HL Deb 08 December 1949 vol 165 cc1358-78

5.1 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kershaw.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The Earl of DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Use and disposal of land by local authorities

(2) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, the local authority may—

  1. (a) use the land for the purposes of any of the statutory functions of the authority (including the carrying out of any works which they are authorised to carry out under any enactment); or
  2. (b) let the land for any term not exceeding the period for which the local authority are entitled to possession of the land.

LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "enactment" to insert "not being of a permanent nature." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that if a local authority should erect a permanent building or works on a war damaged site and then wished to acquire the land compulsorily, they must make use of the relevant statutory provision for that purpose and not take advantage of this Bill by acquiring a lease of the land for ten years at the low rate of compensation rental to be paid under this Bill, thereby avoiding payment of the proper purchase price to the owner until the ten years has expired. Your Lordships will notice that under Clause 8 of the Bill provisions are made in relation to the compulsory acquisition of land of which a lease has been taken under the Bill. I suggest that it is contemplated by His Majesty's Government that some of these war damaged sites will be compulsorily acquired. This Amendment ensures that fair treatment will be given to the owners of sites. I hope that His Majesty's Government will have no difficulty in accepting this very reasonable Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 31, after ("enactment") insert ("not being of a permanent nature").—(Lord Teynham.)

LORD KERSHAW

It may be remembered that on the Second Reading of this Bill I asked your Lordships to take particular note of the fact that the whole purpose of the Bill was temporary in character. I think the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment understood that very clearly, because during the Second Reading debate he said it was very unlikely that a local authority would erect anything but temporary buildings because of the insecurity of tenure of the site. The whole point is that it is almost certain that no local authority will build anything of a permanent nature on these sites. The Amendment might cause a difficulty which I think it would be the desire of everyone to avoid, by making it necessary to determine what is and what is not to be regarded as of a permanent nature. Gardens might in some cases be regarded as of a permanent nature, and there could be controversy and, maybe litigation on that point.

I can, however, give the noble Lord an assurance that the Minister would not sanction a loan—which would, of course, be necessary if the work were of a permanent and substantial character—and therefore there is no purpose in inserting the words which the noble Lord would like to insert in the Bill. The period is not ten years, as the noble Lord said, but five years or less than five years. That is the period for which the land may be taken. Having regard to that and to the fact that under Clause 7 the land could be released to the owner or occupier and that it must be released if he is himself in a position to develop, and, taking into consideration the fact that the whole purpose of the Bill is temporary, it is felt that it is not necessary to have these words in the Bill. Therefore, I am sorry to say that I am not authorised to accept the Amendment, and I hope that, in the circumstances, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw it.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think that what we are up against here is the general modern tendency to draw any Statute as wide as possible, although it is not in the least intended to operate it in that way. The drafts of measures which we get here often give far more extended powers than probably anyone needs to use. The people responsible wish to take those powers in order that may be amply covered. In this case we are met with an example of drafting of that sort. On the other hand, the noble Lord has said that the Minister certainly would not sanction a loan for any permanent building on one of these rented sites, so that what my noble friend Lord Teynham feared could not take place. I suppose it is only sensible to imagine that local authorities would not be very much inclined to put up buildings on a site of which they had only a short tenure, when if they wanted the site for any of their legitimate purposes they could probably acquire it by compulsory purchase under powers which they already possess. I do not know what course my noble friend will follow concerning his Amendment. The noble Lord opposite, of course, cannot speak for local authorities, but as he has told us that the Minister will not in any event give sanction to loans for anything of a permanent nature, I think we need not insist on this Amendment.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Teynham. I did not fully appreciate the force of Lord Kershaw's argument. This Bill, as I understand it, relates to local authorities throughout this country, and it may well be that among so many local authorities some will be found who are lacking in wisdom or foresight and who may wish to secure powers to erect permanent structures on land of this kind. Even if that is not a likely or probable contingency, I must say that it puzzles me to know what will be lost if the words which Lord Teynham has proposed are inserted in the Bill. I cannot see what would be lost by putting them in.

LORD KERSHAW

As I have already said, if one reads the Bill through it will be seen quite clearly that its purpose is to provide for dealing temporarily with these sites. Having regard to the short tenure of these sites which is given by the Bill, I cannot conceive any local authority building anything of a permanent nature. These words raise the question of what is or is not of a permanent nature. For instance, one may plant a tree or make a garden, which is intended to be temporary, but there is an element of controversy about the meaning of the words in these connections, and there may be others. I suggest to the noble Lord that, having regard to the whole purpose of this Bill, the insertion of the words is unnecessary.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

I thank the noble Lord for his explanation, which has made the matter clear. I did not realise the full difficulty that might arise in adding these words.

LORD TEYNHAM

My Lords, I think there is a good deal of force in the argument put forward by the noble Lord opposite, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Determination of possession for purpose of development by owner

7.—(1) If at any time during the period for which a local authority are entitled to possession of any land of which possession has been taken or retained compulsorily by virtue of an authorisation under this Act, the Minister is satisfied— (b) that planning permission has been granted or is deemed to have been granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, in respect of that development; and the Minister shall direct that the right of the local authority to retain possession of the land, or of that part of the land, as the case may be, shall be determined upon such date as may be specified in the direction.

5.11 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1) (b) after "that" to insert: where planning permission is required under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, such The noble Lord said: Perhaps we can discuss this Amendment and the next together, as the second is consequential. As at present drawn Clause 7 reads: If at any time during the period for which a local authority are entitled to possession of any land of which possession has been taken or retained compulsorily by virtue of an authorisation under this Act, the Minister is satisfied"— I need not deal with paragraphs (a) and (c), but paragraph (b) says: that planning permission has been granted or is deemed to have been granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act in respect of that development,… My Amendment would make paragraph (b) read: that where planning permission is required under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, such planning permission has been granted… and so on. I am advised that under existing regulations planning permission is not required in certain cases. For example, the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order, 1948, gives Class 11 as: The rebuilding, restoration or replacement of buildings, works or plants which have sustained war damage so long as the cubic content immediately before the occurrence of such damage is not increased and such operations do not involve material alterations from the external appearance immediately before the occurrence of such damage. I am instructed that at present that class of building does not need planning permission at all. I want to preserve that state of affairs. I understand that the present wording brings them into Clause 7, but I do not believe that that is the intention of the Government. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 15, after ("that") insert the said new words.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD KERSHAW

The noble Lord who moved the Amendment uses the term "I am advised," and I must use the same term. Who am I to give the legal interpretation of an Act when our two views are in conflict? I am advised that all developments of a substantial character, whether within the compass of the terms quoted by the noble Lord or otherwise, require planning permission. I am also advised that it is a common fallacy to think that under the Schedule referred to such permission is not required in certain cases. However, I am prepared to undertake that this matter shall be looked at. Evidently there is some conflict over interpretation of the Schedule, and I am authorised to say that the matter will be looked into from that angle. If it is as the noble Lord says, steps will be taken to deal with it. But at the moment, on that assurance I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am obliged to the noble Lord. He is probably right in saying that the Bill does not intend to alter the position. I am not an expert on these matters, any more than the noble Lord is, but I remember from our discussions on the Town and Country Planning Act that these buildings are exempt from development charge, and I thought that they were exempt from development charge because they did not have to get planning permission. My advice was that so long as the same cubic content and the same exterior appearance was retained, planning permission was not required. I am prepared to talk with the noble Lord about this to see whether something can be done. If something is to be done, does the noble Lord wish me to put down this Amendment again or, will he put one down in his name?

LORD KERSHAW

I should not like to mislead the noble Lord. I understand that it is hoped that the Bill will go through all its stages in this House to-day. While I am authorised to say that the position will be looked at, my experience of Parliamentary procedure is not good enough to say how effect will be given to the alterations necessary if the noble Lord's interpretation is correct.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I do not know where we get from there, because this is a Bill from another place; it is not like a Bill that can be looked at again in another place. The only way I can suggest is that we should not take Report stage to-day but should postpone it till Tuesday, when we could also take the Third Reading, because I know the Government are anxious to get the Bill through as soon as possible. I can see little value in the Government's undertaking if we are going to dispose of the whole Bill to-day.

LORD KERSHAW

I did appreciate the position that would arise if all the stages were gone through to-day. It is suggested to me that perhaps the fairest thing to do would be to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, and if it is not acceptable in another place steps can be taken there.

LORD LLEWELLIN

That entirely meets my point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 16, leave out from ("under") to ("in") in line 17, and insert ("the said Part").—(Lord Llewellin.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.21 p m.

LORD KERSHAW moved to add to subsection (1): Provided that the Minister shall not be required to give such a direction if the development in question consists only of the use of land for a period or periods not exceeding twenty-eight days in all in any calendar year, whether with or without the erection or placing of movable structures on the land for the purposes of that use.

The noble Lord said: All owners have planning permission under the General Development Order, made under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, to carry out various types of development mentioned in the Order, and one of these permitted developments is the temporary use of land for not more than twenty-eight days a year. Thus, as the Bill stands, a site would have to be given up to an owner who wanted to do not more than that. This is clearly unreasonable, having regard to the purpose of the Bill, and therefore this proviso has been drafted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 25, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Kershaw.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I understand this allows no one to claim the site in order to pitch his tent on it and spend a few days in it, or to have a caravan pulled in there, or something of that sort. It is only a temporary use. The Amendment is obviously a sensible one, and we have no objection whatever to it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9:

Power of local authority to do work without taking possession

(2) A person authorised by a local authority to enter upon any land in pursuance of the power conferred by this section shall, if so required, produce evidence of his authority before so entering and shall not demand admission as of right to any land which is occupied unless twenty-four hours notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier.

LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "twenty-four" and insert "seventy-two." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a simple one and is self-explanatory. As your Lord ships know, in the majority of cases war-damaged sites have been lying derelict for perhaps as long as nine years. I suggest it is rather unreasonable for the local authority now to have power to demand admission at twenty-four hours' notice. I cannot see the need for this urgency. It might well be that the owner or his representative is away for the week-end, or away on business from his usual address. I suggest that twenty-four hours is an unreasonable and quite inadequate period, and I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 34, leave out ("twenty-four") and insert ("seventy-two").—(Lord Teynham.)

LORD KERSHAW

On the face of it, this would appear to be a reasonable Amendment, but I am unable to accept it. While the noble Lord says it is unreasonable for a local authority to enter on to a site at such short notice, I feel it is pertinent to say that an owner has acted unreasonably in having allowed the site to become offensive to the amenities of the neighbourhood.

LORD TEYNHAM

Not all these sites are offensive.

LORD KERSHAW

I must then refer the noble Lord to Clause 1 of the Bill which governs all the actions that follow: that is to say, that the site must be offensive to the amenities of the neighbourhood, or no action can be taken. Therefore, one of two things must have happened in regard to such sites: the site must have been allowed to deteriorate until it has become really offensive, and that deterioration may have taken place over a long period. I suggest that in such cases it is not unreasonable for the local authority to be able to go in and clear it up even at twenty-four hours' notice. The owner might have put it right at any time in the last ten years, as the noble Lord suggests, and he has not done so. Secondly—this is probably the main reason for the short notice—a nuisance can be created, and danger can arise suddenly on such a site by reason of the deposit of noxious rubbish. In those cases it would probably be necessary for the local authority to take immediate action. It will also be remembered that there is provision to pay compensation if damage happens to be done to the site.

We are hoping that the provisions of the new clause which I propose to move later will help to reduce the need for this urgent action; that is to say, the provisions for penalties if people do deposit rubbish on the sites. Further, it will be remembered that this short notice relates only to those cases where the local authority do not want to take possession. It is not for the ordinary case, but for the case in which the local authority merely want to in and clear up the site. In all the circumstances, we feel that twenty-four hours' notice is quite sufficient. Any longer period than that might mean a continuance of a situation which is a nuisance, or even a danger, recently created, and we feel that the local authority should be permitted to clear up the site, subject, of course to the compensation clauses. I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.

LORD HAWKE

I feel that the noble Lord has been arguing almost under a misconception. As I read this clause of the Bill, it is the old, old story of a Ministry wanting to make certain of having a little power. The result is that they have put in a demand for too much power and have briefed the noble Lord to resist what seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable Amendment. The noble Lord led one to believe from his speech that the sites which the local authority are going to enter are offensive. I do not think there is any evidence whatsoever to assume that they must necessarily be offensive. The noble Lord also said they may be detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood. The vast majority of these bombed sites have been left for years and years, and are, admittedly, rather an eyesore; but they do not suddenly become offensive. At the same time, they might be described as detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood. By stretching one's imagination one can, of course, imagine a site which may suddenly become offensive. If all the local cats decided to die on one site, that site would suddenly become offensive. But that is not the normal state at all. I submit that the normal case can perfectly well he met by the seventy-two hours' notice.

LORD KERSHAW

I find it very difficult to understand the noble Lord's concern for owners who have permitted their sites to become objectionable over a long period.

LORD HAWKE

May I interrupt the noble Lord? It is not a question of becoming objectionable. There is a difference between "becoming objectionable" and "detrimental to an amenity." Detrimental to an amenity can mean just a plain simple eyesore; objectionable means something foul, offensive to the smell, and so on.

LORD KERSHAW

But the noble Lord will remember that this is a clause only for the purpose of going on to a site to clear it of debris, or whatever may be there. It is not for the purpose of taking possession of the site. I hope the noble Lord has that quite clear.

LORD HAWKE

Yes, definitely.

LORD KERSHAW

Having said that, then I am submitting that we are rather too concerned about those owners who have allowed their sites to become a nuisance or offensive to the amenities of the neighbourhood. If, in their wisdom, the local authority feel that it is necessary to clear it up, no damage is done; and if damage is done, compensation is provided for in this Bill. On the other hand—and this is the case for which we feel the powers are needed—it is known that these sites have been used to a considerable extent by people for getting rid of, not a dead cat or even all the dead cats in the neighbourhood, but the debris from repairs in some other part of the district—I believe it is called "fly-dumping" or something of that kind—and it may be necessary to clear that from the site. It is for that reason that the Bill provides that there should be twenty-four hours' notice. There is no ulterior motive in this, and I am surprised that noble Lords object to it.

LORD HAWKE

The only ulterior motive to which we object is that it is a case of yet another instance of the Executive demanding more power than is really necessary.

LORD TEYNHAM

I must confess that I am a little disappointed by the reply given by the noble Lord. I feel that no one should be permitted to enter an owner's property at the very short notice of twenty-four hours. With regard to the question of whether the site is offensive, and so on, surely a local authority have bylaws and can deal with any matter which may arise suddenly, quite apart from the need of this Bill. But I do not propose to press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

Modification of Town and Country Planning Act, 1947

(4) In the application of this section to Scotland for references to Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and to section fourteen of that Act, there shall be substituted respectively references to Part II of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, and to section twelve of that Act.

LORD KERSHAW

This is an Amendment to cover the position with regard to Scotland. Subsection (3) of Clause 10 is included in the Bill to protect the rights of the owner of the land to serve a "purchase notice" under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Such a provision is necessary for England and Wales, but it is not necessary for Scotland. The reason for the difference between the rights of owners in England and Scotland is a technical one, dependent upon the respective definitions of "owner" in the two Planning Acts. In Scotland, an owner retains his rights under Section 17 of the Scottish Planning Act, whether or not the local authority are temporarily in possession of the site. Subsection (3) of Clause 10 is, therefore, unnecessary, and the Amendment will secure that it does not apply in that country. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 29, after ("Scotland") insert ("subsection (3) shall not apply and").—(Lord Kershaw.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11:

War damage payments

11.—(1) Where, under the War Damage Act, 1943, the appropriate payment in respect of war damage to a hereditament would, apart from this provision, be a payment of cost of works, and the War Damage Commission are notified by a local authority that the authority propose to take a lease under this Act of land consisting of or forming part of the hereditament, or to apply for an authorisation under this Act in respect of such land, then if it appears to the Commission—

  1. (a) after consultation with any authority whose permission, approval or licence is required under any enactment, regulation or byelaw for the purposes of the carrying out of works for making good the war damage, that that permission, approval or licence has been granted or would be granted if applied for; and
  2. (b) after consultation with all the owners of proprietary interests for the time being subsisting in the hereditament and of rent-charges (if any) to which it is subject and with any mortgagee of any such interest or rent-charge, that those works will not be carried out within a reasonable time,
the Commission may, notwithstanding any previous determination of the amount of the payment to be made under the said Act in respect of the damage to the hereditament, determine to make under that Act in respect of that damage any such payment as is authorised by subsection (1) of section thirteen of that Act.

5.35 p.m.

LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words from and including "if it appears to the Commission" and to insert instead: the powers conferred upon the Commission under subsection (1) of section thirteen of the said Act to make any such payment as is authorised by that subsection shall be exercised after consultation with any authority whose permission, approval or licence is required under any enactment, regulation or bye-law for the purposes of the carrying out of works for making good the war damage in any case where it appears to the Commission that that permission, approval or licence has been granted or would be granted if applied for.

The noble Lord said: Clause 11 is a very complex clause, and I must confess that I have had some difficulty in understanding it. The clause seeks to amend the provisions of Section 13 of the War Damage Act, 1943, in regard to the type of payment to be made in respect of the damage. May I remind your Lordships that Section 13 laid down that in certain circumstances the War Damage Commission could make a value payment instead of a cost-of-works payment? Now what does Clause 11 realty do? In fact, it modifies requirements and conditions under which the War Damage Commission may change a cost-of-works claim into a value payment. It will be observed that this clause contains no safeguard for the owner of a war-damaged site, because as the clause is drawn the War Damage Commission no longer have to be satisfied that it is the wish of all the owners of the property that the damage should not be made good. Under this clause, the War Damage Commission change the payment from a cost-of-works payment to a value payment if they consider that the damage will not be made good within a reasonable time.

The question is: Hew is a reasonable time to be defined? It is certainly not defined in the Bill, and, it may well be that delays will be caused by the difficulties of obtaining planning permission, and also, of course, of assessing the development charge. This might result, in the eyes of the Commission, in an unreasonable delay. I suggest that there is no justification whatever for this Clause 11, which will modify the provisions of Section 13 of the War Damage Act, as there is already sufficient latitude in that Act to allow a change from a cost-of-works payment to a value payment when circumstances are such that the damage or any part of it will not in fact be made good. I maintain that Clause 11 of this Bill will react very harshly on the owners of war-damaged sites; it may mean that instead of the full cost of restoration of war damage being paid out of the cost-of-works payment, owners will have to be satisfied with a much lower payment—a value payment plus 40 per cent. or 60 per cent., under Section 11 of the War Damage Act, 1943. The effect of my Amendment is to leave Section 13 of the War Damage Act, 1943, as it is, but to provide that before the War Damage Commission exercise their powers they shall consult with the building and licensing authority as provided for in Clause 11 (1) (2) as it is drafted at present. I hope the noble Lord will be able to allay our fears that this clause is an attempt to make a serious inroad into the rights of owners of land under the guise of this apparently harmless and, in many respects, welcome Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 41, leave out from ("then") to end of line 12 on page 8, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Teynham.)

LORD KERSHAW

I studied this Amendment for a considerable time before I could understand what the noble Lord was trying to do by it. I came to the conclusion—which has since been confirmed by my advisers—that its only effect is to remove from the Bill the requirement that the owners of property should be consulted. In other words, there is already power in the War Damage Act to change this payment from a cost-of-works to a value payment, quite apart from the consent of all the interests concerned. Perhaps the noble Lord overlooked that. What this clause is doing in relation to this Bill is insisting that the change from cost-of-works to value payments shall take place only after consultation with the interests concerned. I am not sure whether the noble Lord appreciates that, but I am advised (and my original construction was apparently correct) that the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to take away some protection that is already in this Bill. The noble Lord's Amendment would not provide for any consultation whatever with the interests concerned. Nor is there any provision that the power should be exercised only if the owner or owners are unwilling to take advantage of the opportunity for immediate restoration. It is not reasonable that war-damaged property, for the early restoration of which all the necessary consents have been given or can be obtained, should be left as it is for an indefinite period. It is undesirable in the public interest that all war-damaged properties, for the restoration of which all the permissions of every kind can and will be given, should be left to the whim or caprice of the property owner. The purpose should be—since the money is there to pay for the rehabilitation of the site—to do this Work as quickly as possible, and not to leave it to the caprice or whim of the people who own the sites. Your Lordships will remember that no action can be taken under this Bill (although it can under the War Damage Act) to change the character of the payment unless all the permits and authorisations and so on have been or can he obtained.

LORD LLEWELLIN

It is planning permission—not all the permits. It does not get you your timber licence and so forth.

LORD KERSHAW

That is so. The position as I see it is that the person can go and build on his property, but for some reason of his own he does not want to. That is the position we want to deal with, and for that reason we cannot accept this Amendment. I think the noble Lord would probably agree that action should be taken after consultation with the interests concerned.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am not quite certain about this point. Under Section 13 (1) of the War Damage Act, the War Damage Commission can alter the cost-of-works payment to a value payment, (a) if there is consent of all the parties concerned, and (b) if they are satisfied that the circumstances are such that the damage or any part of it will not in fact be made good. The War Damage Commission were given everything they wanted within reason. Now we come down to a new provision which gives them power to alter a cost-of-works payment to a value payment in a certain specified number of cases. It occurs only in cases where the authority propose to take a lease under this Bill. But why should people be treated differently in this matter as between one local authority and another? The noble Lord, for instance, may hold property under a public authority who wish to take a lease, and he would come within the provision. I, on the other hand, may have property in the area of a local authority who do not wish to take a lease; if so, I am lucky, for I do not come within the provision. There is therefore a distinction in this matter at the option of a local authority. Let us get that quite clear.

Under the Bill as drafted, it has to appear to the Commission: (a) that permission, approval, or licence has been or would be granted if applied for to put into effect the cost-of-works payment; and (b), after consultation with the owners, that these works will not he carried out within a reasonable time. As usual, the question arises, what is a "reasonable time"? It is true that in this case the owner will have got over one hurdle—that is to say, he will have obtained or will know that he can obtain, planning permission. But planning permission in itself is the first hurdle—and it is a fairly long hurdle race. Having obtained it, he has to get all sorts of other permissions. He has to get his house into the narrow limit of the one in ten which is the proportion laid down by the Minister of Health. He will find there is still a great deal in the way of his architect and his builder before the house can begin to go up. They have to argue with the Timber Control, for instance, about timber. The time lost is altogether unreasonable. All these delays impose a heavy burden on the man who wants to build a house. I should be prepared to agree with the noble Lord that we cannot have the offer of a cost-of-works payment and all the other necessary permissions and still allow the man to keep the site derelict indefinitely, especially when it is known that he has the money to do the work and is going to be given all the necessary licences and permissions. But I do not think the words as at present drafted meet the situation.

LORD KERSHAW

Whether or not the exact wording of the Bill as it stands does what is intended, I am not at this moment able to say. But I can tell noble Lords that the intention is that before this clause can operate in respect of war damage payments every obstacle in the way of the owner rehabilitating the property must have been removed. That is the purpose of the clause: he has obtained his licence and all that is needed for building or whatever may be necessary. "Permission, approval or licence" are the words used, and, unless it can be shown that he has all these facilities for dealing with his property, the clause does not come into operation.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but perhaps I can elucidate this point. Are the words "any authority" meant to cover people other than local authorities? Are they meant to cover such a man as, for instance, the regional timber controller? Would that man be an "authority" under this paragraph? If people of that sort come in, then there is much to be said for this wording. I was reading this clause as though "authority" meant only the local planning authority. If this word covers all the other gentlemen who are liable, for good or bad reasons, to be obstructive, my point is largely met.

LORD KERSHAW

I am advised that it is as I interpreted it: we were dealing with the case where nothing except the desire of the unwilling owner prevents the land from being rehabilitated. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that the intention of this clause is to cover only the difficult owner who prevents a site from being put right. If these words do not achieve that object, they will have to be looked at, but I can assure the noble Lord that that is the intention.

LORD TEYNHAM

I am not quite clear on one point. The noble Lord has put forward an argument that the object of Clause 11 is to prevent a site owner, having obtained all the permissions and so on, from sitting on the site and doing nothing with it. But surely this point is covered under Clause 7 (1) (c): that the said person will, upon obtaining possession of the land, proceed without delay to execute any works necessary for the purposes of that development. According to that clause, an owner cannot get his land back again from a local authority unless he proceeds "without delay" to execute the work. I should have thought that that clause met the noble Lord's point.

LORD KERSHAW

We are dealing with quite a different point here. We are here dealing with the alteration of the class of war damage claims and it is felt that it is unreasonable that an owner of land, with no difficulty in his way either financial or otherwise, should be permitted to delay putting the land or the site into proper order merely because he does not desire to proceed. It would probably be an incentive to him to realise that, if he does not go on though he can go on, he must be content with an alteration in the war damage claim.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I was not here at the beginning of this discussion, but there seems to be a difference of interpretation. It is rather an important matter. I am sure noble Lords opposite will agree that if the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who is as well fitted as anyone in this House to interpret correctly the terms of a Bill, has made a mistake on it, it is clear that the clause is open to misinterpretation. We felt so keenly about this particular point that we had considered pressing it to a Division. It is obvious that the noble Lord has now put on this particular matter a new interpretation which may go far to meet us. It seems a pity that we cannot give him and his experts the opportunity of looking at the clause further and seeing whether it cannot be put into a rather more intelligible form. I wonder whether that cannot be done. I understood it was the purpose of the Government, if possible, to get the Bill through all its stages to-day. In these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the object of the whole House is to secure agreement, it surely would be justifiable to postpone the Report and Third Reading of this Bill until, say, Tuesday next, to enable agreement to be reached. It is not a point on which we wish to differ; it is a point on which we wish to secure an agreed interpretation.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I believe the noble Marquess was not here at the time, but at one stage a discussion arose on this point. In view of the fact that the remaining stages were to be taken to-day, what was then decided was this: we accepted the Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, so that it might be looked at in another place, and, if they thought it was an unnecessary Amendment, it could there be rejected. I presume there will be an opportunity in another place of dealing with this matter. However, I understand that some words have been suggested, which the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, will mention, and that these words might go far enough to meet the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. Could we not do the same as we did in the other case, and leave these words in, so as to get the Bill through this House? Then it can go back to another place.

LORD LLEWELLIN

May I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that we have to put in some words with which another place can deal. We must make some alteration. The course taken in connection with my Amendment was perfectly all right; it was accepted. If the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, has some other words of which he is not quite certain and he wants to propose them now, we can listen to them. That would leave the matter open in another place.

LORD KERSHAW

It has been suggested that the anxieties of the noble Lords opposite might be met if, after the word "authority" in line 42, the words "or person" were inserted. I would add, of course—I am only repeating what I said before—that the intention is that this should be an incentive to all owners of property who are in a position to put the property in order, to get on with the job and not leave it, as it has been left for many years, to get into a much worse condition.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Can the noble Lord say whether the word "authority" covers the regional controller of the timber control, and persons of that kind? Certainly, he is one of the people who may well cause some delay in the building of houses. I do not know whether he is covered by the word "authority." The noble Lord says that in case he is not, he proposes to put in the words "or person" to cover the position. That certainly shows that before this clause can come into play, it is intended that everybody who has outside control of the man who is to build the house must have given his permission for that man to go ahead.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Is it the intention now that the noble Lord. Lord Teynham, should withdraw his Amendment, that the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, should move his Amendment, and that the clause should go to another place for consideration in that form? I think that would be all right.

LORD TEYNHAM

In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD KERSHAW

Then I beg to move what I suppose takes the form of a manuscript Amendment—namely, at page 7, line 42, after the word "authority" to insert the words "or person."

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 42, after ("authority") insert ("or person").—(Lord Kershaw.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.

6.0 p.m.

LORD KERSHAW moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:

Suspension of justices' licences

".Subsection (3) of section twelve of the Finance Act, 1946 (which relates to the suspension of justices' licences on the compulsory acquisition of licensed premises) shall have effect as if references in that subsection and in the First Schedule to that Act to the compulsory acquisition of premises included references to the taking possession of premises by a local authority by virtue of a lease or authorisation under this Act."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. This is what might be called a co-ordinating clause. A provision was inserted in the Finance Act of 1946 to place in suspense the licences on licensed premises which were compulsorily acquired, so that they could become effective again when alternative accommodation was found. Clearly, there should be a similar procedure where there is a compulsory taking possession of a site by a local authority under this Bill. It is to preserve the right of a licensee to get his licence back. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 13, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Kershaw.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

We have no objection to this. It is obviously right and fair that what was accorded to licensees under the other measures should be accorded to them under this Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

LORD KERSHAW moved, after Clause 14 to insert the following new clause:

Penalty for depositing rubbish on war damaged sites.

".—(1) If any person, without the consent of the person entitled to possession of the land, deposits any rubbish or waste material—

  1. (a) upon land of which a local authority are entitled to possession by virtue of a lease or authorisation under this Act;
  2. (b) upon any unoccupied land which has sustained war damage,
he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

(2) Without prejudice to the foregoing subsection, any expenditure reasonably incurred by a local authority in removing (whether in the exercise of powers conferred by that Act or otherwise) any rubbish or material deposited by any person in contravention of that subsection may be recovered from him by that authority as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction."

The noble Lord said: As will be observed, this is a clause prescribing a penalty for the wrongful depositing of rubbish and so forth on these sites. The clause is introduced here after strong representations had been made by some local authorities who have suffered from this kind of thing. It is felt that if this clause becomes part of the Bill, the mere fact of putting up notices prescribing a penalty will do away with a great deal of the evil that has been prevalent in the past. I hope the Committee will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 14, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Kershaw.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

This deals with those cases where people have been taking the opportunity of dumping anything they like on these sites. It is about time we had power to take steps such as are proposed by the noble Lord in this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.