Lords Sitting of 7 May 1959

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford

PLANNING OF MOTORWAYS
3.5 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have studied the important statement on the new motorways issued by the Royal Fine Art Commission on the 15th April, 1959, and whether they can now inform the House what steps they are taking to meet their criticisms and to give effect to their recommendations in this matter.]
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD had also given Notice of his intention:
[To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they recognise the crucial importance of obtaining architectural advice at the earliest stage on the location as well as the design of urban motorways, and whether they have any statement to make in the light of the warning and advice recently given by both the Royal Fine Art Commission and the Royal Institute of British Architects.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships and with the consent of my noble friend, Lord Conesford, which I have already received, I should like to answer these two Questions together, as they really are interrelated points. Her Majesty's Government fully recognise the importance of the considerations to which the Commission have drawn attention. For the national motorways, since 1956, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has had the benefit of the expert advice of the Advisory Committee on the Landscape Treatment of Trunk Roads, whom he consults at all appropriate stages. He would most certainly give very careful consideration to any recommendation which this Committee might
208
make to him concerning the planning of motorway projects. Some schemes put in hand in the early years of the road programme were, however, already too far advanced for major alterations to be possible.
As regards the planning of urban motorways, Lord Conesford's point, the Committee on London Roads, which was set up in 1957 and in which my right honourable friend has a direct interest, has throughout included architects and town planners in its membership. The study groups which are proposed for the other large urban areas are not responsible to my right honourable friend; nevertheless, he has written to the Chairmen of the two Committees so far set up, stressing the value he attaches to drawing on the best professional advice at a very early stage in their work.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his full reply, and I am glad to note that the Government attach importance to aspects other than the engineering aspects of the new motorways. Just as the Roman roads are with us to-day, so these great new roads may be with our successors 1,000 years hence. With this in mind, can my noble friend assure us, first, that the advice of the Advisory Committee to which he referred will in all cases in future be sought at a very early stage in the planning of these new roads; and, secondly, that permanent professional advice will be enlisted from the outset at the planning, the reconnaissance stage, in order to ensure that these great new roads blend as harmoniously as possible with the landscape through which they pass?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that my right honourable friend does indeed place the greatest importance on that professional advice, but I must draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that such professional advice is not applicable in every case. There are many cases where it is not possible.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the building of these motorways is the most important event in shaping the character of town and country since the coming of the railways, and that according to their design and location they can either save our towns or ruin them irretrievably? Will

209
Her Majesty's Government ensure that architects are associated with the engineers from the very beginning, before the line of the road is settled, in order that these roads may be an object of national pride and that those responsible may not be classed among the great vandals of history?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend is fully aware of all the points which the noble Lord makes.

HOSPITAL OF ST. MARY MAGDALENE AND OTHER CHARITIES (NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE) CHARITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
HOSPITAL OF ST. NICHOLAS (SALISBURY) CHARITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
JESUS HOSPITAL (ROTHWELL) CHARITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
POOR'S COAL CHARITY (WAVENDON) CHARITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MENTAL HEALTH BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.11 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 be suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess at Whitsun for the purpose of giving Government Business (except
210
with the consent of the Government) precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day, and that Standing Order No. 41 (no two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the aforesaid period.—(The Earl of Home.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, this is the kind of Motion that we almost always agree to without any comment. But I am rather anxious about next Wednesday, the 12th. My noble friend Lord Nathan has had on the Paper now for months a Motion with regard to charities, and I hope that the usual channels may be able to arrange that there should be no interference with the Motion of a noble Lord who has waited for so long to bring a matter to the notice of your Lordships.
LORD REA: My Lords, in respect of the subject which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has mentioned, there are other noble Lords who are very anxious to follow the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in that particular Motion. It is not a matter of one noble Lord, but, as I am quite sure the noble Earl is aware, of several.
THE EARL OF HOME: I have looked at the Business, and it struck me that Wednesday might be congested. However, I think that if we discuss this matter through the usual channels we shall be able to find a way out. I am very anxious that the Motion should not be delayed too long.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I do not know whether anyone is going to ask this question, but shall we have repeated here the statement which the Government are to make in another place concerning the Kenya detention camps?
THE EARL OF HOME: The answer is that there is to be no statement in another place to-day. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Perth may have a word to add on that.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, there is going to be no statement to-day. I know that ordinarily we do not take notice of what happens in another place, but perhaps it may be helpful to your Lordships to know that there is a Question down in another place in regard to these happenings.

211
Whether or not it will be reached orally I have no way of telling. But if the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, as the result of what happens today, likes to put any Question down, let us say, for Tuesday, I shall be very happy to deal with it.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, it was an established practice, when the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury was leading the House—a cherished practice—that statements in another place should be read in this House. As regards putting down a Question, we are not going to meet again until Tuesday, and there are one or two urgent matters—not controversial—which arise. For example, are we going to have a report from Mr. Goudie, the coroner? Are we to have a print of the statement, what is called the Cowan plan? Those are two most important matters which I should like to know about before the House rises to-day.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, of course there has been no change in the practice of this House since my noble friend Lord Salisbury was Leader. Now that I am leading the House, if there is a statement in another place we make it here. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. There is to be no statement, but there is a Question down in another place, though it may not be reached. The noble Viscount is very vigilant in these matters, but if he had been a little more vigilant he might have thought out these questions which he is now asking, and put down a Private Notice Question. As he has not done so, I am afraid that I must ask him to wait until Tuesday.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I do not at all resent the reproof, but I should like to know how on earth one could ask a question when, for the first time, the report appeared only this morning in The Times—a full account, upon which I base two simple questions which are not controversial but which touch the very centre of the whole matter.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the noble Viscount did not give myself or anybody else notice that he wanted to ask a Private Notice Question and he has only for the first time, this minute, asked the question, which puts any Minister in an impossible position. He will see the Answer which the Minister gives in
212
another place, if the Question is reached; and my noble friend Lord Perth, has offered to meet the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the noble Earl is mistaken. At ten o'clock this morning I rang his office on the position, and I said that I assumed that the statement which The Times said was to be made in the Commons would be made here, and that, if so, I had supplementary questions to ask. That notice was given to his office at four minutes past ten this morning.
THE EARL OF HOME: But the assumption of the noble Viscount was wrong—there was no statement to be made.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Equally, the statement of the noble Earl was wrong when he said that he had had no notice.
THE EARL OF HOME: Perhaps we are quits.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
3.17 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 34 [Obligation to purchase resident owner-ocupier's interest affected by planning proposals]:
Debate resumed on an Amendment moved by Lord Silkin on Monday, April 27, 1959, in subsection (2) to leave out "a resident" and insert "an" [owner-occupier].
LORD SILKIN: This is an Amendment which I have already moved on one occasion, and other Amendments have been canvassed. At the moment we are in the middle of a general discussion on the whole of Clause 34 and, I believe, on the new clause which the noble and learned Viscount has tabled. I respectfully suggest that the matter can be left till the completion of the general discussion. So far as I personally am concerned, if all other Amendments were

213
withdrawn—I think the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for instance, was going to consider whether he wanted to press his Amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was in the same position—I should be willing to withdraw my own, and we could then pass to the new clause of the noble and learned Viscount and such other incidental Amendments as there may be upon the Marshalled List. This would enable us to go a long way towards the completion of the business.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is going to withdraw his Amendment, or whether he would like me to say a word on the general discussion, or whether he would prefer me to proceed on my Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I think it would be convenient if the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, would state whether he is going to pursue his Amendment; for if he is not I will at once withdraw mine.
LORD HYLTON: Responding to the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I wish to speak to and move the Amendment standing in my name for the following reasons: we have now had time to study the very full speech made by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor at the last sitting of this Committee and which is to be found in columns 1041-2 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for April 27. I should like to comment on one or two of his remarks on that occasion, and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will be so kind as to reply.
The noble and learned Viscount claimed that the lack of security of tenure was the real cause of the blight with which Clause 34 is concerned and would not materially affect the marketability of the investment. I have difficulty in understanding the logic of that particular comment, because, so far as I understand the matter, it is the blight which is the cause of the lack of security of tenure and which therefore makes the property concerned unsaleable. I think that that must he true. It is the blight that causes this ill-effect; and although, in another place, the right honourable gentleman the Minister referred to property as being in the same category as investments, and subject to the rise and fall to
214
which all investments are liable, and while it is true that the market value will ultimately be payable by the authority when the land is eventually required, in the meanwhile the marketability of the land is obviously affected by the blight and the owner will suffer genuine hardship if he has good reason for selling but is unable to compel the local authority to buy.
There is a further argument—that the test of the whole matter is that the owner must show that he has tried to sell and that owing to the blight he cannot do so except at a reduced price. The statement that a local authority might be forced to buy an interest in property which had not really been blighted by their proposals seems dubious, for proof of the effect of blight is a condition precedent to the operation of the clause. It must be shown, in that the owner must say that he has tried to market the property and has failed to do so except at a price below the market value; and that is the proof of the blight.
I do not think it is true to say that public authorities might have to buy interests in advance of requirements, not in order to relieve hardship but purely to enable owners to make higher profits. I cannot myself see that, because the compensation would be assessed at market value whether the sale takes place immediately or when the land may eventually he required. The reference to higher profits in that connection cannot therefore be understood. In either case it will be the open market value. It is for these reasons that I feel I should properly move Amendment No. 80 standing in my name.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: If the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will forgive my saying so, we have not yet disposed of Amendment No. 79. I will call Amendment No. 80 later.
LORD HYLTON: Then I will not move Amendment No. 80 yet but will wait for Amendment No. 79 to be moved.
LORD SILKIN: Amendment No. 79 was moved on the last occasion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I have already been responsible for a certain amount of confusion because I wanted to give the Committee the best

215
opportunity of talking on these Amendments. The position, which I do not think my noble friend Lord Hylton has quite appreciated, is that Amendment No. 79, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is before the Committee. I would suggest that we continue the general discussion on that Amendment and that, as part of the general discussion, I should reply to the points made by my honourable friend. Then, if he feels I have given due consideration (as I assure him I have) to his points, we might leave the matter as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, adumbrated, until we come to my new clause. I hope the Committee will then be prepared to leave this problem, without prejudice, to be discussed on the Report stage, which will not only give my noble friend Lord Hylton a chance of considering my reply but, what is more important, will give my right honourable friend the Minister a chance of considering everything that my noble friend Lord Hylton has said. As the noble Lord will understand, I cannot make any promises, but I should like my right honourable friend to have that chance.
I should like to put to the Committee the difficulties that I see in the way of the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and of his argument. The two speeches he has made on this point support the view that the provisions of this clause should be extended to all owners of property, whether or not they are also the occupiers, for two main reasons. First, he says that the clause would be easier to administer if his Amendment were accepted; and secondly, he says that it is illogical and inequitable to make a distinction between the owner-occupier and the investment owner.
With respect to my noble friend, I feel that there is not a great deal of weight in his first point. May I put to the Committee the proposals of Her Majesty's Government as they now stand and would be extended by the Amendment which I have already put before the Committee? The acquiring authority, before accepting a notice under the clause, will have to satisfy themselves, first, that the owner is also the occupier of the property, and secondly, that in the exceptional case where the rateable value is above the prescribed limit for non-
216
residential property—which I said would be an annual value of £250—that he lives on the premises. I do not think that that will be difficult in practice, because most, if not all, of the information required will be readily available for rating.
As the noble Lord has indicated, the second point is the more serious one, and I admit that there may be cases in which owners of similar adjoining properties are treated differently, as my noble friend pointed out on the last occasion. But I would suggest that a balance must be drawn between conflicting considerations. I believe that everyone—and certainly all noble Lords who have had anything to do with planning—would agree that where public authorities have formulated schemes involving compulsory acquisition of land they should, wherever possible, make their proposals public in advance, and where such publication inflicts damage on persons whose property is affected by the proposals, then one has to consider whether an adequate remedy is provided.
I hope that, if we do have to return to this matter, noble Lords with more experience than I have had on the local authority side (because I have not the honour of such experience) will consider whether I am right: that if the remedy were extended to all classes of owner—commercial, industrial—irrespective of the net annual value of the premises, the burden of advance acquisition on public authorities might be very onerous. Apart from the ultimate financial effect, I think that the psychological effect would be to discourage them unduly from making their proposals known, so that schemes which ought to be brought into the light of day would remain "under the counter."
I do not think (again with respect to my noble friend Lord Hylton) that one can sweep on one side the timing of the payment. It is true that ultimately, when the scheme goes through, the authority will have to pay the market value. But if, instead of that, they are to be faced at indeterminate intervals with unlimited payments in advance, that will, I feel, have the deterrent effect that I mentioned. I believe that one must draw a line somewhere, and I think the Committee will agree that we have given very careful consideration to this matter. During the debate on Second Reading I invited any

217
suggestions. I have considered them—noble Lords from all parts have put them forward—and I believe that the proposals now before the Committee go as far as is desirable: that is to say, we draw the distinction between the owner-occupier and the owner for investment.
The point really is this. The owner-occupier of a house or small business premises who has to move generally needs to sell, so that he can buy another house or another shop, or whatever it may be. Generally, again, the investment owner is not under any such compulsion to sell. Of course one can find a particular case where there are particular circumstances, but as a general rule he is not, and the investor's decision to sell may depend on a number of circumstances. The reason may be a purely commercial circumstance: he may want to change his investment for some reason, which is quite a good reason to him but not a good reason for his getting an advance payment and upsetting the arrangements of the local authorities. There would be no justification for requiring public authorities to buy in advance merely because market conditions made it more convenient for the investor to sell.
Again, as I have already pointed out, it would be much more difficult to determine whether investment property was really blighted by the public authority's proposals, or merely affected adversely by some change in the market value. The Government's new proposals, I think, should ensure that practically all the genuinely hard cases of blight are covered. I thought that a lot had been covered by the original clause; but in, I think, being receptive to the general views expressed in the House, we have gone a great deal further in the new clause which we have tabled. We have included small businesses and we have included farms; and the answer to the fact that there may still be some hard cases outside the scope of the provisions is that the acquiring authorities will no doubt be ready to consider exercising their discretion to buy in advance by agreement, and they will be encouraged to buy in advance in cases where they think it right to do so.
The point my noble friend made with regard to the requirement that the owner had to show that he had offered his house
218
for sale and had either failed to sell it or obtained only a lower price, is, I think, irrelevant to this point, because ultimately he is going to get the market value, as if there had been no proposal compulsorily to acquire at all; so he is not going to lose the capital value of his investment. To suggest that the fact that it would have suited him to realise and reinvest in something else entitles him to an advance payment is, I think, driving the help and assistance which we are prepared to give too far, looking at the probelem as a whole. He, as I said, will ultimutely get the market value, and it seems to me too much to expect that everyone, whatever be his position, should be entitled to the advance payment. That is the difficulty. We have tried to hold a balance, and I think the Committee will agree that I have tried to approach this problem, not from any preconception but with a view to getting the best out of the help which the Committee have been so ready to give to me.
For the reasons I have given I would suggest to my noble friend Lord Hylton that he reconsiders this matter. I know that he is speaking on behalf of a body for whom we all have the greatest respect, the County Councils Association, but I hope that those in that Association who have been considering the matter will reconsider it in the light of the difficulties I have mentioned and, I hope, the reasonableness of my approach. Then, if they still feel worried, before the Report stage—and your Lordships know that we have plenty of time; the Report stage will not be for some weeks—they can always either come to see me or write to me about it and, if necessary, get an Amendment put down. But I suggest that on the general point, now that we have had this admirable discussion on the whole problem, the Amendments which noble Lords have put down should not be pressed at this stage, and that I should move the new clause, which I think has gained general approval. Your Lordships would then be absolutely free to reconsider the point before we come to the Report stage. Therefore, I would suggest, if I may make so bold, that all noble Lords concerned should withdraw their Amendments at the present moment.
LORD MESTON: Am I to understand the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to say that the figure of £250

219
net annual value applies only to nonresidential property; that is to say, there is no restriction upon residential property?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is so.
THE EARL OF HOME: Perhaps I might intervene for a moment. The House will recall that just a few minutes ago the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and myself, exchanged a few pleasantries—and I think by general agreement we ended "quits". But I have now learnt that, almost while I was speaking, the Colonial Secretary, seeing that the Question about Kenya was not going to be reached, decided to make a statement at the end of Question Time in another place. So I have arranged that my noble friend should make it here, and at once, and I now hope the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will feel he is "one up".
THE EARL OF PERTH: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Perth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

KENYA DETENTION CAMPS
3.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am sorry for what has occurred, but my noble Leader has explained the circumstances. The first part of the statement, as I understand it, refers in particular to the unfortunate happenings at Hola. There the coroner found that illegal assaults had taken place against the detainees, but that specific offences by known persons had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Attorney-General of Kenya is considering what further investigations are necessary, and whether any prosecutions should be launched. We do not wish to say anything which might prejudice any criminal proceedings on which he decides.
The Governor has told us, however, that he wishes to obtain expert advice on the future administration of the four remaining emergency detention camps, and in particular the arrangements for their systematic inspection and the investigation of complaints by detainees.
220
I am glad to say that we have been able to secure the services for this purpose of Mr. D. Fairn, a Prison Commissioner and Director of Prisons Administration in this country, who has taken part in the work of the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on the Treatment of Offenders and has previously carried out inspections of colonial prisons: and of Sir George Beresford-Stooke, a former Governor with wide colonial experience. I hope that they will be able to begin their inquiry next month.
I should perhaps add that the International Committee of the Red Cross has also come forward recently to offer the Kenya Government the help and advice of its delegates, who would visit the camps in the same way as they visited them in 1957. The Kenya Government have asked us to accept this offer on their behalf, and the Secretary of State has done so.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I say that I am greatly obliged to the Government for having made the statement, in all the circumstances that preceded the matter. It is a very good thing to have it made here. We have all been very concerned about the report in The Times this morning. There has been something seriously out of place, obviously, for the coroner to come to such findings. On the other hand, I am sure the House will recognise that it would be inadvisable to press for any particular action with regard to the findings of the coroner until the Government have the advice of the Attorney-General—although it seems to me that the Government need not be finally bound by the advice of the Attorney-General, and that if, after considering it, they think an inquiry should be held, then it might be as well that that course should be adopted. I am glad to welcome the fact that expert advice has been asked for and is to be given to the Governor in regard to the matter of the administration of these prisons.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, who has dealt with this matter with his usual charm. It was never a quarrel so far as I was concerned. However, there are points that I should like to put in the form of questions. First of all, it is obvious that no question should be asked which could prejudice the case against

221
any individual; but there is no news of that to-day. However, there are questions which, for the good name of our country, are very urgent. First of all, what was this Cowan plan which permitted the beating of prisoners and the forcing of them to work? That plan is known: it was revealed at the inquest. I ask, therefore, first: will the Cowan plan be printed and circulated to Members of this House, as it is available in Kenya? The second question is: will the coroner's report, which is public, be made available to this House in its text? The third question I would ask is concerning the dead men—because eleven men are dead—and it is this: had they been convicted of any crime, or were they just under detention? Finally, now that they are dead, what provision will be made for their dependants?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, quite simply, I am not going to be able to answer all these questions "off the cuff". I have made the statement. On the first two questions that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has asked, certainly I will see what may be possible. Of course, we are fully aware of how anxious the House is to know all that can be known anywhere. On the other matters, perhaps he would be good enough to put a Question down, and I shall be able to answer it more properly on Tuesday. Otherwise, I can write to him privately after I have made investigations.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: If I may be permitted, I will put the Question on Tuesday, if necessary by Private Notice, because I think the quota is full.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
House again in Committee.
3.46 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: Before I accede to the invitation of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor—which, with respect, I think is sound advice—I should like to say a word about the whole series of Amendments. I regard the new clause which is in the name of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor as a compromise. It goes further than the original Bill, but it does
222
not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, would like. As I understood the original Bill, it was intended mainly to help the small man. Although in terms, of course, there was no limit to the resident owner-occupier, there would be very few resident owner-occupiers whose net annual value of whose property was more than £250 a year. Even as extended, there will be very few of that kind. There will be very few shopkeepers, for example, who are resident on premises whose net annual value is more than £250. So the design is to help the small man.
Now the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, would extend the provision to a very great extent, as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has indicated, and I should certainly be strongly opposed to it. Not that it is not logical: I want to concede at once that I can see a certain amount of logic in treating in the same way all owners of property whose land is subject to blight; but it makes nonsense of the whole idea of designation and of notice. At the time of the passage of the Town and Country Planning Bill I was strongly pressed from all sides to make provision for giving notice in the designation to people whose land might be affected. If the idea had been that the moment they were given notice they could press the local authority to acquire their land, then I think one would have hesitated very much to impose that burden on the local authorities.
There is a precedent of a sort. In the New Towns Act it is possible for an owner, at the end of five years after designation, to require the development corporation to acquire his land; but that is after five years, and where it is known that the town is going to be completed within a very limited period. Therefore, that imposes no hardship on the development corporation. They may be buying a year earlier than they have wanted to, but, by and large, we thought that five years was the right period. In the Amendment and in the clause, the moment a particular piece of property is specified the owner can require the local authority to buy if the conditions are satisfied. I think that the new clause is a reasonable compromise, and I hope it will be accepted by the whole Committee. In that hope I propose to withdraw my

223
Amendment. But if this matter is reopened, I should like to reserve the right to put down a further Amendment in order to preserve my own position. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON had given notice of his intention to move in subsection (2) to leave out "a resident owner-occupier" and insert "an owner". The noble Lord said: The Committee is in some difficulty. Here we have what would appear to be onerous pre-acquisitions by planning authorities and public bodies, or we may well have blighted areas, the owners of which are going to suffer loss and hardship. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, it is difficult to see exactly where the line should be drawn between the public interest and the private interest of owners of blighted land. I am prepared to fall in with the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion not to move this Amendment, to have a discussion on Clause 34 and to reserve the right to put down a further Amendment at a later stage.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I have been informed by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, that he does not wish to move Amendment No. 88a which stands in his name.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment goes together with two Amendments to the Fifth Schedule. They deal with the case where a building stands on the boundaries of two or more wards and will thus be divided among the corresponding valuation lists and appear to form more than one hereditament although it would otherwise constitute a single hereditament. The Amendments provide that in such a case the building shall be treated under Clause 34 and the Fifth Schedule as a single hereditament. This is merely a technical point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 30, after "hereditament" insert "subject to the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act)".—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment and the next three are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 52, line 37 after "date" insert "(whether before or after the commencement of this Act)"
Page 52, line 43, after "date" insert "(whether before or after the commencement of this Act)"
Page 53, line 2, after "date" insert "(whether before or after the commencement of this Act)"
Page 53, line 6, after "date" insert "(whether before or after the commencement of this Act)".—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE had given Notice of his intention to move an Amendment embodying a proviso to subsection (7) and a number of additional subsections to the clause. The noble Viscount said: As I explained on the last occasion, I put down this Amendment at a time when the Government appeared to me to make no provision at all for agriculture. I think that the Amendment after Clause 34 goes a long way to meet this point, and accordingly I shall not move my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the clause stands, paragraph (b) of subsection (8) attracts for Scotland the same definition, verbally, of hereditament as is contained in subsection (7), with the intention of securing a definition with the same scope as that for England and Wales. In effect, however, the Scottish is inappropriately wider than was intended, since until the new rating system comes into effect in 1961, following the full operation of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, agricultural lands and buildings can enter the valuation roll along with the farm dwellinghouse as a single entry. After 1961, Section 7 of the 1956 Act will secure the exclusion altogether from the valuation roll of agricultural land and heritages. The benefits of Clause 34 are meant to be extended only to hereditaments consisting of dwellinghouses and their curtilages. The Amendment effects the necessary narrowing of the definition by excluding agricultural lands and heritages. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 30, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(b) any reference to a hereditament shall subject to the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act and notwithstanding anything in subsection (7) of this section) be construed as a reference to 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".—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
3.57 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved after Clause 34 to insert the following new Clause:
Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals
"(1) Where any land falls within any of paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) of the last preceding section, the provisions of this section shall have effect—

(a) in relation to any hereditament which, or part of which, is comprised in that land, and is a hereditament of which, on the date of service of a notice under the next following subsection in respect thereof, the annual value does not exceed the prescribed limit;

(b) in relation to any agricultural unit which, or part of which, is comprised in that land.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, any person who is an owner-occupier of such a hereditament as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection, or of such an agricultural unit as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, and claims that—

(a) since the relevant date he has made reasonable endeavours to sell his interest in the hereditament, or in the agricultural unit, as the case may be, and

(b) 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 compromised in land of any of the descriptions mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) of the last preceding section,

may serve on the appropriate authority a notice in the prescribed form requiring that authority to purchase his interest to the extent specified in, and otherwise in accordance with, the following provisions of this section.
(3) Where an owner-occupier has served notice on the appropriate authority under the last preceding subsection in respect of a hereditament or an agricultural unit, then unless—

(a) before the end of the period of two months beginning with the date of service of that notice the appropriate authority serve on him a counter-notice in the prescribed form objecting to the notice, and

226

(b) if the objection is referred to the Lands Tribunal, the objection is upheld by the Tribunal, and (in the case of an agricultural unit) is so upheld otherwise than on grounds relating only to part of the affected area,

the authority shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire compulsorily under the appropriate enactment the interest of the owner-occupier in the hereditament, or (in the case of an agricultural unit) the interest of the owner-occupier in the affected area, and to have served a notice to treat in respect thereof on the date mentioned in subsection (5) of this section.
(4) Where an owner-occupier has served notice on the appropriate authority under subsection (2) of this section in respect of an agricultural unit, and the appropriate authority have served a counter-notice objecting thereto as mentioned in paragraph (a) of the last preceding subsection, and, on a reference to the Lands Tribunal, the objection is upheld by the Tribunal, but on grounds relating only to part of the affected area, the authority shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire the interest of the owner-occupier in the remainder of that area compulsorily under the appropriate enactment, and to have served a notice to treat in respect thereof on the date mentioned in the next following subsection.
(5) Any reference in this section to the date mentioned in this subsection shall be construed as follows, that is to say,—

(a) in a case where the appropriate authority have served a counter-notice objecting to the notice served under subsection (2) of this section, and that objection has been referred to the Lands Tribunal but is not upheld by the Tribunal, or, in the case of an agricultural unit, is upheld by the Tribunal on grounds relating only to part of the affected area, the said date shall be taken to be such date as the Tribunal may direct;

(b) in any other case, the said date shall be taken to be the date on which the period of two months beginning with the date of service of the notice under subsection (2) of this section comes to an end.

(6) The provisions of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions as to purchase of other owner-occupiers' interest) to this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section.
(7) Subject to the provisions of that Schedule, in this section "owner-occupier", in relation to hereditament, means a person who—

(a) occupies the whole or part of the hereditament in right of a freehold interest therein or in right of a tenancy granted or extended for a term of years certain of which, on the date of the service by him of a notice under subsection (2) of this section in respect thereof, not less than three years remain unexpired, and has so occupied the hereditament or that part thereof during the whole of the period of six months ending with that date; or

(b) occupied, in right of such a freehold interest or tenancy as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph, 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 the service

227
by him of such a notice, the hereditament, or that part thereof, having been unoccupied since the end of that period.

(8) Subject to the provisions of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions as to purchase of other owner-occupiers' interests) to this Act, in this section "owner-occupier", in relation to an agricultural unit, means a person who—

(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 the service by him of a notice under subsection (2) of this section in respect thereof, or

(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 the service by him of such a notice,

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, in respect of the whole or part of that unit, to a freehold interest therein or to a tenancy granted or extended for a term of years certain of which, on the date of service of the said notice, not less than three years remain unexpired.
(9) In this section—
"the relevant date", "the appropriate authority", "the appropriate enactment" and (subject to the provisions of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions as to purchase of other owner-occupiers' interest) to this Act) "hereditament" have the same meanings as in the last preceding section;
"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" (subject to the provisions of the said Schedule) in relation to a hereditament means the value which, on the date of service of a notice under subsection (2) of this section in respect thereof, 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 prescribed limit' means such amount as may be prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section by an order made by the Minister; and
'the affected area', in relation to an agricultural unit, means so much of that unit as, on the date of service of a notice under subsection (2) of this section in respect of that unit, consists of land falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) of the last preceding section.
(10) In the application of this section to Scotland—

(a) the definition of 'annual value' in subsection (9) shall have effect as if for any reference to a valuation list there were substituted a reference to a valuation roll; and

(b) for subsections (7) and (8) there shall be substituted the following subsections, that is to say,—

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

(a) occupies the whole or part of the hereditament by virtue of his being the owner thereof or the lessee thereof under a lease the unexpired period of which, on the date of the service by him of a notice under subsection (2) of this section in respect thereof, is not less than three years, and has so occupied the hereditament or that part thereof during the whole of the period of six months ending with that date; or

(b) occupied the whole or part of the hereditament, by virtue of his being the owner thereof or the lessee thereof under such a lease as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph, during the whole of a period of six months ending not more than six months before the date of the service by him of such a notice, the hereditament, or that part thereof, having been unoccupied since the end of that period.

(8) Subject to the provisions of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions as to purchase of other owner-occupiers' interests) to this Act, in this section 'owner-occupier', in relation to an agricultural unit, means a person who—

(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 the service by him of a notice under subsection (2) of this section in respect thereof, or

(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 the service by him of such a notice,

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, in respect of the whole or part of that unit, to the dominium utile therein or to the interest of the lessee under a lease thereof, being a lease the unexpired period of which, on the date of the service of the said notice, is not less than three years.'"
The noble and learned Viscount said: The position with regard to this new clause is that I gave the substance of it, including a detailed explanation of every subsection, on the last hearing. I have indicated to-day the important aspects of it. I do not think that it would be fair to Lordships if I repeated what I said on the last occasion, so I hope that your Lordships will allow me to say simply: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendment in my name, which I have not moved, was designed to assist the agriculturist, and I think that this new clause, as I interpret it, covers all the points I wished to raise. I hope that I am right in thinking that the clause is mandatory and that a local authority have to purchase if land fulfils the conditions laid down or that, alternatively, they have to withdraw the planning proposals. I should also like to be certain that the method of assessing the compensation is exactly the same as the normal method of assessing compensation for compulsory purchase, except that there may be no compensation for disturbance. Where the initiative is taken by an applicant, I think it would be only right that he should have to forgo this compensation, but so far as the owner is concerned I am satisfied that in general the clause is correct.
This is an important clause, which has not been debated so far, except in a broad sense, and I think it is right that various other aspects of the clause should be considered. The clause and the new Schedule cover some eight pages of print and deal with the effects of blight. Blight arises from markings on maps which purport to show, with varying degrees of precision, that it is the intention of some authority at some time or other to carry out some project on the land. The markings are of different kinds, as your Lordships will see in Clause 34: you can designate. design, allocate, indicate or show—all these words are used, and the language has been explored to find words with slightly different shades of meaning, all of which can have some depreciating effect on the value of land. Ought we not to consider how these markings ever come on to the maps; what their value is, and how, when and if they cease to have any value, they will come off the map? I do not think we have any option but to consider these points, because the local authority has the power either of paying or of removing the marking, and this will often be a matter of considerably difficulty.
As an illustration let me take the question of municipal aerodromes. If a town is ever to have an aerodrome of the sort we know, surely we ought all the time to be preserving the land from building; because if all available land with the right contours in the vicinity of a large borough
230
is even partially developed, the compensation necessary to turn that into an aerodrome becomes so great as really to rule out the project. On the other hand, whether that aerodrome ever will come about depends on a whole series of difficult considerations, such as Government aviation policy, finance and technical developments, such as vertical assent and descent; and I suppose that we might some day have the whole present aerodrome requirements entirely altered and find that an aerodrome requires to be situated in a much more central position. You may be sterilising a large area of land and preventing any capital investment taking place on it for a long period of years. That is the sort of case that may arise on some fortuitous chance of an application to purchase by an owner-occupier. I certainly believe that before the scheme is amended, perhaps to withdraw a marking, there ought to be a full-scale inquiry, according to the procedure laid down in the Act, with evidence from expert witnesses. The whole matter should be gone into carefully.
But there are other much lesser matters where I should have thought the procedure for taking markings off by amending a scheme is altogether too cumbrous. There might be a water scheme which, as so often happens, begins in a small way with a requirement for a reservoir. But in the course of a few years it becomes a large scheme, with a requirement for quite a different reservoir, and the original one becomes obsolete. In the case of a small alteration like that, which is quite non-controversial, it would be cumbrous to have the marking taken away as an amendment to the scheme. The point I am making is that these matters may arise, as I have said, on the fortuitous chance that somebody may require a decision to be taken immediately. I would ask my noble and learned friend to consider whether it might be desirous to have an Amendment to this Bill to give the Minister power to dispense with some of the formalities of the amendment of the town planning schemes in small clear-cut cases, where there is obviously no controversy and where the markings have become superseded.
Then there is the matter of the sponsorship of these different markings. I have said that the county council acts not only on its own behalf, but as a sort of agency for Government Departments, statutory

231
undertakers, water boards and so on, who request the council to show these markings on maps. I am anxious to avoid a situation where a long wrangle might develop over which authority should be the acquiring authority and which should pay for the land. I do not wish to be pedantic, but I am sure my noble and learned friend will appreciate that in matters of finance local authorities have to satisfy not only their ratepayers, but also the district auditor, and we shall require legal sanction for any disbursements we may make. The sort of complication I foresee is where perhaps a road system has been altered because of circumstances over which the county council has no control—for instance, to provide a site for a power station or a large aerodrome, which can, of course, have considerable effect on the road system. I should hope that if there is any wrangling to be done it would be done before, and not after, the applications to purchase are made.
I apologise for taking up so much time with these perhaps extraneous observations, but I think there is a case for a fairly detailed examination by the Department into the whole question of these markings. As my noble and learned friend rather hinted in some previous remarks he made, I think that the local authorities, now that they have some sort of financial liability attached to them, will be a good deal more careful as to what they put on the map in future. I feel that possibly local authorities have been a little too lavish in putting these markings on maps. But, equally, I want to avoid the position where the development plans show little except such matters as nature reserves and water-gathering grounds, and where the real object of the map would be kept "under the counter" and the public would not be very well-informed of what the authority's plans were. I think that would give rise to just as great abuses as putting too much on the map. The ideal compromise between the two, in my view, is a matter of great difficulty. It is a problem, and I hope that, in the interests of town planning, it will not be shirked.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gage for that most interesting speech. On the first part of it, I agree with his understanding of the provisions of the Act. I
232
think he asked me specifically whether, if a farm is acquired, the compensation under the new clause will be assessed on the usual basis for compulsory purchase, with the exception that there would be no compensation for disturbance. The answer is that that view is correct. He will remember that I dealt with the question of severance on the last occasion.
With regard to my noble friend's more general points, I shall certainly convey them to the special attention of my right honourable friend. As he himself indicated, the question is a difficult one, and one has to draw the line between matters which obviously demand a public inquiry and those where formalities might be dispensed with. It is easy to say that A is on one side of the line and B is on the other side, but the no-man's land between the two is a matter which requires careful attention. I was also very interested in what my noble friend said about sponsorship. Again, I should like to discuss that with my right honourable friend, the Minister. I assure my noble friend that what he has said on these interesting points will be carefully examined. Whether it will be possible to do anything in this Bill I cannot say to-day, but I shall let him know when I have had a chance of seeing Mr. Brooke.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I understand that the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, has a notice about Business which he would like to make, with the permission of the Committee.
House resumed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with regard to the Business for Wednesday next, the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, were both concerned as to whether the debate on the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, would be postponed. It has been arranged through the usual channels that the House should meet on Wednesday next at 2 o'clock and consider the Commons Amendments to the Deer (Scotland) Bill. If those discussions are not concluded by 3 o'clock they would then be adjourned and concluded after the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
House again in Committee.
4.13 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 34 to insert the following new clause:
Land declared (otherwise than by development plan) to be subject to compulsory purchase
"(1) Where by virtue of paragraph 17 of the Tenth Schedule to the Act of 1947 (which relates to land declared by an order under section one of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, to be subject to compulsory purchase) the provisions of Part IV of the Act of 1947 apply in relation to any land as mentioned in that paragraph,—

(a) the provisions of section thirty-four and section (Obligation to purchase other owner-occupiers' interests affected by planning proposals) of this Act, and of the Fifth Schedule and the Schedule (Supplementary provisions as to purchase of other owner-occupiers' interests) to this Act, and

(b) subject to the following provisions of this section, subsection (3) of section six of the Act of 1947 (which empowers the Minister to amend development plans) and subsection (1) of section nine of that Act (which relates to land which has for a long period been designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition),

shall have effect in relation to that land as if it were land designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition.
(2) For the purposes of the application to any land, by virtue of the preceding subsection, of subsection (1) of section nine of the Act of 1947, the reference in the said subsection (1) to the date therein mentioned shall be construed as a reference to the date of the coming into operation of the order under section one of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, whereby the land was declared to be subject to compulsory purchase.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of this section, no notice shall be served under subsection (1) of the said section nine as applied by that subsection before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the commencement of this Act.
(4) In relation to any land to which subsection (1) of this section applies, subsections (2) and (3) of section nine of the Act of 1947 shall have effect with the substitution, in subsection (2) of that section, for the words "the development plan shall have effect, after the expiration of the said six months, as if the land were not designated as subject to cornpulsory acquisition", of the words "on the expiration of the said six months paragraph 17 of the Tenth Schedule to this Act shall cease to apply to the land".
(5) Any reference in this section to subsection (1) of section nine of the Act of 1947 shall be construed as including a reference to that subsection as modified by subsection (5) of that section (which, in the case of agricultural land, substitutes a period of eight
234
years for the period of twelve years mentioned in subsection (1)).
(6) In the application of this section to Scotland, for any reference to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, there shall be substituted a reference to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945; and for references to the Act of 1947, section six of that Act, section nine of that Act and Part IV of that Act there shall be substituted references respectively to the Scottish Act of 1947, section four of that Act, section seven of that Act and Part III of that Act."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment deals with a much more restricted but quite important point. Declaratory orders made under section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, in relation to areas of extensive war damage were similar to designations in development plans—indeed, in one sense designations are a development of declaratory orders. By paragraph 17 of the Tenth Schedule to the 1947 Act, declaratory orders count as designations for the purpose of the compulsory purchase provisions of Part IV of that Act. Unlike designations, however, they cannot be brought to an end, even though the local authority no longer have any intention to exercise any powers of compulsory purchase under them. They drag on as a threat to the land.
By subsection (1), the provisions of Clause 34 and of the new clause extending that clause will apply to declaratory orders as to designations, and so also will the provisions of Sections 6 (3) and 9 (1) of the 1947 Act which provide for the termination of designations. Thus owner-occupiers of property which is blighted by the existence of a declaratory order containing it will have the same sort of redress as those affected by a designation.
By subsection (2), Section 9 of the 1947 Act, under which a notice requiring purchase or de-designation of the land can be served after twelve years from designation, will operate in relation to declaratory orders as though the land had been designated on the date when the order came into effect, except that, by subsection (3), no notice can be served for one year from the commencement of the Act. This will give authorities a chance to de-designate the land under Section 6 (3) voluntarily. Subsections (4) and (5) of the new clause apply subsections (2), (3) and (5) of Section 9 with necessary modifications, and subsection (6) contains the Scottish application of the

235
clauses. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, was, I think, the first of these measures on which I had the pleasure of discussing this subject with him across the Floor of another place. Otherwise, the Amendment has no romantic point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, insert the said new clause. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: I tried to follow the noble and learned Viscount in his careful explanation of this new clause, but do I understand that the local authority which has made a declaratory order under the 1944 Act, on which nothing has been done—and obviously if it is going to apply to-day nothing will have been done for a very long time—will still have twelve months in which to make up their minds whether they are going ahead, and that during these twelve months no owner can require that his land shall be purchased or be served with a notice for that purpose? That puts off the owner's rights for one year in respect of these declaratory orders, but it requires the local authority to make up its mind once and for all within twelve months. If I am right in that, I think it is a sensible proposal and I strongly support it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If my understanding is correct, the noble Lord is absolutely right.
LORD MESTON: I am sure the Lord Chancellor will understand that a great many people who are not in the Government will have to try to understand these provisions. Notwithstanding the great care, courtesy and skill which has been shown by the Lord Chancellor on this Bill and, indeed, on every other Bill, I am going to call a spade a spade and not a shovel. So far as I am concerned, this Bill might as well be printed in Chinese; I simply do not know what it means. These provisions relate to planning blight. Do they mean that, so far as residential property is concerned, there is no restriction upon the right of the owner of that property to make a claim in a proper case? So far as non-residential property is concerned, there is a restriction of £250 net annual value—that is to say, where property exceeds that net annual value,
236
the owner of that property cannot make a claim at all.
So far as agricultural land is concerned, I am quite sure it must be clear to the Lord Chancellor and the other members of the Government and the "Double Firsts" on the Opposition Front Bench, but I have not the faintest idea what it means at all. If I have a house and farm of 300 acres, and it is proposed at some future date to drive a road through a corner of my farm, I appreciate the fact that I am not entitled to claim damages for planning blight for an injury which is done to a portion of my farm a great distance away from my dwellinghouse; but what am I entitled to claim? I should be extremely grateful if a very foolish person like myself could have some elementary observations made to me on this subject.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Were it not for the fact that I accept implicitly everything said by anyone who, like myself, is the son of an Aberdonian, I should have the greatest hesitation in believing that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was really as puzzled as he told the Committee. However, as I say I accept it implicity. May I put the matter again as clearly as I can; I hope it will be helpful. Under the former new clause the rights were given to owner-occupiers of farms. Those rights apply to agricultural units which are units in the occupation of one person who will be entitled to serve a notice under the clause if he holds the interest of an owner. That is an interest of which at least three years remain unexpired in the whole or part of the unit.
With regard to the next point about which the Lord, Lord Meston, wanted to be informed, in the case of a farm the obligation to buy extends only to the affected area; that is, to so much of the farm as consists of land falling within any of the paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) of Clause 34. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 34 (1), paragraphs (a) to (f), he will see that those are clearly set out. But by paragraph 6 of the new Schedule which I am going to move, compensation for severance will be payable where only part of an agricultural unit is acquired. I reminded the House that in respect of an agricultural unit an additional grant for a counter-notice is provided when the

237
appropriate authority require part only of the affected area.
I think that makes the matter clear, and I hope that if there is any doubt as to the clarity the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will continue to ask for explanation and I will always do my utmost to explain it. He knows the difficulty of drafting; one has to make the law certain, and of course when one is drafting one has in mind difficulties that have arisen before, and words have to be put in to meet them. Indeed, the noble Lord would be the first to agree that certainty is a very important quality in the law. I hope I have helped him on that point and I shall be pleased to help him on any other.
LORD MESTON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for his great courtesy and skill in explaining this.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount can explain whether the de-designation in this way, removal of markings, is the same as de-designation in any other way; that is to say, it is by amendment to the scheme? Possibly I could be informed privately.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I said that the difficulty is that at present they cannot be brought to an end. But if my noble friend will look at subsection (1) of this clause, he will see that that attracts the provisions of Clause 34 and of the new clause extending that clause, and they will apply to declaratory orders in the same way as to designations. Apart from that, the governing matters will be the provisions of Sections 6 and 9 of the 1947 Act. I think that my noble friend is right, but I will, in order to be quite sure, avail myself of the kind offer and verify it and let him know.
LORD SILKIN: It may help the noble Lord if I tell him that, in my own opinion, de-designation and the removal of markings are two different things. You can remove all the markings, but if you have not de-designated the land still remains designated, and at a future date new markings can be made. They are two different things.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Acquisition of land in connection with town development in England and Wales]:
EARL BATHURST: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak on Amendments No. 101 and on No. 102, which is consequential. In effect, these Amendments extend the scope of Clause 36 to correspond to that of Section 56 of the Town and Country Development Act, 1952, which allows any local authority to buy in advance for town development purposes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 38, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 40 and insert ("Any power of the Minister under section six of the Town Development Act, 1952, to authorise the compulsory acquisition of land").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 4, leave out from ("development") to ("as") in line 5 and insert ("has the same meaning").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 39 agreed to.
4.28 p.m.
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST moved, after Clause 39, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 81 of Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845
".—(1) Section eighty-one of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845 (which relates to expenses of conveyances) shall, in relation to any conveyance of lands granted after the commencement of this Act, have effect as if any reference therein to the charges and expenses of establishing the title to the lands included a reference to so much of any charge or expense incurred by the seller in completing title to the lands as is attributable to any requirement of the promoters of the undertaking in connection with the conveyance in question.
(2) In this section 'conveyance', 'seller' and 'promoters of the undertaking' have the same meanings as in the said section eighty-one."
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the new clause standing in the name of my noble and learned friend. This clause is necessary because of the particular situation which exists in Scotland. Obviously, an owner must prove his title to land before any compulsory purchase can be agreed upon. In England the legal costs that owner may have to meet in order to prove his title are met by the

239
authority compulsorily acquiring that land; that is a recognised principle in England. It is believed that the affairs of Scotland should be remedied so that that right does exist to an owner of compulsorily acquired land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 39, insert the said new clause. —(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD SILKIN: The noble Earl has explained this Amendment in rather sketchy terms. He based his case on the fact that the law in Scotland requires amendment, and I suppose he speaks with some authority on the subject. But the extraordinary thing is that all the local authorities in Scotland take the view that the law does not require amendment. They regard the position as perfectly satisfactory as it stands. This new clause purports to amend Section 81 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845. That Act has been in operation for a long time and, except for a case in 1848, which created a certain amount of doubt, has operated perfectly satisfactorily. The view the local authorities take (I do not necessarily identify myself with them; I merely state their case) is that this new clause will create confusion and doubt where at present there is little confusion or doubt in the matter.
I do not know whether it would interest the Committee if I developed this point at any length. Perhaps my best course is to state in the briefest terms what is the objection that local authorities in Scotland have, and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to have a word with him before the next stage. Or, if he would prefer it, I will gladly hand him their memorandum, and he can then follow their point. Quite briefly, they have two main objections. One is that they regard the words in the Amendment "any requirement of the promoters" as being somewhat vague—that is, that the local authority is to pay the cost of complying with any requirement of the promoter in making a title.
As the noble and learned Viscount knows perfectly well, the term "requirement" can be held to mean a requisition on title. Requisitions on title are perfectly normal things that take place in the course of the conveyance of property, and it is normally for the owner of the
240
property being acquired to make out his title and to satisfy any reasonable requirement necessary to make out his title. Normally, he is required to do that at his own expense. That is the position at the present time. If you have not got a title you cannot transfer it. If your title is not complete, it is your business to get it complete before you can pass on the satisfactory title to anybody else. The cost of completing your title should, in fairness, be borne by you, not by the local authority; it is not their fault that you have not got a perfect title. They regard the present position, that it is for the owner of the land to make out his title, as perfectly satisfactory and as having worked without any difficulty whatever; and they are at a loss to understand why it is necessary to-day to alter this position.
There is one other point that I should make: the authority may be required to purchase a small part of a large estate or a small part of a trust estate. There may be a defect in the title of the whole of the land or of the trust. As this new clause reads, it may well be that the cost of putting the trust deed right, or the cost of completing the title to a large area of land, would have to be met by the local authority. There is a doubt about it. It is not quite clear as to what is meant. The clause refers to costs "attributable to any requirement of the promoters." Are the costs attributable to them if they are acquiring five acres out of a 1,000 acres? Could it properly be said that costs incurred in making a title to the 1,000 acres, which is necessary in order to give a title to the five acres, are "attributable to any requirement of the promoter"?
One can argue either way, but at best there would be a doubt about it, and possibly a dispute which would have to go to the Lands Tribunal and might involve both parties in considerable expense. So I would ask the noble and learned Viscount to look again at this clause. I do not mind whether he asks for it to be passed now or whether he takes it back for further consideration, but I feel that it is necessary to look at it again. There is a genuine apprehension about the clause, and I feel that it would be wise and certainly desirable if it could be, in its final form, an acceptable clause to those who have to operate it.
EARL BATHURST: I am most grateful to the noble Lord opposite for his clear and concise description of this complicated branch of the Scottish law. I know that there is opposition to this Amendment but, so far as I am aware, it is from only one Council. In fact, this Amendment has been before the Convention of Royal Burghs and they regarded it as fair and reasonable, and the County Councils Association in Scotland made no comment upon it. But in view of the objection which the noble Lord has mentioned, my noble and learned friend will look at this Amendment again to see whether this difficulty can be put right. I should like, however, to make it quite clear to the noble Lord opposite that this Amendment refers only to land compulsorily acquired.
LORD SILKIN: I understand that.
EARL BATHURST: If the land is being acquired under ordinary sale or purchase, then, of course, the seller, if he so wishes, may decide not to sell his land at all to the council. In such a case, obviously, he would put a price on it which would suitably cover his legal expenses in making clear his claim.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course we will have a look at it, and I will communicate with the noble Lord about it. As I understand it, the Court of Session over one hundred years ago did pronounce on Section 81 of the Lands Clauses Act. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I promise to have another look at it and to write to him about it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Recovery of certain sums from acquiring authorities]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment can be considered with Amendments Nos. 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 and 116. Compensation paid for the revocation or modification of planning permission under Section 22 of the 1947 Aot, as amended by the 1954 Act, covers the total depreciation caused by the order in question, without being limited by any unexpended balance. This amount is payable by the local planning authority and is registered as a charge on the land recoverable before subsequent development like compensation paid by the Minister for a planning refusal. The Minister may contribute the amount of
242
any unexpended balance and may have paid some grant towards the compensation. Under the Bill as it stands, the Minister is entitled to recover from an acquiring authority the total amount of such compensation. These Amendments, by attracting the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of Section 41 of the 1954 Act, provide that in such a case the Minister must pay over to the local planning authority the amount recovered, less the amount of any contributions that he may have made. Amendment No. 109 is merely a consequential drafting change; and Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 116 make similar changes to the Scottish application subsection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 35, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment goes with a different group of Amendments on the same clause—Amendments Nos. 106, 107, 113, 114 and 115. These Amendments ensure that the power of recovery under Section 52 of the 1954 Act, as amended by this clause, will operate where compensation has become payable as the result of a planning decision taken before the completion of an acquisition or sale but the charge on the land is not registered until after that date. The liability to repay such charge will have been taken into account in assessing compensation for the acquisition of land. In other words, the gap in these provisions is closed by those Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 42, leave out ("is for the time being registered").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 45, after ("Act") insert ("is registered (whether before or after the completion of the acquisition or sale) in respect of a planning decision or order made before the service of the notice to treat, or the making of the contract, in pursuance of which the acquisition or sale is effected").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 6, after ("the") insert ("completion of the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment, too, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 10, at end insert—
("(6A) Where by virtue of the last preceding subsection the Minister recovers a sum in respect of any land, by reason that it is land in respect of which a notice is registered under subsection (5) of section twenty-eight of this Act as applied by section thirty-nine of this Act, subsections (2) and (3) of section forty-one of this Act shall have effect in relation to that sum as if it were a sum recovered as mentioned in subsection (2) of the said section forty-one.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 16, leave out ("to those subsections") and insert ("respectively to subsections (1) to (5) and to subsection (6) of that section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 17, leave out from ("section") to end of line 24.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment, also, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 8, leave out ("subsection (6)") and insert ("subsections (6) and (6A)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 9, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, again, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 17, leave out ("is for the time being recorded").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment, too, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 21, after ("Act") insert ("is recorded (whether before or after the completion of the acquisition or sale) in respect of a planning decision or order made before the service of the notice to treat, or the making of the contract, in pursuance of which the acquisition or sale is effected").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 27, after ("the") insert ("completion of the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment, also, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 32, at end insert—
"(6A) Where by virtue of the last preceding subsection the Secretary of State recovers a sum in respect of any land, by reason that it is land in respect of which a notice is recorded under subsection (4) of section forty-one of this Act, subsections (2) and (3) of section forty-three of this Act shall have effect in relation to that sum as if it were a sum recovered as mentioned in subsection (2) of the said section forty-three."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Application of Act to Crown]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential on the new clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 11, at end insert—
"() The rights conferred by section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act shall be exercisable by a person who (within the meaning of that section) is an owner-occupier of a hereditament or agricultural unit

245
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 that section and of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions as to purchase of other owner-occupiers' interests) to this Act shall apply accordingly."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Provisions as to inquiries, notices and regulations]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment also is consequential on the new clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 15, at end insert—
"(3) Any power conferred by this Act to make an order shall include power to vary or revoke the order by a subsequent order".—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: These two Amendments, also, are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 61, line 16, after ("regulations") insert ("or orders").
Page 61, line 18, after ("regulations") insert ("or orders").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Interpretation]:
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment and Amendment No. 150 to the Sixth Schedule go together. This Amendment deletes the definition of "interest in land" which is attracted from the 1954 Act. The definition in that Act is limited to an interest in fee simple or a tenancy, and is too restricted. The Act of 1919 and the 1947 Act do not contain any definition of "interest in land", and the compensation provisions of those Acts therefore apply to the assessment of compensation for the purchase of other forms of interest, such as the purchase of an easement. The new basis of compensation should apply to the compulsory purchase of any interest in land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 21, leave out ("interest in land").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment, No. 121A, is consequential on Amendment No. 52A. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 36, leave out from ("body") to ("means") in line 37.—(Earl Bathurst)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 23, after ("prescribed") insert ("(except in relation to matters required or authorised by this Act to be prescribed by an order)).—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This is a technical Amendment, because this section of the Bill is incomplete without subsections (2) and (3) of Section 112 of the 1947 Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 11, at end insert—
("() Subsections (2) and (3) of section one hundred and twelve of the Act of 1947, and subsections (2) and (3) of section one hundred and eight of the Scottish Act of 1947, shall apply respectively for the purposes of the construction of references in this Act to the Third Schedule to the Act of 1947 and to the Third Schedule to the Scottish Act of 1947.")—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 32, at end insert:
("(8) For the purposes of this Act development of land shall be taken to be initiated—

(a) if the development consists of the carrying out of operations, at the time when those operations are begun;

(b) if the development consists of a change in use, at the time when the new use is institued;

(c) if the development consists both of the carrying out of operations and of a change in use, at the earlier of the times mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.")—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 [Consequential amendments and repeals]:
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment and Amendments Nos. 126 and 165 go together, and with your Lordships' permission I will speak to both. They are consequential on repeals in the 1954 Act

247
effected by the Eighth Schedule, in particular of Section 53 (5) of the 1954 Act, effected by Amendment No. 165, which deals with the compulsory purchase price. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 7, after first ("of") insert ("and repeals in").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: I beg to move this Amendment, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 9, leave out ("Schedule") and insert ("and Eighth Schedules").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
4.50 p.m.
Clause 48 [Short title, citation, Commencement and extent]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the Committee might consider this Amendment and Amendment No. 128 together. When the Bill was introduced it seemed possible that it might become an operative Act before May, 1959. The provisions relaxing ministerial control over land transactions by local authorities in Scotland contained in Part II of the Bill, follow another provision of this kind in the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1958, which becomes operative on May 16, 1959. Accordingly, Clause 48 (3) provided that Part II of the Planning Bill, in its application to Scotland, would come into operation on May 16, 1959. In present circumstances that provision can now be deleted from the Bill, with the effect that Part II will become operative in Scotland, as well as in England, one month from the date on which the Bill becomes an Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 26, leave out ("Subject to the next following subsection").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 29, leave out subsection (3).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule [Special provisions relating to section nine]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out paragraph 4 and to insert instead:
"4.—(1) Where, for the purpose of assessing compensation in respect of a compulsory acquisition of an interest in land, an increase in the value of an interest in other land has, in any of the cases mentioned in the table, been taken into account by virtue of subsection (4) of section nine of this Act or any corresponding enactment, then, in connection with any subsequent acquisition to which this paragraph applies, that increase shall not be left out of account by virtue of subsection (2) of section nine of this Act, or taken into account by virtue of subsection (4) of that section or any corresponding enactment, in so far as it was taken into account in connection with the previous acquisition.
(2) Where, in connection with a compulsory acquisition of an interest in land, a diminution in the value of an interest in other land has, in any of the cases mentioned in the table, been taken into account in assessing compensation for injurious affection, then, in connection with any subsequent acquisition to which this paragraph applies, that diminution shall not he left out of account, by virtue of subsection (2) of section nine of this Act, in so far as it was taken into account in connection with the previous acquisition.
(3) This paragraph applies to any subsequent acquisition where either—

(a) the interest acquired by the subsequent acquisition is the same as the interest previously taken into account (whether the acquisition extends to the whole of the land in which that interest previously subsisted or only to part of that land), or

(b) the person entitled to the interest acquired is, or derives title to that interest from, the person who at the time of the previous acquisition was entitled to the interest previously taken into account;

and in this sub-paragraph any reference to the interest previously taken into account is a reference to the interest the increased or diminished value whereof was taken into account as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) or sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph.
(4) Where, in connection with a sale of an interest in land by agreement, the circumstances were such that, if it had been a compulsory acquisition, an increase or diminution of value would have fallen to be taken into account as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) or sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall apply, with the necessary modifications, as if that sale had been a compulsory acquisition and that increase or diminution of value had been taken into account accordingly.
(5) In this paragraph "corresponding enactment" means any such enactment as is mentioned in paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and any reference to a case mentioned in the table is a reference to a case mentioned in the first column of the table set out in subsection (2) of section nine of this Act."
The noble and learned Viscount said: enhancement in value of other land contiguous or adjacent to land which is being acquired is set off against the compensation payable for the latter in the expectation that such enhancement in value will be realised on any subsequent sale. If, on the other hand, the other land is subsequently acquired compulsorily as part of the same scheme, Clause 9 will prevent account being taken of that enhancement in value, and so the owner will receive too little. Paragraph 4 of the First Schedule is intended to prevent this happening, by providing that Clause 9 shall not apply to the second transaction.
There are a number of possible combinations of circumstances in which paragraph 4 will not produce the correct result. For example, if the other land falls outside the area of the original scheme and is brought subsequently in the course of another scheme, Clause 9 would not in any case have operated to exclude enhancement due to the first scheme, but paragraph 4 operates to let in the value due to the second scheme, which ought to be excluded. Moreover, paragraph 4 relates only to enhancement in value, but similar difficulties arise where compensation is paid for diminution in value due to injurious affection.
This Amendment therefore substitutes a new paragraph 4 which should produce the correct result in all circumstances. Sub-paragraph (1) provides that where enhancement in value has been set off, that enhancement shall not be left out of account on any future purchase or set off a second time. Sub-paragraph (2) provides similarly that where compensation has been paid for diminution of value, that diminution shall not be disregarded on a subsequent acquisition. Subparagraph (3) takes care of any intervening change in the ownership of the interests involved; sub-paragraph (4) applies the provisions to acquisitions by agreement, and sub-paragraph (5) contains definitions. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that he wanted to encourage the playing of chess as an inducement to international agreement. I think it might also be an inducement to drafting clauses to fill up gaps of this kind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 41, leave out paragraph 4 and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: I do not rise to object to this clause, but only to say that this is an example of not looking several moves ahead. One would expect that at the time when you are considering enhancement of the value of land adjoining you might at the same time have thought of the possibility of diminution; but that seems to have been overlooked.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Acquisition of houses as being unfit for human habitation]:
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON had tabled an Amendment to omit Part I of the Schedule. The noble Lord said: The Committee have now had the advantage of reading at leisure the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount, which appear in Vol. 215, columns 957–8–9 of Hansard of April 23. I am particularly impressed by what appears at the bottom of column 958, where the noble and learned Viscount refers to the categories of houses which would receive only site value compensation. He reduces these down to houses that must have been "bought before the war or after 1955"; and then he goes on to analyse the principle of acquisition of single sites and the various payments made in relation to them. This matter was argued at some length earlier in the Bill and also in another place. I am told that it may be that the peak of such acquisitions has not yet occurred and, therefore, that the figures quoted for, I believe, the first half of 1958 may be exceeded in future years. But if there is going to be only this limited number of cases, at any rate for the time being, I am perfectly prepared to accept the noble and learned Viscount's assurances. If more cases should occur in the future, then it may well be that the Government would have to look at this matter again. That being so, I do not propose to move the Amendment standing in my name.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment goes with Amendments Nos. 132, 133, 135A, 135B and 135C. The first three relate to England and Wales. They correct omissions in the list of powers in relation to which unfitness orders can be made under paragraph 9 of the Fifth Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act. 1944, as amended by this Schedule. The additions are acquisitions under the New Towns Act, 1946,

251
which applies certain provisions of the 1944 Act, including this Schedule, and acquisitions under the new clause after Clause 34 which extends the provisions for dealing with planning blight. Amendments 135A, 135B and 135C correct similar omissions in the Scottish Part II of the Second Schedule in the list of powers in relation to which unfitness orders can be made under paragraph 8 in the Fifth Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 31, leave out from ("being") to ("where") in line 33 and insert—

("(a) an acquisition under Part IV of the Act of 1947, or

(b) an acquisition under section six of the Town Development Act, 1952, or

(c) an acquisition in pursuance of section thirty-four or section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act, or

(d) an acquisition of land within the area designated by an order under section one of the New Towns Act, 1946, at the site of a new town, or

(e) an acquisition by a development corporation or a local highway authority or the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under the New Towns Act, 1946, or under any enactment as applied by any provision of that Act,

and being (in any such case) an acquisition").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 6, after ("notice") insert ("under subsection (4) of section six of the New Towns Act, 1946, or")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 6, after ("thirty-four") insert ("or section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.0 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN had given notice of two Amendments to paragraph 1 (2) the first being to leave out "if". The noble Lord
252
said: This and the next Amendment must go together. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will remember that when we discussed the question of compensation for the acquisition of slum property a number of proposals were before the Committee, all of them designed to give the owner of a very small site and the owner-occupier of a small slum house, where the compensation would be so restricted as to be negligible, a reasonable payment for his land. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, put down an Amendment. I think his Amendment was in the wrong place, but he got in with it first. The proper place was as an Amendment of the Schedule.
It was agreed, I think, that all the arguments that were put forward would be considered by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and that possibly we might have an opportunity of discussing it before the next stage; and then, if necessary, we could put down Amendments at that stage. In these circumstances, I do not want to do more than draw attention to my Amendment as a possible means of providing additional compensation to the kind of owner that we have in mind; and if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will, as I am sure he will, undertake to have this particular method of dealing with the matter in mind, I shall be perfectly prepared to withdraw my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 19, leave out ("if").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD MESTON: I should like to support this Amendment in general principle. I regard it as a "last-ditch" effort. On the few occasions when I have had the honour to be reported by the Press I have generally been referred to as a "Back Bench Liberal", and as such I do not profess to carry any weight; but for years I have been speaking about the gross injustice of assessing compensation on the basis of site values. Let us come to the point without any skirmish. Suppose, for example, that there were no such thing as town and country planning. The simple question would be: "What would you give for an old house which undoubtedly is not up to standard?"—and the short answer would be: "I might give £100" or "I might give only £50". That is perfectly fair, and that is the

253
type of reasoning that ought to apply to-day. As the Bill stands at the present time, I understand that the minimum, which will be the maximum, that a person can get is the gross value. It may be about £10 or £15.
I think that the effort made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to treble that amount is most meritorious. I do not approve of the system of assessing compensation on the basis of site value at all, but it exists, and we have to do the best we can in the circumstances. Therefore I think that this is a most meritorious Amendment, and if there were more Liberals here I would invite them to draw themselves up in shining armour and go into the Division Lobby; but it does not arise to-day. It may arise on the Report stage. want only to say that, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, I support this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Clearly, in view of that demonstration of force by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, apart from what Lord Silkin has said and, from a slightly different angle, what Lord Hylton has said, I should like time to consider this point very carefully. Again, noble Lords will not take me as binding the Government; but they have all spoken with such feeling as well as argument about the matter that I should like the time between now and Report stage to consider it once again. I hope that they will be content with that, and will not press the matter to-day.
LORD SILKIN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 10, leave out from ("being") to ("where") in line 13 and insert—

("(a) an acquisition under Part III of the Scottish Act of 1947, or

(b) an acquisition under section thirteen of the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, or

(c) an acquisition in pursuance of section thirty-four or section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act, or

(d) an acquisition of land within the area designated by an order under section one of the New Towns Act, 1946, as the site of a new town, or

254

(e) an acquisition by a development corporation or a local highway authority or the Secretary of State under the New Towns Act, 1946, or under any enactment as applied by any provision of that Act,

and being (in any such case) an acquisition").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 30, after ("notice") insert ("under subsection (4) of section six of the New Towns Act, 1946, or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 30, at end insert ("or section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Application of section seventeen to special cases]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I ought to explain that this Amendment and Amendments 135 E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L, go together and are consequential on Amendments already made to Clause 17 on page 21, lines 7 and 10, by Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 39, after ("the") insert ("principal").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 43, leave out ("in the compensation or purchase price") and insert ("therein").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 1, after ("the") insert ("principal").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 35, after first ("the") insert ("principal").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 41, after ("the") insert ("principal").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 1, after second ("the") insert ("principal").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 2, after ("or") insert ("the amount of the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 11, after second ("the") insert ("principal").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment, again, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 12, after ("or") insert ("the amount of the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved after paragraph 4 to insert:
"Mortgaged land
. Subject to the provisions of this Schedule relating to settled land, where, in a case falling within subsection (1) of section seventeen or subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act, the interest in land which was acquired or sold was subject to a mortgage, any reference in section seventeen of this Act to the person to whom the compensation or purchase price was
256
payable, or to the person referred to in subsection (2) of the said section seventeen, and any reference in section eighteen of this Act to the person entitled to receive the compensation or purchase price, shall be construed as a reference to the person who, subject to the mortgage, was entitled to that interest, and not as a reference to the mortgagee.
. For the purposes of the application of section seventeen or section nineteen of this Act, and of the provisions of this Schedule other than this paragraph, to a case falling within the last preceding paragraph, any reference to the principal amount of the compensation which was payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition shall be construed as a reference to the principal amount of the compensation which would have been payable in respect thereof if the interest in question had not been subject to a mortgage; and any reference to the principal amount of the compensation which would in any particular circumstances have been payable in respect of a compulsory acquisition shall be construed as a reference to the principal amount of the compensation which would in those circumstances have been payable in respect of such a compulsory acquisition if the interest in question had not been subject to a mortgage.
. No compensation shall be payable by virtue of section seventeen of this Act, or by virtue of the provisions of that section as extended by section nineteen of this Act, in respect of a compulsory acquisition or sale by agreement, where the interest acquired or sold was the interest of a mortgagee (as distinct from an interest subject to a mortgage)."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment corrects a defect in the application of Clauses 17 to 19 to land which at the time of the acquisition was subject to a mortgage. Under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, where the value of the land is less than the amount outstanding on the mortgage, the compensation is payable to the mortgagee, who then has to convey his interest in the land to the acquiring authority. Under Clause 17 as it stands, the additional compensation is payable to the person to whom the original compensation was payable—that is, in the case in question, to the mortgagee. This is obviously wrong. The mortgagee may already have recovered the balance due to him from the mortgagor under the personal covenant, and, even if he has not, the additional compensation may be more than enough to meet his claim. In any event, he is no longer in fact a mortgagee, and there seems no reason to give him any status under these clauses.
The Amendment therefore provides that it is the person who held the interest in the land subject to the mortgage, and not the mortgagee, who has the right to

257
claim under Clauses 17 to 19. The mortgagee is adequately protected by his normal rights against the mortgagor. It would be possible, moreover, for the mortgagee to take an assignment from the mortgagor of the right to claim. The Scottish application, of this Amendment will be put down on Report stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 14, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a technical Amendment. It ensures that, where compensation was paid to a person acting as trustee of a settlement—whether a settlement under the Settled Lands Act, 1925, or a trust for sale within the meaning of the Law of Property Act, 1925—a claim for additional compensation under Clauses 17 to 19 can still be made where there has been a change of trustee since the land was acquired. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 14, at end insert—
("Settled land
() Where, in a case falling within subsection (1) of section seventeen or subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act, the interest in land which was acquired or sold was subject to a settlement, and accordingly the compensation or purchase price was payable to the trustees of that settlement, any reference in section seventeen of this Act to the person to whom the compensation or purchase price was payable, and any reference in section eighteen of this Act to the person entitled to receive the compensation or purchase price, shall be construed as a reference to the trustees for the time being of the settlement.
() Where the preceding sub-paragraph applies, subsection (5) of section seventeen of this Act shall not apply.
() Any compensation paid to the trustees of a settlement by virtue of section seventeen of this Act, or by virtue of the provisions of that section as extended by section nineteen of this Act, in respect of a compulsory acquisition or sale by agreement, shall be applicable by the trustees as if it were proceeds of the sale of the interest acquired or sold.
() In this paragraph 'settlement' means a settlement within the meaning of the Settled Land Act. 1925, or a trust for sale within the meaning of the Law of Property Act, 1925.)—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Authorities to whom Part II applies]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment simply leaves out the words "Water Scotland Act, 1946" which are not required. It can be taken together with Amendment No. 138, which deals with another Act of a cognate character. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, leave out line 31.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, leave out line 37.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 38, at end insert—
("3. A local water authority within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946.
4. A river purification board established under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Supplementary Provisions as to Purchase of Resident Owner-Occupier's Interest]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 6, leave out ("section thirty-four of this Act") and insert ("that section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 35, leave out from ("to") to ("and") in line 39 and insert ("such a power of compulsory acquisition as is mentioned in that paragraph, being a power exercisable in respect of that land as therein mentioned").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Under Clause 34, the service of a notice by an owner which is not successfully opposed leads to notice to treat being

259
deemed to have been served under the appropriate enactment as defined in Clause 34 (7). In some circumstances, more than one enactment may appear to be appropriate and the choice may be material. This Amendment therefore provides machinery for determining in any case of doubt which enactment is appropriate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 22, at end insert—
("9. If any question arises as to which enactment is the appropriate enactment in relation to any land for the purposes of the said section thirty-four, that question shall be referred—

(a) where the appropriate authority are a government department, to the Minister or Board in charge of that department;

(b) where the appropriate authority are statutory undertakers, to the appropriate Minister; and

(c) in any other case, to the Minister,

and the decision of the Minister or Board to whom a question is referred under this paragraph shall be final.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment also provides for circumstances that might occur. If a resident owner-occupier has served a notice and dies before notice to treat is deemed to have been served, in that event his personal representatives, or in Scotland the successor, will be able to continue as the claimant under the notice which has been served. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 22, at end insert—

(" .—(1) In relation to any time after the death of a person who has served a notice under section thirty-four of this Act, the provisions of that section, and the preceding provisions of this Schedule, shall apply subject to the modifications specified in the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) In subsection (3) of the said section thirty-four, the reference to the service of a counter-notice on that person shall be construed as a reference to the service of a counter-notice on his personal representatives.

(3) In head (c) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule, for the words 'is not ' there shall be substituted the words 'immediately before his death, was not'.

(4) In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 of this Schedule, and in paragraph 7 of this Schedule, any reference to that person shall be construed as a reference to his personal representatives.

(5) In the application of this paragraph to Scotland, for any reference, in relation to a person who has served a notice under section thirty-four of this Act, to that person's personal
260
representatives there shall be substituted a reference to the person who on that person's death, has succeeded to his interest in the hereditament in question.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 22, at end insert—
(".—(l) Where any land is on the boundary between two or more rating areas, and accordingly—

(a) different parts of that land form the subject of single entries in the valuation lists for the time being in force for those areas respectively, but

(b) if the whole of that land had been in one of those areas it would have formed the subject of a single entry in the valuation list for that area,

the whole of that land shall be treated, for the purposes of the definition of 'hereditament' in subsection (7) of section thirty-four of this Act, as if it formed the subject of a single entry in the valuation list for a rating area.
(2) In the application of this paragraph 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.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This also is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 23, after ("thirty-four") insert ("and the last preceding paragraph").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after the Fifth Schedule to insert the following new Schedule:
"SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO PURCHASE OF OTHER OWNER-OCCUPIERS' INTERESTS
1. The provisions of this Schedule shall have effect for the purposes of section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act.
2.—(1) Where a person (in this Schedule referred to as "the claimant") has served a notice under that section, the appropriate authority shall not be entitled to serve a counter-notice thereunder objecting to that notice, except on one or more of the following grounds, that is to say,—

(a) that the hereditament or agricultural unit in question does not fulfil the conditions specified in subsection (1) of that section;

261

(b) that the appropriate authority (unless compelled to do so by virtue of that section) do not propose to acquire any part of the hereditament, or (in the case of an agricultural unit) of the affected area, in the exercise of any relevant powers;

(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 that section) do not propose to acquire any other part of that area in the exercise of any such powers;

(d) that the claimant is not an owner-occupier of the hereditament or agricultural unit;

(e) that the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of that section are not fulfilled.

(2) Any such counter-notice shall specify the grounds (being one or more of the grounds mentioned in the preceding subparagraph) on which the appropriate authority object to the notice.
(3) Any reference in this paragraph to relevant powers shall be construed in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act.
3.—(1) Where such a counter-notice has been served, the claimant may require the objection to be referred to the Lands Tribunal.
(2) On any such reference 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 sub-paragraph, 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 head (b) or head (c) of sub-paragraph (1) of the last preceding paragraph 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 does not uphold the objection, the Tribunal shall declare that the notice to which the counter-notice relates is a valid notice and shall give directions as to the date mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of the said section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals).
(5) If the Tribunal upholds the objection, but only on the grounds mentioned in head (c) of sub-paragraph (1) of the last preceding paragraph,—

(a) 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;

(b) the Tribunal shall give directions as to the date mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act; and

262

(c) for the purposes of that section, the objection shall be taken to be upheld by the Tribunal, but on grounds relating only to part of the affected area, namely that part which is not specified in the counter-notice as being the part which the appropriate authority propose to acquire.

4.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect where the grounds of objection specified in a counter-notice under section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act consist of or include the grounds mentioned in head (b) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and either—

(a) the objection on the grounds mentioned in that head is referred to and upheld by the Tribunal, or

(b) the time for referring that objection to the Tribunal expires without its having been so referred.

(2) If a compulsory purchase order has been made under the appropriate enactment in respect of land which consists of or includes the whole or part of the hereditament or agricultural unit to which the counter-notice relates, or if the land in question falls within paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section thirty-four of this Act, any power conferred by that order, or by the special enactment, as the case may be, for the compulsory acquisition of the interest of the claimant in the hereditament or agricultural unit or any part thereof shall cease to have effect.
(3) If the land in question falls within paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section thirty-four of this Act, then (without prejudice to the effect of any subsequent designation) the development plan shall have effect as if no part of the hereditament, or (in the case of an agricultural unit) no part of the affected area, were designated therein as land subject to compulsory acquisition.
5.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect where the grounds of objection specified in a counter-notice under section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act consist of or include the grounds mentioned in head (c) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and either—

(a) the objection on the grounds mentioned in that head is referred to and upheld by the Tribunal, or

(b) the time for referring that objection to the Tribunal expires without its having been so referred.

In the following provisions of this paragraph any reference to "the part of the affected area not required" is a reference to the whole of that area except the part specified in the counter-notice as being the part which the appropriate authority propose to acquire as therein mentioned.
(2) If a compulsory purchase order has been made under the appropriate enactment in respect of land which consists of or includes any of the part of the affected area not required, or if the land in question falls within paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of

263
section thirty-four of this Act, any power conferred by that order, or by the special enactment, as the case may be, for the compulsory acquisition of the interest of the claimant in any land comprised in the part of the affected area not required shall cease to have effect.
(3) If the land in question falls within paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section thirty-four of this Act, then (without prejudice to the effect of any subsequent designation) the development plan shall have effect as if no land comprised in the part of the affected area not required were designated therein as land subject to compulsory acquisition.
6. Paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation to a notice served under section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act as they have effect in relation to a notice served under section thirty-four of this Act, subject to the modification that, in subparagraph (3) of the said paragraph 9, the reference to head (c) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall be construed as a reference to head (d) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule:
Provided that sub-paragraph (a) of, and the proviso to, paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall not have effect in relation to a notice served in respect of an agricultural unit.
7.—(1) For the purposes of the application of section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act, and of the preceding provisions of this Schedule, to a hereditament or agricultural unit occupied for the purposes of a partnership firm—

(a) occupation for the purposes of the firm shall he treated as occupation by the firm, and not as occupation by any one or more of the partners individually, and the definitions of "owner-occupier" in subsections (7) and (8) of that section shall apply in relation to the firm accordingly; and

(b) if, after the service by the firm of a notice under subsection (2) of that section, any change occurs (whether by death or otherwise) in the constitution of the firm, any proceedings, rights or obligations consequential upon that notice may be carried on or exercised by or against, or (as the case may be) shall be incumbent upon, the partners for the time being constituting the firm.

(2) Nothing in the said section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) or in this paragraph shall be construed as indicating an intention to exclude the operation of section nineteen of the Interpretation Act, 1889 (whereby, unless the contrary intention appears, 'person' includes any body of persons corporate or unincorporate) in relation to any of the provisions of the said section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) or this Schedule.
8. Notwithstanding anything in subsection (7) of section thirty-four of this Act, land which forms the subject of an entry in the valuation list by reason only that it is land over which
264
any shooting, fishing or other sporting rights are exercisable, or that it is land over which a right of exhibiting advertisements is let out or reserved, shall not be taken to be a hereditament for the purposes of section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act or of this Schedule.
9. Where, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act, as applied by the preceding provisions of this Schedule, land whereof different parts form the subject of single entries in the valuation lists for the time being in force for two or more rating areas is treated as if it formed the subject of a single entry in the valuation list for a rating area, the definition of 'annual value' in subsection (9) of section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act shall apply as if any reference therein to a value shown in the valuation list were a reference to the aggregate of the values shown (as rateable values or as net annual values, as the case may be) in those valuation lists in relation to the different parts of that land.
10. Subsections (7) to (10) of section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this Schedule as they have effect for the purposes of that section.
11. In the application of paragraphs 8 and 9 of this Schedule to Scotland, for any reference to a rating area there shall be substituted a reference to a valuation area."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the Schedule connected with the new clause which we discussed earlier today under Amendment No. 99. It makes the consequential provisions made necessary by the insertion of the new clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After the Fifth Schedule, insert the said new Schedule.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HYLTON: May I ask one question on this Amendment? What happens after the Lands Tribunal has made a decision under Section 4 (3)? So far as I can understand this matter, which is not a particularly simple one, the Lands Tribunal makes a decision in the matter but it does not appear to be necessary for that decision to be registered either with the planning authority or in the local Land Charges Register. There seems to be a gap—or it may be my lack of knowledge. The decision of the Lands Tribunal is of great importance because under subsection (3) of the clause the affected area may be subject to compulsory acquisition. It is dealt with by the Lands Tribunal but that decision does not go any further. I suppose that the owner or applicant would know about

265
the decision, but it would seem desirable that there should be some provision, perhaps by regulation, that the local planning authority or the local Land Charges Register should be informed. I regret that I have not had time to give notice of this point to the noble and learned Viscount and perhaps he could look at it before Report stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will do that with pleasure. I should like to pursue, as my noble friend invited me to do, the various connecting links in the chain, and I will let him know about it before the Report stage.
LORD HYLTON: I am obliged.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Reduction or Extinguishment of Unexpended Balance of Established Development Value]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 3, after ("Schedule") insert ("'interest in land'").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [Enactments Amended]:
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 32. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 41, at end insert—
"The Agriculture Act, 1947
In section fifty-eight, in paragraph (b) of subsection (7), for the words from 'as a condition of consenting' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words 'where any of the land to which estimates submitted under this section relate is subsequently sold, let or appropriated otherwise than in accordance with the proposals on which the estimates were based, to require the smallholdings authority to furnish the Minister with such particulars of the sale, letting or appropriation as may be determined by or under the regulations, and may empower the Minister to adjust contributions as he may think fit having regard to those particulars'").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment and Amendment No. 154, which is the Scottish equivalent, might, with your Lordships' permission, be taken together. Subsections (3) and (4) of Section 20 of
266
the 1947 Act provide for the payment of compensation where in lieu of confirming a purchase notice under Section 19 the Minister directs that planning permission shall be granted for development which gives a value to the land falling short of full existing use value. In such a case, compensation is payable amounting to the difference between the value of the land with the permission referred to in the direction and its value if compulsorily acquired under Section 51 of the 1947 Act. The Amendment preserves this provision, but substitutes the expression "existing use value" for "compulsory purchase value" which is no longer in accord with the market value basis obtaining on compulsory acquisitions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 9, at end insert—
"In section twenty, in subsections (3) and (4), for the words 'compulsory purchase value', in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words 'existing use value'; and at the end of subsection (4) there shall be added the words 'and the purchase were not a compulsory acquisition to which section one of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, applies'").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment and Amendment No. 155 can with your Lordships' permission be taken together, No. 155 being the Scottish equivalent. Where requisitioned land is bought at existing use value the assumptions based on the Third Schedule are related to circumstances as they existed at the date of requisition, by subsection (2) of Section 54 of the 1947 Act. This Amendment adds a new subsection (2A) to cover the case when compensation is assessed under the Bill by reference to Clause 3 (3), which provides that permissions for Third Schedule development are to be assumed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 9, at end insert—
("In section fifty-four, after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
'(2A) Where, in the case of a compulsory acquisition to which section one of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, applies,—

(a) Part VIII of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, applies to the acquisition, and

(b) the land is requisitioned land and the period of requisition had begun before the appointed day.

267
subsections (3) and (4) of section three of the said Act of 1959 shall have effect as if for any reference to the appointed day in the Third Schedule to this Act there were substituted a reference to the beginning of the period of requisition';
and in subsection (3), after the words 'paragraph (a)' there shall be inserted the words 'of subsection (2) of this section or by virtue'.")—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 32, at end insert—
("In section eighteen, in subsections (3) and (4) for the words 'compulsory purchase value', in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words 'existing use value'; and at the end of subsection (4) there shall be added the words 'and the purchase were not a compulsory acquisition to which section one of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, applies'").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 32, at end insert—
("in section fifty-one, after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
'(2A) Where, in she case of a compulsory acquisition to which section one of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, applies,—

(a) Part VIII of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, applies to the acquisition, and

(b) the land is requisitioned land and the period of requisition had begun before the appointed day,

subsections (3) and (4) of section three of the said Act of 1959 shall have effect as if for any reference to the appointed day in the Third Schedule to this Act there were substituted a reference to the beginning of the period of requisition';
and in subsection (3), after the words 'paragraph (a)' there shall be inserted the words 'of subsection (2) of this section or by virtue'").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment and Amendment No. 157 can, with your Lordships' permission, be taken together. They are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 33, at end insert—
("In section twenty-nine, in subsection (6), after the words 'section fifty-two of this Act' there shall be inserted the words '(either as originally enacted or as amended by section
268
forty of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959)', and for the words 'that section' there shall be substituted the words 'the said section fifty-two'.").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 44, at end insert—
("In section thirty, in subsection (6), after the words 'section fifty-four of this Act' there shall be inserted the words '(either as originally enacted or as amended by section forty of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959)', and for the words 'that section' there shall be substituted the words 'the said section fifty-four'").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This is a technical Amendment under Section 62 of the Scottish Act of 1954 and is consequential upon this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 54, at end insert—
("In section sixty-two, in subsection (8), at the end, there shall be inserted the following proviso, that is say,—
'Provided that, where the acquisition in question is a transaction in relation to which the repeal of the said subsection (4) by section forty-seven of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, has effect, this subsection shall have effect as if for the words from "the dominium utile in question" to the word "applied" (in the second place where that word occurs) there were substituted the words "the said Rule (5) had not applied".'").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment and Amendment No. 169 can, with your Lordships' permission, be taken together. They are consequential on Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 54, at end insert—
("The Housing Act, 1957
In section forty-seven, for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
'(2) Land shall not, except with the consent of the Minister, be sold, exchanged or leased under this section for a price, consideration, or rent less than the best price, best consideration or best rent (as the case may be) that can reasonably be obtained, having regard to any restrictions or conditions (including conditions as to payment or the giving of security for payment) subject to which it is sold, exchanged or let.'").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
5.23 p.m.
Eighth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
EARL BATHURST: Amendments Nos. 160 to 168 all repeal provisions which, as a result of the provisions of the Bill, have become redundant in both English and Scottish Acts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
page 88, column 3, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert—
("Sections fifty-one to fifty-three.
In section fifty-four, in subsection (1), the words 'in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act' and the words from 'and in particular' to the end of the subsection.").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 37, column 3, at end insert—
("In section one hundred and ten, subsections (2) and (3)").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, column 3, leave out lines 40 and 41 and insert—
("Sections forty-eight to fifty.
In section fifty-one, in subsection (1), the words 'in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act' and the words from 'and in particular' to the end of the subsection.").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 54, column 3, at end insert—
("In section one hundred and five, subsections (2) and (3)").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 56, at end insert—

("15 amp; 16 Geo. 6. and 1 Eliz. 2. c. 54.

The Town Development Act, 1952.

In section six, in subsection (6), the words from "and the reference to subsection (2)" to the end of the subsection")

—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This, too, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 3, column 3, at end insert—
("In section forty-eight, in subsection (2), the words from 'being such a department' to 'section thirty of this Act'.
In section fifty-two, paragraph (c) of subsection (8).
In section fifty-three, subsection (5).
In section sixty-one, subsection (3).")—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 14, column 3, at end insert—
("In section fifty-four, paragraph. (c) of subsection (8).
In section fifty-five, subsection (5).
In section sixty-one, subsection (3).").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 17, at end insert—

("4 & 5 Eliz. 2. c. 57.

The Slum Clearance (Compensation) Act, 1956.

The whole Act.")

—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD MESTON: In a few words I should like to be satisfied that those people who are entitled to the benefit of the Slum Clearance (Compensation) Act, 1956, will get exactly what they want by this Bill, and will not be prejudiced thereby.
EARL BATHURST: The provisions of the Act were consolidated in the Housing Act, 1957, but the provisions of paragraph 9 of the Fifth Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954, were not amended at the time of consolidation, and are still referred to in the 1956 Act. The amended version of the 1944 Act Schedule, which appears in paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the Bill, corrects this.
LORD MESTON: I am obliged to the noble Earl for his reply. It is rather scientific, but it will sink in eventually.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 17, at end insert—

("5 amp; 6 Eliz. 2. c. 38.

The Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957.

In section thirteen, in subsection (3), the words from 'and the reference to subsection (2)' to the end of the subsection.")

—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, column 3, leave out lines 18 and 19.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

PORT OF LONDON BILL
Reported with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before six o'clock.