TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.

HL Deb 30 June 1947 vol 149 cc513-58

4.36 p.m.

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

Clause 5:

Surveys of planning areas and preparation of development plans.

(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—

1. (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;

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "plan," where that word occurs a second time. The noble Earl said: In Clause 5, subsection (3) the words are somewhat wide in that they say: … 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. Those are what you might call somewhat general terms. I believe there is an explanation, and if the noble and learned Viscount could give us it I should be most grateful.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 37, leave out from ("plan") to end of line 42.—(Earl of Radnor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)

These words were put in to make certain that the decision which was given by the Court of Appeal in a recent case is the law. The matter arose in this way. There is an area, as you Lordships know, in Plymouth which was very badly damaged in the war, and it was intended by the local authority to develop that area as a whole, but there was one building sticking up like an isolated rock in this area which had not been damaged. The learned trial Judge, Mr. Justice Henn-Collins, thought that that being so the order could not be attached to that building. On that decision an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeal, and the law as laid down by the Court of Appeal is what is given effect to in this Bill. So far as I know—indeed I am confident about this—there is no appeal on the matter pending to your Lordships' House, but unless, as sometimes does happen, an appeal was lodged with a view to taking a different view from that of the Court of Appeal, we have put in these words to make it plain that the existing state of the law is the state of the law which we desire to have accepted. I hope with that explanation the noble Earl will not press this Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I must say the words do seem a little wide to cover such small cases, but in view of what he has said I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in paragraph (a) of subsection (4), to add "or, in the case of land being agricultural land within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, within seven years from that date." The noble and learned Viscount said: This manuscript Amendment which I am proposing to move arises on Clause 5, and I would like to tell your Lordships what I have been able to do in the interval between the discussion we had on Thursday and the present time. Your Lordships were quite properly, if I may say so, pressing me in regard to the position of agricultural land, and pointing out that agricultural land might be prejudiced by reason of a designation order or compulsory purchase—designated as subject to compulsory purchase. I expressed the view then, and I still hold to it, that on balance and on the whole this designation is desirable in the interests of the landowner.

After all, you may have a town surrounded perhaps by a green belt, and after the green belt you contemplate that there is going to be some further extension, and the extension is quite manifestly going to settle on some neighbouring land. There are three farms, the black acre, white acre and green acre, and unless you have this system of designation none of the owners of these farms would know whether his land is more likely to be acquired than the other fellow's land, or what his position is. If you say in the plan, for instance, that white acre is the land which is going to be compulsorily acquired within the next ten years, though it may be small satisfaction to the owner of white acre, it at any rate will be, or may be, very considerable satisfaction to the owners of green acre and black acre. That is the position. That is why I took the view that it was, on the whole, desirable, even in the interests of the landowners, that there should be this system; the more so, of course—though I do not want to spend time on this—when all you are contemplating is to take part of a farm, because then the owner knows that you are not contemplating taking the rest of that farm, at any rate for the next ten years.

On the other hand, I quite concede that there is, of course, a threat that agricultural land will be taken. Indeed that is inevitable if we are going to do what the Barlow Report said that we must do—that is loosen out our towns and move out some of our people who are living together much too closely, indeed in really huddled conditions. The whole point of this Bill is to try to preserve the happy mean—on the one hand not having people huddled together closely in towns, and on the other hand, not disregarding agricultural interests, which, I agree, would be equally disastrous, since it is certain that we must grow every bit of food that we possibly can in this country in the years to come. In short we must so to deal with our very limited amount of land as to ensure that we are using every piece of it to the best possible advantage. I have tried to see how far I could go to meet the natural desire of your Lordships that there should be some special concession made in respect of agricultural land. It was suggested in the debate that instead of ten years, which is the time specified for ordinary land, there should be five years for agricultural land. If your Lordships will look at Clause 5 (4) of the Bill which begins at the bottom of page 5, you will read this: 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—

1. (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";

I was asked to substitute five years for ten years. I have not been able to go to that length, but I have done my best to satisfy your Lordships. I hope you will realize that I have, indeed, done so, and that I am proposing what is, I think, a real concession by this manuscript Amendment. I am proposing to insert after the word "approve" on page 6, line 3, these words: ("or, in the case or land being agricultural land within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, within seven years from that date;"). So, in the case of agricultural land, I am cutting down the ten years which was in the Bill for ordinary land to seven years. There are certain other Amendments which bear on this, and we shall get to them in due course. I hope your Lordships will feel that in making this concession I have gone, at any rate, a very substantial way to meet your Lordships' wishes. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 3 at end insert ("or, in the case of land being agricultural land within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, within seven years from that date;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

As I think the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said, we were discussing this matter when the Committee were last dealing with this Bill, and I was one of those who pressed him strongly to reduce the period of ten years to five years in the case of agricultural land. I am not one of those who think that this designation is a great advantage to the landlord or to the farmer. But there, at any rate, opinions differ. It clearly does them less harm if the period is seven years than if it is ten years. Really, all that we have come to is this, even if you take it on exact mathematical proportions. We were trying to cut down the period of designation of agricultural land from ten years to five years. It has now been cut down from ten years to seven years. I am truly grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for meeting us to that extent. For my part, I believe that the last three years, with development going on at the pace at which it does at the present moment, will be fuller than the first five, so probably this reduction from ten to seven may well have cut down the earlier designation of agricultural land to the half for which we were pressing for. I repeat that I am greatly obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for bringing forward this Amendment in response to the appeal which we made last week.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

May I add just a few words with special reference to a point made on the last occasion by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, which was based, I think, on a misunderstanding of the Bill as it now stands. What I was going to suggest that the Government should consider is this. In the case of agricultural land as to which a notice is given by the proper notice of designation, the land may be acquired within a certain period by the person who gives the notice. I think that most members of this Committee know very well that the value of agricultural land greatly depends on the constant care which the occupying owner gives to that land to preserve its fertility, and that in the case of many areas good agricultural land may be rendered practically worthless in a few years. I have had cases of that sort to deal with as a Judge. What I am afraid of, and what I think the Government might see if they can avert, is this. During the seven years some farmers, at any rate, will think: "According to the designation this property may be purchased. What we desire to be sure of is that we shall not be wasting our money on fertilizers and things of that sort if the land is, in fact, purchased within the period mentioned in the designation."

Although the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, did not, I think, quite understand the effect of the Bill—something that is very exceptional for him—at the same time, it is true to say that on the valuation of the land to be purchased, if the designation has fruition and purchase takes place, the farmer will not get lack anything like the whole of the money that he spent on fertilizing the land. The question to be determined as between willing buyer and willing seller is how much he should have. The buyer in all likelihood will not want well-fertilized land because he is probably going to erect a row of houses or a factory, and I cannot help thinking that if you give a notice to farmers whose land is going to be the subject of designation there ought to be, and the Government will be well advised to put in, some provision which will prevent the farmer thinking: "I had just as well not spend any money on this land because the probability is that it is going to be taken from me." I may be right, or I may be wrong about this, but I am sure that the point is worth considering, and I would ask the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, to give it some consideration before this matter comes before us further.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

As the mover of the original Amendment suggesting that the period should be altered from ten years to five years, I must rise to thank the noble and learned Viscount for the way in which he has met me. Your Lordships will appreciate that the case extends farther than may appear on the surface, because the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, was addressed to ensuring that the owner of designated land could compel a local authority to acquire it. My Amendment went further in limiting the period of designation. It was intended to protect the man who wanted to remain in possession, whose grievance was not met by being able to tell the local authority to come and buy him out. Therefore although the effect of the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount is limited to agricultural land, and although the period is seven instead of five years, I feel bound to thank him for the very constructive way in which he has met me.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I still feel that this designation should, for agricultural areas, be limited to the absolute minimum. We still feel a great disadvantage and an element of confusion as well. I hope that if designation is included in the English Bill the position will not be prejudiced in the Scottish Bill. The need for designation for agricultural areas in Scotland is much less than in England as opportunities for the public acquisition of land for housing and public purposes in Scotland have been secured without difficulty by the Government and local authorities, who have more than they require for a considerable time ahead. Therefore, I feel there the need will be less.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I was brought up in the tradition that one must be thankful for small mercies, and I am therefore grateful for the small point. Like Lord Llewellin, I thought designation of agricultural land was unnecessary. We want to get this question of designation in proper perspective. If there was no such thing as designation in the Bill the powers of planning authorities would not be imperilled in the least. It merely means it would be in the plan and those who looked into the plan would see with some little certainty the destiny of their land. The noble and learned Viscount stressed that he thought designation was in the interests of the landowner. It was strongly pressed from this side that shortening the period of designation was, if anything, in the interests of the land rather than of the landowner, and the landowner would benefit only consequentially. If the noble Duke obtains greater success for Scotland than we have been able to obtain for England, we shall have to rise up and talk about injustices to England.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have always been wondering when a noble Lord would raise that point. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof": I know nothing about the Scottish Bill yet, so I can make no promises to the noble Duke. I can hold out no hopes, but there are no threats. In regard to the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, I will certainly look into the point. My desire is that in such a case as he put, the farmer who is bought out should be paid for what he has properly done in keeping land in proper heart. He should not be met by the plea, "We do not want it for agricultural land; we merely want it for a building site, and for our purposes it does not matter in the least whether it is in good heart or not." I hope that point is in the Bill, but if it is not I will see that it is.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I am much obliged.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

Will the noble and learned Viscount tell us whether the defination of agricultural land given in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, includes land dedicated to forestry? I think it does. It is very important. What would be the effect of designation on land dedicated to forestry under the Forestry Act?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am afraid I do not know, but I will look it up and communicate with the noble Viscount.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I suggest that this should be thought over before the Bill is finished.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT GAGE had given notice to move, in subsection (4) (a), at the end to insert: (d) if any person shows to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that he would be able and willing to carry out development on land if it were not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition, and the local authority on an application made to them for the purpose. or the Minister on an appeal under Part III of this Act, grants permission for that development either unconditionally or subject to conditions with which the applicant is willing to comply, such land Shall cease to be designated as subject to compulsory acquisition conditionally on such person carrying out that development.

The noble Viscount said: Hitherto, we have been discussing the blighting effect of designation. The point I want to raise is rather different, and to some extent it has been met by subsection (4) of the proposed new clause after Clause 8, put down by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. Unfortunately for me, the Lord Chancellor's Amendment contains words which greatly limit the value of that concession—namely the words in brackets "(not being land comprised in an area defined by the plan as an area of comprehensive development)." If those words were omitted, the Lord Chancellor's Amendment would entirely cover my point, and it may therefore be more convenient if I moved to leave out those words rather than move my Amendment. Your Lordships may prefer to have a general discussion before any particular Amendment is submitted, in which case I would make my remarks now. But I am entirely in the hands of the Government.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I suggest, if it is convenient to the noble Lord, that he should move his Amendment. I do not want a general discussion but I want one on his Amendment.

VISCOUNT GAGE

The principle with which I am concerned here is a simple one: to ensure that if some area has to be redeveloped nothing shall prevent private enterprise from playing its part in that work, if it is prepared to follow the plan laid down by the local authority and comply with any other condition the local authority may lay down. It is obvious that certain types of redevelopment—the re-housing of slum-population, or the re-erection of public buildings—could be undertaken only with great difficulty by private enterprise, but in other cases I think private enterprise could well play a part. For example, up and down the country there are areas covered by unsightly and insanitary developments in the form of shacks dating from pre-planning days. Here there is no question of rehousing slum population because many of these shacks are untenanted or at least used as a very primitive form of week-end accommodation. If times were normal, private enterprise might come along and at least help to redevelop these places as properly designed seaside village s or possibly holiday camps. Unfortunately, times are not normal and what with licences and priorities there seems to be little chance of that happening.

The only thing local authorities can do is to designate such areas for comprehensive redevelopment and then, if conditions do not change, acquire that land compulsorily and do it themselves. But times may change, and if at any time before these areas are actually purchased the local authority can find somebody who is prepared to carry out the local authority's plan in a bona-fide manner, there would seem to be very strong arguments for allowing them to do so. This kind of work seems to me to demand drive and energy and to be somewhat speculative; it really is a professional job. Local authorities have an enormous amount of work to do nowadays, and you cannot always find members of those bodies who are prepared to undertake such work, particularly in rural areas. Even if they acquired the land and then leased it, which I know is part of the Government's theory under this Bill there would still be a great deal of work to do in administering. I hope the Government will not underrate the difficulties in which local authorities are in rural areas.

I come to the technical question of procedure. The Minister in another place seemed to have no ideological objection to an owner carrying out part of a plan, but he seemed most reluctant to allow any land once designated to become de-designated—or, perhaps I should say, to allow the designation to be removed from that land. He quite admits that the owner should take part in the redevelopment provided he can do so before designation. I have already said that it is very unlikely that the owner would guarantee to do such a thing in present circumstances. In the Amendment in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, the Government, as I understand it, seem to have gone a little further. They say that designation may be removed if the owner is prepared to do his part, but only if the local planning authority designate under subsection (2) (c) (ii) of Clause 5; that is to say, "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." Then apparently it is all right, but, if a local authority proceed under the previous sub-paragraph, that is to say, if they designate an area for comprehensive development, then, apparently, it is not all right. I frankly confess that I do not see the logic of this distinction. Surely the reasons why a local authority proceed under one sub-paragraph rather than under another are purely technical reasons; they have nothing to do with the owner. If the principle is a right one, I do not see really why it should be restricted in that way. I cannot imagine a private developer agreeing to spend a lot of money on re-developing an area if it has to remain under this compulsory purchase threat for the whole of the ten years, whatever he may have done in the meantime. If an owner is really to carry out a redevelopment, and if the local planning authority agrees that he should, I really do not see why he should not get an absolute guarantee that, as soon as he actually does do the work, the compulsory threat shall be removed. I beg to move accordingly.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 24, at end, insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Gage.)

LORD HYLTON

I should like to support the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. This is an important point, and those of your Lordships who were in this House on Thursday last will recollect that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, when referring to the reconstruction of London, mentioned a term of some twenty years, during which time he thought that development, or the major part of development, would have to be devoted to the reconstruction of large areas. Now, unless some such suggestion of the kind put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, is adopted, it will be impossible for a private developer to carry out any works in these large designated areas. It is clear that, unless you enlist the sympathy and also the active aid of private developers, this reconstruction will be at such a tremendously slow rate that none of your Lordships to-day could possibly see the conclusion of it. Ministers are continually saying that everybody must help in rebuilding and carrying out redevelopment, but here we get a clause that is specifically designed to prevent that happening. I do not wish to detain your Lordships at any length on this point, but, if the Government are in earnest and are anxious that redevelopment shall take place, then it is of the first importance that private developers should be allowed to develop within the designated areas without the threat of compulsory purchase hanging over their heads.

LORD HENDERSON

I am afraid that I am not in a position to accept this Amendment. As the noble Viscount himself stated, the point is largely met by subsection (4) of the new clause to be moved by the Government after Clause 8. The main point of difference is that the Government Amendment limits the provision to cases where land is designated under Clause 5 (2) (c) (ii) as subject to compulsory acquisition for purposes other than statutory functions or comprehensive development. The provision is clearly unsuitable where the land is designated for purposes of statutory functions, since only the Minister or the local authority or the statutory undertaker concerned can carry out the specific development that is involved. It is not suitable, either, for comprehensive development areas, which is the point to which the noble Viscount and the noble Lord have directed the strength of their arguments. The essence of the solution to the problem is that the local authority should acquire the whole of the area and lay it out afresh. It is not normally practicable to grant permissions for individuals to develop isolated plots in these areas because it prejudices the chances of planning for a completely new layout. As the noble Lord will remember, Section 19 (6) of the 1944 Act is attracted by Clause 43, and this provides that, where land is to be leased to private developers, persons living or carrying on business in the area before it was acquired will have preferential treatment. I say that the case refers to land which is leased by the local authority and not land to be sold.

As regards the special point to which the noble Viscount referred, of shack de- velopment at coastal areas, it seems to me that in a special case of that sort it should be possible for the local authority to designate under Clause 5 (2) (c) (i), the amount of land they can cope with as the real area of development—that is to say, the area of development in order to deal with the shack area—and the remainder could be designated under (c) (ii), which would then be available for development by a private developer. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I thank the noble Lord for his very courteous reply, but I must confess that I am disappointed. I think the noble Lord said it is not normal to allow small islands of private development to occur in an area acquired by local authorities. My point is that it is quite within the power of the local authority to prevent that happening, if it does not suit their purpose. I am talking from the point of view of the local authority. If the local authority want to do it, I do not see why they should be tied up by what seems to me to be largely a red tape point. If the owner is prepared to develop land in the way required, at the time required, and complies with every other condition, I cannot see what difference it makes to anybody as to who should own the land.

The noble Lord has suggested one course of procedure. I think what he has suggested would entail a remarkable amount of foresight on the part of the local authority. They have got to guess what part might be developed by private enterprise, and what might not. I think this Bill is extending a procedure which has hitherto been confined to particular areas. I suggest that the operation of this clause may have a very different effect over the wide areas to which it is now being applied than it has had hitherto. There is very little between us, in one way. It seems to me to be very much a question of legal phraseology. I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, would agree to look into this matter again. I am quite willing to agree to modification, such as the Minister's consent being included, or that the operation of this clause should be confined, say, to county councils areas, or anything like that, but I do hope the noble Lord will not entirely turn down the suggestion simply because it has not worked that way hitherto.

LORD HENDERSON

Naturally I am always prepared to have any suggestion of the noble Viscount considered, but I must make it clear that one of the vital principles of a comprehensive development is to ensure that the local authority can carry through its scheme on its own lines. It is merely an extension of what was done under the 1944 Act, and in the discussion on Thursday there were points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in favour of the local authorities having greater powers for dealing with comprehensive development. As I say, where it is possible within the comprehensive development scheme to issue leases for private development, those leases will be issued. I am afraid I cannot give any undertaking to the noble Viscount. I am willing to have the point considered, but it is not within my province to go further than that, and I hope that he will withdraw the Amendment.

VISOOUNT GAGE

On that understanding, I will certainly withdraw the Amendment. I hope we shall be able to arrange some discussion on this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.15 p.m.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, at the end of the clause to insert: (6) where the Minister is satisfied that there are competent local independent organizations engaged on research the location of industry and similar problems in any area, he may require a local planning authority to consult such organizations during the preparation of a development plan.

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is perhaps a little lonely amongst all the designation and other matters which we have just been discussing, because it is on quite a different subject. It deals with the method of making the development plan. I am not sure that I have put this Amendment in the right place in the Bill. I hope I have, because it is intended to have reference to one of the things which the local authority ought to do when they are preparing a development plan. It also has a good deal of connexion with a later clause—Clause 13—concerning the powers of the Board of Trade. I think I must discuss these two Amendments separately, although they do react upon each other very considerably. The Amendment explains quite simply what it means. I should say that this is the result of experience of planning work in development areas, and also the result of seeing something of what is being done now under the Distribution of Industry Act. In this Bill it is not only development areas, or the Distribution of Industry Act; it concerns the whole country. That is why I think it is important that it should be mentioned. In various parts of the country there are organizations connected with research activities, working often through university personnel and experts, and having with them people who have an interest in the industry and the prosperity of their area, industrial employers and trade unionists, and many others who are prepared to take a lot of trouble to go into these research matters so as to help to lay a sound foundation for the industrial development suggested.

This Bill now brings the conception of positive planning. It seems clearly necessary to plan not only the activities of people, but also the places where they work, and to think how the right conditions can be created for that. It is in order to bring that about that I am suggesting this Amendment. It does not mean that research activities of this kind are to be compulsory; indeed, as the Bill now stands, it would be possible for any local planning authority to consult any such organization. But I feel that under present conditions it is a matter of such importance that it should be mentioned in the Bill. There are, of course, in Part III of the First Schedule, joint advisory committees composed of members of local authorities, but that is not what I am proposing in this Amendment. Part III of the First Schedule says: … and any such committee shall be constituted in such manner as may be determined by the authority…. provided that they shall have a majority of members of one or other of the local authorities. That is a very useful thing—or one hopes it will be—but it is not what I am referring to here. There are research bodies of the kind of which I am thinking in many parts of the country. In the West Midlands there is an organization known as The West Midlands Group. The group have done some very good work, and published an extremely interesting paper on their own area. In the North-East there is an organization of the same kind, with which I myself have been connected. In Cumberland there is a similar organization; there is a Scottish Organization; there is a small unit which looks into the question of Bristol; there is a Lancashire organization; and there are various independent activities carried on by university research departments, so that it is not at all impossible to imagine that work of this kind might be done in a large number of different areas of this country.

As to the alternative, that the local planning authorities might themselves do this work with the aid of expert staff, I feel that there is going to be a very great deal of difficulty, because there are not enough men who are conversant with the rather intricate details of this kind of subject to be able to provide all the local planning authorities with the staff which they would need. Furthermore, there is the point that on matters such as this it is absolutely essential to have not only the more academically trained and technical man to do the investigation, but also that he should have access to all the people who are engaged in industry itself and who are thoroughly familiar with the practical problems. In many cases I think that is difficult to provide in a local authority staff. I am thinking also of the kind of town planning which was done before the war, where in many areas there were very considerable industrial areas zoned without any relation to the employment capacity in relation to the number of people who lived there or who were ever likely to live there. That is a pointer, I think, showing that the proper enthusiasm of the local authorities would not always be confined to the practical possibilities.

To show the need for something of this sort I will quote from the Second Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Estimates, which in paragraphs 56 and 57 deals with a particular problem concerned with the work of the Board of Trade in development areas. The Report says: Your Committee were assured that regional co-operation with the universities is now being sought and that it is intended to form a joint committee of departmental and university representatives. They consider that this important development should not be confined to the universities, but should include other research organizations whose assistance may be useful. That, of course, is a recommendation which is nothing to do with the planning as here stated, but has to do with the parallel work which has been done by the Board of Trade. Here, of course, the Board of Trade are in fact doing the planning in so far as they are putting up factories where they think proper. The Report, however, says that it is necessary and wise that Government departments should consult research organizations upon work such as this. Similarly, so should the local planning authorities when it becomes their responsibility.

Further, I would quote briefly a reference which appeared in the Press to a Committee being appointed by the Board of Trade and other Government Departments under the Chairmanship of Sir Henry Clay, which says: Art informal committee … has been set up to examine the scope and needs of research, both long and short term, into industrial location, with a view to determining the types of industries which fit most naturally into the economies of the development areas. There again, it is only the development areas, but I think I am right in saying that the principle applies equally to the whole country. It is important, as I have said, that some reference should be made to this in the part of the Bill which deals with the preparation of the development plan. I may not have suggested perhaps quite the right place or the right form of words, and it may truly be said that what I want can be done without anything being put in, but I very much hope that something can be done to point to the fact that things of this kind need to be carefully thought out in relation to the facts of the case in each area. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 33, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Ridley.)

LORD HYLTON

I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Viscount, and very briefly refer to the work now being done by the University of Bristol with regard to exactly the problems referred to by the noble Viscount. It is most important if the three-years survey shall be carried out within the specified time that any university body or research group that is in existence should be utilized, because there is a tremendous shortage of trained technical staff. It will be impossible to carry out these surveys unless every group or body which has technical staff attached to it is employed on this task. At the present time there is a tremendous amount of overlapping between the various planning committees, their technical staff and bodies such as those to which the noble Viscount has referred. I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

May I very briefly support this Amendment? I saw something of the work of these research bodies when I was a member of the Scott Committee and I was very much impressed by the scope of their work and the extremely valuable experience which they gained. I would draw attention to the fact that the Amendment only makes it permissive, and one hopes that the Minister will be agreeable to inserting in the Bill an Amendment of this sort which prays in aid of his plan people who have studied it in certain parts of the country in great detail.

LORD HENDERSON

I am sure there is general agreement and sympathy with the case which has been made out by the noble Viscount and supported by other noble Lords. It is obviously desirable, where there is this specialized knowledge in the hands of local groups, that the fullest use should be made of it by local planning authorities. The noble Viscount referred to groups dealing with the location of industry, but there are also groups dealing with amenities, preservation of historic buildings and so forth. Full advantage should be taken of all that information by all the local planning authorities in the interests of good planning. But the power to do this is already resident in the Bill under Clause 9 (4) and the Minister could, if he so desired, give a direction to this end.

But my right honourable friend regards it as undesirable to single out this particular point for special mention in the Bill, because he would be most reluctant to give such a direction. The Minister can be relied upon to use his good offices to give every encouragement to local planning authorities to make the utmost use of competent local research bodies. He recognizes that it should be done and he will give, as I say, every encouragement for it to be done. But he would prefer that such consultation should not have to be undertaken under compulsion. I think it will be recognized that if this sort of consultation is to be effective, it pre-supposes a willingness on both sides to get together and co-operate in the interests of local planning. Therefore, having indicated that the Minister is in general sympathy with the object the noble Viscount has in mind, and will do everything in his power to enable local authorities to take advantage of the knowledge, I hope he will not press his Amendment but will leave it to the Minister to bring about this desirable co-operation by virtue of his own encouragement and persuasion.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I am glad to have the Minister's assurance in this matter, and I do very much agree that compulsion to consult would not perhaps be the best way. My object in moving this Amendment was to find a way in which some reference could be made in the Bill, but as we have the assurance that the Minister is disposed to help these two types of organization to get together, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill:

LORD LLEWELLIN

Before we pass from Clause 5, which lays down how development plans are to be prepared and who is to be consulted, there is one particular point which I should like to raise, and that is in regard to the verderers of the New Forest. They carry out their functions, and have done so for a very large number of years. They claim now to represent 100 per cent. of the commoners who exercise rights of common pasture over the New Forest. They are very much concerned whether steps will be taken under this measure which will alter the character of the New Forest, and they feel they would like—to be quite frank about it—to have been excepted from the provisions of the Bill. If that is not to be, they would like at any rate to make quite certain that they are going to be consulted or have other opportunities of objecting to development plans in regard to their area. I think all of us who have from time to time driven through the New Forest—and I happen to be a near neighbour—value the way that it has been kept as a vast, pleasant open space. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, can give me some assurance to abate the fears that these verderers have in regard to what is going to happen to them.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am very happy to give the noble Lord the assurance he wants. I, too, know the New Forest very well because my interest in forestry has led me to go there on many occasions. We must at all costs preserve the New Forest. Let us see how ample is the provision in the Bill to ensure that the verderers have a right to be consulted at every stage. First of all, when you come to the development plan, which is the first stage, they are able to express their views at the inquiry held before the plan or the amendment to a plan is approved. In addition to that the Minister can direct the local planning authority under Clause 9 (4) to consult the commoners in the preparation of a plan. When the plan is made you then come to the application for permission to develop, and the Minister can direct local planning authorities to consult the commoners in dealing with applications, and to notify the commoners of their decision on an application. That is in paragraphs (d) and (f) of Clause 13 (3). Then you come to compulsory purchase. Here also the commoners will be able to express their views at the inquiry held before the approval of the plan designating the land subject to compulsory purchase, or at the inquiry before the compulsory purchase order is made.

But there is this further point. Much of the land, I think nearly all of it, is the subject of Crown rights. The Bill does not operate against Crown interests, and the powers of the Bill can be exercised only with the consent of the Crown. That would be, as regards the New Forest, the Ministry of Agriculture; so that there is, I think, very ample protection. But I can assure the noble Lord that the Minister is closely concerned in anything done here. I think his views and those of the verderers will be exactly the same, and they will have every opportunity of being consulted and of expressing their views.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am much obliged.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

5.35 p.m.

Clause 6 [Amendment of development plans]:

LORD HENDERSON

I beg to move the first Amendment to this clause stand- ing in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. It is a drafting Amendment to subsection (2) of Clause 6, which gives the local authority power to amend a development plan, and is framed in terms of "the development plan relating to their area." This might be held to preclude a local planning authority from making alterations or additions to a plan for part of an area made under Clause 5 (5). The Amendment, therefore, provides in terms that a local planning authority may, at any time, amend a plan relating to part of their area. This provision is necessary because the effect of subsection (4) of Clause 6 is to provide that the development plan is not complete until it covers the whole of a local planning authority's area. If the Minister uses his power under Clause 5 (1) to extend the time within which development plans must be prepared, as he may have to do quite freely in the early years, it may, in some areas, be a considerable time before the development plan is complete. It is, therefore, important that there should be a power to make amendments during this period. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 45. after ("area") insert ("or any part thereof").—(Lord Henderson.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

This seems, if I may say so, to be a wise Amendment, which makes for greater flexibility and therefore improves the clause.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

The next Amendment is consequential on an Amendment which was made in another place on Report stage to paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of Clause 5. It is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 15, leave out ("references") and insert ("reference"). —(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

The third Amendment meets a purely grammatical point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 21 leave ("reference") and insert ("references").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

And the last Amendment is consequential to the first of the Amendments I moved. It is self-explanatory. I beg to, move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 29, at end add ("but without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 [Additional powers of the Minister with respect to development plans]:

LORD HENDERSON moved, at the end of the clause to insert: (4) Any expenses incurred by the Minister under this section in connection with the making or amendment of a plan with respect to the area, or any part of the area, of a local planning authority, shall be paid in the first instance out of moneys provided by Parliament, but so much of those expenses as may be certified by the Minister to have been incurred in the performance of functions of that authority shall on demand be repaid by that authority to the Minister. (5) Where, under this section, a plan, or proposals for the amendment of a plan, are authorised to be submitted to the Minister by the local planning authority for any area other than the area in which the land is situated, any expenses reasonably incurred in that behalf by the said authority, as certified by the Minister, shall be repaid to that authority by the local planning authority for the area in which the land is situated. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is purely a drafting rearrangement. It brings subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 9 into Clause 7. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 21, at end insert the said subsections. —(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

5.38 p.m.

Clause 8:

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

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

(2) Where an order is made by the Minister under section one of the New Towns Act 1946, designating any area as the site of a new town under that Act, any development plan approved or made under this Act which relates to land in that area shall have effect as if the provisions of that order were included in the plan.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (2), at the end to insert: provided that nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to require that the local planning authority shall make any alterations or additions to the plan excepting in so far as the same shall be required by the Minister after consultation with the local planning authority under Section three of the New Towns Act, 1946.

The noble Viscount said: What I am trying to avoid by this Amendment is the possibility that perhaps at rather an advanced stage in the planning of a local authority, that authority may be confronted with a development plan for a new town and be told to fit in their plan to suit the development plan of the new town. Under Section 3 of the New Towns Act the local planning authority is given protection against this sort of thing happening. It requires the Minister to consult the local planning authority. Subsection (2) of this clause specifically quotes Section 1 of the New Towns Act. But there is nothing about Section 3, and I want to make sure that we do not lose under this Town Planning Bill any of the protection we enjoy under the previous measure.

Having said that, I must candidly admit that I do not really quite understand what the clause in this Bill implies, and as the procedure in regard to new towns, or some parts of it, is now being contested in the Courts, I wonder if the noble Lord could explain what the relation between the new towns corporation and the local planning authority is to be under this Bill. As your Lordships know, the first thing the Minister has to do under the New Towns Act is to draw a circle on the map. That constitutes the outline of the new town's area, and automatically takes it out of the jurisdiction of the local planning authority. I am assuming that this clause of the Bill means that when a local authority submit their development plan they shall not go outside that circle; but I am assuming that anything further that the Minister may decide to put into the circle—if he decides that a part of the circle should be developed in a particular way—will have to appear in the local authority's development plan. Hence my Amendment, which is designed to cover us, and to ensure that we should be given a reasonable chance of objecting at the planning stage, if, for instance, the roads or water supply of the surrounding local authorities are likely to be prejudiced by the plan. The clause does not actually say that, and if I am wrong in my assumption perhaps the noble Lord will explain what it means. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 36, at end Insert the said proviso.—(Lord Gage.)

LORD HENDERSON

The subsection to which the noble Viscount refers is really quite simple. It lays down that when an area has been designated for a new town the order designating that area is incorporated in the order of the development plan. I think I can remove any apprehension that the noble Lord has about the future. I think I am right in saying that in Section 3 of the New Towns Act it was laid down that, before the plan of a new town was approved by the Minister, there must be consultation with the local planning authority; so there is a safeguard there. I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no alterations to a development plan, which is the point that he is concerned with, except after consultation with the local authority. The Minister would not issue a direction such as the noble Lord is concerned with without first consulting the local authority and considering their views on any alterations that he thought may be necessary. In view of the fact that there is consultation with the local planning authority before a new towns scheme is approved, and that any alteration that might be required in the local planning authorities' scheme would also lead to prior consultation, I think the apprehensions which the noble Viscount has in mind are ill-founded.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I am very much obliged to my noble friend. It seems to me that we shall have to submit plans and leave a complete blank for where the new town is to be. That seems a little queer. However, it is irrelevant to my Amendment and, as the noble Lord has given me the assurance for which I asked, I would be pleased to withdraw it.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

Before this Amendment is withdrawn might I just ask this question of the Minister who has been speaking? If the Minister under the Bill uses the very extensive powers he has under the last few lines of subsection (1) of Clause 7, will he be able to carry those out without framing an order to be laid on the Table of the two Houses? Will he do it by his absolute powers? Presumably he might be putting the local authority to a very great amount of expense, so I suggest that there should be some check on him.

LORD HENDERSON

I think I am right in saying that the development order has to be approved.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

Even under these words at the bottom of the page?

LORD HENDERSON

I think any development plan, or any amendment to the development plan has to be approved.

LORD LLEWELLIN

By Parliament?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No, it does not come before Parliament. It comes under Clause 10 of the Bill. Immediately after the Minister has made, or amended, a plan or approved it, it has to be published, and then it has got to be available to be looked at at all reasonable hours. Then in subsection (2) of Clause 10, there is a right of appeal if any of the stipulated requirements have been neglected. That is how it stands.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

5.44 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:

Modification of development plans in relation to land designated as subject to compulsory acquisition.

—(1) Where any land is designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition, then if at the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the plan, or the amendment of the plan, by virtue of which the land was first so designated came into operation, any of that land has not been acquired by a Minister, local authority or statutory undertakers who could be authorised to acquire it compulsorily under the provisions of this Act, any owner of the land may, within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act, serve on the local planning authority a notice requiring his interest in the land to be so acquired.

(2) Where any such notice is served as aforesaid, then unless within six months after the service of the notice either—

1. (a) notice to treat in respect of the interest to which the notice relates has been served by any such Minister, authority or undertakers as aforesaid; or
2. (b) an offer has been made to the owner of the said interest by any such Minister local authority or undertakers to acquire it on terms that the price payable therefore shall be equal to (and shall be determined, in default of agreement, in like manner as) the compensation which would be payable in respect of that interest if it were acquired compulsorily,

the development plan shall have effect, after the expiration of the said six months, as if the land were not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition.

(3) The power conferred by subsection (2) of Section five of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, to withdraw a notice to treat shall not be exercisable in the case of a notice to treat which is served as mentioned in paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection.

(4) Where any land is designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition by the appropriate local authority (not being land comprised in an area defined by the plan as an area of comprehensive development) then if permission is granted under Part III of this Act for any development of the land so designated, or any part thereof, and that development is carried out in accordance with the permission so granted, the development plan shall have effect as if the land to which the permission relates were not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition:

Provided that where any such permission as aforesaid is granted for a limited period only, the provisions of this subsection shall cease to have effect in relation to the land at the expiration of that period."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a new clause I am proposing to put in, to meet the point which has been discussed before, with regard to land designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition. The Amendment which I have put forward says: Where any land is designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition, then if at the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the plan, or the amendment of the plan, by virtue of which the land was first so designated.… I call the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, to that word "first" I was anxious to put in that word "first" to avoid the proposition that you could not have ten years and then, by designating again at the end of ten years, have another run for your money. I put in twelve years for this reason, that it is very difficult, of course, to say with precision, what you can do.

Although the ten years is constant and the Minister has not to approve any plan which designates land unless he thinks it will be taken over within the ten years, yet there must be a little latitude, and therefore I give two years extra. Then if, at the end of that time, the land has not been acquired, under this scheme the man has the right to say: "Either buy me out or, if you do not buy me out, remove the designation which has affected my land." It may be that in the case of agricultural land some shorter term is necessary, and I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is going to move some Amendment to my Amendment, but that I will deal with when he has moved it. In the meantime I offer this to your Lordships as being a really serious attempt to meet the point made by your Lordships when we were discussing this matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN moved to amend the proposed new clause by inserting at the end: (5) In relation to land being agricultural land within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, subsection (1) of this Section shall have effect as if for the words 'twelve years' there were substituted the words 'five years'. The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be convenient if I said just a word or two on the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount before I move my own Amendment. I am very grateful to the Lord Chancellor for putting down this Amendment and, therefore, meeting the point that my noble friend Lord Radnor and I had in our Amendment. I am quite certain it is right to put some limit on what a local authority may do. It is true that we thought ten years would be the correct time, but this Amendment says twelve. I do not need to go over the discussion we had last time.

In regard to agricultural land, which we were then discussing, we set a limit of five years. Before I come to my Amendment perhaps I might just say one word about subsection (4). I was rather doubtful as to whether, in the Bill as it originally stood, Lord Gage's Amendment was entirely necessary, because there did not seem anything in the Bill to prevent a local authority letting a man develop his own land in accordance with their plan. It seems under subsection (4) that by putting in that they may do this, and we perhaps now preclude—it was not precluded before—a local authority from letting a developer develop land in an area defined by the plan as an area of comprehensive development. However, be that as it may, that is not the point to which I would chiefly address myself.

I have already thanked the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for the first part of his new clause, which very largely meets what the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and I had put down. But, as the Lord Chancellor himself has intimated, we are not satisfied with twelve years in regard to agricultural land. My Amendment refers to the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, as did the earlier Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, himself moved. Since the asking of a question by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, I have provided myself with a copy of that Act, and I find that, according to it, "Agricultural land" means "any land used as arable meadow or pasture ground only, land used for a plantation or a wood…." which is, I suppose, the point which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, wanted to have covered. I am only sorry that he is not here to hear the answer, because I should think that that quite satisfactorily covers the forestry point which he raised. With regard to my Amendment, I say once again that I think twelve years is too long in respect of agricultural land. I would like the term to be five years. Therefore, I move the Amendment that stands in my name, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, if he cannot accept the term "five" will at any rate accept some period less than the full twelve. I beg to move.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved— At end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD CARRINGTON

I should like to support Lord Llewellin in this Amendment and also to ask the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, to bear in mind that under the Agriculture Bill, the county agricultural committees, if they are going to do their job properly, are going to serve orders on farmers to keep hedges in good order, dig out ditches, paint buildings, and so on. In many cases, the farmer may find it difficult to comply, he may refuse and may have his tenancy terminated. I hope that the twelve years will be reduced to five because the farmer or landowner might well find difficulty in selling his land with the twelve years condition.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am afraid that I cannot go quite so far as the noble Lords who have spoken would like me to do, but their eloquence has melted my heart to some extent, and I am willing to make a substantial concession. I cannot do the necessary arithmetic to work out the half-way point between five and twelve, but I will take a round figure and make it eight. That I am afraid is as far as I can go. It does give a very considerable concession and I hope that Lord Llewellin will be content with that figure.

LORD LLEWELLIN

If it is a question of arithmetic, I seem to have got the right half on my side of the compromise. Therefore, I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps the most convenient course to take now would be for me to withdraw my Amendment and move it in an altered form substituting the word "eight" for "five" I, therefore, beg leave to withdraw the Amendment as it is on the Paper.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I now beg to move the Amendment in its new form.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved— At end insert: ("(5) In relation to land being agricultural land within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if for the words 'twelve years' there were substituted the words ('eight years')").(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

So moved, I am prepared to accept Lord Llewellin's Amendment.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

May I just say a word here? I hope that I am not wrong, but I admit that I have not heard everything that was said, as I came in while the discussion was taking place. I think that I heard Lord Llewellin explain what forestry meant, and include it in agriculture. I was just entering the Chamber as he was speaking and I did not hear very clearly what he said. As a matter of fact, agriculture is defined in Clause 114 of the Bill, and it does not include forestry as a whole at all. It does include "the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes." I hope that I am not correcting something that has never been said.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The phrase we were discussing here was "agricultural land," within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928. Lord Llewellin was kind enough to read out a relevant section of that Act in answer to a question which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, had asked me. As a matter of fact, I had already got the correct answer and had handed it to Lord Ridley and no doubt he is quite happy about it.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

Thank you, I am much obliged.

On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

Having heard the discussion on the noble Viscount, Lord Gage's Amendment, I am still at a loss as to why the words "area of comprehensive development" should be taken to bar an agreed arrangement between the owner and the local authority. A "comprehensive development" is probably a slow one. But if the owner and the local authority agree upon all that is necessary to fit in with their plan, if the owner agrees to the nature of the houses, the density of the houses, the preservation of amenities, the reservation of sites for public purposes, surely if that all fits in together with the local authority's plan it will hasten the proper use of the land, whereas if these words stay in it may delay proper use of it for a considerable time.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The reason is simply this. It is because we are following a practice which was established in 1944, which was the policy of the Coalition Government and of this Government, and, so far as I know, the policy of everybody who has considered this matter. Where you are going to have an area of comprehensive development, you must have that land owned by the local authority. They must lay the land out as a whole. In practice there has never been a case in which such land has been within the ownership of one person. Complications arise from the fact that there are almost invariably multitudes of owners and each house, it may be, has a mass of people interested in it. That being so, we have always felt that there is only one way of doing this, and that is for the local authority to take the whole thing over and plan the whole thing afresh. That is the existing procedure and the existing position, and it is to that that we want to adhere.

On Question, original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

5.57 p.m.

Clause 9:

Supplementary provisions as to development plans.

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

1. (a) that notice shall be given by advertisement of the submission to the Minister of any such plan or of proposals for the amendment of any such plan, and of any proposal by the Minister to make or amend such a plan and of the place or places where copies of the plan or proposals as so submitted, or of any such proposal of the Minister, may be inspected.

(4) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, the Minister may give directions to any local planning authority, or to local planning authorities generally—

1. (a) for regulating the performance of their functions under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act;
2. (b) for requiring them to furnish to him such information as he may require for the purpose of the exercise of any of his functions under those provisions.

(6) Where, under Section seven of this Act, a plan, or proposals for the amendment of a plan, are authorised to be submitted to the Minister by the local planning authority for any area other than the area in which the land is situated, any expenses reasonably incurred in that behalf by the said authority, as certified by the Minister, shall be repaid to that authority by the local planning authority for the area in which the land is situated.

(7) Any expenses incurred by the Minister under Section seven of this Act in connection with the making or amendment of a plan with respect to the area, or any part of the area, of a local planning authority, shall be paid in the first instance out of moneys provided by Parliament, but so much of those expenses as may be certified by the Minister to have been incurred in the performance of functions of that authority shall on demand be repaid by that authority to the Minister.

THE EARL OF RADNOR had an Amendment on the Paper to subsection (2) (a)—namely, after "advertisement" to insert "in the London Gazette and in at least one local newspaper circulating in each part of their area." The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the way in which advertisement should be carried out so that in the best possible way it should get to those who are interested. But I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to move it in rather a different form. The Amendment as it now stands reads: after 'advertisement' insert 'in the London Gazette and in at least one London newspaper circulating in each part of their area.' The word "their" means planning authorities. The words I should like to substitute are these "in the London Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in the area concerned."

My attention was drawn to the fact that if the Amendment was left as drafted it might mean that a multiplicity of local newspapers would be concerned, in, for example, a county like Lancashire, which is densely populated, and has a lot of local newspapers, the majority of which, very likely, would be completely uninterested in a particular development. If your Lordships will accept that, I do not think I need say more about the Amendment because it speaks for itself. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9. line 21, after ("advertisement") insert ("in the London Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in the area concerned.")—(The Earl of Radnor.)

LORD HENDERSON

I am glad to accept the Amendment with the new wording.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (4) (a) to leave out "regulating the performance" and insert "formulating the procedure for the carrying out." The noble Viscount said: The real object of this Amendment is to elucidate what is meant by paragraph (a) of subsection (4) on page 10. Your Lordships will see that earlier in this clause the Minister takes power to prescribe in every kind of detail the procedure whereby the development plan is to be submitted to him. In another clause he gives himself power to tell local authorities what to do before the development plan is made: also power to decide appeals against the authority, to amend the development plan itself and to deal firmly with authorities if they misbehave themselves. I wonder in what other conceivable way he can wish to regulate the performance of the authority's functions. If, in addition to these powers of supervision, the Minister wants to guide the authority in individual cases then I think it is too much of an intrusion into the small amount of independence left to local authorities. My Amendment is designed to give this paragraph more precision and I hope a less objectionable meaning. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 10, leave out from ("for") to ("of") and insert the said new words.— (Viscount Gage.)

LORD HENDERSON

I am glad to have an opportunity of accepting an Amendment from the noble Viscount.

VISCOUNT GAGE

Thank you very much.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON moved to leave out subsections (6) and (7). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on an Amendment already accepted by your Lordships.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:

Validity and date of operation of development plans.

(4) Except by leave of the Court of Appeal, no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal under this section.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment proposes to leave out subsection (4), the provision with regard to the Court of Appeal. The position under the Act of 1934 is that one appeals to the House of Lords from the Court of Appeal either in pursuance of leave granted by the Court of Appeal or in pursuance of leave granted by a Committee of your Lordships. That is the position we are in at the moment, but we have not been quite consistent about this some recent Acts and I propose to insist on this matter and to adhere to my old practice. Subsection (4), which I am moving to leave out, had the effect of limiting the matter simply and solely to leave by the Court of Appeal. The effect of the Amendment is to restore the old position. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 38, leave out subsection (4).—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of the clause to insert: (4.) Where, under paragraph (c) of the proviso to subsection (4) of Section five of this Act, any land to which a development plan relates is designated as subject to compulsory acquisition in pursuance of an order to which the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, applies, then—

1. (a) if that order it confirmed by Act of Parliament under Section six of that Act, subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall not apply to the plan so far as it so designates that land; and
2. (b) in any other case, this section shall have effect in relation to the plan, so far as it so designates that land, as if in subsection (2) for the reference to the date on which the notice required by subsection (1) is first published there were substituted a reference to the date on which the order becomes operative under the said Section six, and as if in subsection (3) the words from "and shall become operative" to the end of the subsection were omitted."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an exceedingly complicated matter but the Amendment comes to little more than drafting. If anybody desires an explanation I will give a full account, but it will be enough to say that the Amendment, though technical, is quite innocent. Its effect is merely to bring. Clause 10 of this Bill into line with Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, as amended by the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 40, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

6.5 p.m.

Clause 11:

Obligation to obtain permission for development.

11.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and to the following provisions of this Act, permission shall be required under this Part of this Act in respect of any development of land which is carried out after the appointed day.

(2) In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the expression "development" means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of buildings or other land:

Provided that the following operations or uses of land shall not be deemed for the purposes of this Act to involve development of the land, that is to say:—

• (a) the carrying out of works for the improvement or maintenance of any building not being works which materially affect the design or external appearance of the building;
• (c) the carrying out by any local authority or statutory undertakers of any works for the purpose of inspecting, repairing or renewing any sewers, mains, pipes, cables or other apparatus, including the breaking open of any street or other land for that purpose;
• (d) the use of any buildings or other land within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such;
• (f) in the case of buildings or other land which are used for a purpose of any class specified in an order made by the Minister under this section, the use thereof for any other purpose of the same class.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this section—

1. (a) the use as two or more separate dwellinghouses of any building previously used as a single dwellinghouse involves a material change in the use of the building and of each part thereof which is so used;
2. (b) the deposit of refuse or waste materials on land involves a material change in the use thereof, notwithstanding that the land is comprised in a site already used for that purpose, if the superficial area of the deposit is thereby extended.

(4) Subject to the provisions of any regulations made under, the provisions of this Act relating to the control of advertisements, the use for the display of advertisements of any external part of a building which is not normally used for that purpose shall be treated for the purposes of this section as involving a material change in the use of that part of the building.

(5) Notwithstanding anything in this section, permission shall not be required under this Part of this Act—

1. (a) in the case of land which, on the appointed day, is being used temporarily 548 for a purpose other than the purpose for which it is normally used, in respect of the resumption of the use of the land for the last-mentioned purpose;
2. (b) in the case of land which, on the appointed day, is normally used for one purpose and is also used on occasions, whether at regular intervals or not, for any other purpose, in respect of the use of the land for that other purpose on similar occasions after the appointed day;
3. (c) in the case of land which on the appointed day is unoccupied, in respect of the use of the land for the purpose for which it was last used:

Provided that—

1. (i) in determining for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection the purposes for which land was normally used, no account shall be taken of any use of the land begun in contravention of previous planning control within the meaning of Section seventy-three of this Act;

LORD ADDINGTON had given notice of his intention to move, in subsection (1), after "land," to insert "including Crown land as defined in Section 85 of this Act and land of statutory undertakers." The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises, at the first possible place in the Bill, the question of Crown lands and statutory undertakings. There are alternative words down for Clause 85 and I wonder whether it is more convenient to the noble and learned Viscount that this question should be argued now or if he would prefer to wait until we got to Clause 85.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I would suggest it would be more convenient to leave it to Clause 85.

LORD ADDINGTON

Then I will not move the Amendment, I will wait until Clause 85.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2) (a) after "maintenance" to insert "improvement or other alteration." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment, like so many I am moving, owes itself to the ingenuity of noble Lords opposite. I hope they do not mind me being guilty of plagiarism but so long as I accept their Amendments I think they do not. They had an Amendment to insert "improvement" and as I have added "or other alteration" I may fairly say that I have made another improvement. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 9, after ("maintenance") insert ("improvement or other alteration"). —(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 10, leave out from ("building") to ("external") in line 11, and insert ("being works which affect only the interior of the building or which do not materially affect the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I want to say only that this Amendment is one which is not merely consequential. I have carefully considered this, and I think it is a great improvement on the original words. I hope your Lordships will agree to it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (2) (c), after "the purpose of" to insert "laying down." The noble Viscount said: I have been asked to move this Amendment for my noble friend Viscount Falmouth as he is unable to be here. The Amendment seeks to exempt the installation of new cables or mains underground, in addition to arrangements either for repairing or renewing them. In a sense it is planning, something which affects the exterior appearance and layout of any place. I understand that there was some discussion about this and I was told the Minister had suggested putting down an Amendment to cover it. As the Amendment which he put down included only maintaining and repair it is thought that it would be as well to include the putting in of new cables. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 17, after ("the purpose of") insert ("laying down"). —(Viscount Ridley.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There is no question of preventing a statutory undertaker from laying mains. The only question which has to be considered is what route the mains will take and that is obviously a matter on which the planning authority should have the last word. In the great majority of areas, no planning control over the laying of mains would be required, and I can give your Lordships an undertaking that, in the development order to be made under the Bill, the laying of mains will be permitted development. It is necessary, however, to reserve the right to withdraw this permission by directions under Clause 12 (3) in particular cases or particular areas where, for some exceptional reason, control is necessary. For instance, it is frequently necessary to have the power to control the laying of new mains where the whole of an area is about to be replanned, and where that replanning involves a completely new layout of the streets. Obviously, in those circumstances, it would be stupid to lay new mains in old streets and, therefore, there must be a right to withdraw permission in the case I have given. For that reason, although I may, as I think, give the undertaking to put this permission into the development order, this is one of the cases where I would prefer not to put it in the Bill. If it is in the Bill, it is in it and, like the law of the Modes and the Persians, I cannot alter it; but, if I do not put it in the Bill, I can. Therefore, I am not able to accept this Amendment.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

Does that mean it will not be put in a development order except where it should be?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That is right.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

That will be the policy of the planning Minister?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

Before the next passage in this clause comes under review, would your Lordships kindly allow me to mention a point which arises on paragraph (d) in subsection (2), which says that amongst the things which are not deemed to involve development of the land is the use of any buildings or other land within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such. That I take to be one of the most important of the operations to an ordinary holder of a house, because it leaves him free to do anything within the curtilage of his dwellinghouse. The trouble which I have is that I find the greatest difference of opinion as to what the word "curti- lage" means. I have inquired of a number of noble Lords in this House and other people outside the House and I can find nobody who is prepared to say that he knows what "curtilage" means. I have consulted various dictionaries, and I find that in the Oxford Dictionary "curtilage" is described in two different ways: the first is, "A small court, yard, garth or piece of ground attached to a dwellinghouse and forming one enclosure with it, or so regarded by the law"; the second is, "The area attached to and containing a dwellinghouse and its outbuildings." The trouble in my mind is this, that I cannot quite be sure whether "curtilage" includes the field adjoining an ordinary dwellinghouse in which one keeps a donkey or a pony, and which is separated from the house only by a wire fence. Is that part of your "curtilage"?

In cases of this sort—and one can mention a dozen others—this point arises because "curtilage" originally meant a court. It comes from the word "court" and from the French "courtillage," and it was taken into our English Dictionary; it might be deemed to have the notion that it has to be enclosed in the same way as the rest of the surrounding property of the house. I have found a definition which, I think, would probably suit the Government as being the meaning that was to be ascribed to the word in Funk and Wagnall's Dictionary which, I think is an American Dictionary, but it seems to me exactly what is needed here. It is there described as "local ground," and the words are "the ground adjacent to a dwellinghouse and used in connexion with it." That seems to me to be exactly what is needed. I think with regard to that ground it will not include, of course, the agricultural ground of farm places that are ploughed up and sown and so forth, but it includes the land used in connexion with the house. That will probably be exactly what is necessary, because of that land attached to the house the proprietor of the land or the occupier of the land is, I think, intended to make any use which he thinks fit; it is for the enjoyment of the house. I apologize for not having put down an Amendment on this, but I thought that somebody else would.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the noble Viscount had put down an Amendment on this point, I might have been more prepared with my answer. This is one of those cases in which, broadly speaking, we all know what we mean, but none of us can quite define it. For instance, we cannot all define a pretty girl, but we all know her when we see her, and nobody, apparently, can define "curtilage" although we know it when we see it. It covers the garden but not the paddock, but there may be cases of a small paddock where it would be included. Vague though the word is, I cannot think of anything better. If we were to use the words "used in connexion with a house," is not a home farm used in connexion with a house? But no one would say the home farm was part of the house. We must leave it to the Judges to provide us with a set of rules as to what is and what is not a curtilage.

LORD HYLTON moved, in proviso (f) in subsection (2), to leave out "specified in an order made by the Minister under this section." The noble Lord said: We are still dealing with these exemptions from control of development and hence from development charge. When your Lordships arrive at paragraph (f) you find that the Minister has complete control in making these lists of classes of buildings or other lands, and the wording of this paragraph is so vague that I have put down my Amendment to try to clarify it. Paragraph (f) refers to "an order made by the Minister under this section" and finishes up with the words "the use thereof for any other purpose of the same class." That, in my opinion, does not really clarify the sense of the paragraph unless we know what the classes are going to be. This places an enormous power in the hands of the Minister. He can put any building or land into one of these classes and then exempt it not only from development control, but also from development charge. It is clear that he might exempt various activities of Government Departments which should not be, of course, subject to development charge. It would be unreasonable for one Government Department to pay to the Treasury a sum for development. But these classes may consist of buildings used for religious purposes, educational purposes, or charitable purposes. I think that your Lordships should know what is in the mind of the Minister before this clause becomes part of the Bill as it stands. Therefore I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 29, leave out from ("class") to the second ("the") in line 30.—(Lord Hylton.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord does not, of course, clarify the matter by leaving out these words. He makes out that the only chance of getting this thing clarified is to get an order and the Minister would, in due course, I hope, clarify the matter. I am quite frankly not able at the present time to give him a list or category of what the classes would be. I will give him some indication of the sort of things that are being considered. The noble Lord will realize that they are only being considered, and may or may not materialize. I am told that those under consideration include light industrial buildings—that is to say, buildings in which no solid fuel is used in connexion with any industrial process, and in which the only power-driven machinery used is driven by electricity, no single motor being rated at more than ten horse-power; industrial buildings other than light or special; boarding houses, residential clubs, hostels, hotels, churches, chapels, meeting houses, Sunday schools, oratories, synagogues, and so on. Those are the sort of categories which are being considered. I have not yet got to the stage of being able to say how the categories will work out. That will probably give the noble Lord some idea of the sort of thing we have in mind.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do hope the Government will consider this matter a little further, and see if they cannot define it more closely, because I think this is the widest drawn provision I have ever seen. Your Lordships were reminded the other day of the company that was formed in the days of the South Sea Bubble "for a purpose which will hereafter be revealed." It seems to me to be a little bit like this subsection. Even what was said by the noble and learned Viscount did not make it very much clearer. For instance, he mentioned a synagogue. For what "other purpose of the same class" could a synagogue be used? It seems to me that there is a great deal of confusion about this subsection. We must expect that the Minister will use his judgment wisely in a matter of this kind, but does it mean that Parliament is giving to the Minister immense powers to exempt any class he likes from the provisions of this Bill? Personally, I would rather have seen the subsection left out altogether. I think it is altogether too wide for the purposes of legislation to be passed through Parliament. But I recognize that paragraphs (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) may be regarded as not entirely comprehensive. I have no doubt it is for that reason that this sort of omnibus paragraph has been put in at the end. There may be no remedy for it, but I am sure the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will agree that to give the Minister—not this Minister especially, but any Minister—powers as wide as that in regard to planning does open the door rather more extensively than is usual.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I would, of course, agree with that. I do not like this subsection at all. On the other hand, the noble Marquess will remember that this is a clause giving the Minister power to exempt and not to bring in. Therefore, those who are frightened of this development, and ordinary restrictions on it, the charges that flow from it, and that sort of thing, ought rather to welcome the fact that the Minister has a very wide power. So far as the Treasury are concerned, they would certainly be delighted to see the subsection out altogether, because then everybody would have to pay development charges on all these things. So far as the Minister is concerned, if it were taken out it would make his hold stronger. I would suggest to noble Lords that they would be wise, even in their own interests, to give us considerable latitude here, bearing in mind that we are not bringing things in by this subsection but taking them out. I will gladly have the matter looked into to see if anything can be done, because, on general principle I do not like a very wide subsection of this sort. However, I cannot make any definite promise.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I rise only to say that I was rather appalled at the list of exemptions the noble and learned Viscount was proposing. Speaking from the point of view of a planning authority, I hope that what are usually known as "tin tabernacles" are not going to be entirely exempted, because I think some of the things he has mentioned are those which have created the greatest blots on amenities in my recollection.

THE EARL OF CRAVEN

I would like to support what has been said by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. The noble and learned Viscount mentioned synagogues, but at the same time he left out the buildings of another denomination—the Roman Catholic monasteries and convents. I believe they also exist in the Anglican community.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I wish only to say that I think the subsection is much better in than out, though it may very well be that some suggestion can be made at a later stage to limit the meaning of the last line somewhat.

LORD HYLTON

I thank the noble and learned Viscount for the explanation which he so kindly gave me. I should like to say that I am not one of those who are afraid of planning powers; in fact, I represent a planning authority. Therefore, I do not think I can agree with his remarks that noble Lords on this side of the House would be glad to see these exemptions made. Speaking for a planning authority, I would say that this is a planning Bill. We do not want this immense amount of legislation to result in a non-planning Bill, or a de-planning Bill. As the noble and learned Viscount knows, the country is littered with de-planning Bills, and planning Bills that do not work. Our object, surely, must be to turn this into a planning Bill that will work, and not just some sheets of paper.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. He will, of course, have observed—perhaps I ought to have pointed it out—that this clause is dealing with the question of user. It is not a question of "tin tabernacles," or anything of that sort, but of how you use the thing. If there is a building, it remains exactly the same, but you put it to a new use. This is saying that there may be uses in the same class, so that if you use your synagogue for a monastery, or your monastery for a synagogue, that will not matter, assuming that they are in the same class.

LORD HYLTON

That, I am sure, is a very clear explanation. I would, however, point out that this Bill, if it is to be any use, must be a Planning Bill. We do not want this Bill to be full of exceptions. If the Minister is to have this vast power, I hope that it will not be used too widely. With the assurance and the list that the noble and learned Viscount has kindly given me in a very rapid manner, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) to leave out "involves" and insert "does not involve." The noble Viscount said: I feel there is some difficulty about a discussion on this Clause 11, in that it relates purely to planning. Under the Interpretation Clause, Clause 114, your Lordships will appreciate that "land" in the Bill includes buildings, and all land in regard to which planning permission is necessary automatically carries a development charge. The purpose of my Amendment is to remove, both from the necessity of obtaining planning permission and from the onus of a development charge, the alteration of one house into two, or, for that matter, the alteration of a house into flats. It may be argued—and I think it may be argued with some force—that alteration of this kind should be subject to planning permission.

But I am most anxious that there should be no restriction in any way on the production of homes. The mere fact that permission has to be sought, plans have to be drawn up, and extra time and trouble have to be taken, may be a cogent deterrent to any one who is planning, or proposing to alter a large house into two, or to provide several homes by making it into a number of flats. I do not think your Lordships will require me to say anything about the gravity of the housing position. There is no need for me to produce any figures to tell your Lordships how short we are of houses, and even the Minister himself in another place has admitted that the ever-receding target seems ever less and less likely to be reached. Anything in this Bill which tends to restrict the provision of homes, in a sense tends to stultify the Bill itself. I do not know whether I can in any way appeal to the noble and learned Viscount to make a concession in this regard. I know that my noble friend, Lord Llewellin, has an Amendment to Clause 66 in which he seeks to provide that the alteration of a house in the manner I described shall not attract a development charge, but your Lordships would appreciate that even if I withdrew my Amendment the alteration would still be subject to planning control. If I did withdraw my Amendment, I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount would be able to give me an indication that he is favourably inclined to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Llewellin which is very much the same thing. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 36, leave out ("involves") and insert ("does not involve").—(Viscount Buckmaster.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

My noble friend who has moved this Amendment has referred to one which I have later on the Paper—namely, the Amendment to Clause 66 (page 75, line 5). There are three things which one might do. One is to make all these conversions subject to planning control and subject to development charge. That is what the Bill as at present drafted does. The second thing that one could do is to take them right out of attracting either planning control or development charge. Thirdly, one could take the intermediary course of making them still subject to planning control, and yet not subject to a development charge. The Bill as it stands takes the first course; my noble friend's Amendment takes the second course, and my Amendment seeks to take the third course.

For myself, I think there is quite a lot to be said for keeping conversions subject to planning control, but I believe that at a time like this, when we want more and more houses and want to encourage people to divide larger houses into two or more separate dwellings so that more people may live in them, you should put nothing in the way of such conversions. If you add to the cost of the actual conversion, liability to an unknown amount for development charge, in my view you are hampering people at the very start from taking steps which would, if taken, provide more housing accommodation in this country. I hope the Government will be able to see their way either to accept the Amendment just proposed or to accept the Amendment which is down in my name to Clause 66—and I think mine is rather the better. It would help us very much if some indication of the Government's line on Clause 66 could be given.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If your Lordships have to-day's Marshalled List of Amendments and will turn to page 51 you will see that I am proposing an Amendment to the Third Schedule on page 131, line 15, to insert these words: