned with the allocation of the two sums of money, and therefore there is no injustice to Scotland in Clause 3.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: They do not come in, as I understand it, on the allocation of the global sum, but they do come in so far as claims under that sum are concerned.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Local planning authorities.
4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the local planning authority for the purposes of this Act shall, for each county or county borough, be the council of that county or borough.
(2) If it appears to the Minister that it is expedient that a joint board should be established as the local planning authority for the areas of any two or more such councils as aforesaid, or for any parts of those areas, he may by order constitute those areas or parts as a united district for the purposes of this Act, and constitute a joint board (in this Act referred to as a joint planning board) as the local planning authority for that district:
Provided that the Minister shall not make such an order except after holding a local inquiry unless all the councils concerned have consented to the making of the order.
LORD BROADBRIDGE LORD BROADBRIDGE moved, in subsection (1), after "section" to insert "and section III." The noble Lord said: In moving the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, it is only necessary for me to say that its object is to strengthen the relationship between Clauses 4 and III. I assume that any discussion that is to take place will take place on Clause III. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, after ("section") insert ("and section III").—(Lord Broadbridge.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I entirely agree with the noble Lord. Let us have a discussion of this matter on Clause III and then, if the noble Lord carries what he wants on Clause III, we can easily put in whatever Amendment is necessary here at a later stage.
LORD BROADBRIDGE: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "such councils as aforesaid" and insert "county, county borough or county district councils." The noble Lord said: Under this Bill, as your Lordships know, the county councils and the county borough councils are the future planning authorities, and the Minister has taken power to make joint planning boards consisting of those two authorities. What is suggested here is that it might also be convenient in certain cases, where expedient to the Minister, for him to make a joint planning board out of authorities that are part of a county, as well as out of those that are already planning authorities. I think the example given is the case of Middlesex and seven other urban areas, where certain parts of the county, particularly urban parts, have worked together as a whole, somewhat independently from the rest of the county, with very great success. It is thought that in some other districts of England it might be convenient to establish separate planning authorities for part of a county that has rather a special character, with unity of interest, but with less unity of interest with the rest of the county. It is a permissive power to be exercised by the Minister in a case where he thinks it is expedient. The Minister would not be able to do that, even if he wanted to, unless this Amendment were put in the Bill. It is a suggestion thrown out for that purpose, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("such councils as aforesaid") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Addington).
LORD HENDERSON: I am obliged to the noble Lord for the suggestion which he has made, but I think it is quite unnecessary under the Bill as it now stands. As the noble Lord rightly said, in the Bill the planning authorities will be the county councils and the county borough councils. The main principle which the noble Lord has in mind was met by the Government in an Amendment to the First Schedule in another place. The noble Lord will remember that the First Schedule enables a county council or a joint board to set up committees and sub-committees; and in the
470
particular case to which the noble Lord referred, of an area of a county council being brought in, it is quite obvious that a committee appointed would be able to include, and is intended to include, a generous representation of the county district representatives. I think that broadly what the noble Lord has in mind is provided for by the Bill as it stands, and, in the circumstances, I hope he will not press the Amendment.
LORD ADDINGTON: As I say, it is merely put forward as a suggestion, and I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, at the end of subsection (2) to insert:
"where an enquiry has been held under the provisions of this subsection the order shall be laid before Parliament and if either house, within a period of 40 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."
The noble Viscount said: This is quite a simple Amendment. It provides that, in a case where the Minister makes an order for a joint board of two or more authorities, they can, if they wish, as it were, appeal to Parliament against an order made contrary to their expressed opinions. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the difficulties which arise in local government when joint boards are set up for various purposes. I think these difficulties have been experienced particularly in connexion with planning. This is such a simple Amendment that I hope very much the Government will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, at end, insert the said words.—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD HENDERSON: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for the suggestion he has made in his Amendment, and I have pleasure in accepting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment, and is required simply to correct an oversight consequent or the introduction in another place of a new Part II of the First Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 44, leave out ("Part III of").—(Lord Henderson.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: May I inquire of His Majesty's Government whether the spelling of the word "inquiry" is correct as it appears in the Bill, or as it appears in the Amendment of my noble friend, Viscount Ridley, because they are different?
LORD HENDERSON: Whichever is the correct form will appear in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
9.25 p.m.
Clause 5:
Surveys of planning areas and preparation of development plans.
5.—(1) As soon as may be after the appointed day, every local planning authority shall carry out a survey of their area, and shall, not later than three years after the appointed day, or within such extended period as the Minister may in any particular case allow, submit to the Minister a report of the survey together with a plan (hereinafter called a "development plan") indicating the manner in which they propose that land in that area should be used (whether by the carrying out thereon of development or otherwise) and the stages by which any such development should be carried out.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any regulations made under this Act for regulating the form and content of development plans, any such plan shall include such maps and such descriptive matter as may be necessary to illustrate the proposals aforesaid with such degree of particularity as may be appropriate to different parts of the area; and any such plan may in particular—

(a) define the sites of proposed roads, public and other buildings and works, airfields, parks, pleasure grounds and other open spaces, or allocate areas of land for use for agricultural, residential, industrial or other purposes of any class specified in the plan;

(b) designate, as land subject to compulsory acquisition by any Minister, local authority or statutory undertakers any land allocated by the plan for the purposes of any of their functions (including any land which that Minister or authority or those undertakers are or could be authorised to acquire compulsorily under any enactment other than this Act);

(c) designate as land subject to compulsory acquisition by the appropriate local authority—

(i) any land comprised in an area defined by the plan as an area of comprehensive development (including any land therein which is allocated by the plan for any such purpose as is mentioned in paragraphs (b) of this subsection), or any land contiguous or adjacent to any such area;

472

(ii) any other land which, in the opinion of the local planning authority, ought to be subject to compulsory acquisition for the purpose of securing its use in the manner proposed by the plan.

(3) For the purposes of this section a development plan may define as an area of comprehensive development any area which in the opinion of the local planning authority should be developed or re-developed as a whole, whether for the purpose of dealing satisfactorily with extensive war damage or conditions of bad lay-out or obsolete development, or for the purpose of providing for the relocation of population or industry or the replacement of open space in the course of the development or redevelopment of any other area, or for any other purpose specified in the plan; and land may be included in any area so defined, and designated as subject to compulsory purchase in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, whether or not provision is made by the plan for the development or redevelopment of that particular land.
(4) The Minister may approve any development plan submitted to him under this section either without modification or subject to such modifications as he considers expedient:
Provided that—

(a) the Minister shall not approve a development plan which designates any land as subject to compulsory acquisition as aforesaid if it appears to him that the acquisition is not likely to take place within ten years from the date on which the plan is approved;

LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (1) at the end, to insert:
"In preparing such development plans a local planning authority shall take into account all existing agreements under Section thirty-four of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and every such agreement shall remain in force until the consent of the Minister has been obtained to its variation or abrogation."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns agreements under Section 34 of the Act of 1932. It has been pointed out that considerable concern has been expressed that under the present Bill agreements relating to the use of land between local authorities, county councils, and other authorities such as the National Trust, are to be terminated automatically; and those bodies entered agreements restricting the use of land.
A number of landlords and public authorities have taken advantage of it, and the results have been beneficial to the public. Very little or no compensation was involved in the provision of open spaces, such large preservation schemes as, for instance, downland, the scheme of Lord Astor's at Cookham, and

473
Cliveden Reach in the Thames, have come under such agreements. I am in a little difficulty, because I understand that this was raised in another place, and it is only this afternoon that we have been able to see the Amendments which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has put down. I am afraid that neither I nor those interested in this matter have had an opportunity of considering the Amendments that have been put down, and therefore I do not know the most convenient course to take on this subject. I will move my Amendment formally, and perhaps receive a little guidance when the noble Lord replies.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 39, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Addington.)
LORD HENDERSON: The object of this Amendment is twofold. It seeks to preserve agreements made under Section 34 of the 1932 Act until the Minister has agreed to their rescission or modification. Secondly, it seeks to secure that development plans do not conflict with any such agreements in force. The first of those two objects is met by the proposed Government Amendments to paragraph 10 of the Tenth Schedule on page 157, to which the noble Lord has referred. These Amendments provide, among other things, that these agreements shall continue in force until the Minister, on the application of one of the parties, varies or rescinds them on the ground that they are inconsistent with proper planning. The second object is not in terms secured by the Government Amendment, but is hardly worth providing for specifically. All the proposed development plans and amendments thereto will be the subject of discussion before the Minister's representative, and any owner may then object that the plan purports to override an existing agreement to which he is a party. It will then be for consideration whether the agreement ought to remain in force; and as a general proposition the Minister will no doubt allow it to remain in force unless there is a definite reason why it should not.
In the result, therefore, the local planning authority will find it necessary to review all existing agreements as part of the process of preparing their development plan. The decision will have to be taken about some agreements while the plan is being prepared, but for the most part the agreements will come up for
474
review when the first plan for the area is being considered. It necessary, however, to leave the local planning authority with a free hand to plan their area properly; the fate of any Section 34 agreement must then be decided in the light of practical requirements. Moreover, the Government Amendment also enables the landowner to take action to have an agreement cancelled. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will be willing not to press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite see, and I think everybody in the Committee will see, that if you are replanning the country entirely, existing agreements cannot be held to override the needs of modern planning. But there are, of course, a great many cases in this country where landowners had a choice between two things: they could have sold land for development, or they could, for more patriotic reasons, have made it a private open space. Some landlords have taken one course and some the other. In quite a considerable number of cases they have taken the second course, and denied themselves considerable pecuniary advantage for the benefit of the countryside and the health of the community. Therefore, while these agreements cannot be held to override any important extensive plans under this Bill, it is important from their point of view that the Minister should take account of these agreements, and, where it is in any way possible, should observe them. In view of the advantages which the landowner hoped to gain for the community by his action, it would be sad in every way if the agreement were nullified entirely and unnecessarily.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I find myself entirely at one with the noble Marquess. I think he will see an Amendment on page 157 which provides that all these agreements are to continue unless and until the Minister alters or modifies them. I agree that the Minister should be required to observe these agreements, particularly in the sort of case of which the noble Marquess gives what I think is a difficult instance.
LORD ADDINGTON: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. Perhaps he will consider the matter, and if necessary put down some

475
more Amendments to the Schedule when it comes along. I will certainly not press my Amendment at this stage and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HAMPTON LORD HAMPTON moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "grounds" to insert "nature reserves." The noble Lord said: I put this Amendment down at the instance of the Wild Life Conservation Committee for the preservation of nature reserves. That Committee was set up by the predecessor of the present Minister; and is, I believe, about to make a report. The object of the Amendment is the conservation of nature and natural objects of scientific value, and to secure that these should be recognized as a practical purpose within the meaning of the Bill. I am sure your Lordships will agree that in view of the threats to our nature reserves that are constantly cropping up, it is important that we should focus the attention of local authorities, wherever we can, on the need to protect such nature reserves as we have left and which are within their purview. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, after ("grounds") insert ("nature reserves")—(Lord Hampton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thank the noble Lord for the suggestion he has made and the trouble he has taken, and I have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
LORD HAMPTON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SAVILE LORD SAVILE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: We now come on to a whole crop of Amendments dealing with designation of land as "land subject to compulsory acqusition." My purpose is to restrict the designation of land so designated. The type of land referred to in subsection (2) (c) (i) is:
"any land comprised in an area defined by the plan as an area of comprehensive development."
which I believe in ordinary language means blighted or blitzed area. I also understand that in the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944, designation applied only to blitzed and blighted areas and to areas of land close by which were used as
476
an overflow to house the homeless people from the blitz. I think it is reasonable and justifiable that the same provisions should apply to this present Bill. No one would argue about that. But when we look at paragraph (b) it seems that designation has exceeded these limits.
The Minister has told us that no local authority or statutory undertaker is going to designate land just for the fun of it, or to annoy the owner; but, on the whole, the power is still there. We have been told also that owners will definitely get security from such a thing, that they will know the worst with the ten-year limit as proposed in the Bill, and that they will not be under suspense any more. The noble lord, Lord Henderson, said the same thing in his Second Reading speech. But we on these Benches do think that there is no certainty in designation, because it is possible, as a last resort, for any Minister or local authority compulsorily to acquire land under these statutory powers, whether the land has been previously designated or not. We think designation is bad for the land and the public as well. Taking the rural and the agricultural point of view, I consider that no owner or tenant is likely to embark upon a large scale improvement scheme or new methods of cultivation if the fear of designation is there; and farmers are going to lack a certain amount of enthusiasm in keeping the land in good heart and acquiring new machinery. I do not say they are right, but can you blame them? I do not think anybody can blame them.
Now take the urban point of view. Suppose there is a shopkeeper or a business man in premises, who sets up a business of his own with plenty of goodwill attached to it. Then the fear of designation comes along, and he feels he is kicked out, and he goes somewhere where he can get a certain measure of security. What happens to the business? The business will probably be let to an undesirable, who probably would want to do nothing more than coin as much money as he possibly can and as quickly as he possibly can, and that again is very bad. The noble and learned Viscount in his opening speech on the Second Reading of this Bill said these words:
"If there is complete power to prevent designation in the wrong place, surely there must be also equal power to secure development in the right place."

477
Everybody must certainly agree with that. It is most important in planning to get co-operation with everybody all round, and at times it is extremely difficult to do it. Nobody would appreciate that more than the noble and learned Viscount. I feel that too wide and indiscriminate use of designation is apt to stifle development. There is nothing we want less than to get development held up at the right place, but we want it to take place at the right time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Savile).
LORD LLEWELLIN: Might I at this stage intervene to suggest that, as we have a certain number of Amendments down on this question of designation, it might be convenient to your Lordships generally that we should discuss the whole matter more or less at large and then perhaps have Divisions on the individual Amendments? I do not know whether that would be convenient to the Committee, but I suggest that that is probably the most sensible way of dealing with this matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think, if I may say so, that that would be a very convenient course to follow. May I say that I am very anxious that your Lordships should think as I do, that designation properly applied, and with proper safeguards, is intended to be a help and not a hindrance to the landlords. I quite agree, and I admit it at once, that the fact that your particular land is not designated is not and cannot be an absolute guarantee that your land will not be taken. On the other hand, there is a risk that any land anywhere may be taken. I want, if I can, to reduce the chances of a lot of land being taken, and to indicate as plainly as I can what land is likely to be taken. The point of this subsection which the noble Lord is moving to leave out (and I think that probably he is moving it in order to get a general discussion on the whole matter) is to enable local authorities or Ministers or statutory undertakers to acquire land for the purposes of their functions.
You must differentiate in your planning between short-term and long-term programmes. A long-term development programme may easily cover a period of fifty years or longer. The designated areas
478
will show the land which the authority hopes to develop within the next ten years. The short-term programme must obviously indicate, or should obviously indicate, what land is likely to be developed by public authorities under statutory powers. You cannot begin to reach finality until you show on your plan where the local authorities intend to site new schools under their statutory powers, or public libraries, or where the Post Office or Labour Exchange are to be built, or, indeed, to take a more obvious case, where the railway station is to be built. All those things clearly should be shown on your plan. Unless they are, your plan is a rather meaningless thing. These are the key points, the basic frame work, and we are very anxious to get all the authorities responsible for these services to play the game by us and to indicate so far as they possibly can what their future intentions are with regard to their various functions.
Accordingly the designation machinery mentioned particularly in this clause is designed to encourage public authorities to co-operate in the preparation of development plans, and thus to enable the merits of their proposed development to be properly examined at the plan stage in the proper context of the wider plan, instead of, as at present, at a series of separate and possibly unrelated inquiries held at different times under different Acts and by different Ministers. One knows how in the past authorities who had the right to take up the roads always seemed to do it in turn. First it was done by the electricity people, then by the sewage people, then by the gas people, and so on. If we could always work according to plan, how much better it would be! Having settled at the plan stage, after full and appropriate local inquiries, and so on, that certain land should be reserved for certain purposes, it is obviously necessary to have power to purchase the land and ensure that it is made available for that purpose. Of course, local authorities and most Ministers have certain powers already, but there are certain Ministers, notably the Minister of Works and the Postmaster-General, who have at present no powers of compulsory purchase. The case of statutory undertakers is much the same; if the inquiry on the development plan reveals that they ought to be able to develop certain land, then they ought, equally, to be able to acquire it.

479
Accordingly designation will enable statutory undertakings to be authorized to acquire compulsorily land reserved for their purposes and designated in a plan. But in addition to settling the short-term programme of development, a plan under the Bill must be of much broader scope. It will indicate, so far as it is possible to do so, the wider planning objects for a generation or more ahead and may tentatively indicate land as likely to be acquired for long-term statutory purposes. In this respect a plan must be regarded as flexible and subject to review from time to time. It is for that reason that we have thought it right to limit designation to that land really to be used within the period of ten years, though there is no absolute certainty about it. I hope no land will be compulsorily acquired, whatever the powers under the various Acts may be, unless it is so designated, and that owners of land not so designated may sleep tight in their beds.
What effect has designation on land? In the great majority of cases I believe this designation is in regard to land to be developed in the next ten years—it will not be agricultural land, it will be land already built over by unworthy buildings, but of course there will be some cases in which it will be agricultural land —probably near a town—and I am not going to pretend to your Lordships that I do not appreciate that agricultural land so designated will be adversely affected. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in a very fair speech on this topic on Second Reading, pointed this out. I realize that where a tenant sees his land coloured red (or whatever it may be) on the plan, to show that it is designated, he will become rather restive, realizing that he will not have indefinite security of tenancy, and you will often have to put up with a much less desirable tenant. The Minister has drafted an Amendment to try to fall in with the suggestion put by Lord Llewellin. The effect of my Amendment is that if at the end of twelve years this land which has been designated has not been taken, then the land owner is entitled to give six months' notice and tell the Minister he must do one of two things—either buy him out or remove the designation. I am not going to say "undesignate" or "de-designate."
480
Again I point out—and the noble Lord, Lord Savile, appreciates this because he knows the point well—that the effect is not of absolute security, because the Minister would have the right to designate or acquire the land again. If the Minister were doing what he intends to do, however, he would be slower thereafter to exercise his power to designate this land once again. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has countered my Amendment by an Amendment to it. He obviously feels that my twelve years, although they may not be unreasonable in the case of built-up land, are excessive in the case of agricultural land. I will not say more than that I realize there may be a case for saying a short time is appropriate to agricultural land. I have no instructions from the Minister about this Amendment because it came in comparatively recently, and I have had so many things to do that I have not been able to embark upon this matter.
I think, however, there may well be a case that a shorter time ought to apply to agricultural land and I am quite willing, if the noble Lord will not press me at the present stage, to take this to the Minister and to discuss it with the noble Lord on Report stage. Assuming that my Amendment is accepted, I can put down some Amendment on the lines of that of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, although I do not think I can accept the short space of time he is suggesting. As I said before, I want your Lordships to realize that designation is not something designed to tease or make the landowner's position more miserable than it is to-day. It is designed to help him, and, properly directed, I believe we can make it help him.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, both in the closing words of the noble and learned Viscount's remarks, on the question of designation, and also in another place, considerable, and, as I think, undue emphasis has been laid on the value of designation to the landowner. I look at it largely from the agricultural landowner's point of view, but the same applies, though perhaps in a lesser degree, to the owner of urban land. But something that the noble and learned Viscount said rather gave me the real clue —at least I hope I am right; if I am wrong I hope I shall be put right—as to why, in fact, the Minister is so anxious

481
to get designation. The noble and learned Viscount said that the Minister is anxious that the planning authorities, or the public authorities, should indicate what their intentions are. He knows that under planning schemes before the war sufficient building development was planned, I believe, to house something like 350,000,000 people in this small island; and obviously, as a greater need occurred, the enthusiasm of local authorities increased. The case, of course, does not have such force now that the planning authority will be the county rather than the district councils, because the rating influence will not have such a weighty effect.
But quite obviously the real object behind designation is that the Minister may have a curb upon the planning authority rather than to confer a benefit upon an owner of land. As Lord Llewellin pointed out on the Second Reading of this Bill, with far greater force from the point of view of the agricultural landowner, designation puts a blight upon any agricultural land which is so designated, and will make the management impossible. It is quite true that in his subsequent Amendment the noble and learned Viscount has gone so far as to suggest that the owner of any land which is designated can, if the land is not purchased by the end of twelve years after the designation, compel the planning authority to purchase. Twelve years is an interesting period of time, because land has to be designated if it is to be compulsorily acquired in the next ten years after the plan is made. There is nothing in this Bill which prevents the planning authority—and the Minister can agree—from re-designating (not de-designating, but re-designating) at the end of the quinquennial review which will take place at the end of the ten years. It is therefore fixed at twelve years, so that the local authority can re-designate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is what I meant: I did not mean to be tricky in this way—to have twelve years in order to do it again.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Thank you; we will, perhaps examine that later. So far as agricultural land is concerned, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his suggestion that he will examine the five years. I am not entirely happy about five years, because the ordinary agricultural tenant will give his landlord
482
only one year's notice from the due quarter day, or whatever it may be. That unfortunate landowner may be left with land for which he has to find a tenant for a very short period of time, which it will be very difficult for him to do. In fact, he may have to farm it himself, and this may involve him in considerable expense, as it is not a very profitable business to lay out money for farm land when you have it only for four years or less.
The alternative is that the agricultural production of the country will suffer severely. That, I think, is much more important than the woes of the unfortunate landlord, great though they may be. It is a very important thing—we appreciate it now, and we shall appreciate it more next winter—that our agricultural production should be kept as nearly as possible to its absolute maximum. I should like to see agricultural land taken out of designation altogether. But if that is impossible, then we must fall back on the second best, which is the much shorter period. I hope that when that comes up for decision your Lordships will insist on the shorter period being inserted in the Bill. Before I conclude, I would once again emphasize the fact that the real point that matters is that agricultural production should not suffer as a result of designation.
9.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who initiated the general discussion, did not wish to deprive anyone of the opportunity of argument on his own individual Amendments. I find it difficult to be persuasive to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, when he is so extremely persuasive and so willing to meet any argument which is put up. It is not my purpose to weary your Lordships with a long dissertation on designation, or its evils, particularly when applied to agricultural land. The position is quite clear and could not be more ably described than it has been. There are, however, one or two aspects of the matter to which I would like to call your Lordships' attention. In the first place, if the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will allow me, I would like to correct what I believe to be a lapse on his part on the Second Reading of the Bill. He said, speaking of farms:

483
"If any cases do arise—and they will be few and far between—where an owner can show that because of designation his land is no longer capable of reasonably beneficial use as a farm, then Clause 18 of the Bill enables him to require the local authority to buy the land."
If I understand the Bill aright. Clause 18 does not deal with that point at all. It deals with land where the development permission is refused. The noble Lord will forgive me if I call attention to what I think is a slip that any one of us might make.
May I now address myself to the two Amendments I have in mind—it does not matter about their sequence? One was to reduce the term of designation from ten years to five. With respect, even if the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, were accepted, it would not meet my point. If you have a man owning a farm, wanting to remain in possession of that farm, to keep it in hand and farm it himself, he does not want it to be designated. The fact that you tell him—assuming that the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted—that at the end of five years he can compel the local authority to acquire it does not meet the case; he may not want to be bought out and would much rather not be designated at all. Therefore, if he is going to be designated I do urge that the period of designation in the case of agricultural land should be five years and not ten years. I hope I have made myself clear to the noble and learned Viscount, even if he does not accept the point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: The other Amendment deals with the words "any other land." I do suggest that if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Savile, be rejected, you have in paragraph (b)—which the noble Lord is asking to have removed—ample powers for the local authority. There is no need to say, as you do in subsection (2), that they can designate "any other land." That, I suggest, is a direct incentive to them to designate more land than they need at the moment, and I do not think it is necessary to the Bill. I feel that paragraph (b) gives the Government all the power that they need.
I might point out also that I have the greatest respect, if I may say so, for the
484
present Minister of Town and Country Planning, but he may not be there in perpetuity. Another Minister may not be so reasonable, and I do not think it wise to extend these powers any further than we need. We have to consider the position of the local authorities who are making their planning schemes. If we take a town like Oxford, they have to consider the future. They say to themselves: "This is a great and a growing town. We have to plan for a large and expanding population." If you give them a long term, and at the same time the incentive given in this clause, I suggest that they may very well designate a great deal more land than they need.
I would like, if I may, to borrow a point made by my noble friend Lord Radnor on the Second Reading and amplify it slightly. He pointed out that year by year at the present time 45,00o acres of agricultural land are actually taken and used. If you multiply that by ten you get 450,000 acres, but if you accept my argument that the local authority, dealing with potential demands based on a possible increase of population, may designate more land than it needs, you may very easily—and I am not prone to exaggeration—find that something not less than 1,000,000 acres of agricultural land is going to be designated and depreciated in its value, and suffer so far as production of food is concerned. On the understanding that the noble and learned Viscount is very kindly looking into the matter again, I shall not move the two Amendments which stand in my name.
10.4 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: I would like to make a few observations on the question of designation from the point of view of a planning authority. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has said—and I have heard it to-day not for the first time—that under planning schemes before the war provision was made for the building of houses and dwellings for a population of ten times the present size of the population of this country.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I think those figures were taken from the Minister himself.
LORD LATHAM: That is so, and I was just going to explain one of the

485
reasons which led to that situation. It was not the insatiable desire of the local authorities to plan and designate the maximum areas of land, but it arose from the defects in the then existing town planning law. Town planning at that time was largely regulatory. If a town planning authority sought, within the very limited powers which existed at that time, to prevent land from being built on, then they had to zone it for residential user and they did it in this way. They zoned large areas of land for development residentially for not more than five or six houses to the acre, and by that means they made it unprofitable to develop that particular land for residential or any other purpose. That was one of the reasons why we have the state of affairs which has, not for the first time, been prayed in aid of the suggestion that local authorities are insatiable in their desire to acquire other people's land. I think I have given the main reason for that condition of affairs.
As the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, pointed out, this paragraph (b) does not give the local authorities, nor is it intended to give the local authorities, any powers they do not at present possess. What it does propose to do, however, is to enable local authorities to fit in, as it were, and co-ordinate the land that they may require for other purposes, such as education, housing, libraries and baths, into the general pattern and composition of their plan, and to designate not only the land that is needed for the plan but also the land which will be needed for those other particular specialized services. Paragraph (b) says quite plainly that designation can apply to any land allocated by the plan for the purposes of any of their functions—that is, any function of the local authority. Later it goes on to say that it includes "any land which that Minister or authority or those undertakers are or could be authorized to acquire compulsorily under any enactment other than this Act." I submit, therefore, that in fact this clause can be of substantial benefit to the landowners and is not intended to give, nor does it give, any additional power to the local authorities.
One of the serious defects of the present law is that it requires the planning authority to deal separately with blitzed
486
land, blighted land, and overspill land. Overspill land need not, and for most areas will not, be near to either the blitzed or the blighted land. It cannot normally be so. It is needed outside the urban area. The proposals in this clause enable the local authority to acquire by the same method of designation, not only land that is blitzed and land that is blighted, but also other land which is necessary, either for the purposes of the plan or for the authorized powers and functions of the local authorities. For the first time, therefore, local authorities can plan and provide for services as one co-ordinated composition. I suggest that that marks a step forward. The landowner is not thereby in any worse position; he is, in point of fact, in a better position, because he is to be on notice, whereas if you acquire land compulsorily for housing you need not put a landlord on notice years before. You have only to come to a decision when a housing estate is needed that it should take a certain form, that certain land is required, and then you can decide to make a compulsory purchase order in that particular case. You do the same for a school, and for any other laud that you may need, without any long prior notice; whereas under this paragraph the landlord will have prior notice, which I submit is an advantage to him.
I wish to offer no comments at this stage upon the proposal that agricultural land should be treated differently as regards designation, although if it were treated differently it might not be without its repercussions on the activities of the London County Council, not perhaps as a planning authority, but as a housing authority compelled to go outside its area into Greater London to find land upon which to build housing accommodation. But I do wish to make this point, particularly for the London County Council and for the other urban areas, cities and towns: that if the period of ten years now proposed in the Bill is reduced to five years, it will make it substantially impossible for any real planning to be done. I am not saying that is the case in the rural areas, or in areas which are not heavily built up, but it certainly will be the case as regards the towns and cities and the congested areas, and notably London.

487
A local authority, if it is to do planning in any real sense, must not only have a long-term plan which may take thirty, thirty-five, forty or fifty years, but it must have within that plan, or within the schemes of that plan, a number of projects which may take ten years, or indeed longer, to work out and to come to a decision upon. I ask your Lordships to contemplate the present circumstances—and they are not likely to improve very substantially for a number of years, I fear. Those circumstances are the almost universal shortage of technical staff. We in London have declared, under the 1944 Act, an area of 2,000 acres in Stepney and Poplar—three times the size of the Borough of Shoreditch—for substantial reconstruction. Not every building will be demolished, but a large proportion will be when the plan is finally completed. It is estimated that the property comprised in this plan will cost about £45,000,000 to acquire. We have to proceed, under the legislation now contemplated, to designate the various areas for compulsory acquisition, and if at the end of ten years—and this will be much more so if it is five years—our right of designation ceases, the owner can give us notice and require us there and then to buy or to release the property from designation. It will very seriously hamper, if indeed not defeat, planning on a large scale, such as is essential if London is to be rebuilt and reconstructed as I believe everyone in your Lordships' House would desire to see. If the period is reduced to five years it is certain to make real planning almost impossible.
When you are dealing with planning and the acquisition of land you are dealing very largely with human beings. You are dealing with the people in their little cottages, dilapidated, grim and drab as they may be. You are dealing with the man who has a little shop, with the man who has a little workshop, with the man who has a larger factory and so on, and you have to provide alternative accommodation, not only for the people who are resident in the area, but also, under the new schemes, for the little shops, for the workshops, for the factories and for the many other things which go to make up a community in modern days. And you cannot shift people about as you can machine tools. It takes a long time for instance—as the noble Earl, Lord
488
Munster, well knows—to provide alternative accommodation for the people who are removed from slum dwellings. You cannot just say to a family: "We have got accommodation for you here and here you must go." Accommodation must be related to where the children go to school, where the husband works, where the children who work are employed. All those factors have to be taken into account, and they are factors which go to make it impossible for a local authority to be always in a position at the end of five years to say: "Well, we designated this land; we are now ready to acquire and go on."
I hope that, at all events as regards urban areas, the minimum period of ten years will remain in the Bill. I took part with others representing local authorities in the country in making representations to the Minister, at the time when this Bill was under consideration, that this period of ten years was the minimum period which would enable local authorities in the built-up areas to do their job. It is, as the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has said that although there will be development in rural areas and there will be certain agricultural land designated, I venture to say that in the next twenty years most of the reconstruction and planning in this country must be in the congested over-built areas of our cities and towns and the areas which adjoin them, if we are to remove the existing blot.
If we are to have well-planned instead of disordered communities, local authorities must be given adequate powers. I assure you, as one who is acquainted with no mean local authority, a local authority which carries the largest burden of re-planning in this country, and, which has inherited one of the worst legacies of disordered planning, that we are not anxious to buy more land than we need. In point of fact, I have at times resisted the blandishments of landowners who have come along and shown anxiety that the London County Council should acquire their land. I have noticed, sometimes, that they have worked out a good planning scheme which is not always unrelated to the ownership of their own particular plot of land. So I ask your Lordships not to be influenced in reducing this period by the view that local authorities are insatiable.

489
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, rather criticized the fact that local authorities take a long view in planning. I am glad that they do. There can be no thoroughly satisfactory planning in this connexion unless it is based on a long view. The trouble in the past has been that when there was planning—and there was precious little—it was very short-term planning. I believe that local authorities should have an incentive towards planning, and the best incentive is imagination. Imaginative planning is what is needed. I hope that we shall not seek to remove that incentive, and, in conclusion, I beg the Committee not to reduce the period of ten years, at least so far as urban areas are concerned.
10.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No doubt the considerations which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has urged are very germane to the problem and cannot be lost sight of and I am sure your Lordships are happy in having him among us to help us in regard to this Bill, on a matter of which he has so much knowledge and experience. At the same time, I must ask him, from the agricultural point of view, to look at the other side of the problem. Our duty will be to reconcile the claims of town and country in this respect. As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has pointed out, the Bill as it now stands may affect a very big agricultural acreage indeed, which my noble friend estimates as something in the neighbourhood of 1,000,000 acres. Consider the position of a farmer and landlord, living and working near a big city. His land is designated. I was speaking the other day to the owner-occupier of a farm of some 300 to 400 acres in the neighbourhood of one of our towns, which had designated his farm. He said to me: "What is my position? I cannot make a single improvement to this farm from this day onwards and get compensation for the money I spend when the land is taken over."
The noble and learned Viscount will correct me if I am wrong, but, so far as I can make out, the position of a farmer or landlord farming agricultural land which has been designated, is that if during these ten to twelve years he makes any improvements to capital equipment, he will get no compensation for that improvement when he gives up the land. If the land is designated to-day and to-morrow
490
he puts up a new cow shed or Dutch barn, he will get no compensation for that when the time comes to take the land over, because he has made that expenditure in face of his notice to quit. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, seemed to think it was an advantage to the agricultural landlord to have notice. I suggest it was not of much advantage to Damocles to have the sword hanging over his head. I personally would have preferred it to fall quickly. It is this paralysing effect which is so unfair to the landlord and so prejudicial to agriculture. From the point of view of the landowner it would be far better that the London County Council should acquire that land compulsorily and farm it themselves if they like—
LORD LATHAM: We do a little farming.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: —for ten years before the time comes to develop it, than to be asked to farm property without any security of tenure and to be denied any compensation for any improvements made after the designation notice has been served. This makes the position of the farmer impossible, and I hope the Government and especially the Lord Chancellor, will give attention to this point. I would remind your Lordships that it is now practically impossible to make any capital improvement on one's property without the permission of half a dozen authorities. You have to get the consent of some planning authority- and the county agricultural committee; accordingly we can assume that the improvement has been sanctioned by all the required authorities, and is therefore a reasonably legitimate improvement. I would remind His Majesty's Government that their Minister of Agriculture is beseeching landowners to improve the capital equipment of their farms; and nobody is more eloquent or stronger on that point than the noble Viscount who leads this House. In order to increase the food production of this country, a large amount of capital equipment and capital expenditure is undoubtedly necessary. Do not in this Bill make it impossible in the designation areas—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I might interrupt, several times the noble Earl has said that where a man has made authorised improvement to his land, he receives nothing for it. As I apprehend

491
the Bill—I may be wrong—I do not understand that to be the case at all. After a notice to treat, which is a different thing altogether, you take over the land in the condition in which it is at the time of the notice to treat. If the land is designated, and thereafter improvements are made and a Dutch barn is put up, when the local authority buy the land they have to pay a fair price for it; and in that price would be included the price of the Dutch barn. I am not going to assert anything about this Bill, but I believe I am right in saying that when a man comes to sell he receives that price for it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am very glad to hear what the noble and learned Viscount says; I did say that I was speaking subject to his correction. I was relying on the testimony of an owner-occupier who found himself in this predicament and he was firmly under the impression that this was his position. It is a most important point and I hope that, when the noble and learned Viscount has been able to look into the point, if he thinks there is any doubt about it, he will make it abundantly clear in this Bill. Apart from that, there is this question of the five or ten years. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, in his eloquent speech, was talking about the human aspect of town planning, but he must not forget the human aspect in agriculture. Those landlords who do not farm their own farms are afraid of tenants walking out directly a designation notice is served. The question is how they are to farm the land in those circumstances.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Perhaps I might say a word also about this clause. Quite clearly under this Bill we are considerably extending the scope of designation, and it is said in justification for that that it is largely to the advantage of the owner. It is of advantage to the owner, as I gather, in that having had that notice he does not go on spending money on his property or on his ground—as he might do on a long-term basis. That is, I suppose, the advantage that he receives. He knows that he is under this kind of notice. I myself—and I certainly am not an authority on this Bill—take the same view as the Lord Chancellor, that if he does go on improving things up to the notice to treat, that is the time when the clamping down for valuation purposes
492
comes. But be that as it may, he is not likely to take all the trouble to obtain the various permits and to have things built if he is under notice to quit.
I can see there is quite a considerable advantage in giving this notice to landowners in built-up areas. I am quite at one with the noble Lord, Lord Latham, on that, and I am quite at one in thinking that the right way to deal with those areas is to designate wide parts of them. It may be that he is right, too, in saying that a period of five years would not be adequate for the purposes of a body like the London County Council. But, as I say, I think the whole of this discussion is boiling down rather to the fact which the noble Lord himself recognized, that there are different conditions in rural areas from those obtaining in built-up areas; I am quite certain of that. It is extraordinary how quickly land can go back if nothing is done. In a year, or less than a year, arable land can go completely back.
What many of us greatly fear is this. An owner-occupier, who is farming his own land, may be under notice to quit and he may be looking round all the time for another farm, because he wants to go on farming. If he gets one, he will probably abandon the farm which he has and do his work elsewhere; and he will leave this land rather derelict. It is even worse for the landowner who has a tenant farmer who, as the noble Lord has said, can give one year's notice. He will not want to go on farming under an insecure tenure, and would much rather settle in a new place. It will be very difficult then to get anybody else to come in and farm that land for the remaining period of two or three years.
To make this a practical proposition, and in order not to hamper local authorities in the work they have to do in rebuilding many of our blitzed cities, I should like the Minister to have this point in consideration from the start: "Will you want this within a period of five years if it is agricultural land?" If it is other land, let him have a different test. After all, what harm is done, from the point of view of the local authority if the agricultural land is not designated? It cannot be built over without the permission of the planning authority, even if it is not designated. All that is happening is that they are giving advance notice, with, as I

493
say, this really detrimental effect on the food production of this country, and without, in the case of agricultural land, any corresponding gain to anyone.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, not only for putting down the Amendment that he has about removing designation, but also for his words regarding the five years in relation to rural land. I would like the period of ten years mentioned in subsection (4) (a) considered. It should be a question for the Minister as to whether agricultural land will be used within five years, leaving the period of ten years in the case of non-agricultural land. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, desires that period for planning in the main part of the planning area—as he says, the rehousing will be in the urban districts—but let it be five years in the case of agricultural land.
I am certain that if these two Amendments can be met—and I do not see that any harm will be done to anybody by meeting them—we shall have done a good service for the future supplies of this country, and we shall not in the least have hampered anybody in the proper planning which we all wish to see take place. I would like both those points to be considered, and when we come to the Amendment in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, perhaps he will be able to say something more definite about my Amendment. At any rate, I hope that by the Report stage we shall be able to do something in complete harmony in regard to the five years for agricultural land, both in subsection (4) (a) and also in my Amendment to the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment lower down on the Paper. I hope that a course of that kind will at any rate be considered by the Government, and that eventually we shall be able to agree upon it and feel far happier in regard to the whole of Clause 5.
10.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I should like to address a few observations to your Lordships, and I will be very brief. I would like to make two points. In the first place, I wish to support as strongly as I can the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Latham, that it is essential that the local authorities should be granted very wide powers. Reference was made in the early part of
494
this discussion to the Act of 1944, and it was pointed out that although that Act was limited to the blitzed and blighted areas, this Bill has no such restriction. Many of us, when that Act was introduced, expressed our great disappointment that it was not a general Statute, but was so limited. We recognized that perhaps the most urgent cases had to be dealt with first, and in war-time it was difficult to give sufficient time and attention to enable a really comprehensive measure to be brought forward.
At the same time that was a very great disappointment, and we rejoice that those powers may now be made general. Indeed, it is obviously essential that they should be, because otherwise you would have two different classes of towns all over the country in another twenty or thirty years: those which had had the misfortune—or good fortune—to be destroyed or injured in the course of the war and whose authorities had been given extraordinarily wide and extensive powers which had enabled them to rejuvenate themselves and to present themselves as models of construction and proper planning, and those which had had the privilege—or the disadvantage—of being uninjured or slightly injured—which is the case with the great majority of our towns —who would still be restricted to the old laws and hampered in every turn in their efforts to secure better conditions for their future residents in future generations.
The second point deals with this question of agricultural land, which is unquestionably one of great and immediate importance. Several noble Lords have spoken on it, noble Lords who are closely acquainted with it, and who have themselves the ownership or administration of large estates. But this is not only a matter of personal or financial interest; it is unquestionably a great social and national problem. Only two days ago, this House passed with unanimous approval an Agriculture Bill, designed to do all that the State can do to promote the success and prosperity of agriculture. It would, indeed, be very inconsistent if, in the same week, we were to introduce another Bill which inflicted grave injury upon the same industry. The point I would like to raise is this—and it has not previously been referred to in this discussion. It is of great importance that there should be no conflict between

495
the movement for planning, which is supported in the main by public opinion throughout this country, and the movement in defence of the legitimate interests of agriculture. The two must be reconciled.
The planning movement has proposed as part of its aims the creation of a system of green belts round our cities. They are either green belts, or sometimes green wedges which run into the cities, and they are an essential part of the aims of the modern town planner in this and other countries. It is sometimes thought that these green belts are to be merely areas for recreation, open spaces, parks, camping grounds, playing fields; perhaps some woodlands, and the like. But that, of course, is impossible, because these areas would be far too large, taken in the total, to make it conceivable that this country could afford to use for such purposes such large expanses of land, both from the economic point of view that it would be taking too much land from productive purposes, and from the point of view of amenities generally. It would be too costly an enterprise. Hundreds of square miles are concerned, perhaps thousands. It has always been contemplated that the greater part of these green belts should be used as farm land, smallholdings, market gardens, and other productive areas of that kind.
The question I want to address to the Government is this—and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, would like time to consider it. At some stage of this Bill, will the Government not tell us how this general question of green belts and the reservation of agricultural land relates to this clause and to other clauses? The Lord Chancellor may say that this is limited only to compulsory acquisition, where land is compulsorily acquired for green belt purposes. What would be the position of the agriculturist? Probably be would be much better protected than ever before. But where it is not compulsorily acquired but placed under restriction and zoned, what would be his position then, his degree of security, and his financial position? That is the question I want to address to the Lord Chancellor. Without going into legal or technical questions, what is the general policy of this Bill with regard to green belts round our great towns in
496
relation to agriculture; what are its economic and financial policies?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think we are all in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said about the difficulties of local authorities. The real point about this Amendment, I suggest, is to ensure that agricultural land which has been designated shall be in a position to be farmed, without hurt to the tenant or owner during the period from designation until it is taken over. As the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said, land can go back very quickly; in a year or two years it will get back into good heart again and should not be designated. I would ask the Government to address themselves to that point. Perhaps later they could give us some indication as to how there may be a safeguard to keep in heart agricultural land under designation or threat of designation and with no harm to the owner and occupier. That is very important, because in a small way it is already happening. Land which has been found not economical for the farmer to farm has been asked for by authorities all over the country to build on. For some reason the land has not been built on and you have got bits here and there. There is a large area near Kingston, which is now a sea of weeds. I am sure His Majesty's Government would not like that sort of thing to happen.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I would willingly defer my remarks to the discussion of the Scottish Bill, but it is hardly to be expected that any improvement would be allowed in that Bill unless it is first conceded on this occasion; and this is a matter of great and justifiable concern. I still feel that the designation proposals go further than is necessary. However good a case has been made out for the blitzed and blighted areas and for the larger cities, I still maintain that a case has not been made out for the landward and rural areas. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, has strengthened the case for the City of London and the cities generally and the surrounding areas. From the exactly opposite position, as chairman of a typical landward rural county council and planning authority, I feel there is little need to have designation on our side, as it is well realized that in that sort of country land can be acquired by local authorities

497
for housing and for public purposes without difficulty and at the valuation arranged by the valuer.
I am sure it would be an advantage to confine this designation to as small an area of the country as is possible. I quite see that there is difficulty about that, but why should the country district always be made to suffer because people have concentrated their ideas on the large towns and populated areas? This is another case of what is happening so often in our legislation. Reference has been made to the removal of incentive to landowners and farmers to improve their agricultural equipment, their farms, and their production; and I was very glad to hear the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, on that point. I still feel, however, that there will be a difficulty in valuing the land and the farms, and in assuring the additional value for any fresh equipment. I would like that to be looked into further, and, if possible, some greater assurance given as, to whether the farmer and the landowner would recover expenditure for improvements.
I would like the Government also to bear in mind in this designation the fact that there will be quite a number of financial penalties on the people in these landward areas; and also, if I am right in saying so, that these are the very people who will be eliminated from any claim to compensation because of the elimination of small claims. They will not come in for any payment under the compensation clause. I think this is the only occasion, when one can refer to it. We country people find it very difficult to keep up with all the legislation which comes from Parliament, and I hope you will bear that in mind in this Bill and the Agriculture Bill, because however many and however great certain blessings may be—or at any rate one hopes they will be—it is becoming extremely difficult for us ordinary people in the country to attend to our jobs without spending far too much time on trying to keep up with the laws which we have to understand—not only the laws but all the directions and White Papers, and forms with which we have to know how to deal. I hope you will bear these matters in mind; hope that this designation can be confined to the smallest possible area, and that that matter will be considered further.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: There are one or two points which I would like to refer to which have arisen out of this debate. I was struck by what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said—namely that it would be inconsistent one day to pass unanimously an Agriculture Bill on Second Reading and then to put obstacles in the way of the development of agriculture. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will be impressed by the views of people with some knowledge, that designation is not regarded favourably by owners of land. I hope he will listen to them, although probably he will not be impressed by them. What it really comes to is that, although most of us believe that good planning is in the interests of the country, it must be within the knowledge of everybody that there is necessarily a conflict of interest in this matter, and it is the duty of Parliament to resolve that conflict in the fairest manner possible, having regard to the interests concerned. It seems to me, with respect to this question of designation, that in both urban and rural areas the burden of planning is being carried by those people who own or occupy land or houses.
The local authority, quite properly, wishes to make a comprehensive plan of development, but land which comes under the shadow of that comprehensive designation is really, in effect, doomed in its present user; and it is impossible that people who live on that land, whether in the city or in the country, can take a very long view about the use of it. Even though the planning authority is not greedy—and we must take the noble Lord, Lord Latham's assurance, that these authorities do not want to designate more than they wish to develop—it means that for the period during which designation hangs over that part of the city or country, no one can use that land or those houses to the full. And I think that in urban areas you will get undesirable occurrences. I think you will find owners of small shops being badgered by speculative gentlemen to give up for a song what they have, so that speculators can claim the ultimate compensation. I think that that is a very real risk which does exist.
Noble Lords may say that it has occurred already, but we are trying to improve conditions; we are trying to learn from experience and to put into practice

499
the lessons we have learned. If a man knows that the shop he has now in law has virtually a maximum twelve-years' lease, it may be that someone may come along and say: "Much better take a nominal figure now and put up a shop somewhere else, and we will claim the compensation when the time comes." I may be wrong but I think that that is possible under the Bill, and I do not think that it should be possible. I think that the Government should consider how far owners and occupiers of land should be compelled to carry the financial burden of planning. Remember that on the whole—we must not now look ahead in the Bill to matters relating to compensation and betterment—the Government are making a jolly good thing out of this Bill. And in recognition of that they should not try to put on people in what I like to call the "blighted areas" the burden of planning, which we all agree is a proper development in our social life.
10.50 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I intend to say only two or three words upon this, as it is now approaching eleven o'clock. I think we have had an extremely interesting and—as I hope and believe the Government will think—an extremely valuable debate upon this point. I do not suppose there is anyone in this House, on whatever side he may sit, who does not agree with the objects which designation seeks to achieve. We are equally in agreement, I think, with the principle of town and country planning, and that does mean not only short-term planning, but long-term planning. It is the long-term planning that designation is aimed at furthering. At the same time I thought, listening to the debate, that what has been brought out is that designation is not so easy as the planners seem to think, or would like to think. I believe the reason is that planners are nearly always urban people. I am sorry that Lord Latham has left the Chamber. I am sure we all enjoyed and admired the delightful, and in many ways moving, plea that he made for housing. But that is perhaps natural on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Latham. I was going to say that he was the pundit of urban planners. He is much more than that. He is a sort of Cham, the head of the greatest local authority in the world. He
500
has responsibility for millions of people in the L.C.C. area.
I was struck by the fact, however, that there was no mention in the noble Lord's speech of agriculture, except in so far as it might conceivably affect the plan of the L.C.C. I had the impression from him that his conception of agricultural England was a potential overspill area; when he looked at a cornfield or pasture his only thought was how many houses an acre would that carry. It is very natural to him and I do not blame him for putting forward that point of view in your Lordships' House. Designation is undoubtedly open to considerable dangers. They have been stressed this evening, and I do not want to go over the ground again. But in the case of tenant farmers and owner occupiers there will be great discouragement. In the case of tenant farmers, who are nearly all on yearly tenancies, there will be a tendency not towards a flight but certainly towards a drift from designated land. The land will have either to be farmed by the landlord or to lie fallow and grow weedy and rough, like the wastes in England in the past.
I do not know if your Lordships are as familiar with the Barnet By-Pass as I am—I go along it on my way home—but up to the beginning of the war there was an area of miles on either side of the road which had gone back to complete jungle. It was potential building sites; it was in nobody's interest to farm it, and it was not farmed. That danger may threaten hundreds of thousands of acres. The position of the owner occupier will be identical or worse. He will not be able to hand it over to a landlord but will have to stay on the land and will starve it. If he puts up buildings he might be compensated for that, but that is not the aim of farming, to put up a few buildings. A farmer becomes passionately attached to his land and seeks to improve it year after year. Under designation he will tend to lose interest in the farm which he owns.
I do not know if the Government know how much agricultural land is likely to be designated. I think they ought to try and make some sort of calculation to see how big this problem is. I think this is an important problem. We in this House are always regarded as looking at these

501
problems as landlords; of course we are landlords, and it is natural we should look at it from that point of view. But we are not discussing this from the point of view of the landlord. I do not know what the Government think about the immediate future of this problem. They seem to be happy about it, but there are many people who are not happy about it, and anything which may tend to decrease food production in this country might do much more harm in this emergency than planning will do good. I hope the Government will look at this
502
equally from the agricultural as from the planning point of view. I hope they will not be proud but will consider the necessary Amendment.
LORD SAVILE: I take it that some more Amendments are to be moved individually after this. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.