TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL

HL Deb 11 November 1954 vol 189 cc1325-403

3.45 p.m.

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

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

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

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I hope that I may be permitted to say a very few words on this Motion in the hope that it may save a lot of time in the long run. Your Lordships will observe that in the long Marshalled List there are no Amendments from this side of the House. I should not like it to be assumed, however, that this Bill is being received with the same unanimity as its predecessor, which we have just discussed. The reason why no Amendments to this Bill have been put down from this side of the House—and indeed, there are very few from the other side—is simply that we feel that this Bill follows so closely the English Bill upon which we had considerable discussion that the only Amendments we could put down would be those which we had already put down on the English Bill. Those Amendments, I should like to say in perfect frankness, have been fully discussed, if not with the results for which we had hoped, at any rate with certain results, and we felt that there was very little we could add to the discussion we had last week. We might have put down the same Amendments again, but presumably they would have had the same results. I did not feel that we had any fresh arguments to put forward; nor, I imagine, would the noble and learned Viscount have had any either. Therefore, it being understood that our views about the Scottish Bill are the same as those that we hold about the English Bill, we have not put down any Amendments.

I should like to be assured—and I have no doubt that we shall be—that the Amendments which appear on the Marshalled List from the Government are drafted with a view to bringing the Scottish Bill into conformity with the English one, and that if there are any special Amendments which are not applicable to the English Bill the attention of the Committee will be drawn to them. Otherwise, speaking for my noble friends and myself, we shall have very little to say at this stage of the Bill, except, perhaps, occasionally to ask for an explanation of a particular Amendment. I thought it might save the time of the House if I gave this explanation at the outset.

LORD GREENHILL

My Lords, I wonder whether I may be permitted to add a few words to what my noble friend Lord Silkin has just said? We are all very sorry that on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Home, was unable to be present owing to illness. We are glad to see that he is now back with us—I hope fully recovered. I think it was a fortunate accident that, in the absence of the noble Earl, and in the absence of noble Lords from Scotland, the Second Reading of this Bill was moved by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, who gave a most interesting and full account of the Bill as it applied to Scotland, no doubt drawing upon his own personal experience of the country and its laws. I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Silkin for stepping into the breach, because, with his undoubted knowledge of the details of this complicated measure, I feel that Scotland, if not wholly pleased with the Bill, has lost nothing by his attention to it and by the able manner in which he commented upon it on behalf of noble Lords from Scotland.

3.51 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME)

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, for what he has said. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Selkirk have kindly agreed, as they took the Second Reading of the Bill, to take charge of the Bill through its Committee stage. I hope that that course will meet with the approval of your Lordships, as it certainly meets with mine. They happen to be feeling much more able than I at present to deal with town and country planning.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

My Lords, in following what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, I have tried, by studying what took place on a similar Bill for England, to limit our Amendments to what are necessary and to avoid repeating what has already been discussed very thoroughly. Probably we could have put down more Amendments and the discussion could have been much longer, but I apologise if, in moving our Amendments, we say too much or not enough, or do not appear fully to understand the subject, because I think it is agreed that this Bill and what has gone before, are very difficult to follow. I should like to say only another word at this stage. In apologising for being unable to be present on the Second Reading, I would express my regret that this Government and Parliament should be unable to avoid a type of legislation which seriously concerns very many persons, a large number of whom will probably never be able to appreciate or understand in advance what concerns them. I understand that that is inevitable, but it is regrettable.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, it is greatly to be hoped that the Amendments that have been put down have not been put down just for the purpose of making this Bill conform with the English Bill. Whatever may be the views of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on this matter, I think that everyone in Scotland has the opinion very firmly that our land laws are so different from the English laws that only a separate Bill can do them justice: no mere English Bill with Application Clauses could be in any way satisfactory. Therefore I hope that the Amendments which appear on the Order Paper have been put down for the purpose of endeavouring to make a decidedly complicated Bill a little more intelligible.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, the only reason I rise is to express to your Lordships my regret at the fact that, having been asked to attend a Committee of your Lordships' House of which I am not a member outside this House, I was unable to attend the second part of the Second Reading debate and listen to the noble and learned Viscount's reply to what I said then. As I have no Amendment on the point, I should like to draw the exact point to the noble and learned Viscount's attention. In a regality burgh, if a large part of the superiority is acquired by another party, that may displace the superior from his technical position as superior of the burgh. In virtue of that technical position, he is probably a trustee of ancient trusts for public lands and other public properties. In the attack on these things in the eighteenth century, the superior was a defence of the public interest, and there have been attacks on such property since the eighteenth century. When the acquisition of a blench title is all that the local authority can properly require, it would be a pity to insist on the conveyance of superiority. It is a case which affects only a few people and I put it to the Government for their consideration, as I do not propose to move an Amendment on the subject.

3.57 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I do not intend to delay your Lordships for any length of time in replying to the most interesting debate we have had, but I feel that I ought to say a word in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, because he raised two points with regard to procedure. Broadly, as I informed your Lordships on Second Reading, it is our intention to incorporate into the Scottish Bill those concessions which are being given in the English Bill. I think that is the first point on which the noble Lord desired confirmation. On the second point, my noble friend Lord Selkirk and I will try to bring the attention of the House to any special points, as the noble Lord desired.

I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said about me. With regard to the somewhat pessimistic statement of my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch, I can give him this assurance: that the whole tenor of the Amendments which we are putting in the Bill is to try to clarify the matter; and any further steps we can take in that direction, to make it sufficiently clear, if not for him who runs to read, at least for him who sits up at night with a lamp and looks at the Bill constantly, to understand, we will certainly take. I have noted the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and would remind him, if he will allow me to say so, that I anticipated it in my reply to the debate on Second Reading, so I will not pursue it to-day. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Saltoun, for elaborating his point. The difficulty that I felt on the matter was that it was rather a point which had been given away, if I may put it that way, in the Land Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845. However, I have noted it, and I assure the noble Lord that I appreciate the point he has made to-day. I think that that covers the points which have been raised in the debate and I hope your Lordships are now prepared to go into Committee.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1 [Payments by reference to established claims]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is only drafting. It is designed to rectify a mistake and make certain that established claims are determined in terms of the revised First Schedule. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 23, leave out from ("been") to ("that") in line 24 and insert ("if those provisions had at that time had effect in relation thereto,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Claim holdings, their areas and values, and apportionment of values between parts of areas]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. The words in the Bill as it stands are inadequate to describe the scope of the Second and Third Schedules. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 45, leave out from ("for") to end of line 47 and insert ("treating the claim holding as divided into two or more claim holdings and extinguishing any of those holdings or reducing the value thereof.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. Its object is to put beyond doubt that for the purpose of Part I of the Bill the value of a claim holding is its value after the operation of the Second and Third Schedules. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 14, at end insert— ("(5) References in this Part of this Act, other than in this section, to the value of a claim holding are references to the value of that holding immediately before the commencement of this Act.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Payment where development charge incurred by claim-holder or his predecessor in title (Case A)]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is designed to remove a slight anomaly in regard to the merging of interests that appears in one or two places which we shall come to later. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 38, at end insert ("or whose interest has subsequently become merged in that interest").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Payment where land compulsorily acquired or sold at price wholly or partly excluding development value (Case B)]:

(3) No payment shall be made by virtue of this section unless the transaction in question— (b) if it was a sale otherwise than to a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, was effected in pursuance of a contract made on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, and before the eighteenth day of November, nineteen, hundred and fifty-two, or in pursuance of an option granted on or after the said first day of July and before the said eighteenth day of November, and unless the conveyance relative to the acquisition or sale has been granted (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) before the time when an application is made to the Central Land Board for the payment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is really drafting in anticipation. The words proposed to be deleted are unnecessary, in view of the new subsection (1) proposed to be inserted in Clause 6 by the Amendment to page 11, line 1. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 33, leave out ("or an interest created directly out of that interest").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (3) (b), to leave out "first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight," and insert "sixth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one to remedy what I feel is a substantial injustice. I have a letter from some agents in Glasgow who say that a client of theirs sold his land at its existing use value, and the contract was signed in May, 1948. The purchaser brought the land at the existing use value, and subsequently paid a development value which was exactly the same as the agreed development value on the land sold by their client. Under the Bill as it stands, they say that their client will be unable to get compensation unless the date in paragraph (b) is changed in the sense of my Amendment. They also say that this Amendment was admitted in the English Bill, and they therefore hope it will be admitted in this Bill. I feel that I have shown that if my Amendment is not passed a substantial injustice will be done, and I hope that the Government will admit the remedy. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 25, leave out ("first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight,") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Saltoun.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The position in regard to the point raised by my noble friend is that originally both Bills prescribed the same date—namely, July 1, 1948; and on recommittal in another place Clause 5 (3) (b), of the English Bill was amended to make the starting date the date when the English Bill received the Royal Assent—that is to say, August 6, 1947. This was done to meet cases where the contract of sale adjusted the sale price downwards, because the sale would not be completed before the appointed day, and accordingly, the purchaser would have to meet development charge on any development when the Act came into full operation, while the seller would be the one entitled to claim against the £300 million. I have listened to my noble friend, and I should like to inform him that there was nothing sinister in maintaining the date in the Scottish Bill; in fact, until he spoke there was no evidence before us, and we had no reason to think, that any such contracts were made in Scotland between the passing of the Scottish 1947 Act—namely, August 13, 1947—and its coming into full operation on July 1, 1948. That was why the English Amendment was not followed. However, in view of what my noble friend has said I should like to look at this point again, most sympathetically. Perhaps we could have an informal word about the cases, and then I will certainly sympathetically consider putting down an Amendment on the Report stage. An additional reason for leaving it for the moment is that slight difference in the date of the Royal Assent of the two Bills, which would mean some alteration to the Amendment of my noble friend. I hope that that will content him, because we are anxious only to do justice and to help people who are in this position.

LORD SILKIN

So far as I am concerned. I am in great sympathy with the principle of the Amendment. I think it was fair in the English Bill, and I think it would be fair in the Scottish Bill, too. If there are no cases, nobody is hurt and no harm can come of altering the date. On the question of the coming into operation of the Bill, I agree that the Scottish Bill came into operation a few days later. But people who were carrying out transactions, who followed the process of this Bill and acted upon it, must have known that once the English Bill had received the Royal Assent it was only a matter of days before the Scottish Bill would do so. Therefore, if anyone did act in good faith in between the coming into operation of the one Bill and the other, I do not think they should be penalised. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will see his way to "go the whole hog" and have the same date incorporated in both Bills.

LORD SALTOUN

I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply, and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This deals with the merging of interests that may have taken place between July 1, 1948, and the date when claims could have been made on the £300 million. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 10, line 26, at end insert— ("(7) Where an interest in land is the subject of a compulsory acquisition or sale such as is mentioned in subsection (3) of this section and—

1. (a) on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, but before the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale, another interest had become merged with that interest; and
2. (b) the person entitled to the interest compulsorily acquired or sold was at the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale entitled 1333 to a claim holding or claim holdings which related to either or each of the merged interests,

this section shall apply as if those interests had not merged but had been separately acquired from or sold by the person entitled to the interest acquired or sold; and the compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition or, as the case may be, the sale price shall be treated as apportioned between those interests accordingly: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the operation of the proviso to subsection (4) of the next following section.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Supplementary provisions relating to compulsory acquisitions and to sales]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert at the beginning of the clause— (1) In this Act any reference to the sale of purchase of an interest in land includes a reference to the sale or purchase of such an interest by way of feu; and in relation to any such sale or purchase—

1. (a) the price shall be taken for the purposes of this Act to be the capital value of the feuduty, or, as the case may be, the aggregate consideration represented by the grassum and the capital value of the feuduty; and
2. (b) the last preceding section and section eleven of this Act shall have effect as if the interest sold were identical with the seller's whole interest in the land immediately before the sale."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment serves two purposes. First, it gives effect to a promise given on the Report stage in another place to consider whether the provisions of what is now Clause 69 (8) (which provides that references to the sale of an interest are to include references to conveyance of an interest by way of feu charter) could not be brought into the body of the Bill instead of being left at the tail end, where they might be missed. Secondly, it provides that for the purposes of Clauses 5 and 11 the sale or purchase of an interest in land by way of feu is to be treated as a sale or purchase of the seller's whole interest in the land, thus enabling a sale by way of feu to qualify the seller for a Case B payment, or a residual payment in a case analogous to Case B, in like manner as a sale of the seller's whole interest in the land to which the claim holding related.

I am sure that many of your Lordships are familiar with the effect of what I have just said, but may I explain it for a moment longer. A sale of an interest in land by way of feu is, in the technical terms of Scots law, a sale of the dominium utile in the land by the owner of the dominium plenum. In other words, the sale of a feu is a sale of the right to possess and develop the land subject to the terms of the feu charter, the seller receiving an annual payment and retaining the rights to secure the observance of the terms of the feu charter, including a right to "irritate" the feu and regain possession of the land in certain circumstances if the terms of the feu charter are not observed or the annual payment of feu duty is not made. As a result of this Amendment, the words proposed to be left out of the Bill in the Amendment at page 8, line 33, and the Amendment at page 8, line 77, are no longer necessary. I hope my noble friend Lord Mansfield has observed that this is, at any rate, one instance where we have borne in mind his words with regard to Scots law. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 1, at the beginning insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is not much more than drafting. It deals with dead ripe land, and means that it does not apply after sale. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 16, after ("forty-eight") insert ("and at the date of the sale the development specified in the certificate had not been completed").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 23, leave out from ("of") to ("if") in line 25 and insert ("so much of that development as had not been completed if it had been completed and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment concerns a very complicated matter dealing with the minus restricted value. I am told that it is correct and I hope the Committee will accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 13, line 10, at end insert— ("Provided that where the whole or part of any liability or prospective liability which was or, as the case may be, would have been taken into account in calculating that restricted value had ceased to exist before the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale, the Board, or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part, as may appear to them appropriate, any reduction otherwise falling to be made under this subsection.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 [Payment where land disposed of by gift (Case C)]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is another consequential Amendment. We have had this before. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 21, after ("related") insert ("or another interest in which that interest had merged").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a similar Amendment dealing with minus value: it is very complicated. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 14, line 3, at end insert— ("Provided that where the whole or part of any liability or prospective liability which was or, as the case may be, would have been taken into account in calculating that restricted value had ceased to exist before the date on which the gift in question was made, the Board or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part, as may appear to them appropriate, any reduction otherwise falling to be made under this subsection.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Payments in cases analogous to Case B]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This and the following Amendments are a series of Amendments dealing with merged interests. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 14, leave out from ("related") to ("was") in line 15 and insert ("or another interest in which that interest had merged").— (The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 21, after ("if") insert ("the interest so affected, in this section referred to as").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The next three Amendments are really drafting and are designed to put the clause in a more logical order. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 15, line 39, after ("affected") insert (",being damage in respect of which compensation fell, or if the sale had been a compulsory acquisition would have fallen, to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of the principal Act (which provides for compensation on the basis of existing use value) as applied by subsection (4) of section one hundred and thirteen of that Act;")

Page 15,line 43, at end insert (",being damage in respect of which compensation fell to be assessed in accordance with section two of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, as modified by section ten of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1948 (which limits the compensation to an amount calculated on the basis of existing use value).")

Page 16, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 35 and insert— ("(c) in the case of a compulsory acquisition falling within paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection or in a case falling within paragraph (d) of that subsection, to the compensation paid or payable in respect of the damage referred to in that paragraph; (d) in the case of a sale falling within paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection, to the sale price in so far as it represented compensation in respect of the damage referred to in that paragraph,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 38, leave out ("relevant interest") and insert ("interest in land to which the claim holding related").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is to cure a bad reference. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 10, leave out ("subsections (4) to (6)") and insert ("subsection (4)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 [Residual payments in cases analogous to Cases A and B]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is consequential. We have had it before dealing with the merging of interests. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 21, at end, insert ("or another interest in which that interest had merged").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 [Payments not to exceed value of claim holdings]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is largely of a drafting character, and deals with the case where two or more payments are due in respect of one holding. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 19, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of clause and insert ("the authority determining the amount of any such payment shall apportion that amount between the different parts of the area of the claim holding in such manner as appears to that authority proper, and if the aggregate of the portions of the principal amounts of the respective payments so apportioned to any part of the area of the claim holding would, apart from the provisions of this subsection, exceed the fraction of the value of the claim holding attaching to that part of the area thereof, those portions shall be reduced rateably so that the aggregate of them is equal to the said fraction, and the said principal amounts shall be treated as reduced accordingly.

(2) Where two or more payments are (subject as aforesaid) payable in respect of the same claim holding by virtue of the last preceding section, the aggregate of the principal amounts of those payments shall not exceed the value of the claim holding or, where that value is treated as reduced in accordance with subsection (6) of the last preceding section, that value as so reduced.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 [Application for payments under Part I]:

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved in subsection (1), to substitute "six" [months] for "three." The noble Duke said: The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the period for lodging an application for payment in respect of depreciation in land value as a result of a transaction in land between July 1, 1948, and the coming into operation of the 1953 Act. It is considered that the three months period is insufficient or may be insufficient. I cannot say whether six months is the most suitable period, or possibly twelve months, as was suggested in the similar Bill for England by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, or, I believe, an even longer period suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 27, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

LORD SILKIN

I should like to support this Amendment. The noble Duke who moved it was quite right in saying that there was an Amendment to the English Bill to increase the period to twelve months. He was not quite right, however, in saying that I took the view that it should be even longer. I said that whatever period is put in, people are bound to be late or overlook it; but I thought twelve months was better than three. Subsequently, the noble and learned Viscount drew our attention, and I think his own, to the proviso to this subsection, which gives the Board the power to extend the time in any particular case. I have considered that point, but it does not seem to me to be adequate for the purpose. It gives the Board a discretion, and while I have no doubt that the Board will exercise that discretion reasonably in general, it could give rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction if somebody put in a claim late and could give no reason except that he forgot, and the Central Land Board took the view that that was not a case where they ought to exercise discretion. Three months is not really a long time, and it seems to me that no harm will come by accepting the period the noble Duke has put down as a compromise. As a matter of fact, I have myself put down an Amendment to the English Bill with a view to discussing the matter once more, suggesting again a period of twelve months. But I would be prepared to accept six months, and if the noble and learned Viscount is prepared to "do a deal," if he accepts six months in this Bill, I would withdraw my Amendment on the English Bill asking for twelve months.

LORD SALTOUN

To anyone who has had to work the old Bill on the ground the period of six months will not seem extravagant. Therefore, I have much pleasure in supporting this Amendment.

4.20 p.m.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

As your Lordships are aware, landed property very often is not in one single ownership but may be in a multiple ownership or in the hands of trustees. It is often, there- fore, a matter of great difficulty to get a decision made sufficiently soon to act within the three months which the Bill at present specifies. Furthermore, I have known cases where considerable involuntary injustice has been brought about because one or more of the interests were abroad and their consent to an application could not be timeously obtained. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be accepted, because, although the Board is given authority in certain cases to accept applications after the prescribed period, I feel it would be much fairer to all concerned that six months should be the period rather than three months.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

If the time is too short, it could possibly result in a flood of applications being put in merely to keep the situation open. For that reason alone, if the time could possibly be extended it would save an enormous amount of confusion and clerical work.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I hope that all of your Lordships understand that I am not stonewalling on this Amendment merely to prevent the making of another Amendment, but as my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch was not in the House when I dealt with the argument in Committee on the English Bill—

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I listened to it carefully. I apologise for not referring to it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am grateful that my noble friend should have read the argument. But, even so, if he will allow me, I should like to put it again, because it is a matter to which I attach great importance. I hope that your Lordships may find it worth while giving another thought to the point. The reason that I advanced for this short period was that, until the Board have made some progress with their payments, it is not possible for the Secretary of State for Scotland to get on with making compensation payments for planning restrictions. Your Lordships will appreciate that, on the structure of the Bill, the effect of Part I payments on the value of claim holdings has to be brought into account before payments can be made under Part V. I am sure that all your Lordships share my concern with regard to those who are waiting for such payments.

Many of these Part V payments are due to people who have been waiting for several years for their money, and it is plainly incumbent on the Government to ensure that they are made as soon as possible. That is one aspect of the matter which certainly concerns and moves me. May I consider, for a moment, the point which has obviously concerned and moved your Lordships—that is, the possibility that someone will let the time run by or for some other reason not put in the necessary form in sufficient time. I ask your Lordships to look at subsection (1) of Clause 13 with that in mind. It first of all says that: A payment under this Part of this Act shall not be payable unless an application for the payment is made to the Central Land Board in such manner, within such period (not being less than three months … The application for the payment, as I understand it, will be made by answering some half a dozen factual questions, and that will be the only thing that is necessary within the period. I am told that it will not be a difficult matter, but then I am sure your Lordships have had in mind the next part of the subsection which says: … accompanied by such particulars and verified by such evidence, as may be prescribed by regulations under this section … I was considering, when the point comes up for the English Bill, but it applies equally to both Bills, that I should give an undertaking in this regard, which would I am sure be honoured: that that further information, the particulars and evidence, would not come within the limit of three months which has worried your Lordships. Although it would accompany the application, it would not be subject to the same limit. That, I hoped, might remove some of the forebodings that your Lordships had in mind.

The next point the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has anticipated. When I was last discussing this matter I was not able to put my finger on the proviso. I therefore said that I should like to look at the question until I could find the proviso. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, I have found it, and he has found it too, and that, as he says—and I entirely agree—gives an ad hoc right in any particular case to extend the time. Your Lordships may well say that I have made rather heavy weather of a short extension. Our experience of human nature is that mankind as a whole never acts until the last moment when it is compelled to. As your Lordships will see from the way in which I have tried to put it, the application would come in towards the end of the six months and then in certain cases there would probably be applications for further time; then there could be a delay (which I entirely agree and support) with regard to putting in the further particulars and the evidence, and we should probably, in most cases, under my noble friend's Amendment, be getting on to nine months or a year, with a consequent delay in the payments.

I am quite prepared to consider the matter again before Monday. I have heard what your Lordships have said, but I hope that you will consider my point of view also. I am most anxious about delaying these people who have been kept out of their money for years, and I should be sorry if even another few months' delay were added to their difficulties. Therefore I would suggest to my noble friend that he does not press the Amendment at this stage, on my undertaking to give further consideration to the point that has been raised. If it is some comfort to the noble Duke, may I say that there is not only his own persuasion but there is also the attractive offer put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that, if I accede to his Amendment, I shall escape trouble at a later stage of the English Bill. On these terms, I ask your Lordships to give me the indulgence of another chance to look at the matter.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I should like to consider further the information and advice given by the noble and learned Viscount. I ask leave to-day to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is to enable a quicker procedure to be adopted, to avoid double discussion on the same point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 1, leave out from ("Board") to end of line 14 and insert ("on determining any such application, to give notice of their determination to the applicant, and, if their determination includes an apportionment, to give particulars af the apportionment to any other person entitled to an interest in land which it appears to the Board will be substantially affected by the apportionment.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Cause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Effect of payments on claim holdings]:

4.30 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 44, leave out from ("holding") to ("the") in line 45.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment, too, is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 1, leave out from ("payment") to ("is") in line 2.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This, I think, is also drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 22, line 6, at end insert— ("Provided that if in the case of any claim holding a payment becomes payable under Case D, then, regardless of the amount of that payment, that holding shall for the purposes of the following Parts of this Act be deemed to have been extinguished immediately before the commencement of this Act.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is not much more than drafting. It is designed to ensure that where a payment is made in respect of a claim holding on account of an act or event affecting only part of the holding, it shall be debited against the fraction of the holding appropriate to that part. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 22, line 12, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert— ("(3)Where one or more acts or events have occurred whereby in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act one or more payments become payable in respect of a claim holding (in this section referred to as 'the parent holding') and any such act or event did not extend to the whole of the area of the parent holding, then, both for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this section and for the purposes of the following Parts of this Act—

1. (a) the parent holding shall be treated as having been divided immediately before the commencement of this Act into as many separate claim holdings, with such areas, as may be necessary to ensure that, in the case of each holding, either any such act or event as aforesaid extending to the area of that 1343 holding extended to the whole thereof, or no such act or event extended to the area of that holding;
2. (b) the value of each of the separate holdings respectively shall be taken to be that fraction of the value of the parent holding which then attached to the part of the area of the parent holding constituting the area of the separate holding;
3. (c) the authority determining the amount of any such payment shall apportion that amount between the areas of the separate claim holdings to which the act or event in question extended in such manner as may appear to that authority proper, and the portion of that amount apportioned to the area of any separate claim holding shall be taken to be a payment payable under this Part of this Act in respect of that claim holding.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 [Scope of Part II]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is designed to give slightly greater flexibility, without loss of compensation to the parties concerned. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 18, at end insert— ("(3) Where, on an application for planning permission for the carrying out of new development of land to which this section applies, a planning decision is made after the commencement of this Act whereby that permission is granted (whether unconditionally or not) and the Secretary of State certifies that he is satisfied that particular buildings or works to which the application related were only included therein because the applicant had reason to believe that permission for the other development to which the application related would not have been granted except subject to a condition requiring the erection or construction of those buildings or works, then, for the purposes of this Part of this Act—

1. (a) the application shall be deemed to have included, in place of those buildings or works, such other development of the land on which the buildings or works were to be erected or constructed as might reasonably have been expected to have been included having regard to the other development to which the application related; and
2. (b) the permission shall be deemed to have been granted for the other development to which the application related subject to the condition aforesaid.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 30, after ("1932") insert ("or by virtue of any regulations made under paragraph 13 of the said Schedule (which relates to certain applications under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 [Right to compensation in respect of planning decisions]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As this Amendment looks forward to another provision, may I just say two words about it to the Committee? The object of the proviso to subsection (6) of Clause 19 is to see that there is no inconsistency between the subsection and any regulations made under the provision, which come later in the Bill, for the diversion of payments (and amongst those are payments of compensation under Part II) in certain circumstances from the debtor in a heritable security to the creditor. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 4, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 6 and insert ("be without prejudice to the operation of any regulations made under section (Provision for diversion of payments) of this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a transpositional Amendment. It is thought that this is a more logical order. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Transpose Clause 20 to after Clause 27.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21:

Compensation excluded in certain cases

(2) Compensation under this Part of this Act shall not be payable in respect of the imposition, on the granting of planning permission, of any condition relating to— (a) the number or disposition of buildings on any land; or in respect of any condition subject to which planning permission is granted for the winning and working of minerals.

(6) For the purposes of this section a planning decision, whereby planning permission in respect of any land is granted subject to a condition prohibiting development of a specified part of that land, shall be treated as a decision refusing the permission as respects that part of the land.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 18, leave out from ("which") to second ("or") in line 19 and insert ("consists of or includes the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.36 p.m.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "condition" where that word last occurs, and to insert: reasonable conditions imposed for the purposes of amenity safety or restoration of the land". The noble Duke said: The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that a person engaged in working minerals shall not be required, without payment of compensation, to fulfil conditions which go beyond those normally required for reasons of good estate management. This Amendment has been redrafted in an endeavour to meet the Government's criticisms of a corresponding Amendment moved in Committee on the English Bill. I think it is a possibility that unreasonable conditions may, and sometimes will, be imposed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 38, leave out ("condition") and insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

Perhaps I may elaborate that point slightly. If I read the Bill aright (which may not be so), in the case of a gravel pit which has a footpath traversing it, it might happen that a local authority, when the pit was worked out, would require the ground for their own development and would make it compulsory on the person working the gravel pit to put down a road fit for vehicular traffic, instead of leaving just a footpath. That is the type of condition that might not be just. It is the normal practice to leave the foundations of the machinery and plant in situ in a worked-out gravel pit; but it could be the case that, before getting permission, one might be made to remove these and to grade the site in conformation to requirements totally to the benefit only of the local authority who later acquire the site. It appears that this might all be done without compensation, and it is to clarify points of this sort that this Amendment has been put down.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry for this attempt to find a more attractive and efficient form of Amendment in order to meet the difficulties that I raised, and I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Stonehaven for the examples which he gave, and which, if he will allow me to say so, bring the matter clearly to the minds of your Lordships from the aspect which he wanted to develop. I appreciate the point (if I may summarise what I understood the point to be in Lord Stonehaven's mind) that it would be possible, at any rate in theory, for the planning authority to attach conditions so stringent as to render impracticable the working of the minerals. May I deal with the matter in two stages, first saying a word to the Committee about how the Government think that this would work out in practice and, secondly, a word about the merits?

The conditions that are normally imposed on the winning and working of minerals are, of course, designed to reduce the nuisance and inconvenience to the public which such workings cause. It is not possible to give an exhaustive list of the conditions; but I have considered them, and discussed them with those who advise me in this matter—and especially on the mineral clauses, which I frankly admit are very difficult. I am told that they are not confined to conditions imposed "for the purposes of amenity, safety or restoration," though they will, of course, be included. The most common matters to be regulated by conditions include the location of the plant, the order in which the minerals are to be worked and, thirdly (a common one), disposal of waste materials. While these conditions may have an amenity aspect, that may not be the sole reason. As noble Lords will readily appreciate, the proper use of the land might well be a factor. Acceptance of the Amendment would mean that payment of compensation would have to be made for the imposition of normal working conditions. Noble Lords will not expect Her Majesty's Government to contemplate that situation.

When one turns to the wider question of what conditions would be reasonable, it should be borne in mind that the conditions referred to are attached to the grant of permission to work the minerals; and conditions of such a nature that working would be rendered virtually impossible could not, therefore, be in question. It is going beyond the realm of practice into the realm of the ultra-theoretical to say that, at the end of the story, there could be attached to the grant of permission conditions of such a nature as to make the working virtually impossible. The remedy is clear. It is always open to a mineral undertaker who is dissatisfied with conditions imposed by the local planning authority on his working to appeal to the Secretary of State, and I feel that the Secretary of State may be trusted to ensure that only necessary conditions consistent with good planning and local conditions will be imposed. At present, and for a very long period to come, it is very unlikely that any Minister of the Crown, with the economic condition of the country in his mind, would dream of upholding conditions of such a nature as would make the working virtually impossible. Whilst I absolutely agree that reasonableness, from the point of view of the mineral undertaker, is a matter which must be borne in mind, it is not the whole story. For the reasons I have tried to give to your Lordships I ask that the Amendment be not pressed.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his statement, and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, after subsection (3) to insert: (4) In any case where compensation under this Part of this Act is not payable in respect of the refusal of planning permission for any development of any land and the reason or one of the reasons stated for such refusal is that the proposed development would be premature by reference to either or both of the matters specified in paragraphs (a) or (b) of the preceding subsection and in consequence of a subsequent amendment of the development plan of the area in which the land is situated the proposed development would be contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of the said development plan as amended compensation shall be payable under this Act as if planning permission in respect of the development was refused on the date when the amended plan was approved by the Secretary of State.

The noble Duke said: The intention of this Amendment is to secure that where planning permission has been refused, on the ground that a development is premature, and subsequently such development is ruled out by reason of the amendment of a development plan for the area, compensation shall be paid. In terms of Section 4 of the 1947 Act an obligation is placed upon the local planning authority to carry out a survey of their area and to submit to the Secretary of State a report of the survey, together with the proposals and any alterations or additions to the plan which may appear necessary. In other words, the development plan is to be reviewed and brought up to date. It is understood that the clause as drafted will not preclude the making of fresh applications for planning permission after the five-yearly amendment of a development plan. If an application were again to be refused, it is understood that this would be treated as refusal of planning permission on grounds different from the refusal of the previous application, and compensation would accordingly be paid. I am not sure that the clause as drafted makes clear that this will be the position. A premature application for planning permission, though consistent with zoning proposals in the development plan, may be ruled out. It should be noted that a development plan zones various areas for development for various purposes. A change of planning policy may well result in a change of zoning of areas under the plan. This is another reason for the Amendment, so that, where development is frustrated by change of development policy, compensation should be payable. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 15, at end insert the said sub-section.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

LORD SALTOUN

I should like to support this Amendment. It will be noted that its wording follows almost exactly the words of the title of the clause. I do not like those words. I do not like the words "if comparable development be permitted." Any two things can be compared; a mouse can be compared with an elephant. What is really meant is, I think, roughly equivalent development; but as the word "comparable" is used in the title of the clause, we have, I feel rightly, adopted it in the Amendment proposed. One does not want a man who applies for development for, say, dwelling-houses to be offered development for a factory site in a place where no factory is likely to be required. That would not be a reasonably comparable or roughly equivalent development, and that is the kind of thing my noble friend has in mind in moving this Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

With all respect to my noble friend Lord Saltoun, it would probably be more convenient if I gave the answer on the point on which he has just made these interesting observations when we come to Amendment Number 39, which deals with the question of reasonably comparable development.

LORD SALTOUN

I beg the noble and learned Viscount's pardon; I thought we were dealing with that Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

At the moment we are dealing with the rather different point which my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch has developed in Amendment Number 35. I hope that I may reassure my noble friend on the point he has raised. My noble friend had in mind a situation where planning permission has been refused and compensation is excluded under Clause 21, subsection (3), because the development applied for is premature in relation to the staging of the plan or the then existing deficiency in the provision of public services, and where a change in the development plan makes the development originally proposed not premature but entirely inconsistent with the provisions of the plan. My noble friend, being conscious of the difficulty (which he developed in the later part of his speech), proposes by this Amendment, that in such a case compensation should be paid automatically, where it is otherwise payable, by providing that the planning permission is to be deemed to have been refused absolutely as from the date when the Secretary of State approves the amended plan.

I appreciate the fear that is in my noble friend's mind, but I do not think that that fear has any foundation in fact I am sure your Lordships would take the view that where a development plan is so amended, it may be appropriate to pay compensation in respect of a refusal previously based on prematurity. There is no difference between the noble Duke and myself on that point. As I say, it may be appropriate to pay. But on the point that was worrying my noble friend, the mere amendment of the plan is not a sufficient test of the right to compensation, because the proposals in the development plan are nothing more than a background guide to the main character of the development acceptable in any zone or area. They are not conclusive evidence of whether or not any particular development in any particular location may appropriately be permitted. To determine that fact a separate planning application needs to be submitted and considered on its merits.

In the view of the Government, the contingency envisaged by my noble friend can readily and properly be met by the submission of a fresh application for planning permission. If a refusal results on grounds carrying a right to compensation, compensation will be payable. I think, as I say, from my noble friend's speech, that that was really the point that was worrying him: he was in doubt as to whether the compensation would still inure for the benefit of the person that his Amendment is designed to cover. As the Government understand the position, and as I understand the position, it would so inure, and the doubt as to the position which is expressed in the speech is one which has no foundation. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will consider this as not asking your Lordships to reject or asking my noble friend to withdraw the Amendment, but as a genuine expression of the fact that in the Government's opinion there are no grounds for the fear he expresses, and that the Amendment is unnecessary.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

Arising out of the noble and learned Viscount's reply, may I put a concrete case to him which, to me at least, seems hardly covered by the reply? Suppose a landowner applies for planning permission for some ground which is at that time of a purely rural character for building houses or factories and that the local planning authority refuse to give permission on the ground that the proposed development is premature. Then suppose that, before sufficient time has elapsed to permit a second application to be made, the planning authority declare the land in question to be a green belt. In such a case it would not be possible for the owner to make a new application, because it would be quite useless, but would his interests be safeguarded?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As I understand the matter, they certainly would. On these matters I always like to be absolutely certain. I have given your Lordships my own opinion, which I have no reason to doubt, but I would tell my noble friend at once that I will consider his specific case again and write to him upon it. I do not anticipate having to change my view, but I will make absolutely certain that my view is right.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor for his assurance, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (6), after "land," where that word first occurs, to insert: or in respect of the winning and working of minerals thereunder.

The noble Duke said: I do not think it is necessarily clear whether subsection (6) applies to the winning and working of minerals. The Amendment proposes that specific reference should be made to the winning and working of minerals so as to make it clear that if permission is refused to work part of a mineral field, compensation can be claimed. Although "development," as defined by Section 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, includes mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, it would assist those who have to try to understand this Bill if minerals were specifically referred to.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 28, after ("land") insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Here again, I can give my noble friend the assurance that his fears are groundless. The Amendment, as my noble friend has said, is designed to put beyond doubt the fact that subsection (6) will apply in a case where the development concerned is mineral development. If I may take the definitions by stages, "planning permission" is defined in the principal Act in Section 113 (1), as meaning the permission for development of land required by Section 10 of the principal Act. Then, as my noble friend pointed out, Section 10 itself defines "development" as including, among other things, mining operations in or under land. Mining operations in or under land include the winning and working of minerals. Consequently it follows that the planning decisions mentioned in subsection (6) will automatically include decisions relating to the winning and working of minerals. In fact, mineral working cases are one of the types which it is expected will most commonly be benefited by the provisions of Clause 21 (6). I hope that my noble friend will accept my assurance and that his doubts will be allayed.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I accept the assurance of the noble and learned Viscount, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I think a very similar Amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on the Committee stage of the English Bill last week and was thoroughly explained by him, and that an assurance was given by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I would ask if a similar assurance can be given that the point is safeguarded. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 29,line 31, at end insert— ("(7) Nothing in this section shall derogate from the operation of any enactment whereby provision is made for the payment of compensation in respect of minerals left unworked for the purpose of affording support for the sewers water mains or other works of any local authority or statutory undertaker.")—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am very pleased to give the assurance for which my noble friend has asked, and if I occupy too much of your Lordships' time it is only that I want the assurance to be in the clearest terms. I shall be only a moment or two in mentioning the point. The Amendment is put forward, as my noble friend explained, for the avoidance of doubt, and the other enactments which are mentioned are, I presume, those collectively referred to as the mining code, which makes provision for compensation at full market value for minerals which a mineral undertaker has full authority, including permission, to work and which are sterilised by direction of a statutory undertaker or a similar body having powers of compulsory purchase which owns the surface of the mine and considers the workings of minerals beneath will injure its undertaking.

There can be no overlapping of these provisions with the provisions of Clause 21, and no derogation of rights under these enactments. If a planning permission stipulates that a developer may not work a certain part of the area of application, he will be able to claim compensation under Clause 21 (6). No question of mining code compensation in respect of such sterilised land can arise, as the developer has no planning permission to work it. It therefore can constitute no danger to the undertaker. If, on the other hand, planning permission has been granted for an area, and the appropriate authority sterilises part of the area under the mining code provisions, then the right to compensation under the code is effective. I hope that your Lordships will excuse me for occupying a little more time, but I was anxious that my noble friend should have this assurance perfectly clear; therefore I have endeavoured to cover the ground.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

Again I express my thanks, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22:

No Compensation if other comparable development permitted

22.—(1) Compensation under this Part of this Act shall not be payable in respect of a planning decision, whereby planning permission is refused for the development of land, if, notwithstanding that refusal, there is available with respect to that land planning permission for development to which this section applies: Provided that where such permission is available with respect to part only of the land, this section shall have effect only in so far as the interest subsists in that part.

5.3 p.m.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "development to which this section applies," and to insert, "some reasonably comparable development:". The noble Duke said: This and the next two Amendments go very much together, and I would ask whether I might discuss them at the same time. Their purpose is to remove an objection for which there appears to be no justification unless it be to limit the number of successful claims for compensation. The effect of the clause appears to be to deny compensation for the refusal of planning permission for a development of the kind specified in Clause 22 (3), if the Secretary of State undertakes, before refusing, to grant permission for some other development falling within subsection (3).

Thus a man who applies to build a house may be told that he can build something else—a factory, perhaps—or vice versa, with the result that he will be denied compensation for refusal of planning permission to build a house. It may well be that the applicant has neither the desire nor the resources to embark upon the alternative development for which he is told that permission would be granted, and there may, in fact, be no demand in the neighbourhood for this alternative development. Nevertheless, under the clause, he will have lost the right to compensation. This is a provision which might give rise to hardship, and the purpose of the Amendments is to see that compensation will still be payable unless the alternative permissible development will result in a substantially equivalent beneficial use to the applicant. On the Report stage of the Bill in the House of Commons the Government attempted to meet the situation and to improve upon the clause as at first drafted, but we are very uncertain about this matter and we consider that it is still open to objection. I therefore beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 38, leave out from ("for") to end of line 39 and insert ("some reasonably comparable development").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

An objection to this Amendment, I believe, is the possibility of a man applying for the maximum development of the land and, on refusal, obtaining development compensation when he had no intention of carrying out the development at all. I believe that that is the sort of argument which might be used against this Amendment. It seems to me, rightly or wrongly, that the local authority can always get out of that difficulty by granting the man permission for comparable development. If a man, for example, asks for permission to put up a £200,000 factory, he could be told: "You cannot have permission for that, but you can put up a £200,000 multi-storey garage," or something of that sort, which he equally does not want to put up. So, as far as I can see, everyone can play the same game. I think the Amendment helps in cases of hardship that might arise. For that reason I should like to support my noble friend.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is an example of the very difficult task of applying the principle that private interest must sometimes give way to public interest, and that although an owner is entitled to make reasonable use of his land, he is not always entitled to exploit it to the maximum. The general effect of the clause is that if an owner is given permission for development within the range specified in subsection (3) of the clause, he is not to be entitled to compensation because some other development would have been more valuable. Your Lordships will appreciate that the specified range in subsection (3) is limited to those forms of development which, on a suitable site, are likely to show a reasonably high return on the land in any part of the country. It is not suggested that the values attributable to these different types of development are even approximately equal—there may be considerable disparities—but it is suggested that they would show at least a reasonable return.

I should like your Lordships to consider what the effect of the Amendment would be. The Amendment proposes that compensation should be excluded where planning permission is given for "some reasonably comparable development." But in the Amendment to page 30, line 9, which follows shortly, and which my noble friend has rightly suggested we should discuss with this Amendment, "a reasonably comparable development" is defined as one where a beneficial use of the alternative development is substantially equivalent to that of the development for which permission was refused. Your Lordships will see reference in the definition to planning permission previously granted. That is presumably to cover the case where the original planning permission was revoked. In effect, this series of Amendments substitutes for the specified range of developments in the present subsection (3) an undefined range of developments. This would not only mean that in every case a direct comparison would have to be made between the value of the development refused and that for which permission was granted, but it would lead to difficulties in the interpretation of what was "substantially equivalent." Both of those are really difficult points. The making of the comparison between the value of the development for which permission was refused and that for which it is granted is a considerable point in itself.

Then there is the difficulty, which, believe me, has pursued lawyers down the centuries, of deciding when one thing was "substantially equivalent" to another. If I may take an example, which your Lordships may consider serious or not, this Amendment may result in compensation being paid for the refusal to allow a factory to be erected in a residential area. There would be no consideration of the circumstances: only the value at the end of the day would be taken into account. I think that would be going too far. It would be abandoning pro tanto the principle that a man, although he is entitled to reasonable development of his own land, owes some duty to his neighbours and to the community in the use of his land. As I say, the only practical way in which I can see that this Amendment would work would be on a purely arithmetical calculation of a financial return. I am sorry that I am unable to meet my noble friends, because it has been pleasant in the run of the last few Amendments to be able to dispel their fears and not to reject their suggestions, but I feel that this Amendment would be a difficult matter to introduce into the Bill. I am sorry that I cannot advise your Lordships to accept it.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

In his reply, which I must say I cannot deem very convincing, the noble and learned Viscount chose a rather extreme example of someone who wanted to build a factory in a housing area and was refused compensation. In the first place, it would not be at all reasonable for a man to seek planning permission for a factory in a housing area. I put it to the noble and learned Viscount that this is really a question of considering the amount of hardship where a person is refused permission to build a hotel or a public house on a site he has acquired, merely on the ground that the number of licences in that area is, in the view of the local authority, over-abundant for the needs of the community. Most applicants, whether individuals or private companies, are more or less limited in their industrial activities. It is no good telling a man that although he may not build a hotel on his site he has purchased he may erect a garage, because possibly he is not in the slightest degree interested in the management of a garage, an occupation of which he knows absolutely nothing. It seems to me that unless something can be done to meet this position there will be cases causing hardship where a person or body is prevented from carrying out the development he desires but is informed that he can do some other form of development of which he has no knowledge and into which he has no intention of entering. Therefore, I hope that the noble and leaned Viscount will reconsider this matter and see whether a method cannot be worked out whereby some compensation can be paid in cases of definite hardship.

LORD SILKIN

The noble and learned Viscount will remember that on the Committee stage of the English Bill an Amendment was moved, not in these terms, but directed to meet what I think all sides of the Committee would regard as a problem. If I remember correctly, the noble and learned Viscount criticised my noble friend Lord Wise for having put a "fanciful" example. I think he assumed that local authorities were reasonable and would not give permission to build a house where it is suitable to build a factory, and vice versa, and that even if the local authorities were unreasonable the Minister or Secretary of State would always be reasonable and put any unreasonableness right. In the end, I think he undertook to give further consideration to the question, and I assume he was somewhat impressed by the case that was made.

There is a case here, and although there is no doubt that it is difficult to find the correct language and the right form of administration to meet must it—I admit that—nevertheless, I do not think we ought to permit an injustice to be perpetrated in the Bill merely because administratively we do not quite see the answer to it at this moment. The injustice is that a person who legitimately seeks for permission to carry out one form of development can be given another form which is of no use to him. We need not be fanciful in our examples. Let us take the example put forward by the noble Earl opposite. An applicant wants to build a factory and is told that he cannot, but may put up a garage. A garage may be quite as profitable in that place, but the applicant does not want to become the owner of a garage. In practice, such a consent would be useless.

The difficulty about it is that if a person is told he can have something else which is of no use to him and refuses to accept, he loses the benefit of his claim. It seems quite unfair that an applicant should lose his claim merely because he is offered something which is of no use to him. The noble and learned Viscount referred to the fact that a person might ask to put up a factory on a wholly unsatisfactory site, would be refused, and then would become entitled to compensation. The answer is that he is limited by the amount of his claim. He will not get compensation for the refusal to build a factory. He already has a claim which has been assessed by the district valuer and the Central Land Board on the basis of permitted and reasonable development. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount has had any experience of the way in which these claims are negotiated, but the district valuer does not permit claims in respect of development which would he unreasonable. He has made up his mind what is the reasonable form of development and that is the basis of compensation for loss of development value. If a claim is made for more than that and it is refused, the maximum amount that can be received is the amount of the claim. We have not any form of words before us, but I think the sort of case which the noble Duke, and the noble Earl have raised, and which we raised from this side of the House, ought to be met.

In this Bill and in the English Bill there is the expression "depreciation of value," and exactly the kind of difficult calculations which the noble and learned Viscount says would have to be made under this Amendment have, in fact, to be made in assessing depreciation of value, which is defined in later clauses. I merely throw that out as a suggestion. It seems to me that, in practice, if a man is offered something which is less valuable than he is entitled to, and he finds it necessary to refuse it, he ought to be compensated for that depreciation in the value as between what he has reasonably asked for and what he is offered. Wording to ensure that may be difficult to draft. I do not think it is difficult to assess, because the Bill contemplates already that, in certain circumstances, some such assessment will be made. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, who I know would not wish to see an unfair clause put on the Statute Book, and in spite of the fact that he has already looked at the point and has had to refuse to do anything about it, will see whether something cannot be done to remedy this injustice.

LORD SALTOUN

If I may refer Her Majesty's Government to a decided leading case on the principle here, I would refer them to the fifth chapter of St. Matthew, the case of people who ask for bread and receive a stone.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I shall be interested to engage in a theological disquisition with my noble friend Lord Saltoun at the appropriate time, but at the moment I should like to turn to the plea which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has made to me. I have considered this point, as he was good enough to say he was ready to accept, and, like him, I find it a point of great difficulty. When one gets back to the original claim—and I follow, and have really gone through the same process of trying to consider, that stage in the matter—even then there is a difficulty as to whether the amount of the claim has been fixed on a certain type of development. Nobody knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that it is often fixed in comparison with land nearby, and often fixed with a general view of the development that would take place, and without going into the comparative types in the way which this Amendment suggests.

I think the difficulties which are suggested to be inherent in my noble friend's Amendment are real difficulties, but in view of the appeals that have been made to me (not forgetting the Biblical objurgation of my noble friend Lord Saltoun) I will certainly have another look at the matter. I always try—I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will agree with this—if I may so put it, to qualify my agreements to have a look at matters, because I do not want anyone to feel that I have bought time or prevented a Division by saying that I will have a look at something when results are not likely to ensue. I warn the Committee that this is a difficult problem. I do not think the words of my noble friend will do, but, as I say, I will have another look at the point. I cannot say to your Lordships that in my opinion the prospects of finding a solution are bright, but if your Lordships will give me latitude on these somewhat pessimistic terms, I will certainly get all my advisers together and we will see whether we can meet the point. I am afraid that I cannot go further than that, but that I am glad to do.

LORD SILKIN

May I draw the attention of the noble and learned Viscount to Clause 23, which deals with the measure of depreciation for assessing compensation? That introduces a conception of depreciation which I believe is rather new—namely, depreciation due to a planning decision. Possibly something could be done on those lines.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I would respectfully suggest to the noble and learned Viscount, in regard to what he has said, that, while we are grateful for his promise to look at the matter again, it is just as unfair to say to someone that he may develop, though in a way that is absolutely useless to him, as it is to say that he may not develop at all. Therefore, on a logical and equitable basis compensation should be payable.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Perhaps I may say a word or two in answer to my noble friend Lord Mansfield. What I am postulating is that the applicant is allowed a form of development on which he will get a reasonable return. I do not want to go on arguing the matter with my noble friend, but I should have thought that his example would be in great danger of being caught as an unreasonable decision which would not stand when it reached the Secretary of State. However, I will look into the example and read the debate carefully.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

This seems, unavoidably, to be a difficult problem to which no solution is forthcoming. I am sorry that we have not made more progress, but I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 [Measure of depreciation for assessing compensation]:

5.27 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

These words are unnecessary. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 4, leave out from ("refused") to end of line 5.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 8, after ("permission") insent ("applied for").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

These words are unnecessary. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 10, leave out from ("twenty-one") to end of line 12.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is to transpose Clause 23. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Transpose Clause 23 as amended to after Clause 27.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24 [Supplementary provisions as to calculation of depreciation]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment avoids a cross-reference, and widens the provisions by ensuring that all the provisions in force are taken into account. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 15, leave out from ("Act") to ("the") in line 21 and insert ("in addition to any previous decision, account shall be taken of any further grant of, and of any undertaking to grant, planning permission, being a grant or undertaking in force immediately before").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment transposes Clause 24 into a more logical sequence. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Transpose Clause 24, as amended, to after Clause 27,—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 [Review of planning decisions where compensation claimed]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This new subsection is put in to ensure that when the Secretary of State is reviewing the planning decision he will have regard to the whole circumstances in doing so. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 33, line 25, at end insert— ("(5) In giving any direction under this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard—

1. (a) to the provisions of the development plan for the area in which the land in question is situated, or
2. (b) where a development plan has not by that time become operative with respect to that area, to any direction which he may have given to the local planning authority as to the provisions to be included in such a plan and to any other provisions which in his opinion will be required to be so included for securing the proper planning of that area,

so far as those provisions are material to the development of that land, and shall also have regard to the local circumstances affecting the proposed development, including the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land, and to any other material considerations.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 [Recording of notices relating to compensation]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 31, leave out ("is") and insert ("has become").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clause 32 [Application of Part III]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 38, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 39 and insert— (""the relevant interest" means the interest acquired; the relevant land" means the land in which the relevant interest subsists; the notice to treat" means the notice to treat in pursuance of which the relevant interest is acquired;").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the provisions of Part III of the Bill, and in particular Clause 33, do not affect any interests such as that of a superior which are not interests that may be acquired compulsorily by the ordinary process of serving a notice to treat. Part III does not, therefore, affect any consideration payable to a superior in respect of the redemption of feu-duty or ground annual. The provisions affecting this are to be found in Clause 61, in part VI of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 17, after ("means") insert ("any interest in the relevant land—

1. (a) which could not be the subject of a compulsory acquisition, or
2. (b) which is").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

These words are superfluous. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 22, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 32, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

Before we pass this clause with the definitions in subsection (2), I should like to be allowed to say a few words, bearing in mind that on the English Bill an important Amendment was submitted, and there was discussion urging compensation for compulsory acquisition according to market value. We have not put down a similar Amendment at this stage. I do not know what discussions, if any, have taken place about that. We have just passed Amendments on the other expressions in the subsection, and I am sorry that this particular one was omitted. I should like to submit once again the observation that Parliament and the Government are not achieving a fair or final solution by their formula for compensation, and that, with further time and development, it may well be found that something nearer to the market value is more appropriate. I hope that if occasions recur, this matter will not be overlooked.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I do not once again enter into a discussion on my own on this question of market value. I ask my noble friend to grant me this indulgence, because I have discussed the matter on two previous occasions and we have debated it in the House. I hope he will allow me to say that I shall take what he says into account, as I have taken into account the many interesting observations that have been made during the progress of these Bills. For the reasons I have already stated, I am afraid that we must on this occasion stand by the formula which we have taken in the Bill, and the defence of which I have tried to make on the two occasions to which I have referred.

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 [Compensation to include unexpended balance of established development value]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 32, leave out ("the relevant land, taken as a whole") and insert ("any of the relevant land.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This looks a fairly formidable Amendment, but I think I may say that there is no change of the basic principle. The main object is to do away with the need for a set of regulations and thus to make the Bill more self-contained. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 35, leave out from second ("to") to ("for") in page 41, line 1, and insert section thirty-five of this Act there shall be added to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest apart from the provisions of this section—

1. (a) where the relevant interest is the only interest (other than excepted interests) subsisting at that time in any of the relevant land which has such a balance—
1. (i) if the restricted value of the relevant interest is a minus quantity, an amount equal to so much, if any, of that balance at that time as remains after the deduction therefrom of an amount equal to the minus quantity; or
2. (ii) in any other case, an amount equal to that balance at that time; 1365 or
2. (b) where the relevant interest is one of two or more interests (other than excepted interests) so subsisting, an amount equal to so much of that balance at that time as is ascertained in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule (Apportionment of Unexpended Balance of Established Development Value) to this Act to be attributable to the relevant interest:

Provided that, in a case where the relevant interest is the interest of the lessee under a lease, no payment shall be made by virtue of this section if the person entitled to the relevant interest is, at the time immediately before the service of the notice to treat, prohibited by the terms of his lease from carrying out any new development of the relevant land. (2) Regulations made under this section shall provide").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 41, line 8, at end insert— ("(3) References in this section to the restricted value of an interest in land, in relation to an acquisition of that interest, are references to the amount which, for the purposes of Part V of the principal Act, would have been taken to be the restricted value of that interest on the appointed day if—

1. (a) the date of the service of the notice to treat had been appointed as the appointed day for the purposes of the said Part V;
2. (b) references to the seventh, day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, in subsection (5) of section fifty-eight of the principal Act (which requires values to be calculated by reference to prices current immediately before that day) were references to the date of the acquisition;) and
3. (c) references in the said section fifty-eight to the Third Schedule to the principal Act were references to the Schedule as amended by this Act.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34 [Additional compensation for work]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a consequential Amendment to that on Clause 33. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 32, leave out from ("constructed") to end of line 34 and insert ("then, subject to the next following section, there shall be added to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest apart from the provisions of this section").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35 [Protection for prospective purchasers]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. There is no new point involved, but I am given to understand that there is a clerical error. At the end of paragraph (b) the line should read: "contract to the said authority" instead of "to the said council." I beg to move the Amendment in those terms.

Amendment moved—

Page 42, line 13, leave out from ("propose") to ("is") in line 24 and insert ("and have not been notified of any proposal of another authority, to acquire within, the next five years any interest in any land specified in the notice (in this subsection referred to as 'the specified land'), being the whole or part of the land to which the application related; and

1. (b) the person to, whom the notice was given has within three months of the giving the notice made a, bona fide contract for the purchase of an interest in the specified land or any part thereof and given notice of the making of the contract to the said authority; and
2. (c) that interest, or that interest in so far as it subsists in any pert of that land,")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment deals with a special case where a contract subsists but has not been implemented. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 42, line 38, leave out subsection (3) and insert— ("Provided that—

1. (i) this subsection shall not have effect unless at the date of the publication or service of the first notice in connection with the acquisition such as is, referred to in paragraph (c) of this subsection, the contract mentioned in paragraph (b) thereof remains in force or has been implemented;
2. (ii) this subsection shall not have effect in relation to a purchase by a company from an associated company within the meaning of section forty-nine of this Act.

(3) The two last preceding sections shall not apply for the purpose of assessing any compensation to the assessment of which the last preceding subsection applies: Provided that if the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest would, apart from this proviso, be less than it would have been if this section had not been enacted, the last preceding subsection shall not apply in the case of that acquisition.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36 agreed to.

5.39 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 36 to insert the following new clause:

Additional payments in cases where no claim has been established

".—(1) If in the case of a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies, it is shown to the satisfaction of the appropriate authority that the relevant land or some part thereof does not constitute or form part of the claim area of any established claim, but that a claim or claims in respect of one or more interests in that land, or, as the case may be, in that part thereof, would have been established if made, there shall be issued by or on behalf of the Treasury a certificate specifying—

1. (a) whether or not, in the opinion of the person signing the certificate, section thirty-three of this Act would have applied to the compulsory acquisition if the claim or claims aforesaid had been established; and
2. (b) if so, what in that person's opinion would have been the amount of the additional compensation calculated by reference to the unexpended balance of established development value of that land or that part thereof which would have been payable under that section in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest.

(2) Where an amount has been specified as aforesaid and, after taking into account all the circumstances, the appropriate authority is of opinion that it is just and reasonable that a payment should be made in addition to what would be the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest apart from the provisions of this section, there shall be added to that compensation such amount as the appropriate authority may direct, being an amount not exceeding that specified in the certificate aforesaid.

(3) In this section, the expression 'the appropriate authority' means—

1. (a) where the compulsory acquisition of the relevant interest by the acquiring authority requires authorisation by a single other authority, that other authority; or
2. (b) where the acquiring authority is a government department and the compulsory acquisition does not require the authorisation of any other authority, the acquiring authority; or
3. (c) in any other case, the Treasury or such other authority as the Treasury may in any case or class of cases direct."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the equivalent of what has been termed by your Lordships the "Pilgrim clause" in the English Bill. In other words, it is a clause to prevent the occurrence in Scotland of any such case as that of the late Mr. Pilgrim. We have discussed a clause which is analogous to that in the English Bill, and so perhaps I may deal with this with considerable brevity. Your Lordships will see that in subsection (1) of the clause, the wording is now: If, in the case of a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies, the appropriate authority is satisfied that the relevant land or some part thereof does not constitute or form part of the claim area of any established claim, but that a claim or claims … would have been established if made. … May I call your Lordships attention to the words, "If … the appropriate authority is satisfied"? Considerable anxiety was expressed by some of your Lordships that a man in the position of the late Mr. Pilgrim would have to go hunting the appropriate authority in order to secure justice on this point. The objective of the change of words is to indicate that there will be a duty on the Minister to see that anyone in that position is not only informed of his situation, but that the chance of getting the supplement is brought to his attention.

Some doubt was expressed whether there would be co-ordinated action on the part of Government Departments. May I say, at this stage, that I hope to make to your Lordships on the Report stage of the English Bill—and it can be repeated on the Report stage of the Scottish Bill—a statement laying down the procedure which Government Departments will follow in order that co-ordination may be achieved. I do not want to go into a tale which is more than twice told at this moment, but we hope that the clause will, as I say, prevent the occurrence of such unfortunate cases. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 36, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

There is just one question I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount. This new clause seems to be admirable in intention, but will the person or the body who might receive an extra payment under it have to make an application, or will it be done gratuitously, merely because the acquiring authority thinks it should be done?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That was the point with which I endeavoured to deal: that we have redrafted the clause in order to make it clear that, however and whenever the competent authority learns of it, there is a duty on the com- petent authority to see that the person gets the claim. We earnestly hope that all Departments will be administered in such a way that it is not a question of the claimant having to run after them but of their doing justice to the claimant, which is what we desire to see.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I thank my noble and learned friend.

5.42 p.m.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

had given notice to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to add to the proposed new clause: (4) In any case where notice to treat is served on any person in respect of the compulsory acquisition of any land which does not constitute or form part of the claim area of any established claim notice of the effect of this section shall at the same time be sent by the acquiring authority to the person on whom any such notice to treat is served. The noble Duke said: I am not sure that my Amendment is still necessary, in view of what the noble and learned Viscount has said. My purpose was simply to secure that persons whose land is being acquired compulsorily, and where there is no established claim, shall have brought to their notice the provisions of the new clause when they receive the notice to treat. In the nature of things, it must in the majority of cases be small owners of property who are affected. Those are just the people who are most likely to suffer hardship. It is contended that it is just and reasonable that they should at least be informed of the possibility of getting an additional ex gratia payment over and above the existing use value of their land. The Amendment is of the lines of a provision which is fairly usual in local authorities' Private Acts, under which persons; required by notice of the local authority to take some action must, along with the notice requiring them to do so, be given a notice of their right to appeal. No extra burden would fall on the local authorities when acquiring land compulsorily. If the Amendment were allowed, it would afford a safeguard.

Amendment to Amendment moved— At end of the new clause insert the said subsection.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I should like to support my noble friend in his Amendment because it brings out the point that I was trying to make, that there are local authorities and local authorities. I am afraid that some local authorities, if there is a likelihood of their being required to pay possibly a substantial sum of money to a claimant, may be only too glad, to put it colloquially, to "sit upon" the information and not let the claimant know that he is, in fact, entitled to this extra payment.

LORD SILKIN

I think it must be realised that the new clause will have only a limited application. It applies to only a very small class of person, who had a claim but omitted, for one reason or another, to put it in and whose land was then compulsorily acquired. I cannot think that there are a great many of them. There will be, however, a great many people who have no claim and whose land is compulsorily acquired, and if you hold out the hope to large numbers of people that they may get compensation and may get an ex gratia payment when, in fact, only a very few will, it is doubtful whether you are not doing more harm than good. I do not oppose the Amendment, for it is not one about which I feel strongly, but I think that is a point that ought to be taken into consideration. For instance, if only 1 per cent. of people who are likely to be affected by a compulsory purchase order are likely to get the benefit of this payment, is it really wise to send a notice of this kind to the other 99 per cent. and lead them to hope that they may get something, with all the large amount of administrative work that will be involved upon the local authority? It is a matter for consideration. The noble Earl who has just spoken seemed to suggest that some local authorities would try to evade the obligation.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

Precisely.

LORD SILKIN

I would not dispute that possibility. The noble Earl is talking of Scotland—this is a Scottish Bill—but it is possible that some will, of course. I do not see how, under the clause as it stands, the local authority comes in, except to pay. It is the "appropriate authority" that has to be satisfied. It comes to its notice that there is a person who may be affected. The "appropriate authority" is defined as the authority, as I take it, that gives the approval. And, where authorisation is required, it is the body that gives the authority. Normally, it will be the Secretary of State. The noble and learned Viscount will correct me if I am wrong, but, as I read this rather hurriedly, it seemed to me that the local authority is really given no voice in the matter. It is the competent authority or the appropriate authority who decides. If they decide that a payment shall be made, it is the local authority or the acquiring authority that makes the payment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am in the happy position of being able to go rather further than my noble friends the Duke of Buccleuch and Lord Mansfield have asked, and at the same time to meet the most substantial worry of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I did say in the Committee stage of the English Bill that I hoped to be able to make a statement on the matter at a later stage. I should be grateful if your Lordships would give me the indulgence of letting me make a formal statement on Report stage—of course, I will do it on both Bills—because a final decision on the arrangements has not yet been taken. But I can tell your Lordships what we have in mind: that is, that the confirming authority and not the acquiring authority—I think that meets the point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has made—might notify those interested at an earlier stage in the proceedings than that of the notice to treat mentioned in the present Amendment. I think that justifies me in saying that I am going even further than my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch desired. I should like to assure my noble friend that the Government are entirely sympathetic to the purpose of the Amendment and propose to arrange for effective notification to be given at the earliest convenient stage in the acquisition proceedings, we hope at an earlier stage than the notice to treat. With regard to the extent of the cases, different views have been expressed as to their number, but I think all your Lordships have felt that it is the sort of case that ought to be dealt with, and we are seeking to deal with it. I think my noble friend's suggestion, improved, if I may be presumptuous enough to claim it, as I hope to improve it, will meet the real point, and I hope that he will not press the Amendment at this stage.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I express my thanks to the noble and learned Viscount, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.51 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment, to remove any possibility of misconception. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 43, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 29 and insert— ("In connection with a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies— (a) any compensation in respect of an interest in land").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 35, leave out from ("disturbance") to ("shall") in line 36.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38 [Effect of Part III on unexpended balance of established development value]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 3, leave out from ("land") to ("had") and insert ("in which the interest acquired or sold subsisted").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is consequential on changes made to the wording of Clause 33. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 15 and insert ("unless immediately after the acquisition or sale there is outstanding some interest (other than an excepted interest) in that land to which some person other than the acquiring authority is entitled,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is consequential on changes to Clause 33. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 44, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 29 and insert— ("(ii) if immediately after the acquisition or sale there is outstanding any such interest as aforesaid, then for the purposes of any other Part of this Act there shall be deducted from the said original balance an amount equal to any part of the relevant balance which is not, or which in the appropriate circumstances would not have been, attributable for the purposes of the said section thirty-three to any such out-standing interest").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 44, line 32, at end insert— ("Provided that in the event of a subsequent compulsory acquisition of any such outstanding interest, being a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies, the said section thirty-three shall have effect for the purposes of assessing the compensation payable as if this subsection had not been enacted.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

5.53 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 38 to insert the following new clause:

Assessment of compensation in certain cares

".In the case of any compulsory acquisition to which any of the following provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, that is to say—

1. (a) subsection (2) of section twelve;
2. (b) subsection (4) of section seventeen; and
3. (c) subsection (2) of section thirty-six,

(which relate respectively to the compensation to be paid on the compulsory acquisition of closed houses, of houses subject to notices relating to the execution of works, and of houses unfit for human habitation) applies, whether by virtue of the said Act of 1950 or by virtue of any other enactment, being a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies, the compensation payable in respect of the land or house acquired may be less than, but shall not exceed, the value, at the time when the valuation is made, of the site as a cleared site available for development in accordance with the requirements of the building regulations for the time being in force in the district; and accordingly the said provisions shall have effect, in relation to a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies, as if the references therein to the compensation to be paid were references to the maximum compensation payable"

The noble and learned Viscount said: With the approval of the Committee, this Amendment might be discussed with the next following Amendment at page 44, line 43, because the two together give effect to an undertaking which was given on the Report stage in another place to amend the clause so as to secure that the compensation payable, apart from any unexpended balance, for the compulsory acquisition of unfit houses to which Part III of the Bill applies, will not exceed the compensation that would have been payable under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, if the "cleared site" formula in that Act had not been repealed by this clause. The new clause secures this by keeping the "cleared site" formula in being but providing that in the future (that is, in the case of compulsory acquisitions after the Bill comes into operation) the formula will have effect as if the compensation payable thereunder is the maximum compensation, under Part III of the Bill, that will be payable in the case of acquisitions for the purposes of the Housing Act, 1950, or under any other enactment, for example, Section 3 of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, and the Fifth Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, applying those provisions.

I might warn the Committee that there are a number of consequential Amendments—some half a dozen—which will be dealt with in time. With regard to the "cleared site," the formula will have effect only as a ceiling and not in determining the compensation to be paid. That deals with the fear expressed by the Opposition in another place and, as I say, we have given effect to the undertaking which my right honourable friend gave in regard to it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 38 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39 [Amendment of provisions of Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, relating to cleared site values]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 39.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40 [Amendment of s. 20 of principal Act]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 34, leave out ("this Part of").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 38, after ("and") insert ("in this Part of this Act").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 41 [Recording of notices as to, and apportionment of, compensation for depreciation]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 29, leave out ("Subsections (2) land (3)") and insert ("Subsection (2)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 42 [Exchequer contribution towards compensation in certain cases]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a case of revocation of permission. It is to ensure that the payment by the Secretary of State to local authorities will not exceed, on the one hand, the amount of compensation for depreciation paid by the local authority, or, on the other hand, the unexpended balance of established value. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 47, line 19, at end insert— ("Provided that the amount of any such contribution shall not exceed—

1. (a) the amount of the compensation for depreciation paid by the local planning authority; or
2. (b) the unexpended balance of established development value at the date of the making of the order of the land in respect of which that compensation was paid.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43 [Recovery, on subsequent development, of compensation under s. 20 of principal Act]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 43, after ("Act") insert ("except subsection (10) thereof,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 44 [Scope of Part V]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is to cover a case in which the wording of the clause as drafted might enable compensation to be payable in respect of land which had no claim. That is not intended, and it is avoided by the Amendment which I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 6, leave out ("holding") to ("and") in line 7.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This point we have had before. The Amendment effects a slightly more flexible arrangement in regard to compensation for development. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 14, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 17 and insert ("in relation to a claim for compensation in respect of any such claim holding so subsisting as aforesaid, any such land is referred to as "qualified land" and the claim holding is referred to as "the relevant holding". (3) Subsection (3) of section sixteen of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this Part of this Act as it has effect for the purposes of Part II of this Act, with the substitution for the reference to a planning decision made after the commencement of this Act of a reference to a planning decision made before the commencement of this Act.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 45 [Right to compensation in respect of past planning decisions or past revocations, &c., of planning permission]:

5.57 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 21, after ("if") insert ("(a)"). —(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment concerns rather a special case, where land is sold between November, 1952, and the coming into force of this Act. In such cases, where planning restrictions have been imposed, it enables the owner to retain his claim and to get his money. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 49, line 22, leave out from ("land") to ("interest") in line 24 and insert ("or (b) having been entitled to an interest in any qualified land at the date of the decision or order, he sold that interest (otherwise than to a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers) in pursuance of a contract made after that date and during the period beginning with the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and ending immediately before the commencement of this Act, and the value of that interest or of another interest which has merged therein or, in the case of an interest extending to other land, the value of that or of that other").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment deals with the case of money borrowed against a claim and the manner in which it should be dealt with when the claim is eventually made. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 49, line 39, at end insert— ("(2) A person who has become entitled to the relevant holding by virtue of the exercise of any power conferred by an assignation in security shall be entitled to such compensation as aforesaid, notwithstanding that he does not satisfy the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the preceding subsection, if the assignor would have been entitled to such compensation if he had continued to be the holder of the relevant holding.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 10, at end insert ("and in the application of the said subsection (1) in case to which paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section applies, no account shall be taken of any grant of, or undertaking to grant, planning permission made or given after the making of the contract of sale.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is rather a long Amendment, but it is consequential on Amendment No. 77 which we have agreed to, and is also consequential on the code of calculating depreciation in Clause 22. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 50, line 16, at end insert— ("Provided that, in a case to which paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) of this section applies, for the reference in the said section twenty-two to the Secretary of State's giving notice of his determination in respect of the claim for compensation there shall be substituted a reference to the making of the contract of sale.

(4) In determining for the purposes of a claim for compensation under this Part of this Act whether, or to what extent, the value of an interest in land was depreciated by such an order as aforesaid—

1. (a) regard shall be had to any compensation which has become payable to the person entitled to that interest in respect of that order under section twenty of the principal Act otherwise than by virtue of the proviso to subsection (1) of that section;
2. (b) any grant of, or undertaking to grant, planning permission made or given during the period between the making of the order and the time when the Secretary of State gives notice of his determination in respect of that claim, being a grant or undertaking which is in force at the end of that period, shall be taken into account as if it had been in force at the beginning of that period;
3. (c) Part VI of the principal Act shall be deemed not to have applied after the date when the order was made.

Provided that, in a case to which paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) of this section applies, no account shall be taken of any grant or undertaking made or given after the making of the contract of sale.

(5) Where the interest to which the holder of the relevant holding is entitled or, as the case may be, which he sold, is or was subject to a lease granted after the planning decision or order and on or after the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect as if that lease had not been granted.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 45, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD SILKIN

May I ask what is the significance of that date given, November 18, 1952? Is that the date when the present Government came into office?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

That refers to the White Paper on policy.

LORD SILKIN

I thank the noble Earl.

Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 46 [General provisions as to amount of compensation for past planning decisions, revocations, &c.]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 29, leave out from ("if") to end of line.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is to overcome a difficulty and to avoid paying depreciation twice over. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 50, line 33, at end insert— ("Provided that where the same person is entitled to such compensation as aforesaid in respect of more than one relevant holding, or in respect of more than one interest, or in respect both of more than one relevant holding and of more than one interest, the aggregate principal amount payable to that person by way of such compensation in respect of all interests in respect of which he is so entitled in so far as they subsisted in the same land shall not exceed whichever is the less of the following amounts, that is to say—

1. (i) the aggregate of the amounts by which the value of each respectively of those interests in so far as it subsisted in that land was depreciated by the decision or order; or
2. (ii) the aggregate of the fractions of the respective values of all relevant holdings of which that person is the holder which attached to that land."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

These next three Amendments are all purely drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 50, line 34, leave out from ("If") to third ("the")

Page 50, line 36, leave out ("was") and insert ("is")

Page 50, line 41, leave out ("were and were") and insert ("are and are").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 47 [Claims for compensation under Part V, and review of past decisions and orders]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I would describe this as a tidying, rather than a drafting, Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 1, leave out from first ("of") to ("shall") in line 3 and insert ("sections twenty-five and twenty-eight of this Act").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 5, leave out ("section twenty-five of this Act") and insert ("the said section twenty-five").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is to make clear that where the Secretary of State has agreed to a revocation, that is final and there can be no more discussion or appeal in connection with it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 14, leave out ("in such a case") and insert ("the claim is in respect of a refusal of permission or of a grant of permission subject to conditions and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 51, line 19, leave out from ("relates") to end of line 21 and insert— ("In this subsection, the reference to a decision more favourable to the applicant shall be construed—

1. (a) in relation to a refusal of permission, as a reference to a decision granting the permission, either unconditionally or subject to conditions, and either as respects the whole or as respects part of the land to which the application for permission related; and
2. (b) in relation to a grant of permission subject to conditions, as a reference to a decision granting the permission applied for unconditionally or subject to less stringent conditions.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 33, leave out subsection (5).—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 48 [Payment of compensation under Part V, and supplementary provisions relating thereto]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is for adjusting recovery of payment against a claim-holder in adjusting that claim holding. It is an Amendment corresponding to one made in the English Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 52, line 29, at end insert— ("Provided that if at any time an amount becomes recoverable under section thirty-one of this Act, as applied by the subsequent provisions of this section, in respect of that compensation, then, for the purposes of Parts II and III of this Act, paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection shall have effect as from that time as if the principal amount of that compensation had been reduced by a sum equal to seven-eighths of the amount which has so become recoverable.

(3) Where in the case of any claim holding (in this subsection referred to as "the parent holding") compensation under this Part of this Act is payable in respect of the depreciation of an interest in land by one or more planning decisions or orders, and any such decision or order did not extend to the whole of the area of the parent holding, then, both for the purposes of the last preceding subsection and for the purposes of Parts II and ITI of this Act—

1. (a) the parent holding shall be treated as having been divided immediately before the commencement of this Act into as many separate claim holdings, with such areas, as may be necessary to ensure that in the case of each holding either any such decision or order extending to the area of that holding extended to the whole thereof or that no such decision or order extended to the area of that holding;
2. (b) the value of each of the separate holdings respectively shall be taken to be that fraction of the value of the parent holding which then attached to the part of the area of the parent holding constituting the area of the separate holding;
3. (c) the authority determining the amount of any such compensation shall apportion that amount between the areas of the separate claim holdings to which the decision or order in question extended in such manner as appears to that authority proper, and the portion of that amount apportioned to the area of any separate claim holding shall be taken to be compensation payable under this Part of this Act in respect of that claim holding.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 52, line 31, after ("Act") insert (",except subsection (10) of the said section thirty-one,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to.

Clause 51 [Cancellation or reduction of liability for development charges]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment relates to a special case, to deal equitably with the rights of claim-holders who have assigned their claim to the Central Land Board. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 56, line 7, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert— ("(4) Where, for the purposes of the Second Schedule to this Act, one or more development charges such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are covered by an assignation of one or more claim holdings to the Central Land Board, and by virtue of the provisions of that Schedule one or more of those claim holdings are deemed to have been extinguished or reduced in value by reference to the unpaid balance of the charge or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the unpaid balances of the charges, as therein mentioned, a sum equal to, or to the aggregate of—

1. (a) the value of any such holding which is deemed to have been extinguished; and
2. (b) the amount of the reduction in the value of any such holding which is deemed to have been reduced in value but not extinguished,

shall be deducted from that balance or that aggregate of balances and—

1. (i) if that sum is equal to that balance or aggregate of balances, the charge or Charges and any liability of any person in respect thereof shall be discharged;
2. (ii) if that sum is less than that balance or aggregate of balances, the charge or charges, or the balance or respective balances thereof remaining unpaid at the commencement of this Act, shall be reduced by an amount, or, as the case may be, shall be reduced rateably by an aggregate amount, equal to that sum:

Provided that where paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to this Act applies, any development charge in connection with which the claim holding in question was assigned in accordance with the arrangements mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph and any liability of any person in respect thereof shall be discharged without regard to the treatment of the claim holding in question.") —(Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is consequential on a change in Clause 54. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 15, leave out ("subsections (2) and") and insert ("subsection").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to.

Clause 54 [Recovery of certain sums from acquiring authorities]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 19, leave out ("or sale").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is also a drafting Amendment, substituting a more precise reference. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 63, line 7, leave out from ("is") to end of line 10 and insert ("by virtue of subsection (3) of section fifty-eight of this Act to be treated as apportioned to the land in which the interest acquired or sold subsisted."),—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 55 to 57 agreed to.

Clause 58 [Recovery, on subsequent development, of payments under s. 56 of principal Act]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The object of this Amendment is to avoid the necessity for the Central Land Board to record in the Register of Sasines cases under the War Damage scheme in which payments will never be recovered. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 21, at end insert ("or which would be so recoverable but for the provisions of paragraph (i) of the proviso to that subsection;").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 38, after ("Act") insert (",except subsection (10) thereof,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am not going to move Amendment No. 99, but there will be another Amendment dealing differently and more satisfactorily with this matter at the Report stage.

Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment provides that industrial applicants will not require a Board of Trade certificate before they can bring forward an application to the local planning authority. They can get compensation in the ordinary way. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 58, insert the clause:

Applications for permission for industrial development

".—(1) Where, after the commencement of this Act, an application is made to a local planning authority for permission to develop land by the erection thereon of an industrial building, being an application which would, apart from this section, be of no effect by virtue of subsection (4) of section twelve of the principal Act (which provides that certain applications for such permission shall be of no effect unless it is certified by the Board of Trade that the development in question can be carried out consistently with the proper distribution of industry, the local planning authority shall consider whether, if the requirements of the said subsection (4) had been satisfied, they would nevertheless have refused the permission sought by the application either as respects the whole or as respects part of the land to which the application relates; and if they are of opinion that they would so have refused that permission, they shall serve on the applicant a notice in writing to that effect.

(2) Where a notice has been served under the preceding subsection as respects the whole or part of any land, the provisions of this Act and of sections seventeen and eighteen of the principal Act, and, where by virtue of the preceding provisions of this subsection a direction has been given under subsection (3) of section twenty-six of this Act, the other provisions of the principal Act, shall have effect as respects that land or that part thereof as if the application had been of effect and permission had been refused."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 59 agreed to.

Clause 60 [Crown Land]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 20, leave out ("derives title thereto") and insert ("is, or derives title from a person who was, entitled thereto").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 61:

Consideration in respect of discharge of acquired land from feu-duty, ground annual, etc.

61.—(1) Where a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers has compulsorily acquired or has purchased, in pursuance of a notice to treat served, or, as the case may be, a contract made, after the commencement of this Act, the dominium utile in any land, and it is necessary to determine under section one hundred and eight of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, the amount of any consideration payable in respect of the discharge of the land from any feu-duty, or ground annual or other annual or recurring payment or incumbrance, to which that section applies (not being stipend or standard charge in lieu of stipend), or from any portion thereof, the following provisions of this section shall have effect for the purpose of such determination.

Any reference in this section to a "relevant prestation" is a reference to any such feu-duty or ground annual or other annual or recurring payment or incumbrance (or any portion thereof) relating to the land as is mentioned in this subsection.

(2) The aggregate amount of the consideration payable as aforesaid in respect of all relevant prestations (in this section, referred to as the "aggregate consideration") shall be an amount equal to the difference between—

1. (a) the amount of the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the dominium utile in the land, and
2. (b) the amount of the compensation which would have been so payable if the land had not been subject to any relevant prestation.

6.8 p.m.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

This and the following Amendment have the same object in view and I would ask that they may be discussed together. I understand there is doubt, as the clause is now drafted, whether it is limited in its operation to cases where compulsory purchase powers have been granted. As the clause is drafted, the public authority referred to must possess compulsory purchase powers, but it does not seem clear that those compulsory purchase powers necessarily relate to the interest in land mentioned in line 33 of Page 39, that is, land of which the dominium utile has been acquired. I suggest that these two Amendments make it clear that the authority to purchase the dominium utile refers to the interest in land envisaged in the clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 29, leave out "possessing compulsory purchase powers".—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My noble friend need not be troubled by this provision. This is a difficult and somewhat technical aspect of the subject, and perhaps if I set out the position as I understand it, my noble friend will have a look at it and, if necessary, pursue the matter further on the next stage. As I am at present advised, a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers who acquire a dominium utile subject to feu-duty, on a ground annual or other payment, either by exercising their powers or by agreement (whether or not a compulsory purchase order authorising the acquisition has been confirmed) may, following the acquisition, take what is commonly described as a "schedule title" under Section 80 of the Land Clauses Act. When they have done that, they may proceed to redeem the feu-duty by compensating the superior for the loss of the right to receive the feu-duty.

As I understand the effect of my noble friend's Amendments, they would exclude from the provisions of the clause those cases where the dominium utile is acquired by agreement without the authority possessing compulsory purchase powers having had to exercise those powers. That would be unacceptable, and in any case I do not think it is what my noble friend had in mind. It would be unacceptable to us because it is hoped that many of the acquisitions of the dominium utile will be acquisitions by agreement; and, as I think everyone would agree, there is no point whatever in requiring the authority in such cases to go to the length of having to get a compulsory purchase order confirmed merely to get the benefit of the clause. I have not only pointed out that my noble friends' fears need not be entertained, but I think I have shown that his Amendments might create further difficulties. In this technical facet of our work I would suggest to him that he should not press his Amendments today, but that, if he has any further difficulty after what I have said, he should write to me, and I shall be pleased to go into the point with him before the next stage of the Bill.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I express thanks for the statement, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved to leave out all words after "thereof" in subsection (1) down to the end of the clause, and to insert: the Lands Tribunal shall in determining the amount of such consideration disregard the fact that the dominium utile has been acquired by a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers. The noble Duke said: I think it is possible that there may be an objection to the clause as drafted because it seeks to lay down a hard and fast formula for determining the amount of consideration payable on the discharge of any land from a feu-duty, instead of allowing the valuer to take into account all the relevant circumstances. It is understood that the reason for the clause is that at present, when land is acquired by a public authority and the feu has to be discharged, the Lands Tribunal, in determining the value of the feu, take into account that the vassal, being a public authority, will not default in paying the feu-duty. This may result in the value of the feu, and consequently the amount of consideration, being inflated.

The proposed Amendment seeks to meet this point and at the same time remove the objectionable provision of the fixed formula by providing that in determining the amount of consideration the Lands Tribunal shall ignore the fact that the vassal is a public authority. A precedent for the principle involved in the Amendment, of providing that certain factors shall not be taken into account in determining the amount of compensation, is to be found in Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. I submit that the Amendment has the advantage of achieving what is the intention of the Government in one short clause, whereas the present clause consists of eight subsections. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 40, leave out from ("thereof") to the end of the clause and insert the said new words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I feel that there is some difficulty about this Amendment, although I recognise that my noble friend has sought to meet the view of the Government by the words disregard the fact that the dominium utile has been acquired by a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers. The purpose of the clause is to provide a basis upon which the arbiter, when called upon under Section 108 of the Lands Clauses Act, is to assess the consideration payable for the redemption of the feu-duties, ground annuals or other annual recurring payments. As I endeavoured to explain to your Lordships' House on Second Reading, it is based on the principle that the total amount payable by the acquiring authority in compensation to the owner and on redemption of any feu-duty shall not exceed the compensation which would have been payable had the land been in one ownership and free from feu-duty or other burdens.

In subsection (2) the clause provides that the "calling" of the consideration for the discharge of the land from feu-duty is to be the difference between the compensation payable for the acquisition of the dominium utile and the amount which would have been payable had the land not been subject to any "prestations," which are defined in subsection (1). Subsection (4) deals with the case where there is only one relevant prestation, and subsections (5) and (6) with the apportionment of the aggregate consideration where there is more than one such prestation. The present Amendment, in effect, provides instead that the consideration payable should be assessed by the Lands Tribunal at market value but disregarding the personal security of the acquiring authority. The difficulty about that form is that it still flies in face of the principle on which the clause is based, which I have endeavoured to explain—namely, that the total amount payable for acquisition and redemption is not to exceed the unburdened value of the land; that is, it is not to exceed what would have been the compensation payable under the Bill if the land had been in a single ownership.

That is the difficulty which we have found on the matter. Although I recognise that my noble friend has gone a good deal of the way to meet it, and I feel rather churlish in not going any way in reply, I am in that difficulty; that the gist of the clause is that the two people should not be in a better position than one person would have been. Therefore, on that principle, I am afraid that I cannot recommend my noble friend's Amendment to the House. Whether, in fact—and this I throw out as a crumb of comfort to my noble friend—at the end of the day, when you have tried to value the feu-duty or ground annual (omitting the fact, as my noble friend's Amendment does, that it has gone into the possession of a local authority who are in a sound financial position) on the basis that it is someone else who might get rid of it to a man of straw, or in some other way produce the position that it would not be paid, you would add much to the sum, I very much doubt. In fact I do not think there is a great dial between my noble friend and myself in practice, but I must, and my right honourable friend the Minister must, stand by the undertaking that the two are not to get more than the one. Therefore, I am afraid, I cannot accept by noble friend's Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I express thanks to my noble and learned friend and again ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.19 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN moved in subsection (2), to omit all words after "shall be," and to insert: determined either in the manner provided by the principal Act or by an arbiter mutually agreed upon.

The noble Lord said: This is a very important Amendment. It deals with a subject on which I have often made strong protests to your Lordships. Here is a formula for valuation, like a third form sum, put down in order to determine the value, and, as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said, to make quite certain that the two interests together do not get more from the local authority than would be paid to a single interest. The excuse given, I believe, is that the acquisition of the dominium utile by the local authority enhances the value of feu duties, as a personal liability of a local authority can hardly be expected ever to fail. There is very little in that argument. If you were to take the total capital value of all feus that have been irritated in the past nine years—the nine years after the war—I think you would find that in all Scotland it was very low indeed. In nine out of ten of those cases you would find that the superior had found his interest, and had not suffered any loss by the irritation. That shows that the personal liability of the vassal is really a very small consideration. There is another consideration which may lower the value of the feus—that is, if it had been known for some time previously that the local authority was about to purchase them. That will deter any other purchaser, and will entirely kill the market in those particular subjects. There is not a day-to-day market but a pretty regular market in feu-duties of every sort and kind. They are held by all sorts of trusts and people. I believe that the Church of Scotland holds quite a large number of feu-duties. No competent valuer has any real difficulty in ascertaining the true value of the feu-duties.

Consider what the Government proposal is. The Government proposal is that whatever has been paid for the dominium utile, that is a factor in calculating what is to be the redemption value of the feu-duties. But that is a thing which has taken place long before the feu-duties have come to be redeemed. They are not simultaneous transactions; one transaction is subsequent to the other. If any mistake should be made in the value of the dominium utile, the effect falls not upon the local authority that makes the mistake but upon the superior, who had absolutely nothing to do with the transaction. I do not see why, with a subject in which there is a perfectly open market and which any competent valuer can value, a superior should receive an excessive price for his feu-duties if the dominium utile has been acquired very cheaply. I do not see why he should receive an unfair and too low value for his feu-duties if the local authority has paid too much. In any case, these feu-duties are perfectly easy for a professional value to value, with very little risk of error.

Let us consider the possibilities. The owner of the subject may be a person of considerable local importance. He may be a man whose voice carries great weight in everything to do with local affairs. He may succeed in convincing the district valuer and the local authority that his property is worth more than it really is, Well, if he does so, that is their mistake. Why should they have recourse for compensation against the owner of the feu-duties? I am not saying that there is anything wrong in it. Everyone may be acting in complete and perfect good faith. The fact remains that, according to this formula, the person who has to suffer the loss is the owner of the feu-duties. It will make local authorities and other people more careless in their valuation of these subjects if they know that they do not have to pay for such mistakes. If our municipal government was not as irreproachable as it is, I would say that the clause as it is at present framed might open the way for a very improper racket. To my mind it is wrong for Parliament to pass a Bill in a form which may possibly, in other and worse times, lead to such a thing. These are the reasons which have induced me to put down this Amendment. I am not necessarily satisfied with its form; I am satisfied with its content. It seems to me quite unnecessary to have a formula of this kind when we are dealing with a subject that can be valued at any time by a competent man. I am certain that I have the whole of a very great profession behind me. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 70, line 3, leave out from (" be ") to end of line 9 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Saltoun.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I first of all point out the difficulty which my noble friend's Amendment would create, and then very briefly, out of deference to the strength and feeling with which Lord Saltoun has advanced his arguments, give a brief explanation to your Lordships of how, as I see it, this provision would work in practice. The difficulty about my noble friend's Amendment is that it leaves the price to be determined solely at the discretion of the arbiter. One serious effect of that—which the present clause deliberately avoids—might be that the arbiter would assess the compensation on the basis that the acquiring authority stood in the place of the feuar at the material time for assessing the compensation, and that their financial standing ensured payment of the feu-duty in perpetuity. The consequence of that would be that the consideration payable in respect of feu-duties secured over worthless properties would be as high as that where the properties were in first-class condition. I cannot accept that. On the other hand, I think that my noble friend is taking an unduly pessimistic view of the working of the provisions. The broad effect of these provisions is that the superior's compensation for redemption of feu-duty or a burden affecting land compulsorily acquired will generally work out like this. Taking, first of all, the example of properties in good condition, in that case it would be equal to the capitalised value of the feu-duty. In the case of slum property and undeveloped land generally it would be equal to the compulsory purchase price of the land, free of all feu-duty burdens.

May I trespass on your Lordships' kindness only because I should like Lord Saltoun to consider these cases and see whether they do not redeem his view of what we are asking. I ask him to take two cases. First, suppose that the property was a slum tenement with only a short life ahead, and, consequently, worth only £60, but subject to feu-duty of £25 per annum, and that in addition there was a Part V claim of £200. There the compensation to the owner of the dominium utile would be only a nominal sum, because the capitalised value of the feu-duty, £500, would exceed the unburdened value of the property, £60, plus the Part V claim of £200–£260 in all. The superior would get the unburdened value of the property plus the Part V claim—that is, £260 or ten years' purchase of the feu-duty. If there was no Part V claim, he would get £60, the unburdened value of the property.

Let me give a second example. Suppose the property acquired is a shop worth £3,000, subject to a feu-duty of £25 per annum and no Part V claim. The compensation to the owner of the dominium utile would be £2,500—that is, the £3,000 less the capitalised value of the feu-duty, £500. The superior would get the difference between £2,500 and £3,000—that is, £500, the full capitalised value of the feu-duty. The acquiring authority would pay the £2,500 plus £500 —that is, £3,000, the value of the property free of burden. In that case, if there was a Part V claim the amount of the claim would increase the compensation to the owner of the dominium utile and leave unaffected the consideration payable to the superior. I have taken these two examples of different kinds of property. I believe that when we consider them, we see that it is a fair and right way of dealing with this problem. I am sorry I have taken up so much time, but when someone feels on this subject as the noble Lord does, it is only right and proper that the Government should take some trouble to try and demonstrate the line they are putting forward. For the reasons I gave at the beginning of my speech, I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment, but I hope that when he has had a chance of reading and considering what I have said, he will find I have assuaged some of his fears.

LORD SALTOUN

I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Viscount has said, both now and in answer to my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch. I am sorry to say that I am not persuaded by what he has said. It is difficult for me to visualise a property in Scotland worth only £60 with a feu-duty of £25 on it; but if such a property were to be found, it would be perfectly easy for a competent valuer to value it as it was before the local authority acquired it by purchase. The noble and learned Viscount's argument about the poor security for feu-duty on ground that is encumbered with slum property has not, I think, as great weight as he would place upon it. Feu-duties in Scotland are usually so low in proportion to the value of the development land that there is seldom any great difficulty. The only case I know of a feu being irritated since the commencement of the war was that of a property that was practically derelict, whose superior found his account very much in the irritation. It had paid him hands down. That shows how little value is to be put on that argument.

I came into the Chamber to-night feeling that I ought to divide the Committee on this matter. The House is not very full, and the noble and learned Viscount has received our objections with great courtesy; therefore I will not divide your Lordships on this issue to-night, but I will put an Amendment down on the next stage, and then I will divide the House on it, because, as a valuer, I feel that to some extent I have the whole profession behind me and it is time that we protested against the introduction of these formulæ into the valuation of subjects which are perfectly easily and readily valued by a competent professional valuer. I do not know why the Chartered Surveyors' Institute received its Charter, seeing that Parliament, under the guidance of successive Governments, takes so much trouble to prevent surveyors from ever having a share in the transactions that occur under them. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 61 shall stand part of the Bill?

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I think this is an appropriate time to ask the noble and learned Viscount a question which has arisen in my mind, as I have been disturbed somewhat by a remark he made in his reply on the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble and learned Viscount said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 189, cols. 1195–6): Obviously, the acquiring authority must be free to use the land for the statutory purposes for which it was acquired, and it would be quite wrong that any restrictive covenants enforceable by the superior should continue. Noble Lords who are conversant with Scottish conditions will know that in the past, in at least nineteen cases out of twenty, where a landlord has parted with land to a local authority for public purposes it has been done not by outright sale but by feu, either for an appropriate annual payment or for payment of a grassum—that is, a lump sum and a nominal feu-duty. It might be so insignificant as a penny Scots payable on demand, which at the same time preserves the superiority and admittedly to some extent binds the feuar not to do certain things that would annoy the superior. It was seldom that any condition was compelled which was in any way unreasonable. I am afraid however, that if one of the purposes of this Bill is to make it impossible for a landlord ever in future to make any restrictive covenant, even of the most harmless nature, in a transaction with a local authority, we shall see a great deal more compulsory acquisition and a great deal less of the amicable bargaining which has usually taken place.

It has to be remembered that conditions in a feu charier are often not inserted for the benefit of the superior, but for the benefit of the community as a whole. If I may give one personal example, for a very nominal feu-duty my father gave a small piece of ground to a local authority. In the feu charter is a covenant that the authority was not to erect any public convenience on that ground, which was designed to be a children's playground, unless it was placed beneath the surface. A number of years later, the local authority approached me, saying that a public convenience was badly needed, and that to put it below ground would be not only extremely costly but render it liable to flooding. Not to be in any way unreasonable I waived the condition, but only when the local authority undertook to put up a building in a suitable place and of a type far different from the monstrosity which they had originally envisaged. In that case there was no personal benefit to myself but a considerable benefit to the community. That park remains to-day reasonably undisfigured by what otherwise would have been an eyesore. That is only one personal instance of something which throughout the ages has been happening and goes on happening in Scotland up to the present day. If, in future, a local authority is going to be able to insist upon outright purchase without conditions, then I submit to the noble and learned Viscount that that is going to lead to friction and ill-feeling and will do the community more harm than good.

6.40 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN

I should like to add a word to what my noble friend Lord Mansfield has said, by way of a simple example. Some time ago, to my knowledge, a dweller in a well-built street erected something which was a nuisance to all his neighbours. He was a very powerful person in the community and nobody liked to take it up with Dean of Guild Court. It was felt that it would entail too much unpopularity. What happened was that the superior intervened and compelled the removal of the nuisance—and that without any bad feeling to anybody concerned. It was recognised that he was entitled to do it. That shows the value to the humble people of the system as depicted by my noble friend Lord Mansfield.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think my noble friends have much to fear in this matter. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Mansfield called attention to what I had said, but I am unrepentant on the point generally: that, if a local authority is going to acquire land (for, ex hypothesi, one on the duties that Parliament has laid on the local authority, because it could not acquire land for any other purpose), then it seems to me not unreasonable that the local authority should have freedom of use. I am sorry if unfortunate cases have occurred in the experience of my noble friend, but, as a general proposition, I do not think that that could be seriously contested. Once that is agreed to, then the principle is the one I have enunciated: that the superior and the vassal together should not get more than one person would have got if he had owned the land. I cannot remember any specific denial of that proposition in our debates. Apart from establishing that proposition, Clause 61 does not—as I tried to explain in answer to my noble friend Lord Saltoun on Second Reading, perhaps a little elliptically—alter the position under the Land Clauses Act. As my noble friend Lord Saltoun knows well, under the Land Clauses Act it was impossible to give a notice to treat to the superior, because of the judicial decisions in Scotland. I will certainly look carefully at what my two noble friends have said, but, in the limited context of this clause, I do not feel that I have done anything to encourage either vandalism or recklessness on the part of local authorities.

Clause 61 agreed to.

Clause 62 [Transfer to Secretary of State of functions of Central Land Board exercisable in Scotland]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is to provide the date to be fixed for winding up the Central Land Board. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 71, lime 6, leave out ("the date of the making of") and insert ("such date as may be specified in").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 71, line 10, at end insert— ("(2) On the dissolution of the Central Land Board, by an Order in Council under the said section sixty-two, section one of the principal Act (which relates to that Board) shall cease to have effect.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 63 and 64 agreed to.

6.45 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 64 to insert the following new clause:

Provision for diversion of Payments

".—(1) Regulations made under this section may make prevision as to the exercise of the right to apply for a payment under Part I of this Act, or to claim compensation under Part II or Part V thereof or compensation for depreciation as defined for the purposes of Part IV of this Act and as to the person to whom any such payment or compensation, or any part thereof, is to be made or paid, and as to application of any such payment or compensation or any part thereof, in cases where, apart from this section, the right to apply for the payment or to claim the compensation, as the case may be, is exercisable by reference to—

1. (a) a claim holding which is subject to an assignation in security, or which was so subject at a time specified in the regulations; or
2. (b) an interest in land which is subject to a ground annual or a heritable security or a trust, or which was so subject at a time specified in the regulations; or
3. (c) an interest in land which is the interest of a vassal or a lessee.

(2) Any regulations made under this section may provide—

1. (a) for such conditions as may be prescribed to be attached to the making or paying by virtue of the regulations of any such payment or compensation as aforesaid or any part thereof;
2. (b) for the application, in a case where any payment or compensation, or any part thereof, is by virtue of the regulations to ob made or paid to a superior or to the creditor in a ground annual, of all or any of the provisions of section twenty-five of the War Damage Act, 1943 (which relates to the rights of superiors and creditors in ground annuals as to payments for war damage) subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed; and
3. (c) for any disputes, or any disputes of such classes as may be prescribed, arising out of the regulations to be referred to the Lands Tribunal for determination by that Tribunal."

The noble and learned Viscount said: I should like to say a few words about this new clause, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to discuss this Amendment with Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 because the new clause com- bines the existing Clause 65 [Provision for making payments in certain cases to owners of interests other than those in respect of which they accrue], and Clause 66 [Provision as to payments in certain cases affected by trusts and heritable securities]. Both Clauses 65 and 66, in effect, provide in relation to different types of cases for the diversion of payments from the persons entitled to them under various Parts of the Bill to other persons, and their combination in one clause is primarily a matter of drafting.

The new clause, however, is more comprehensive than the clauses which are being superseded, in the following respects. First, it provides for diversions where the payments are made not in respect of interests in land but of claim holdings under Parts I and V of the Bill. Secondly, it gives a right to persons to whom a diversion might be made to apply direct for the payment where the person originally entitled to it has failed to apply. Thirdly, it provides for the reference of disputes to the Lands Tribunal. In Scotland, as the Lands Tribunal has not yet been appointed, references are in the meantime to be made to an official arbiter under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. The new clause follows the same lines as Clause 65 (1) of the English Bill, as amended in Committee, except that it covers also payments in respect of compensation in depreciation do the value of interests in land resulting from a future revocation or mollification of planning provision While these eases are few, it seems logical to provide for them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 64, insert the said new clause. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved— Leave out Clause 65. Leave out Clause 66.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 67 agreed to.

Clause 68 [Provisions as to regulations]

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

It is not necessary to get Treasury approval for procedural regulations. I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 75, line 26, leave out lines 26 to 28.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 69 [Interpretation]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 76, line 13, at end insert— ("'compensation on the basis of existing use' means compensation with respect to the assessment of which the following provisions apply, that is to say, the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as modified by sections forty-eight, fifty and fifty-one of the principal Act, not being compensation calculated on the basis of equivalent reinstatement or on the basis of prevailing use and excluding any compensation for disturbance or for severance or injurious affection;").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 79, line 7, leave out subsection (8).—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 79, line 21, after ("reference") insert ("in this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 70 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is to make it clear that claims and development charges are not subject to re-assessment in the terms of the amended Third Schedule of the 1947 Act. On the other hand, existing use value or restricted value, in terms of compensation under Clause 33, will be subject to assessment in the terms of the amended Third Schedule, as amended by the Second Schedule of this Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 79, line 33, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of section thirty-three of this Act,").—(The Earl of Selkirk)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The words in this Amendment were omitted by mistake. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 79, line 35, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 37 and insert ("the following provisions of that Act, that is to say section fifty-one (which relates to the assessment of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of requisitioned land), section fifty-eight (which relates to the ascertainment of development values), section sixty-six (which relates to development charges) and subsection (1) of section eighty-five (which relates to the calculation of the development value of requisitioned land).")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 80, line 1, leave out subsection (6).—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

First Schedule [Modification of provisions of principal Act as to development value]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is an adjustment necessary because the compulsory purchase provisions of the 1947 Act came into operation almost a year before the appointed day. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 81, line 45, leave out ("begun but not completed") and insert ("carried out").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule [Claims assigned to Central Land Board as security for Development Charges]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The purpose of this Amendment is to set off in any one claim area all development charges due against that area. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 84, line 18, at end insert— ("(2) All assignations of claim holdings to the Central Land Board made by the same person, whether or not made at the same time, other than any assignation to which subparagraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule applies, shall for the purposes of this Schedule be treated collectively as a single assignation made at the time when the last of those assignations was made. (3) Where a development charge covered by an assignation to the Central Land Board was determined in respect of land which constitutes the whole or part of the area of a claim holding not comprised in the assignation, being a holding of which the holder is the person who would, apart from the assignation, be liable to pay the unpaid balance of the development charge, then, for the purposes of this Schedule, that claim holding shall be deemed to be comprised in the assignation.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 85, line 12, leave out from ("where") to ("and") in line 13 and insert ("an assignation to the Central Land Board comprised one or more claim holdings.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a fairly long Amendment, but I am told that it is a readjustment intended to simplify the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out paragraphs 4 and 5 and insert—

"4. Where an assignation to the Central Land Board comprised only a single holding with an area of which every part either consited of, or formed part of, the land in respect of which some development charge covered by the assignation was determined, and the last preceding paragraph does not apply, the unpaid balance of the development charge covered by the assignation, or, if more than one, the aggregate of the unpaid balances of all the development charges covered by the assignation, shall be deducted from the value of the holding, and the value of that holding shall be deemed to have been reduced accordingly as from the time of the assignation.

5.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect in the case of an assignation of one or more claim holdings to the Central Land Board to which neither of the two last preceding paragraphs applies

(2) Any claim holding comprised in the assignation with an area of which every part either consisted of, or formed part of, the land in respect of which some development charge covered by the assignation was determined shall be allocated to the development charge in question or, if more than one, to those development charges collectively.

(3) Any claim holding comprised in the assignation with an area part of which did, and part of which did not, consist of, or form part of, such land as aforesaid shall be treated as if, at the time of the assignation, the claim holding (in this sub-paragraph referred to as the parent holding") had been divided into two separate claim holdings, that is to say—

1. (a) a claim holding with an area consisting of so much of the area of the parent holding as consisted of, or formed part of, such land as aforesaid and with a value equal to that fraction of the value of the parent holding which then attached to that part of the area of the parent holding; and
2. (b) a claim holding with an area consisting of the residue of the area of the parent holding and with a value equal to that fraction of the value of the parent holding which then attached to the residue of the area of the parent holding.

and the claim holding referred to in head (a) of this sub-paragraph shall be allocated to the development charge in question, or, if more than one, to those development charges collectively.

(4) Paragraph 3 or 4 of this Schedule shall then apply in relation to each claim holding, if any, allocated in accordance with the two last preceding sub-paragraphs to any development charge, or to any development charges collectively, as if the assignation had comprised only that claim holding and had covered only that development charge or those development charges.

(5) If after the application of the preceding provisions of this paragraph there remains outstanding any claim holding not allocated in accordance with those provisions, or any claim holding so allocated which has been reduced in value but not extinguished, an amount equal to the aggregate of—

1. (a) the unpaid balance of any development charge covered by the assignation to which no claim holding was allocated as aforesaid; and
2. (b) the amount, if any, by which the value of any claim holding allocated as aforesaid which is deemed to have been extinguished falls short of the unpaid balance of the development charge, or the aggregate of the unpaid balances of the development charges, to which it was so allocated,

shall be deducted from the value of the claim holding so remaining outstanding, or, if more than one, shall be deducted rateably from the respective values of those claim holdings, and the value of any such holding shall be deemed to have been reduced accordingly as from the time of the assignation."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is the Amendment to which I referred before, making the Bill more complete and thus avoiding the making of regulations in regard to the apportionment of interests. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After the Fourth Schedule insert the following new Schedule—