HL Deb 22 June 1959 vol 217 cc38-72

Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest

(.—(1) The provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect in relation to land which—

  1. (a) is land designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition, or
  2. (b) is land allocated by a development plan for the purposes of any functions of a government department, local authority or statutory undertakers, or of the National Coal Board, or is land defined in such a plan as the site of proposed development for the purposes of any such functions, or
  3. (c) is land indicated in a development plan (otherwise than by being allocated or defined as mentioned in the last preceding paragraph) as land on which a highway is proposed to be constructed or land to be included in a highway as proposed to be improved or altered, or
  4. (d) is land authorised by a special enactment to be compulsorily acquired, or land falling within the limits of deviation within which powers of compulsory acquisition conferred by a special enactment are exercisable, or
  5. (e) is land on or adjacent to the line of a highway proposed to be constructed, improved or altered, as indicated in an order 39 or scheme which has come into operation under the provisions of Part II of the Highways Act, 1959, relating to trunk roads or special roads, being land in relation to which a power of compulsory acquisition conferred by any of the provisions of Part X of that Act may become exercisable, as being land required for purposes of construction, improvement or alteration as indicated in the order or scheme, or
  6. (f) is land shown on plans approved by a resolution of a local highway authority as land comprised in the site of a highway as proposed to be constructed, improved or altered by that authority.

(2) Where the whole or part of a hereditament or agricultural unit is comprised in land of any of the specified descriptions, and a person claims that—

  1. (a) he is entitled to an interest in that hereditament or unit, and
  2. (b) the interest is one which qualifies for protection under this Part of this Act, and
  3. (c) since the relevant date he has made reasonable endeavours to sell that interest, and
  4. (d) he has been unable to sell it except at a price substantially lower than that for which it might reasonably have been expected to sell if no part of the hereditament or unit were comprised in land of any of the specified descriptions,
he may serve on the appropriate authority a notice in the prescribed form requiring that authority to purchase that interest to the extent specified in, and otherwise in accordance with, the following provisions of this Part of this Act.

(3) The last preceding subsection shall apply in relation to an interest in part of a hereditament or agricultural unit as it applies in relation to an interest in the entirety of a hereditament or agricultural unit:

Provided that this subsection shall not enable any person—

  1. (a) if he is entitled to an interest in the entirety of a hereditament or agricultural unit, to make any claim or serve any notice under the last preceding subsection in respect of his interest in part of the hereditament or unit, or
  2. (b) if he is entitled to an interest only in part of a hereditament or agricultural unit, to make or serve any such claim or notice in respect of his interest in less that the entirety of that part.

(4) An interest in the whole or part of a hereditament shall be taken to be an interest qualifying for protection under this Part of this Act if, on the date of service of a notice under this section in respect thereof, either—

  1. (a) the annual value of the hereditament does not exceed the prescribed limit, and the interest in question is the interest of an owner-occupier of the hereditament, or
  2. (b) in a case not falling within the preceding paragraph, the interest in Question is the interest of a resident owner-occupier of the hereditament.

(5) An interest in the whole or part of an agricultural unit shall be taken to be an interest qualifying for protection under this Part of this Act if, on the date of service of a notice under this section in respect thereof, it is the interest of an owner-occupier of the unit.

(6) In the following provisions of this Part of this Act 'the claimant', in relation to a notice served under this section, means the person who served that notice, and any reference to the interest of the claimant, in relation to such a notice, is a reference to the interest which the notice requires the appropriate authority to purchase as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section.

(7) In the application of this section to Scotland—

  1. (a) for any reference to the provisions of Part II of the Highways Act, 1959, relating to trunk roads or special roads, there shall be substituted a reference to the provisions of the Trunk Roads Act, 1946, or the Special Roads Act, 1949;
  2. (b) for any reference to any of the provisions of Part X of the said Act of 1959, there shall be substituted a reference to section thirteen of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, as read with any of the following enactments, that is to say section four of the Trunk Roads Act, 1936, section five of the Trunk Roads Act, 1946 and sections nine, ten and fourteen of the Special Roads Act, 1949; and
  3. (c) for any reference to a highway there shall be substituted a reference to a road.")

After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:

Objection to notice requiring purchase of claimant's interest

(".—(1) Where a notice has been served under the last preceding section in respect of a hereditament or agricultural unit, the appropriate authority, at any time before the end of the period of two months beginning with the date of service of that notice, may serve on the claimant a counter-notice in the prescribed form objecting to the notice.

(2) The grounds on which objection may be made in a counter-notice to a notice served under the last preceding section are:—

  1. (a) that no part of the hereditament or agricultural unit to which the notice relates is comprised in land of any of the specified descriptions;
  2. (b) that the appropriate authority (unless compelled to do so by virtue of this Part of this Act) do not propose to acquire any part of the hereditament, or (in the case of an agricultural unit) any part of the affected area, in the exercise of any relevant powers;
  3. (c) that (in the case of an agricultural unit) the appropriate authority propose in the exercise of relevant powers to acquire a part of the affected area specified in the counter-notice, but (unless compelled to do so by virtue of this Part of this Act) do not propose to acquire any other part of that area in the exercise of any such powers;
  4. (d) that, on the date of service of the notice under the last preceding section, the 41 claimant was not entitled to an interest in any part of the hereditament or agricultural unit to which the notice relates;
  5. (e) that (for reasons specified in the counter-notice) the interest of the claimant is not an interest qualifying for protection under this Part of this Act;
  6. (f) that the conditions specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (2) of the last preceding section are not fulfilled.

(3) Any counter-notice served under this section in respect of a notice under the last preceding section shall specify the grounds (being one or more of the grounds mentioned in the last preceding subsection) on which the appropriate authority object to the notice.

(4) In this section 'relevant powers', in relation to any land falling within any of the specified descriptions, means any powers under which the appropriate authority are or could be authorized—

  1. (a) to acquire that land compulsorily as being land falling within that description, or
  2. (b) to acquire that land compulsorily for any of the relevant purposes;
and 'the relevant purposes', in relation to any such land, means the purposes for which, in accordance with the circumstances by virtue of which that land falls within the description in question, it is liable to be acquired or is indicated as being proposed to be acquired.")

After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:

Reference of objection to Lands Tribunal

(".—(1) Where a counter-notice has been served under the last preceding section, objecting to a notice served under section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act, the claimant may require the objection to be referred to the Lands Tribunal.

(2) On any such reference, if the objection is not withdrawn, the Lands Tribunal shall consider the matters set out in the notice served by the claimant and the grounds of the objection specified in the counter-notice; and, subject to the next following subsection, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the objection is not well-founded, the Tribunal shall uphold the objection.

(3) An objection on the grounds mentioned in paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of the last preceding section shall not be upheld by the Tribunal unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the objection is well-founded.

(4) If the Tribunal determines not to uphold the objection, the Tribunal shall declare that the notice to which the counter-notice relates is a valid notice.

(5) If the Tribunal upholds the objection, but only on the grounds mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of the last preceding section, the Tribunal shall declare that the notice is a valid notice in relation to the part of the affected area specified in the counter-notice as being the part which the appropriate authority propose to acquire as therein mentioned, but not in relation to any other part of the affected area.

(6) In any case falling within subsection (4) or subsection (5) of this section, the Tribunal shall give directions specifying the date on which notice to treat (as mentioned in the next following section) is to be deemed to have been served")

After Clause 38 insert the following new clause:

Effect of valid notice requiring purchase of claimant's interest

(".—(1) Where a notice has been served under section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act and either—

  1. (a) no counter-notice objecting to that notice is served in accordance with the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act, or
  2. (b) where such a counter-notice has been served, the objection is withdrawn, or, on a reference to the Lands Tribunal, is not upheld by the Tribunal,
the appropriate authority shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire compulsorily under the appropriate enactment the interest of the claimant in the hereditament, or (in the case of an agricultural unit) the interest of the claimant in so far as it subsists in the affected area, and to have served a notice to treat in respect thereof on the date mentioned in the next following subsection.

(2) The said date—

  1. (a) in a case where, on a reference to the Lands Tribunal, the Tribunal determines not to uphold the objection, is the date specified in directions given by the Tribunal in accordance with subsection (6) of the last preceding section;
  2. (b) in any other case, is the date on which the period of two months beginning with the date of service of the notice under section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act comes to an end.

(3) Where the notice under section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act relates to an agricultural unit, and the appropriate authority have served a counter-notice objecting to that notice on the grounds mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section (Objection to notice requiring purchase of claimant's interest) of this Act, then if either—

  1. (a) the claimant, without referring that objection to the Lands Tribunal, and before the time for so referring it has expired, gives notice to the appropriate authority that he accepts the proposal of the authority to acquire the part of the affected area specified in the counter-notice, and withdraws his claim as to the remainder of that area, or
  2. (b) on a reference to the Lands Tribunal, the Tribunal makes a declaration in accordance with subsection (5) of the last preceding section in respect of that part of the affected area,
the appropriate authority shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire compulsorily under the appropriate enactment the interest of the claimant in so far as it subsists in the part of the affected area specified in the counter-notice (but not in so far as it subsists in any other part of that area) and to have served a notice to treat in respect thereof on the date mentioned in the next following subsection.

(4) The said date—

  1. (a) in a case falling within paragraph (a) of the last preceding subsection, is the date on which notice is given in accordance with that paragraph, and
  2. (b) in a case falling within paragraph (b) of that subsection, is the date specified in directions given by the Lands Tribunal in accordance with subsection (6) of the last preceding section.")

After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:

Supplementary provisions relating to Part IV

(".—(1) The provisions of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions as to purchase of owner-occupier's interest) to this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this Part of this Act.

(2) Subject to the provisions of that Schedule, in this Part of this Act 'owner-occupier', in relation to a hereditament, means a person who—

  1. (a) occupies the whole or part of the hereditament in right of an owner's interest therein, and has so occupied the hereditament or that part thereof during the whole of the period of six months ending with the date of service, or
  2. (b) occupied, in right of an owner's interest, the whole or part of the hereditament during the whole of a period of six months ending not more than six months before the date of service, the hereditament, or that part thereof, as the case may be, having been unoccupied since the end of that period.

(3) Subject to the provisions of the said Schedule, in this Part of this Act 'owner-occupier', in relation to an agricultural unit, means a person who—

  1. (a) occupies the whole of that unit, and has occupied it during the whole of the period of six months ending with the date of service, or
  2. (b) occupied the whole of that unit during the whole of a period of six months ending not more than six months before the date of service,
and, at all times material for the purposes of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection, as the case may be, has been entitled to an owner's interest in the whole or part of that unit.

(4) In this Part of this Act 'resident owner-occupier', in relation to a hereditament, means an individual who—

  1. (a) occupies the whole or part of the hereditament as a private dwelling in right of an owner's interest therein, and has so occupied the hereditament or that part thereof, as the case may be, during the whole of the period of six months ending with the date of service or
    2. 44
  2. (b) occupied, in right of an owner's interest, the whole or part of the hereditament as a private dwelling during the whole of a period of six months ending not more than six months before the date of service, the hereditament, or that part thereof, as the case may be, having been unoccupied since the end of that period.

(5) Subject to the provisions of the said Schedule, in this Part of this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say:— 'the affected area', in relation to an agricultural unit, means so much of that unit as, on the date of service, consists of land falling within any of the specified descriptions; 'agricultural unit' means land which is occupied as a unit for agricultural purposes, including any dwelling-house or other building occupied by the same person for the purpose of farming the land; 'annual value', in relation to a hereditament, means the value which, on the date of service, is shown in the valuation list as the rateable value of that hereditament, except that, where the rateable value differs from the net annual value, it means the value which on that date is shown in the valuation list as the net annual value thereof; 'the appropriate authority', in relation to any land, means the government department, local authority or other body by whom, in accordance with the circumstances by virtue of which the land falls within any of the specified descriptions, the land is liable to be acquired or is indicated as being proposed to be acquired; 'the appropriate enactment', in relation to land falling within any of the specified descriptions, means the enactment which provides for the compulsory acquisition of land as being land falling within that description: 'hereditament' means the aggregate of the land which forms the subject of a single entry in the valuation list for the time being in force for a rating area; 'the prescribed limit' means such amount as may be prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act by an order made by the Minister; 'the relevant date '—

  1. (a) in relation to land designated, allocated, defined or indicated as mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act, means the date (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) on which the development plan, or the amendment of the development plan, by virtue of which the land was first so designated, allocated, defined or indicated came into operation;
    2. 45
  2. (b) in relation to any such land as is mentioned in paragraph (d) of that subsection, means the date (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) on which the special enactment in question came into operation;
  3. (c) in relation to land falling within paragraph (e) of that subsection, means the date (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) of the coming into operation of the order or scheme by virtue of which it falls within that paragraph;
  4. (d) in relation to land falling within paragraph (f) of that subsection, means the date (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) of the passing of the resolution by virtue of which it falls within that paragraph:
'the specified descriptions' means the descriptions contained in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) of section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act.

(6) Any reference in this Part of this Act to a development plan is a reference to such a plan in the form in which (whether as originally made or approved by the Minister or as subsequently amended) that plan is for the time being in force.

(7) In this section 'date of service', in relation to a hereditament or agricultural unit, means the date of service of a notice in respect thereof under section (Notice requiring purchase of owner-occupier's interest) of this Act, and 'owner's interest', in relation to a hereditament or agricultural unit or part thereof, means a freehold interest therein or a tenancy thereof granted or extended for a term of years certain of which, on the date of service, not less than three years remain unexpired.

(8) In the application of this section to Scotland, for any reference to a rating area there shall be substituted a reference to a valuation area, and, in relation to a valuation area, for any reference to the valuation list there shall be substituted a reference to the valuation roll; and for the definitions of 'hereditament' and 'owner's interest' in subsections (5) and (7) respectively there shall be substituted the following definitions, that is to say,— 'hereditament' means the aggregate of the lands and heritages (not being agricultural lands and heritages within the meaning of section seven of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956) which form the subject of a single entry in the valuation roll for the time being in force for a valuation area; and 'owner's interest' in relation to a hereditament or agricultural unit or part thereof includes the interest of the lessee under a lease thereof, being a lease the unexpired period of which on the date of service is not less than three years.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

4.18 p.m.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, this group of Amendments not only amalgamates, if I may use that word, former Clauses 37 and 38, but also, as it were, confirms and consolidates the extension of the protection to be given under the Bill to the non-residential owner-occupiers. I think it is important to bear in mind in connection with that extension of protection that no such provision was included in the Bill as introduced into the other place. The protection in that Bill was limited to residential owner-occupiers, and that was the case when the Bill came from another place to your Lordships' House. My own view is that there is little or no case for extending this protection beyond the residential owner-occupier. There can be, I think, little question that that was in the minds of the Government when the Bill was introduced into another place, and it was the view of the other place when the Bill emerged from there.

Under the Amendments now proposed by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack the owners who are to benefit from this protection are divided into two categories. One category is to be determined by the annual value of the hereditament; and according to the Amendment on the Marshalled List at page 17, the prescribed limit of the annual value of the hereditament is to be determined, presumably, from time to time by the order of the Minister, which I venture to think is a most unusual and most unsatisfactory procedure. The other category is the category of a resident owner-occupier. The definition as to who is a resident owner-occupier can be found in the Marshalled List of Amendments, at page 16. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether the Government have yet in mind what is to be the measure of the annual value to be settled by the Minister, persumably by order. On whether it is to be a statutory order, either requiring positive approval, or subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, the Amendments are silent. I should like some indication, otherwise it seems to me that this protection which was intended to protect owner-occupiers—that is to say, homes as distinct from property—is now to be extended to include property.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I think I said on the Committee stage that the limit was to be £250 a year. I have no information to the contrary, and the noble Lord may take it that that is so. I should have been told had there been change. On the general point, this was a matter which we discussed very fully on the Committee stage, and I obtained opinions on it from all parts of the House. One can never please everyone, but I was glad that in certain aspects of it there were non-dissentient voices from the Benches where the noble Lord sits. This is a very difficult problem, however, and I hope that your Lordships will feel that everything which has been advanced in this House has been carefully considered, and that in the end we have got as near justice as human frailty will allow. One can never say more.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, if the noble and learned Viscount says that £250 has been settled, why cannot it be included in the Bill?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I thought the noble Lord was asking me what figure my right honourable friend had in mind. It is the sort of thing which I should have thought, in our general legislative experience, it was better to keep flexible, because there may be changes in circumstances which we cannot see.

LORD LATHAM

That is not the case with the Rent Act.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Circumstances alter cases. But that is what my right honourable friend has in mind, and I do not think there is any further information I can give the noble Lord. Again, if there is, I will not keep it from him.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 39 [Land declared (otherwise than by development plan) to be subject to compulsory purchase]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, this is really a drafting Amendment, and I delay your Lordships only to point out that it is like the related Amendments to Clause 47 and the Second Schedule, which we shall come to. It is consequential on the re-arrangement of the blight provisions which replace the old clauses and the Fifth and Sixth Schedules. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 19, leave out from ("of") to end of line 20 and insert ("Part IV of, and the Schedule (Supplementary provisions as to purchase of owner-occupier's interest)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43 [Acquisition of land for trunk roads]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, this, also, is a drafting Amendment. It avoids a difficulty which my noble friend Lord Gage had in mind of referring to land acquired for a purpose mentioned in the consolidating Highways Act, 1959. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 34, leave out from ("Aviation") to end of line 40 and insert ("under any enactment contained in Part X of the Highways Act, 1959, to acquire by agreement land required for a purpose mentioned in that enactment shall be exercisable in respect of any land which, in the opinion of that Minister, may be required for that purpose, notwithstanding that the land is not immediately required for that purpose").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BATHURST

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment required because the consolidating Highways Act, 1959, does not apply to Scotland. There are two Amendments in the Schedules and Amendment No. 59 which are dependent upon this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 43, at end insert ("and for any reference to any enactment contained in Part X of the Highways Act, 1959, there shall be substituted a reference to section thirteen of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, as read with any of the following enactments, that is to say, section four of the Trunk Roads Act, 1936, section five of the Trunk Roads Act, 1946, and sections nine, ten and fourteen of the Special Roads Act, 1949").—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 44 [Advances to highway authorities in respect of land acquired for roads]:

EARL BATHURST

My Lords, with your Lordships leave, Amendments Nos. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 can all be taken together. They are consequential on the passing of the consolidating Highways Act, 1959. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 67, line 2, leave out from ("section") to first ("to") in line 3 and insert ("two hundred and thirty-five of the Highways Act, 1959")

Page 67, line 7, leave out ("road") and insert ("highway")

Page 67, line 8, leave out ("road") and insert ("highway")

Page 67, line 12, leave out ("eight") and insert ("two hundred and thirty-five")

Page 67, line 18, leave out ("road") and insert ("highway")

Page 67, line 27, leave out from ("section") to ("loan") in line 29.—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL BATHURST

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment depending upon Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 35, at end insert ("for any reference to section two hundred and thirty-five of the Highways Act, 1959, there shall be substituted a reference to section eight of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909; for any reference to a highway (except in the expression 'highway authority') there shall be substituted a reference to a road; and expressions used in this section and in the said section eight shall have the same meanings in this section as in that section").—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 45 [Amendment of s. 81 of Land Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845]:

4.28 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection (1) to leave out all words between title to "and" undertaking in and insert any expenses necessarily incurred by the seller in taking any action he may be requested by the promoters of the undertaking to take".

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will remember the matters that gave rise to this Amendment, because its purpose is to improve the drafting of the clause (which was criticised by the noble Lord on the Committee stage) so as to make the Government's original intentions more explicit. The clause is intended to correct an anomalous situation existing between the English and Scottish statutory provisions of the Lands Clauses Act relating to the recovery by sellers of the expenses of conveyances. In England, all the costs incurred by a seller in connection with the conveyance of land to an acquiring authority are recoverable from that authority under Section 82 of the English Lands Clauses Act. In Scotland, since the decision of the Court of Session in Graham v. The Caledonian Railway Company in 1848—that was the decision which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, may remember I mentioned on the Committee stage—a very restrictive construction has been placed on the scope of the comparable Scottish provision, Section 81 of the Scottish Lands Clauses Act, with the result that expenses incurred in making up title are not admissible. The purpose of the clause is to remove this anomaly by widening the scope of Section 81 to include such expenses.

May I now turn to the effect of the Amendment? The first effect is to make it quite plain that expenses will be recoverable by the seller only so far as they are necessarily incurred following a request for action in connection with the conveyance by the acquiring authority. This will exclude any possibility of a seller's interpreting any unspecific approach by an authority as authority for him to incur expenses; the vaguer phrase "attributable to any requirement" which was criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin and is now dropped contained that danger.

The second effect is that it will now be even more clear that the acquiring authority is master of the situation; unless they make a request to the seller—this is entirely at their discretion—they will be under no obligation to pay anything in excess of the expenses payable under the Graham decison. The Amendment now proposed also drops the words "in completing title"; in a statutory context amending the 1845 Act they might be thought to carry only the very restricted and rather obsolete meaning of "complete enfeoffment", the procedure current when the Graham decision was given but now generally superseded by more modern methods of making up title. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will think we have gone some way in meeting his difficulties. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 41, leave out from second ("to") to first ("in") in line 44, and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, this certainly goes a good way towards meeting the point I raised, but as the noble and learned Viscount indicated, it does not go the whole way. The Scottish local authorities are still left with some part of the burden of having to establish the title of the vendor. In an English compulsory acquisition the vendor has to make his title and he has to make it at his own expense. In this case although the Government have gone a long way they still have not gone all the way. But I do not wish to press the matter. Apparently, for reasons which I cannot understand, the Scottish authorities appear to be satisfied that they have got something. I do not know how much there is in the whole business, but at any rate it is not for me to press where the Scotsmen are not anxious to press further.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, speaking as a Scotsman and the person responsible for the Amendment, I think the less I say the better. I would only thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for his indication that we have at any rate improved the position.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 46 [Recovery of certain sums from acquiring authorities]:

4.33 p.m.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (3), to add to the proviso to the proposed new subsection (6): (ii) where the Minister is satisfied that the purpose for which the land is being acquired is for the use as a public open space or public recreation ground, he shall remit any amount otherwise recoverable under this section.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which raises some rather technical issues and also the question of financial relationships between the State and local authorities, a subject which rarely rouses the House to very strong feelings, but the object of my Amendment is one which I do think has popular appeal; that is, I want to make it easier than it is at present to provide recreation grounds and public open spaces. The playing fields movement in this country has a very wide measure of support, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Luke will confirm, and is under most distinguished patronage. If anyone had introduced legislation which had the obvious effect of impeding the provision of these amenities I think that there would have been a considerable public outcry. It is my submission and the submission of the County Councils Association that the present town planning legislation, or town planning legislation as at present administered, is doing that, and we think it will continue to do so in an even more pronounced form under the present Bill. The reasons for this are not obvious, and I can only hope that your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments while I explain, so far as I am able to do, how this comes about and why I am asking for your Lordships' support.

Your Lordships will remember that under the Act of 1947 a fund of £300 million was set up to compensate owners of land for the loss of value they sustained when consent to develop was refused by the planning authorities, and I have no doubt that many of your Lordships have submitted claims and possibly have received appropriate compensation under that Act. There was a further provision in that Act that where a later modification was made in the development plan, where land that had hitherto been restricted was subsequently released for development, the owner should repay the sum of money he had received as compensation. That seems quite fair and proper; I would agree that nobody should receive value twice over. If a man has been paid by the State because he had lost development value and if that value was subsequently restored to him, clearly he should pay back his compensation money.

But in the ordinary common sense of the average layman it seems to me that there is a distinction to be drawn between development in the normally accepted sense of the word, such as for residential buildings or factories or hotels, and development of a sort which leaves the land in very much the same state as it is now. I think I am right in saying (and I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong) that under Clause 46 the law draws no such distinction; any departure from the agricultural use is technically development. I believe that under the 1947 Act a distinction between different forms of development was recognised, because a graduated development charge was payable to the State which did bear a relation to the different types of development being carried out. Moreover, when that development charge was abolished under the 1954 Act, Parliament continued to recognise this distinction to some degree, for it gave the Minister discretion to remit repayment of compensation if it seemed to him that the circumstances were appropriate.

How far that discretion has ever been used I do not know, but it is irrelevant to my argument, because no such discretion was given to him in regard to land owned by local authorities. I think the argument was based on the fact that under the 1954 Act authorities could still purchase land at below market value. It was confidently expected that when under this Bill this difference was removed and market value had to be paid, the Minister would obtain and would exercise discretion for the benefit of local authorities having regard to the type of development they proposed, in exactly the same way as he had been empowered to do for the private individual. Some of the complicated wording of Clause 46 gave rise to the hope that that would be so. But when challenged the Minister seems to agree on paper that he has a discretion but says that he proposes to use it so rarely as really not to make very much change in the circumstances.

I should like to read out the exact words of this letter: There is a discretion whether the Minister shall recover but constitutionally, rather than as a matter of legal interpretation, he would be expected by Parliament to recover, in the interests of the Exchequer, in the normal case, and not to invent rules for recovery and non-recovery which Parliament has not hinted at, let alone set out. Nevertheless, this does not prevent him from treating some exceptional case in an exceptional manner, if he is satisfied that there are good grounds for so doing in that case. I think some of us would be greatly interested to know what sort of exceptional cases would persuade the Minister to exercise that discretion.

All I can say is that we have this somewhat curious position. If a parish council buys a field, which may have some cows grazing on it, for the purpose of putting on it a cricket pitch or a couple of goal posts, notwithstanding the fact that the appearance of that field may remain very much as it always has done, and although some of the cows may still remain grazing on part of the land, that is deemed to be development in exactly the same way as if some great company had covered the whole area with commercial buildings, and the same charge is recoverable. I do not want to over-state my case. I think that is the position, and that is where the Minister has said that he is not going to use his discretion except in exceptional circumstances.

I should like just to quote one or two cases of what has been happening under the existing law. Quite recently in Kent a parish council was anxious to preserve some wooded land as an open space and for that purpose raised several hundred pounds by voluntary subscription. The district council agreed to finance the remainder to make up the purchase price of the land, which was £1,600. Then it transpired that if the district council did purchase the land they would be liable to a further charge of £4,000 in respect of the repayment of claim. I have heard of two cases in Cambridgeshire and another in Essex where local authorities have been deterred by the very great incidence of this prospective charge from providing open spaces which they greatly desired.

Perhaps the most unintelligible case of all, which I confess is not concerned with my Amendment (it does not deal with open spaces, but illustrates the kind of reasoning about which I am complaining) occurred in Lancashire. There, the district council were asked by an owner for permission to develop land in the middle of a green belt area. Permission was refused, and then the owner, instead of making his Part VI claim in the normal way, put in a compulsory purchase notice, on the ground that the land without building permission was of no value to him. The purchase notice was confirmed by the Minister, and the district council were then compelled by Statute to buy the land. The council thus became liable not only for the price of the land, which was £150, but also to a further £2,000 in respect of the return of the Part VI claim. And this was simply to enable an approved green belt to be maintained. I am certain that if proper inquiries were instituted a great many other cases of this kind might be discovered. I do not think it can be wondered at that the ordinary councillor, the ordinary man in the street, should feel somewhat bewildered as to why these authorities should be so penalised for doing their duty.

To account for this apparent paradox, I think we have to enter into what might be termed the more rarified heights of thinking on town planning matters. "How", we shall be asked, "are you going to distinguish between the provision of open spaces and playing fields and any other form of local government functions, such as housing, roads or schools? Is any local government activity remunerative, in the ordinary sense of the word? Is not this the reason why Parliament sanctioned the expenditure of many hundreds of millions a year in subsidising local authorities to help them to carry out these functions? Are you not, in fact, asking for extra subvention, over and above the block grant, for the purchase of land for playing fields and open spaces?" I see the logic of that sort of argument; but I also see the logic of another argument, which is that Parliament in 1947 made this once-for-all payment of £300 million for the purpose of enabling local authorities really to preserve the amenities in the broad sense of the term.

It is for amenity purposes that we establish these green belts; it is for amenity purposes that we try to prevent surburban sprawl. There may be other reasons of a less important nature. These open spaces and playing fields in no way offend the ameneties. They offend them to a far less extent than some forms of agriculture, such as the erection of broiler-houses, which to a considerable extent interfere with amenities, although, because they are considered to be agricultural, they do not attract any such charge. Where local authorities are restricting their own land in the interests of amenity, it is a little difficult to see why they should be treated any differently from the private individual whose land is similarly restricted, very often by the same local authority. It seems to me, though I agree to a small degree only, that we are putting back the clock and reversing the process for which this £300 million was instituted. It is because I can see a clear line of distinction between this form of local activity and any other—because I cannot see that it offends any of the purposes for which the £300 million was instituted—that I have drafted the Amendment in this way.

If no concession is to be made on this point I foresee that for the immediate future local authorities will be hampered as they have been in the past; and more so because loss on market value will be more expensive. But after that I can foresee that some ingenious lawyer will invent some sort of legal formula which will just skate round this difficulty; and I suppose that eventually cases will be fought upon it. But I should prefer that things should be done in a more straightforward manner. In describing his intentions, which I have read to your Lordships, the Minister seemed to anticipate some expression of Parliamentary opinion. I therefore hope that my noble and learned friend will not oppose the spirit of my Amendment but will allow it to take its chance in another place, which is the House responsible in these matters. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 29 at end insert the said sub-paragraph.—(Viscount Gage.)

LORD HYLTON

My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Gage. It seems to me perfectly right and justified to draw a distinction between local government development which is of a profitable nature, or is even of a standard local government nature, and an unprofitable procedure, which is the purchase of playing fields and open spaces. There must be a distinction between the two things. Although many of your Lordships were present during the debates on the Local Government Act, I cannot recall that we were then told that the new block grants, or part of the new block grants, were to be devoted to make repayment to the Minister in the manner which now appears to be envisaged, and which certainly appears to have been claimed in those particular counties that my noble friend has mentioned. I think one was Kent; another was Cambridgeshire, and yet another was Essex.

My noble friend mentioned the tremendous interest in the country, and the great individual efforts in almost every county in the country which have been going on ever since the last war, to provide additional playing fields. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Luke in his place. I hope that he is going to stress some aspects of this question. For years, voluntary effort has done all it possibly can to provide more playing fields. Now we find that if a local authority join in some joint venture with a parish council to do exactly the same thing as all these voluntary bodies—which, as my noble friend mentioned, are under the highest patronage in this country—they are going to be penalised in this extraordinary manner by having to find these large sums—sums which, in my opinion, it would be quite beyond the power of a parish council or rural district council to provide, block grant or no block grant. I regret that I foresee a complete closing down in these efforts if this land which carries some repayment claim for payment of compensation which has already occurred is required for open space purposes. I believe that the County Councils Association would be particularly perturbed by the statement just made to the House by my noble friend Lord Gage, that the Minister would exercise his discretion only in very exceptional cases. There is, of course, no definition, in this or any other Bill, of "exceptional", and that may cover more cases than we think; but until Parliament, either this House or another place, is given more information as to the Minister's views, I believe that there will be very grave disquiet in this House and in another place.

4.52 p.m.

LORD BURDEN

My Lords, your Lordships will notice that the next Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List deals with almost the same point although it may seem to be drawn slightly wider. The Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and my Amendment have the support of the County Councils Association and of the Association of Municipal Corporations, as the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has mentioned; and the point of the second Amendment is precisely the same as that moved by the noble Viscount—namely, that local authorities should not be prevented from acquiring land for open spaces, for green belt and playing fields, through fear of being mulcted in further heavy charges, as has been mentioned.

There is little that I can add to the explanation given by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, except to say that the men who are engaged in the day-to-day work of local authorities take a serious view of this matter and hope that some relief will be given by your Lordships along the lines of the Amendment. I hope that it will commend itself to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack.

4.54 p.m.

LORD LUKE

My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment and to support also all that the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has said, because as matters now stand there is a serious deterrent to the progress of acquiring and developing open spaces for recreational purposes. In fact, we in the National Playing Fields Association have already had cases where we have had to make grants to schemes not for laying out and developing land as playing fields but to assist the authority to pay this development value—which seems a most extraordinary thing to have to do. Yet we must do it if schemes are to go ahead at all or are not to fail. I can think of no better way of discouraging playing fields development than by continuing this position as it is at present.

I am sure that that is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, and I very much hope that we may be given a practical demonstration of how this can be bettered, so that encouragement may be given not only to local authorities but to associations similar to the National Playing Fields Association who are trying to provide open spaces for the people.

4.56 p.m.

LORD CORNWALLIS

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Gage, and the noble Lord, Lord Burden. I would emphasise that it is the very small local authorities who are hit hardest in this particular matter. It is where building is now taking place in unheard of places, where building was never thought of, that local authorities are being faced with the loss of development charge repayment; and it is those small parishes which simply cannot meet this charge. Perhaps a playing field which existed in that particular area is encroached upon. Perhaps some alteration has to be made in the planning arrangements. The local authorities set out to find some other place and they are up against exactly the type of case which my noble friend Lord Gage has presented to your Lordships. That is a very serious drag on any chance of being able to preserve those places, especially in the small parishes and smaller rural authorities, and therefore I very much hope that this Amendment may be given serious attention by Her Majesty's Government.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, we on this side fully support the case which has been so well made by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and others; and we think it is one which Her Majesty's Government ought seriously to take into consideration. For myself, I am bound to say that if there is discretion to remit the development charge in certain cases I cannot think of any case where it is more desirable that that discretion should be used. Admittedly, the discretion is used in exceptional cases; but if not this kind of case, what kind of case can be more acceptable and more deserving? I hope, therefore, that something can be done to meet the case of the county councils and others which has been presented on this Amendment.

4.59 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, it has certainly been a formidable and heavily-armed battery which has opened up on me in regard to this Amendment, and I should like to do my best to display the position as I see it, because I believe that there is here a real difficulty which I have not yet heard answered, and I should like to know whether there is an answer. Without going into anterior history, under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954, a person who is refused planning permission for the development of land is paid compensation by the Minister for that refusal; and when a local authority subsequently acquire such land the Minister is entitled, under Section 52 of the 1954 Act, to recover the amount of that compensation from the acquiring authority.

My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be that while such land is acquired for use as public open space or public recreation ground the Minister would be debarred from recovering the compensation he has paid; and the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Gage is mandatory on that point: it has the word "shall". The effect would be that it would enable the authority to acquire in those cases more cheaply but, your Lordships will appreciate, only in cases where planning permission for the land had previously been refused and compensation had been paid. It would be limited to those cases where permission has been refused and compensation has been paid. Where this has not happened the acquiring authority would, under the Bill, have to pay market value, which would take into account the owner's right to receive compensation on refusal of permission for development. Therefore, if my noble friend's Amendment were accepted, it would be quite fortuitous whether the local authority would have to pay for the development value or not; and it would, I think, be very unfortunate if we were to make this operate in an entirely fortuitous way.

My friend argued that a private person does not have to repay the compensation to the Minister unless he subsequently develops the land, and that a local authority should not be treated differently. But, my Lords, are the cases really comparable? Recovery is made from a local authority because they have acquired the land, and not on account of any particular development they may wish to carry out. The principle was established under the 1954 Act that where local authorities bought land in respect of which compensation for refusal of planning permission had been paid they should meet the cost of that compensation through the recovery by the Minister. The Bill does not alter that, and there does not seem to be any ground for altering it, since, as I have already said, the local authority will be paying no more in total for the land than the market value it would have had if the owner had not exercised his right to receive compensation on refusal of planning permission.

Noble Lords in all quarters are putting us in this difficulty: that where there is no logical reason, and indeed where fortuitous injustices would result, where there is an admirable purpose for using the land to which we are all in our private capacities entirely sympathetic, it should be made mandatory on the Minister not to ask for the repayment which up to now everyone has said he is entitled to.

My noble friend Lord Cornwallis based his attack—if I may put it that way; it was a most friendly contribution—on the necessity of providing the poorer authorities with financial resources to buy land for open space. I hope I have made clear that the first point still applies. It would operate only fortuitously as I have described. I appreciate my noble friend's desire, and the proper method for giving financial assistance to an authority is by Exchequer grant. The question of grant towards the provision of public open space was examined only last year, and I can assure your Lordships this service was taken into account in determining the figure of the general grant under the Local Government Act, 1958. Of course, in addition to that fact the poorer local authorities receive rate-deficiency grants towards all their expenditure.

My noble friend Lord Gage referred in particular to the difficulties of parish councils. Parish councils do not receive directly any share of either the general or the rate-deficiency grants, although the ratepayers of the parish receive their share of the benefit of such grants paid to the authorities for their district. It is true, however, that where the parish council as such provide their own public open space the cost falls as an additional charge on the ratepayers, of the parish alone. But under Section 56 (2) of the Local Government Act, 1958, a county council may make any contribution it thinks fit towards expenditure by a parish council or parish meeting in connection with the functions of the council or meeting relating to public open spaces; and as county councils receive general grant it is not unreasonable to suppose that they will make use of their general grant to help the parish councils in this way.

Those are the difficulties. Noble Lords have asked me about the discretion of the Minister. My Lords, it is very difficult indeed to say what are the hypothetical circumstances in which a Minister of the Crown will exercise his discretion. I find it quite impossible so to do. It is rather like the old rhyme: The Earl of Chatham, with sword drawn, Stood waiting for Sir Richard Strachan; Sir Richard longing to be at him Stood waiting for the Earl of Chatham. To-day my noble friend Lord Gage says either, "We will take the Minister's discretion away entirely", or "Tell him that he must exercise his discretion in these special circumstances". My Lords, all that I can say to assist my noble friends is that the possibility of exercising the discretion is still there, and if the circumstances are of an exceptional kind, which will make the exercise of the discretion proper, my right honourable friend will do it. But the matters I have mentioned are all matters that he must take into account.

My noble friend Lord Gage is pressing that the words should be, as will follow from his Amendment: where the Minister is satisfied that the purpose for which the land is being acquired is for use as a public open space or public recreation ground…"— that is all. If the Minister is satisfied on that, then he "shall" remit the amount; that is to say, he cannot take into account the position of the authority or the position of the person to whom the compensation has been paid or the amount of the general grant or anything else. I do not think, if I may say so with respect, that it would be right to circumscribe the Minister's discretion in this way. But I do say this: that everyone, and not least myself, and certainly not least my right honourable friend, has the greatest sympathy towards playing fields and open spaces. I should be most grateful if my noble friend Lord Gage would allow me to have another word with my right honourable friend after what has been said to-day and see whether we can help in any way. But to put an Amendment into the Bill which is mandatory, and which would work as I have said (and I do not see the answer to that) entirely fortuitously, according to whether the compensation for refusal of planning permission has been paid or not, would be something that it would be rash to do. Therefore I would ask my noble friend not to press the matter on this occasion—at any rate, not until I have had a chance of studying it further.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, I was hoping that the reply from my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would have been such that there would have been no need for me to add my small contribution in support of the case which has been made by my noble friends in front of me. I have listened carefully to everything that my noble and learned friend has said, and the words with which I would agree most of all are those where he said, "I do not think we have got it quite right"—nor have we. My noble and learned friend, at the beginning and the end of what he said, made the point that my noble friend Lord Gage had put down a mandatory Amendment which compelled the Minister to do certain things, whereas in the Bill as now drafted the Minister has a discretionary power. It says that he is entitled to do it, and does not say that he shall or shall not. That, I think, is really the whole point; because this Amendment, if I have the matter aright, was put down by my noble friend because the County Councils Association—and, for all I know, the Association of Municipal Corporations, too—when they inquired from the Ministry what were the lines on which my right honourable friend was likely to interpret his powers in the Bill, were told that his interpretation of his powers was that they were so narrow that they could take it that, in practice, he would hardly ever use those powers at all. I do not think I am wrong about that. That is the impression I have, and I think it is the impression of my noble friends in front of me.

Now against that a good deal has been said this afternoon. First of all, my noble friend Lord Cornwallis described very tellingly the position of the small local authorities, and I should like to add a strong endorsement of what he said from my own experience in another part of England. I would say one or two more things about it as well. We were talking about parish councils just now, and it is perfectly true that parish councils have not the powers that other local authorities have, and that they do not get the grants direct. But, in practice, when a parish council sets out to acquire a playing field, as often as not it is not the ratepayers' money that they pay to get it but money that they have raised themselves; and that happens almost every day. Therefore, if one takes that point, the operation of the Minister's discretion, which is not going to be used, is mulcting the ordinary citizen and not merely the ratepayer.

I feel that the whole matter really turns on this: if my noble and learned friend is prepared to say now that the Minister will not close the door to the use of these powers but will use them in the sort of circumstances where there are, one might say, "real, hard lines"—in such cases as those given by my noble friend—then many of us would be much happier; but if he maintains the position that, although the Minister has those powers, he is never going to use them, and that he does not think that Parliament really means him to use them, then it is a good thing that the matter has come before this House, because the impression of this House if it means anything, surely shows that there is a great deal of feeling in this House of Parliament in support of the line which my noble friend has taken.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I am sure the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will not misunderstand me when I say that, with the greatest will in the world, his statement, comprehensive though it was, did not convince me that this Amendment was without considerable merit. That may be because of my own obtuseness; but, as I understand it, this right of claim by the Ministry in the past was because of the basis of the price paid by local authorities. The present Prime Minister said when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons) Vol. 530, col. 406] that if the Bill did not contain provision for recovery of such sums, acquiring authorities would be buying land more or less at existing use value, as they did under the 1947 Act, but relieved of any liability to pay development charge. Therefore, in order to restore a fair balance between them, it is necessary to see that the Exchequer is not left to pay the whole of the development value without, in this case, recovering the development charge". Now that is a perfectly fair and reasonable situation under the provisions which then obtained, and which still obtain. But, when this Bill becomes an Act, the local authorities will be in the same position as any other purchaser. They will be purchasing at market prices, which will include all the factors of development, including this one. When the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor says that it is fortuitous as to whether a local authority has to pay or not, I really cannot follow him.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? This is not a debating point. If he, with his great knowledge of accountancy, can remove my difficulty, I should be very happy. As I understand it, the position is this. The private individual puts in a claim for planning permission to do something; that planning permission is refused: and he then gets his compensation for the refusal. That, of course, is recovered in the usual way out of the fund; but he gets his compensation and the planning permission is refused. Therefore one continues on the basis that he could not use the land for that purpose; and the compensation is paid by the Minister. Then the authority decide to acquire the land. They still acquire on the basis that permission has been refused for that purpose and therefore the land is worth that amount—the amount of the compensation—less. So that in that case the local authority would not, in paying what they do to the individual whose land they are acquiring, and to the Minister in the return of the compensation, be paying any more than the market value. That is my difficulty, and I cannot see the answer to it. If the noble Lord can give me an answer to it, I should be grateful.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, this is not an exercise in accountancy. As I understand it, in a case such as that stated by the noble and learned Viscount the vendor would get less; and less to the extent of the development compensation which he had already received. Is it, then, the noble and learned Viscount's contention that, in future, the market price of the land to be acquired by a local authority will consist of two parts: one—say, x—the value of the land with this restriction upon development; plus y, which is the compensation which has been paid for the restriction upon development? The point is, who gets y? If the purchaser is a private person, he will get y, as I understand it; if it is a local authority, the local authority will pay y by paying it over to the Minister. It seems to me to be quite unfair. If, as is clearly the case, this curious arrangement was come to because it was supposed that the local authorities were in a favoured position, in that they were buying not at the market price but at the price ascertained by reference to the 1947 Act, when these conditions go there is no need for the maintenance and perpetuation of this obligation to pay over to the Minister. That is my point.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I cannot speak again except by leave of the House, but the noble and learned Viscount is always extremely courteous to us and if he proposes a certain line of action I am most anxious to come to terms, as it were. As no doubt the noble and learned Viscount has observed, there is a strong feeling on this point on all sides of the House, which contains much responsible opinion. If I may say so, the argument of fortuitousness is not one which upsets me very much. We are accustomed in town and country planning circles to a great many anomalies. We have had a great deal to do with them and I should have thought that if anybody felt the danger of this fortuitous chance it would be some of the associations who have really sponsored this Amendment. We are the people who ought to feel the great difficulty that arises as between one parish council and another. I have not observed that, and I honestly think that we can take a chance on it. Therefore I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, who, of course, is not responsible for the conduct of this Ministry, will make as strong representations as he can to the Minister to give serious consideration to this matter. The Minister more or less suggested that Parliament might express an opinion, and certainly your Lordships' House has expressed a very clear opinion.

LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE

My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount replies, may I put this question to him in respect of what my noble friend Lord Latham has said? Suppose that instead of a local authority the National Trust get possession of such a property, will they not escape what my noble friend called the "y" in this case? I should have thought that they would. But if, according to the noble and learned Viscount's argument, local authorities have to be in a worse position than the National Trust, I should have thought that that was indefensible.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I have tried to deal with the difficulty that we are dealing with a case—this must be the hypothesis—where the local authority purchases the land. On this basis the local planning authority has refused permission and thereby reduced the value of the land. I cannot see myself how that would not operate. But, as my noble friend Lord Gage has said, I have noted the strength of the feeling on this matter. He has been good enough to observe that I am not in charge of the Ministry, and I entirely agree. Therefore I should like to discuss this point with my right honourable friend. I would suggest that, in the circumstances, if your Lordships will give me the opportunity of discussing it with my right honourable friend, my noble friend should put this question down as an exceptional matter on Third Reading. That would give me a chance of discussing it and also give my right honourable friend a chance of reading all that your Lordships have said. It is an important point and one which I have as near to my heart as any noble Lord, as it concerns open spaces and playing fields. I should like the chance of discussing it with my right honourable friend and hope that I am not asking too much.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I have indicated that I would be most willing to agree with the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BURDEN

My Lords, in view of the assurance given on the previous Amendment, I do not propose to move the one standing in my name.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.

Clause 47 [Application of Act to Crown]:

5.26 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential on the rearrangement of the blight provisions. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 71, line 36, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert: ("() The rights conferred by Part IV of this Act shall be exercisable by a person who (within the meaning of that Part of this Act) is an owner-occupier of a hereditament or agricultural unit which is Crown land, or is a resident owner-occupier of a hereditament which is Crown land, in the same way as they are exercisable in respect of a hereditament or agricultural unit which is not Crown land, and the provisions of Part IV of this Act, and of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions as to purchase of owner-occupier's interest) to this Act, shall apply accordingly.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 52 [Interpretation]:

EARL BATHURST

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, consequential on the passing of the Highways Act, 1959.

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 74, line 41, at end insert— ("highway' has the same meaning as in the Highways Act, 1959").—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BATHURST

My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment consequential on the passing of the Highways Act, 1959. The second subsection deals with the special situation which exists with regard to highways in London. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 77, line 10, at end insert— ("() Any reference in this Act to any provisions of the Highways Act, 1959, shall be construed as including a reference to any corresponding enactment repealed by that Act. () In the application of this Act to London—

  1. (a) without prejudice to the operation of the last preceding subsection, any reference in this Act to provisions of the Highways Act, 1959, which extend to London subject to modifications shall be construed as a reference to those provisions as so modified;
  2. (b) any reference in this Act to provisions of the Highways Act, 1959, which do not extend to London shall be construed as mentioned in the last preceding subsection notwithstanding that the repeal of those provisions by that Act does not extend to London; and
  3. (c) any reference to a highway authority or a local highway authority includes a reference to the London County Council.
In this subsection 'London' means the administrative county of London.").—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53 [Consequential amendments and repeals]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, apart from this Amendment, the amendments made by the Bill to the purchase notice provisions of Section 19 of the Town and Country Planning Act would apply only to purchase notices served under that section. The provisions of that section are, however, already applied by other provisions of the 1947 Act and by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954. This Amendment takes account of cases where the provisions of Section 19 are so applied and extends to them the amendments to the purchase notice provisions made by the Bill. Paragraph (a) covers Sections 22 and 27 of the 1947 Act and Section 59 of the 1954 Act. Paragraph (b) covers building preservation orders, which incorporate the purchase notice provisions under regulations made in 1948. The Amendment contains its own Scottish application. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 77, line 28, at end insert ("but those amendments, and the amendments made by section thirty-four of this Act, shall have effect in relation to any purchase notice served after the commencement of this Act—

  1. (a) under the provisions of the said section nineteen or section seventeen as applied by any other provision of either of those Acts or of the Act of 1954 or the Scottish Act of 1954, or
  2. (b) under any order made (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) under any other provision of the Act of 1947 or the Scottish Act of 1947, except in so far as a contrary intention is expressed in any such order made after the commencement of this Act.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 66 to 71 are all consequential. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Clause 53, page 77, line 34, at end insert— ("() The amendment of the Second Schedule to the Housing Act, 1957, specified in the Eighth Schedule to this Act shall not have effect in relation to compulsory acquisitions to which section one of this Act does not apply.")

Clause 53, page 77, line 40, at end insert— ("() In accordance with subsections (1) to (3) and of section thirty-four of this Act, and with the preceding provisions of this section, section nineteen of the Act of 1947 shall have effect, in relation to purchase notices served after the commencement of this Act, as set out in the Schedule (Section nineteen of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as amended) to this Act")

Clause 53, page 77, line 40, at end insert— ("() In accordance with subsections (1), (3) and (7) of section thirty-four of this Act, and with the preceding provisions of this section, section nineteen of the Act of 1947 shall have effect, in relation to purchase notices served after the commencement of this Act, as set out in the Schedule (Section nineteen of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as amended) to this Act")

First Schedule, page 79, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (c) and insert— (c) subsection (6) of section two hundred and twenty-two of the Highways Act, 1959")

First Schedule, page 80, line 39, leave out ("and");

First Schedule, Page 80, line 42, at end insert ("and for sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 1 there shall be substituted the following subparagraph, that is to say— '(c) paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section thirteen of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935'").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Second Schedule [Acquisition of houses as being unfit for human habitation]:

5.30 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out paragraph 1 and insert— () Where, in the case of a compulsory acquisition to which section one of this Act applies,—

  1. (a) the acquisition is under the Housing Act, 1957 (in this Part of this Schedule referred to as 'the Act of 1957') in such circumstances that, apart from section one of this Act, any of the provisions of that Act as to compulsory purchase at site value would have effect in relation to the acquisition, or
  2. (b) it is an acquisition in relation to which, by virtue of an order made and confirmed under the next following paragraph, any of those provisions would so have effect,
nothing in section one of this Act shall be construed as excluding the operation of those provisions of the Act of 1957, but those provisions shall apply in addition to the provisions of Part I of this Act. () Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this Part of this Schedule, the compensation payable in respect of a compulsory acquisition falling within the preceding subparagraph shall not in any event exceed the amount of the compensation which would have been payable in respect thereof if—
  1. (a) none of the provisions of the Act of 1957 as to compulsory purchase at site value had applied to the acquisition, and
  2. (b) in a case where any of the relevant land is in an area which has been declared under Part III of that Act to be a clearance area, or which constitutes a redevelopment area within the meaning of that Part of that Act, that area had not been declared to be a clearance area or did not constitute such a re-development area, as the case may be,
but in all other respects the acquisition had been effected in the circumstances in which it actually is effected.

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the new paragraph 1 inserted by this Amendment replaces the existing sub-paragraph (1) of the Second Schedule which contains a "ceiling" provision, that in the case of a compulsory purchase of slum property as site value the compensation is not to exceed the full value of the property. In doing so, it makes four minor changes. The new sub-paragraph (1) (b) applies the provision to acquisition at site value under the unfitness order procedure of paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule, as well as to acquisition under the Housing Act itself. The last four lines ensure that the general provision in Clause 1 for compensation at market value does not override the site value provisions of the Housing Act. The opening words of the new sub-paragraph (2) ensure that the "ceiling" provision does not reduce the minimum payment to owner-occupiers of the gross value of the house under paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule. The new sub-paragraph (2) redefines "full value" more precisely so as to ensure that the "ceiling" provision will work effectively. Paragraph 1 (2) of the Second Schedule is not reproduced in this new version. It is to be replaced by an amendment of the Housing Act which I shall explain to your Lordships a little later. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 81, line 31, leave out paragraph 1 and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether this Amendment alters the basis of claim from what it was in the Bill, as amended.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, it is purely procedural, as I understand it, and does not prejudice the position which the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, will wish to contend on a subsequent Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, Amendment No. 73 is a drafting Amendment, and the Amendment at page 85, line 36, is the corresponding Scottish Amendment. Amendment No. 74 is a drafting Amendment consequential on the rearrangement of the blight provisions. Amendment No. 75 is a minor technical Amendment. The purchase notice provisions of Section 19 of the 1947 Act are applied by Section 59 of the 1954 Act as well as by provisions in the 1947 Act. The Amendment enables the unfitness order procedure to be applied in cases arising under that section. The Amendment at page 86, line 21, is the corresponding Scottish Amendment. Amendment No. 76 is also a drafting Amendment. As these are all drafting, consequential or technical Amendments, perhaps, with your Lordships' permission, I might move them together.

Amendments moved—

Page 82, line 2, leave out from ("acquisition") to ("being") in line 3.

Page 82, line 7, leave out ("section thirty-seven or section thirty-eight") and insert ("Part IV")

Page 82, line 32, leave out ("provision of that Act") and insert ("enactment")

Page 82, line 34, leave out ("section thirty-seven or section thirty-eight") and insert ("Part IV").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I gather that this might be a convenient moment at which the debate on the Report stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill might be adjourned, and, if your Lordships agree, I will so move. I beg to move that the debate be adjourned until to-morrow.

Moved, That the debate be adjourned until to-morrow.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Back to