Lords Sitting of 4 November 1954

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Marquess of Abergavenny—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper—namely, that the Lord Rea be discharged from serving on the Joint Committee, and that the Lord Grantchester be named of the Committee in his place.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE (No. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
BANK OF SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be read a second time, I am sure that I am speaking for all your Lordships in expressing regret that my noble friend Lord Home is prevented by reasons of health from being here to-day to move this Second Reading. I am sure, too, that your Lordships would like our good wishes to go to him for a speedy return to our
1174
midst. This Bill is the Scottish counterpart of the English Bill, which is not unknown to your Lordships after the proceedings on the first two days of this week—in fact, your Lordships considered it at considerable length both on Second Reading and in the Committee stage. Both Bills are founded on the same White Paper of November, 1952, and they constitute the second and final instalment of the legislation to carry out the White Paper policy. The first instalment was, as your Lordships will remember, the Act of 1953 which applied to England and to Scotland.
In scope and content the Scottish Bill is broadly the same as the English Bill, and therefore I hope your Lordships will feel that there is no need for a detailed account of provisions of which I endeavoured to give your Lordships a detailed account a fortnight ago. But I am sure your Lordships will agree about the necessity for a separate Scottish Bill. Your Lordships will remember that there was a separate Town and Country Planning Act in 1947, which was necessitated by the differences between Scottish and English law, particularly in regard to land tenure, where the differences are considerable. Apart from that, if there had been a combined measure it would have required a most complex and intricate Scottish Application Clause. I am told, as a matter of history, that when this method was tried in the past the Scottish Application Clause ran to some twenty pages, and that would be most embarrassing for those who tried to interpret the Act in legal proceedings or in giving advice.
The basis of this Bill, as of the English Bill, is that it draws a distinction between events affecting land values occurring before and after the passing of the Bill. Parts I and V deal with past cases, and they maintain the position that the claims against the £300 million fund are, to use the Scottish term, "movable property" (that is what English lawyers would describe as "personal property"), and therefore the payments to the claim-holders and the successors in title are in a similar position. Under Part I there are dealt with the payments where there have been transactions in claims or in land over which there is a claim. Part V deals with payments in respect of past planning restrictions. I have dealt with both the

1175
equivalent Parts in discussing the English Bill, and there is nothing distinctively Scottish in either Part. Here, as in the other Bill, Parts II and IV deal with compensation in the future for loss of development value in land as a result of planning restrictions. There is nothing distinctively Scottish in these Parts.
Part III provides the new basis for compensation on compulsory acquisition. By an Amendment a clause will be introduced similar to that which I mentioned on Second Reading and which was discussed in Committee on the English Bill. The object of that clause will be to prevent the arising of any other "Pilgrim" case, if I may put it in that short but expressive term, in the future. Provision will be made for an ex gratia supplement to certain of those who have suffered compulsory acquisition where a claim could have been made but was not and hardship has resulted. This Part is very similar to the Part in the English Bill but there is a special Scottish provision in Clause 39 with which I will deal more fully. That clause repeals what is known as the "cleared site formula" in the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950. Under that formula compensation for compulsory acquisition of statutorily unfit houses was assessed on the basis that the site is cleared and therefore available for development in accordance with building regulations. It assumes that unfit houses have been demolished and it thus increases the price. The local authority is therefore put in the position of paying twice for demolition.
This is a very serious matter in Scotland where statutorily unfit houses will generally be three or four-storey tenement buildings of stone. I am sure many of your Lordships are as familiar with them as I am. The result is that demolition is expensive and there is little or no return from salvaged materials. I emphasise that the formula, with its artificial assumption, applies only to statutorily unfit houses acquired under the Housing or Planning Acts. The formula does not apply, for instance, to the purchase of unfit houses where the houses are not statutorily declared unfit or where purchase is effected by a highway authority for demolition for road widening purposes. In both these cases the market assessment of the existing use value would apply and therefore the cost
1176
of demolition would be taken into account. The effect of Clause 39 is that it applies the ordinary market assessment. I am glad to say the clause is welcomed by the Scottish local authorities, who will soon, we all hope, be undertaking large-scale slum clearance and accordingly acquiring unfit houses in large numbers.
I now pass to Part VI which includes miscellaneous provisions and also the revised scheme of planning grants and regulations for special cases of minerals. There are two special Scottish provisions in this Part of the Bill to which I should like to draw the attention of noble Lords. Clause 61 deals with the consideration to be paid to acquiring authorities on the redemption of feu-duties. Feu-duties, as noble Lords are aware, are the annual payment of vassals to superiors. The Scottish Land Clauses Act, 1845, provides that the interests of superiors cannot be acquired compulsorily by serving notice to treat; but the authority may, after acquiring the vassal's interest, redeem the feu-duty by paying compensation to the superior.
Your Lordships will see how that applies to the subject matter before us to-day. The superior's main security for the feu-duty is the house and land. The personal obligation of the vassal to pay has little or no market value; therefore the open market value of the superiority in the case of slum property is worthless because the security represented by the building is worthless. But, of course, when the public authority steps in, that position is entirely changed. Where a public authority has acquired the personal obligation, that now becomes the obligation of the public authority to pay. It becomes a gilt-edged security, and therefore the superior, despite the bad conditions of the buildings, might argue that he was entitled to compensation on a basis and scale appropriate to a perpetuity. Clearly that would not be in accordance with the principle of the Bill (existing use value plus the unexpended balance of the established development value), which your Lordships have discussed so much. Therefore Clause 61 provides that compensation payable to the superior and to the vassal shall not exceed what would have been payable if the land was in one ownership and free from feudal burdens. I hope your Lordships will think that that is a fair and sensible

1177
way of dealing with the problem. The Government consider it most important. They could not contemplate that Scottish housing and planning authorities, in dealing with slum clearance and redevelopment should be faced with payment of compensation which was entirely excessive and out of proportion to the basis of values in the Bill.
Apart from that consideration, the other Scottish provision in this part of the Bill is in Clause 65, and its object is to provide an equitable adjustment where planning restrictions have depressed the value of land below the value necessary to provide security for the contractual liability concerned. Though it covers leasehold, it is mainly intended for the feuing system. If I may put it in the form of an example I hope it will be clear to your Lordships. Suppose a development value feu-duty is created in land as the result of a grant of planning permission to build houses. Then will your Lordships continue the hypothesis by supposing that the permission is revoked before the houses are built? In those circumstances, the vassal's prospects of realising development value go, but he still has to pay the development feu-duty, which would be an annual charge. Yet the superior's security, the houses, have also gone. Your Lordships see the position that would then obtain—that the security is gone, the vassal's obligation remains, but the vassal would receive the sum of compensation. That is a position which I think requires dealing with, and the clause meets the problem first, by enabling compensation payments to be diverted to the superior, and, secondly, by securing that the feu-duty which the vassal must continue to pay is to be written down to a payment in keeping with the reduced value of the land.
I apologise for occupying your Lordships' time with these technical points, but they are essential for the proper appreciation of the adjustment of this Bill to the requirements of Scots law. I am sure your Lordships would be urgent to see that that should be properly done. With regard to the Bill as a whole, I have again to inform your Lordships that we shall ask you to deal with a number of Amendments for the improvement of the Bill. I hope that your Lord ships, when you have seen the Amend-
1178
ments, will realise that in most cases they are Amendments improving and clarifying the drafting. I know that some of your Lordships have had this point in mind, therefore I mention it at this stage—that, of course, any improvements which your Lordships adopt in regard to the English Bill as a result of the very profitable discussions we have had will be incorporated in the Scottish Bill in the clauses which are the same in each Bill. Your Lordships may take my assurance that that will be done. I hope that the method I have chosen, of indicating briefly the general purpose of the Bill and dealing with Scottish points which seem to be of importance, commends itself to your Lordships. With those words, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.26 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I feel that I ought to ask for the indulgence of the House in venturing, for the first time in my career, to speak upon Scottish affairs. It is, I can assure the House, through no desire on my part to inflict myself on the House once more this afternoon. I should imagine that the House heard quite enough from me on Monday and Tuesday, and might well have been entitled to expect a respite. But we have been troubled with the same affliction as noble Lords opposite: we also have casualties. I do not know whether they have been brought about by the formidableness of the Bill itself, but a number of noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, and who might have addressed your Lordships on the Second Reading of this Bill to-day, find themselves indisposed. I can only hope that they, equally with the noble Earl, Lord Home, will have a speedy recovery, and will be back here in time for the later stages of the Bill.
I have tried to compare this Scottish Bill with the English Bill, and I was very much interested in the explanation given by the noble and learned Viscount as to why it was necessary to have a separate Scottish Bill. I rather thought that in giving his explanation he was really making a case for one Bill. He explained that both the English and the Scottish Bills were based on the same White Paper. He explained that this Bill

1179
was the second of two steps which had to be taken pursuant to the White Paper. The first of them, he said, had already been taken, and that was the passing of the Act of 1953, which applied both to England and Scotland. But for the second step we have two measures. I think the only real attempt at justification of this course made by the noble and learned Viscount was that the Town and Country Planning Act. 1947, which applied, of course, to England, had its Scottish counterpart. I must plead guilty to that.
The fact is that there was one Act passed, the New Towns Act, which was an English Act, with special Scottish clauses—or if noble Lords who come from Scotland would prefer it to be put that way, it was a Scottish Act and contained English clauses. There was some protest (I do not think it was based on anything very practical; probably it was based on nationalistic grounds) at Scotland being dragged into an English Bill; and so, in order to pacify the Scotsmen, we produced two Bills, the Scottish and the English Acts of 1947. I feel that if I had my time over again. I should attempt to do it in one Bill. Looking at the two Bills, at present before Parliament, I think there would be no difficulty about incorporating the special Scottish provisions in the one Bill. Mr. Thornton-Kemsley, a Member of another place, who speaks with great authority in these matters (he is a chartered surveyor, and one of the few people who really understand town and country planning) said on the Second Reading of the Scottish Bill that he had gone carefully into this matter and that, in his view, by the addition of six clauses dealing specifically with the Scottish system of land tenure and with a rather larger interpretation clause, the whole of the Scottish provisions could have been incorporated in the English Bill. I am inclined to agree with him.
In the course of his opening speech, the noble and learned Viscount said that Parts I, II, IV and V contained nothing distinctively Scottish. He said that the provisions of Part III were much the same as the unamended English provisions, with the exception of Clause 39. I should like to say a few words about Clause 39 later. As to Part VI, there
1180
were some distinctive Scottish provisions, but these were the clauses that Mr. Thornton-Kemsley had in mind as clauses which could have been incorporated in the English Bill. I am taking some trouble to explain my view about this matter. No one will accuse me of basing these views on nationalistic grounds; they are based on grounds of practical expediency.
I would invite your Lordships to see what is happening about this Bill. This Bill is substantially in the form in which the English Bill left the Committee in another place. Since then, on Report stage, there were incorporated in the English Bill—I hope I am not exaggerating—more than 100 Amendments, none of which is contained in the equivalent Scottish Bill now before us. On Monday and Tuesday we passed. I think, 112 Government Amendments; none of these is incorporated in the Scottish Bill. So what we are considering to-day is a Scottish Bill which is nothing like the Bill that is going to emerge, because, as the noble and learned Viscount admits, in large part it will have to follow the English Bill. It is a Bill without some 200 Amendments which have since been made to the English Bill.
Moreover, it is really quite impracticable for any noble Lord who has any distinctive views about Scotland effectively to put them forward. Of necessity, once the English Bill has been passed, the Scottish Bill has to follow it, mutatis mutandis. It would be quite unrealistic to expect that any substantial Amendments, or indeed any Amendments, can be made to the Scottish Bill which are in conflict with the English Bill. Therefore, we are going to have a Committee stage on this Bill in which I imagine, as the noble and learned Viscount has already forecast, there will be some 200 Government Amendments on which we, as a Committee, shall have no effective opportunity of expressing our views, because they will already have been decided upon in the English Bill. It seems to me that in these circumstances it is worth while looking at the question of Scottish legislation much more carefully than we have done and not to assume that what virtually amounts to a legislative farce has to be maintained regardless of the convenience of Members of both Houses of Parliament and of the realities of the situation.

1181
Having expressed my views, perhaps with some impertinence on the occasion of a maiden speech on Scotland, may I say a few words about the merits of the Bill? Like the noble and learned Viscount, I am not going to repeat what I said on the Second Reading of the English Bill. Any noble Lord who happens to be interested in what I said then can read my remarks on that occasion; and although we have had a very long Committee stage since then, broadly speaking my views remain what they were. I agree that some such measure as this was inevitable. Once the Government had decided to repeal the financial provisions of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, certainly once they had proceeded farther on the slippery slope by passing the Town and Country Planning Act, 1953, some measure at any rate resembling this had to be introduced. But, as I explained on the Second Reading of the English Bill and want to repeat, the present Bill provides no solution to the vexed question of town and country planning. The old problems which afflicted the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, who sits opposite, and on which he spent a good deal of time during the war—the problems of compensation and betterment—still remain. One may tend to ridicule them, one may pretend that they no longer exist, bust they will come up from time to time with greater frequency once development on a larger scale becomes possible, and we shall find once more that the local planning authorities are frustrated in their attempts to prevent undesirable development through not being in any position to deal with these problems of compensation and betterment. Already we have had some vista of what is going to happen in the future. It is largely a repetition of what happened in the past.
Local planning authorities are of two kinds: those who are reluctant to inflict hardship on their fellow citizens and therefore will refrain from doing their plain duty and will not acquire land which they ought to acquire in the public interest because it will be acquired at a price which they consider unfair; and, on the other hand, those authorities which will deliberately go out to take the cheapest possible land where there is no established claim for development value, which will not necessarily be the most useful land or in the best interests of the
1182
community, and will thereby inflict hard-ship on owners of land. I pointed out that the course which the Government are taking is throwing planning into the melting pot. It is creating uncertainty.
But amidst all this uncertainty, one thing is certain; and that is that sooner rather than later new legislation will have to be introduced to put this right. We have not heard the last of town and. country planning, and in the meantime, landowners, developers, and all sorts of people who are concerned with the building of houses and developing the resources of this country are in a state of uncertainty as to what is going to happen. The Bill creates certain injustices to owners of land, and inequalities as between one owner and another. It purports to pay compensation in respect of established claims under one clause, and then under another clause, to a considerable degree, it takes away the right of the owner to such compensation. All these objections have been discussed, and I do not want to enlarge upon them. When I spoke on the Second Reading of the English Bill I said that for the last time I would make my point that I thought the repeal of the financial provisions of the 1947 Act was wrong, and in any case premature; they have never been given a chance. I did not expect that I should be able to say this again on the Scottish Bill, although everything I said on that occasion applies equally to the Scottish Bill.
I new want to say a word or two about Clause 39 of the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has explained that clause accurately, and I agree with him that it will be a great advantage to local authorities in Scotland and will assist them to carry out their duties in respect of slum clearance. The noble and learned Viscount made clear the distinction between the acquisition of unfit houses and the acquisition of slum houses, and Clause 39 applies only to slum houses. I heard the explanation of the noble and learned Viscount, which I assume was intended to justify the fact that a similar clause does not appear in the English Bill. The point was that in Scotland there were many more tenements which were unfit, and were built of stone; that the cost of clearing would be considerable, and that it was unfair to inflict the burden of that cost on the

1183
local authorities who were acquiring the site when the dwellings themselves were unfit. I agree that those conditions do not apply in England and Wales to anything like the same extent, but, if I am in order, I should like to make this point: although these conditions do not obtain to the same extent in England and Wales, nevertheless, they do obtain. One of the great problems that I had to face when I was Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council was the number of slum tenements that existed. There are a considerable number of slum tenements—I will not enumerate them—and the great difficulty was this very problem of the cost of clearing the sites. It would have been most valuable, when slum clearance was being carried out on a large scale in the years immediately preceding the war, if we could have had a similar provision to that contained in Clause 39 of the Scottish Bill. While this is not strictly relevant on the Scottish Bill, I should like to give the noble and learned Viscount notice that I propose to raise this question when we come to the further stages of the English Bill.
There is nothing more that I need say on this Bill. There is nothing more one can say; one has just got to take it. The Bill will follow the stages of the English Bill: we shall have a Committee stage, with some hundreds of Amendments which we shall have to swallow; we may have a Report stage, with a further number of Amendments; but otherwise, this Bill will go to its inevitable conclusion along the same lines as the English Bill. In those circumstances, it will not surprise your Lordships that we on this side of the House do not intend to divide the House on this Motion.
3.46 p.m.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I should like to add my regrets that the noble Earl, Lord Home, is not present to introduce this Bill but, at the same time, to say that it could not be in better hands than those of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, not only by virtue of his being a Scot, but also by the title of his high office, which entitles him to take part in any affairs affecting Scotland. The Benches on this side of the House are rather empty, partly for reasons beyond
1184
the control of noble Lords, and partly owing to the sad loss suffered by this House a few days ago in the death of my noble friend Lord Clydesmuir, whose funeral to-day has caused further absences.
The Bill is an extremely complicated one, and as I have not the wealth of experience in this matter of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I will not try to follow him in his constitutional arguments as to the necessity, or otherwise, of having separate Bills for Scotland. Nor, except for two provisions that I will mention, shall I go into any detail on the Bill, the more so as it has been so clearly expounded by my noble and learned friend. The first provision which I should like to bring up again to your Lordships has already been mentioned by my noble and learned friend, and has been argued in this House—I refer to the problem of the man with the development value who has not claimed for his loss of development right. I realise that Her Majesty's Government have gone some way in carrying out their promise of an ex gratia payment, but I still feel that justice will not fully be done until it is admitted that payment for a loss should depend on the fact that there has been a genuine loss, and not on whether or no that claim has been lodged.
From the practical point of view, I do not see why there should be much objection to this course. These cases will arise largely from small men, and the local authorities will not, I think, have to fear the payment of very large sums. In addition, I should have thought, as a layman, that it would be simpler for the local authorities to deal with the case if they could treat it as a proper claim for compensation, rather than have first to admit that there had been hardship, and then to decide what kind or amount of payment should or should not be made. The other matter that I should like to bring forward is one which affects Scotland, and is dealt with in Clause 61. That clause has given rise to considerable misgivings. To deal with it very generally, one of those misgivings is the way in which the arbiter is tied so tightly by the Code which is still laid down for him, instead of its being left to his own discretion. An Amendment on this subject will be brought forward at the Committee stage. It is an extremely technical and complicated point, and I

1185
think it would be better if detailed argument of it were left to the Committee stage. There will undoubtedly be other Amendments moved from this side of the House, though a number of them will be covered by Amendments which have already been either agreed or were looked at on the English Bill which was before your Lordships on the Committee stage two days ago. There is no doubt that this Bill will help to remedy the difficulties which have arisen from the working of the 1947 Act, and that it is necessary to try to put those difficulties right. With those few words, I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
3.52 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this Bill, but with the permission of my noble friends opposite I should like to say a few words which I think are necessary in consequence of what has passed this afternoon. I ought to declare some kind of interest in the matter to which I am going to speak, because I am the Superior of a Regality Burgh in Scotland. I do not think there is anything in Clause 65 which is likely to affect my interests, and I speak upon that matter because my position has made me familiar with certain aspects of this subject. The proposal of Clause 65 is that the Superior should be able to be bought out by the local authority by the acquisition of the feu-duties under Clause 65, and in that way, with regard to the particular lands affected, the local authority would become possessed of the dominium nobile as well as the dominium utile of the land and so acquire complete possession of the land.
There are in Scotland two kinds of burghs, and though they are ruled in exactly the same way after the Burgh Police Act, 1892, yet they differ in some small respects. They are the ordinary Royal Burghs and the Regality Burghs, to which I particularly refer. I am glad to say that I am not the only Superior of a Regality Burgh in the House this afternoon, so I am speaking before informed ears. It often happens that the Superior of a Regality Burgh, by virtue of that superiority, has another function: he is the trustee of lands which are devoted to the common good. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was particularly
1186
impressed by the "common goods" belonging to the burghs in Scotland. I think it is true that those "common goods," which have survived the test of time best are those of the Regality Burghs; because, besides the Committee of Vassals, to whom the lands are entrusted for management, there is also a trustee in the Superior. In nine cases out of ten, when a local authority purchases the dominium nobile of any lands they acquire, this will probably not affect the legal position of a Superior as Superior of the Burgh. But it is just possible that it may do so; and, of course, if anything arose to affect the position of the Superior it might actually dispossess him of his trusteeship of these public lands, and this might in the end, by the passage of time, lead to alienation—and this Government would be blamed for that alienation.
I submit that it is sufficient, under this Bill and for the purposes of the Bill, to permit a local authority to acquire what' is called a blench title. I hope your Lordships will forgive my using a technical term, but I want to get this right. If the local authority acquires a blench title, it can make the same use of those lands as if it had full dominium nobile of the lands I therefore think that it should be within the choice of the Superior that he be able to grant to the local authority either a blench disposition or the dominium nobile, whichever he prefers in the matter. The local authority and the public interests in their charge cannot suffer by that arrangement, and it is quite possible that other public interests may be preserved and rendered more secure by that alteration. That is all I wish to say. I will not add anything about other parts of the Bill, because I have a matter pending under the old Act and it might be affected by this Bill.
3.56 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I shall not make any comment upon what the noble Lord has said, but it throws an interesting sidelight upon the peculiarities of land tenure in Scotland, of which I have no doubt that the noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill will take due note. When I was a very young student of economic and political questions, not many years after the passing of the first Town Planning Act, I had the pleasure of discussing these

1187
matters with those who were experts and pioneers in this question. The great apprehension which was then in the minds of persons interested in promoting town planning was the difficulties which would arise because of the high demands which it was expected would have to be met in compensation for restrictions imposed upon the use of land, and the price which might have to be paid for land acquired for public purposes.
We now seem to have gone round to quite the opposite point of view, and I am not sure that that is entirely a good thing either. It can be made too easy to impose town planning restrictions if they are not going to cost the planning authority any appreciable sum of money. After all, site values do represent something which has to be taken account of in the economic life of a country. They represent a consensus of opinion on the part of possible users of land as to the desirability and utility of the particular site in question. If that is wiped out by town planning restrictions, the inference in the first place is that a less profitable use of land has been imposed upon the owners and upon the possible users of the site. Undoubtedly in many cases that is necessary and desirable, but there is a certain value in requiring the planning authority to take into account the cost of what it is doing and set against that the value which it anticipates will come to the community in the long run out of what is done.
Here we have a Bill which excludes entirely from the scope of compensation for planning restrictions a very wide variety of conditions on land use. It appears—perhaps I am wrong in this construction—that if somebody has a plot of land upon which it would be possible to build twenty houses and the planning authority says, "No; you shall build only one upon it," that does not attract any compensation at all. These are drastic powers and they could lead people to adopt courses which would ignore the real values which are at stake in this matter.
Another anomaly which arises out of this Bill and its English counterpart is that, where land is acquired by a public authority for any purpose whatsoever, not merely for the purpose of carrying
1188
out some town planning operation, that land is acquired at a special price dependent upon the existing use value and the amount of the development value which was or should have been assessed under the Act of 1947. For my part, I am quite unable to understand why, when a piece of land is bought by a builder, let us say, in order to build a house upon it, he should have to pay one price, and if the local authority buy exactly the same piece of land for precisely the same purpose they are enabled to obtain it at a very much lower price. That is an anomaly which it is really extremely difficult to justify.
Another general criticism which I want to make is that this legislation has become far too complicated. The parts which remain of the development value and compensation provisions of the 1947 Act are grafted into this one and coupled with the general complexity of all these provisions, making it almost impossible for those who are concerned with the practical business of land development to know where they stand. I think that if a change had to be made from the 1947 provisions with regard to compensation and betterment, it would have been far better to make a clean sweep of the whole thing and to leave the compensation to be paid, either upon the imposition of restrictions or upon acquisition for public purposes, to depend upon the market value of the land.
In saying that, I am not ignoring the fact that there is another element of public interest in these matters which is very important and which is not to be neglected. The site value itself—apart from the value of the buildings and improvements which happen to be upon the land—is essentially something which has been created by the activities of the general public. It is in a very real sense a community value, which ought to make a contribution to the community which has created it. That could easily have been dovetailed into the general picture if provision had been made for charging the expense of compensation for restriction or for public acquisition upon a fund which was derived out of a general levy upon site values. In that case, all landowners would have been put upon a precisely equal footing. There would have been none of the discrimination and

1189
inequality which arise out of this Bill. It would have been a great deal simpler to work and people could have understood it. It would not have caused the difficulties and confusion that will arise out of this legislation. It is a great pity that a real endeavour was not made to simplify the whole problem and to put it upon a basis which would have been advantageous to the planning authority, to the public and to those who wished to develop land within the framework of planning as it has developed from time to time. These, of course, are general considerations which relate to both this Bill and the English Bill. I do not want to detain the House by going into detail about them, as the other Bill has already been fully discussed.
4.7 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I want to say that I knew that the noble Earl, Lord Home, would not be able to be here to-day. I was in touch with him at the week-end, and I learned that he was to undergo some treatment, or at least to go into a nursing home for observation, and so would not be here to-day. Regret has been expressed for his absence. My understanding is that we may look forward to finding him, in the not distant future, with us again, fully recovered and restored to his normal health.
I think the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has paid a compliment to Scotland by himself undertaking the onerous duty of piloting this Bill through your Lordships' House. I had looked forward to finding the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, in his place when we came to deal with this Bill. I am sure that it was a matter of profound regret to all of us to learn of his passing. He died on Sunday, and it has been much in my mind during this day that to-day all that is mortal of him is being laid to rest in the county of which he was the Lord Lieutenant, the County of Lanark. I had known Lord Clydesmuir for many years as John Colville (David John Colville was his name) and I had worked with him in another place. I say "worked with him" advisedly, because it was not a question of working in strong opposition to John Colville. It was a case of falling for the charm of the way in which he did things when working with him. He was the essence
1190
of friendliness, and that, I believe, was responsible for much of the success that he made of his life. It is a regrettable thing to think that he passes away at the early age of sixty years. He falls asleep full of honours, if not of years.
He was a great servant of his country and a great lover of his fellow men. He held many high offices. I remember him as Financial Secretary to the Treasury in another place, and later as Secretary of Stale for Scotland—and a very good and kindly Secretary of State he made. Later, he was appointed Governor of Bombay, and in that capacity he earned golden opinions from those who came in contact with him during the latter stages of British administration in India. Because of the fact that during that time it was necessary for two Viceroys of India, Lord Wavell and Lord Mountbatten, to leave India for periods, on several occasions Lord Clydesmuir (John Colville, as he then was) was called upon to act as deputy for the Viceroy, to carry out the duties that attached to that high and important office.
I regard it as a privilege to have had the opportunity on many occasions, public and private, of coming into contact with the noble Lord, and of sharing the friendship of himself and his family. He was interested it all good causes. He was, as I have said, a very friendly man. He was a man of strong faith, and I am sure that "the trumpets sounded for him on the other side." I say this with his sorrowing wife and family very much in mind, and I am sure that it is the wish of everyone here, especially of all who knew him, that they may be comforted in the knowledge of the sympathy in which we regard them to-day, and the hope that we have for them that, very soon, the soothing hand of time will play its beneficent part in healing the wound that they feel to-day so deeply, leaving in its place nothing but fragrant memories of the life which they must have felt it a very great privilege to share. It was certainly a great privilege for those of us who knew Lord Clydesmuir, to share his friendship. May he rest in peace!
Before I pass on to deal with the Bill that is before us, may I take the first appropriate opportunity, as I consider it, of making reference to the great pleasure with which the elevation of the noble and

1191
learned Viscount to his appointment on the Woolsack has been held in Scotland—I think perhaps especially in Edinburgh, where he is well known, and more particularly in his old school, George Watson's College. His elevation to the head of the English Judiciary has made a great record for that school, for to-day there is also at the head of the Judiciary in Scotland the person of Lord Cooper of Culross, who has not yet taken his seat here—he is the Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General of Scotland. I think it is remarkable that one school should have the distinction of having the heads of the Judiciary of both countries rising from their ranks. Of course, I need not point out that it means that both Houses of Parliament, here, in the capital of England, are presided over by two Scotsmen coming from the same school. It is perfectly true that we have a good conceit of ourselves; and when instances like this arise it tends to make us even more conceited. It seems almost a romantic thing, and there might be justification for writing up this story of the events of the last few weeks in relation to George Watson's College—and who better could do that than one who chose the romantic name of Waverley as his title to sit in this House? He, too, is a product of George Watson's College. It seems to me that the school will probably recover something of their prowess on the rugby field through the stimulus that they have gained from showing what they can achieve.
Your Lordships will forgive me for appearing to speak in any way with levity on that subject. It is a matter of profound satisfaction—and I should like everybody to know it—to find the noble and learned Viscount now on the Woolsack. I said that he had paid us a compliment in himself dealing with this Bill, and the points that he made in introducing it were most important. He pointed out that Clause 39 in the Scottish Bill has no counterpart in the English Bill. Therefore, if Clause 39 is to be commended, it means that the Bill with which we are dealing is a better Bill than the English Bill over which we have already spent so much time in this House. Clause 61, which deals with feu-duties and compensation, he described as "a fair and sensible way" of dealing with
1192
this matter. Well, if something fair and sensible can be injected into this Bill, all the better; it will do it a lot of good. He also indicated to us that Clause 65 would achieve more equity. I make the same remark with regard to that clause: we welcome it as making for greater fairness.
Then there was his omnibus statement about passing on to Scotland any improvements that can be made as a result of Amendments to the English Bill. We will take these crumbs from the rich man's table and be grateful for them as well. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that it would have saved a lot of trouble if we had had one United Kingdom Bill. I want the noble Lord to know that Scotland likes its own separate legislation, more especially if it can get better terms by that means. Inevitably there must be very similar laws in the United Kingdom, but there is still a Border line and different legal, land and educational systems in the two countries. I would ask my noble friend to realise that there is something to be said on the side of separate legislation for Scotland.
I do not like this Bill. I dislike the fact that we are asked to deal with it under the compulsion of time. There is not time between now and the end of the Session to deal with this Bill as we would wish, to apply ourselves to it meticulously and fully to understand its provisions. I confess that I do not understand the Bill. I make that confession without shame, for a number of noble Lords in the debate to-day have said that there are things in this Bill that they do not understand. In this confession of ignorance I hold that I am in a majority opinion. I cite the fact that in another place, when this Bill was being considered, there was evidence of uncertainty amounting to disagreement on the part of Ministers about different parts of the Bill. I need feel no shame, therefore, at being unable fully to comprehend all this Bill seeks to do. Planning specialists outside are at variance as to its purposes. That surely means that development and long-term planning will be prejudiced, or even prevented.
Having admitted the poverty of my comprehension, I would add that I feel the Bill will not work out equitably: that values created by the community will enrich not the community but the fortunate owners of land that is required for public purposes, land which is bound to

1193
increase in value. Do not ask me to provide remedies for the faults that I believe exist in this Bill. I have not the background of knowledge to enable me effectively to amend this complicated measure and my clumsy efforts might make confusion worse confounded. In the light of that confession of my inability adequately to deal with the Bill, I begged my noble friend Lord Silkin to put his unrivalled knowledge of these matters at the disposal of Scotland, and I am glad that he has accepted that commission, at the usual payment which we in this House make for work of that kind. I would also seek the expertness in matters of land of my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch; and as an inducement to him, let me say that he will be doing this for a country in which the name of Douglas stands for so much. I hope that my noble friend Lord Greenhill, who is not with us this week, will be present during the latter stages of the Bill to bring his greater knowledge of Scottish local government to bear on its provisions. I hope that there may be some reinforcement of our efforts to improve this Bill from other parts of the House and that, if the Government do force the Bill through, it will be a less objectionable instrument, when it passes finally to the Statute Book, than it now is.
4.27 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope that I may have permission to address the House again, as your Lordships will feel that the speeches to which we have listened are well worthy of a considered reply. I begin with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, whose knowledge of town and country planning is profound and well known to us all. I confess that I had a moment of apprehension, when he rose, that the noble Lord was going to try to raise the standard on the Braes of Mar by remote control from Westminster. But as he developed his objection to separate legislation for Scotland, I felt that the hopes of the standard rising were getting less and less. The noble Lord was well answered on that point by the noble Lord, Lord Mathers.
My own experience in another place has shown (I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, will agree) that there has been a tendency over the last few years for a desire to be evidenced in all Parties
1194
for separate Scottish Bills whenever possible. As the noble Lord was speaking, I sent for my old friend in our discussions, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932. When I looked over page after page in which the applications to Scotland are set out, I tried to think of the possibility of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, instead of being one of the most distinguished solicitors in London, being (as undoubtedly he would be, if he practised in Edinburgh) one of the most distinguished Writers to the Signet. I thought of him going through the Bill and, whenever he came to another abstruse provision, turning to the Scottish Application Clause to see what further problems he would have to solve before he could advise his many and anxious clients. I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, does that himself, he will see that there is much to be said for this point of view of having separate Bills. Indeed, the existence of the separate Scottish measure will, I hope, be regarded as evidence of the intention of Her Majesty's Government to cater, within the framework of the White Paper, for the special Scottish problems and to, try to find a solution for them.
With regard to the Amendments that will have to be moved, as I have indicated before, we are seeking to improve the Bill, and whilst I realise that it does put a strain on the work and assiduity of your Lordships it is, as I ventured to say before, complimentary recognition of the importance of the work of your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber. On the general questions which he raised, Lord Silkin, I am sure, did not expect me to follow him again. We have debated his general approach to the problem before; we shall debate it again. I can only say, as he did, that my opinions are still the same as they were the last time we debated this subject.
We had a most interesting speech from my noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell. If he will allow me to dwell on the personal introduction he gave to his speech, may I say that it filled me with pleasure to hear from him, of all people, the statement that the office which I have the honour to hold is one that applies to Great Britain, because that is a point made by his great ancestor in his work The Lives of the Lord Chancellors, which is so caustic, incisive

1195
and depreciative of the qualities of my predecessors that it was said of it that it added a new terror to death. I should like to say how glad I was to have the matter I have mentioned reinforced by his descendant this afternoon.
On the point which Lord Stratheden and Campbell made as to whether there ought to be a general provision for those who have not made claims to compensation, I should like to refer him, if he wishes to pursue the matter, to the debate which we had on that point on Tuesday. For the moment, I should just like to remind him of the two categories which I informed your Lordships affected my mind. The first is that in which land has been acquired at existing use value and is then compulsorily acquired. In those cases it is difficult, for me at any rate, to see the equity of the acquirer at existing use value receiving additional compensation. The other point which I ventured to put before your Lordships was the case of a great, rich, well-advised corporation which has chosen, at the appropriate time, not to put in a claim, and which now seems, in my view, hardly in a position to go back on that course. I think that Lord Stratheden and Campbell has most in mind—as indeed have most of your Lordships—the question of the small man, the man who is poor and who is put in this position. I should like to remind him that under our suggestion, which we hope to incorporate in this Bill, such a man will have the right to formulate his claim and then, although there is a Ministerial discretion (he will, for the moment, no doubt, pay attention to the old Latin tag experto crede) I think it would be very difficult for a Minister to refuse the proper treatment in those circumstances. That is my firm belief.
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, raised an interesting point on the question of the common good and on the effect that the new clause in this Bill might have in that regard. I would just like to remind him that under the Land Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1845, an acquiring authority takes a "statutory title," the effect of which is to relieve the land of all restrictive covenants enforceable by the superior, subject, of course, to his rights to compensation. Obviously, the acquiring authority must be free to use the land for the statutory purposes for which it
1196
was acquired, and it would be quite wrong that any restrictive covenants enforceable by the superior should continue. A point I should like Lord Saltoun to consider (and if, after consideration, he has any further doubt I shall be pleased to discuss it with him) is that the present Bill leaves unchanged the situation created by the Act of 1845 and which has obtained since 1845, except as regards the compensation payable. I think that is really the answer to Lord Saltoun's fears.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, again gave us a most interesting speech on what I might term the general provisions and scope of the Bill. It is not my intention to-day, when we are really discussing the Scottish aspects, to devote a great deal of time to these general provisions. I hope the noble Lord will not suspect me of any discourtesy, because I shall consider and pay attention to everything he has said. To-day, as I say, I am trying to confine my trespasses on your Lordships' time to the affairs of my native land. I am sure I am expressing the opinion of all your Lordships when I say how delighted—nay, more, how moved—we were by the speech of Lord Mathers. I am sure that the tribute which he paid to Lord Clydesmuir, who was a friend of us all, will long remain in our hearts. I am also sure that a tribute could not have been paid by one more sincere or who is held in greater affection by every Member of the House than Lord Mathers. I feel that your Lordships would like me to voice your gratitude to him for what he has said, and also further to express the feeling of loss which we all have in Lord Clydesmuir's death.
Lord Mathers passed to some pleasant things about myself and my school. For that, I am personally very grateful to him. The only approach which he made to the impossible was when he sought to associate any qualities of mine with improvements in Rugby football. One of the tragedies of my life was touched upon a short time ago by a friend who, in proposing my health at a dinner, said: "When I first knew him he was a fast three-quarter; since then his waistline has embarked on a career of its own." I apologise for following Lord Mathers into the field of Rugby football, but I am sure that he and I appreciate the lapse into that aspect of life. I should

1197
further like to thank him for his approach to the Bill. I know that some of your Lordships disagree with the general lines which we have taken. That is inevitable. It is inevitable that in public affairs we should differ on the method by which we seek to obtain our objectives. But what made Lord Mathers's speech so valuable was that he went on from that to say that he and his friends would welcome and pay helpful and constructive attention to the Scottish provisions in this Bill. The Government are most grateful for that approach, and I hope that in that
1198
spirit we shall make the Bill of value to Scotland. I hope your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Fourth Report by the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before five o'clock.