CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT BILL

HL Deb 07 July 1960 vol 224 cc1241-322

3.20 p.m.

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Waldegrave.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Issue of site licences by local authorities

3.—

(3) A local authority may on an application under this section issue a site licence in respect of the land if, and only if, the applicant is, at the time when the site licence is issued, entitled to the benefit of a permission for the use of the land as a caravan site granted under Part III of the Act of 1947 otherwise than by a development order [not being a permission granted in terms such that it will expire within a period of six months beginning with the date on which the application was made.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE)

moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "Order". The noble Earl said: We have a formidable list of Amendments before us to-day, and I shall be as brief as I can in moving the Government Amendments, of which this is the first. There are two points, however, that I should like to make straight away. First, nearly all the Amendments which I have to move arise out of points which have been discussed either in your Lordships' House or in another place; and it is fair to say, I think, that most of them will have been expected in order to meet such points. But the second point I should like to make is this. I do not propose in any way to try to curtail discussion on any of these Amendments merely because of their number or complexity. For that reason I am glad to be able to say that we can continue this Committee on Monday next if we are not able to complete our work by a reasonable hour to-day—and by "a reasonable hour" I think most people would agree dinner-time to-night. I should like to mention that, in addition, it has been arranged that we shall have as much time as possible between the Committee stage and Report stage—I hope a full week from next Monday. We are, of course, limited by the Parliamentary timetable here, but I want to do everything I can to give your Lordships as much time as possible to deal with these Amendments to this Bill.

I now move this first Amendment to Clause 3 (3). This clause, as drafted, would require the licensing authority when considering applications for site licences, to disregard any sites with planning permission with less than six months to run; in other words, they were to be considered not to have planning permission as envisaged in this Bill. This provision was intended to apply primarily to existing sites, many of which are at present operating under short-term planning permissions which may expire soon after the Bill comes into force. You will remember that it is intended that permission for new sites, on the other hand, should normally be long-term, or even permanent.

On further consideration, it seems to us that this clause as drafted is too restrictive, for it is possible that a licence might in future be required for a purely temporary caravan site which would need only a very short-term planning permission—for instance, a site established in connection with an agricultural show. It is desirable that Clause 3 (3) should be amended, as I here propose, in order to make this possible. The proposed new clause (Amendment No. 17 on the Marshalled List) which would come after Clause 16 is, we feel, the proper place to deal with existing short-time permissions, for Clause 16 is the clause which deals specifically with existing sites. If this Amendment is agreed to, certain other consequential Amendments will be required, and we shall come to these later. They are Amendments Nos. 12, 15 and 16, and, of course, the new clause after Clause 16. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 32, leave out from ("order") to end of line 35.—(Earl Waldegrave.)

LORD SILKIN

I do not wish to say anything about the merits of this Amendment, which I think is perfectly satisfactory, and I should have been inclined to let the noble Earl have this Amendment "on the nod". But I want to say a word about the timetable. I quite agree that we shall probably have to meet again on Monday; that is quite acceptable. But I am not sure that one week from that date to the Report stage is adequate. I hope that the noble Earl has not made up his mind. In the course of the passage of a Bill like this, with a large number of Amendments, inevitably, if the noble Earl is as reasonable as I hope he is going to be, he will be giving undertakings to look at matters again. He will have to consult his right honourable friend and, sometimes, let us have a decision as to what action, if any, is to be taken. A week does not give a lot of time for that sort of exchange of ideas in the normal course of events. On the other hand, it may not be necessary to have much. He may be so accommodating that actual undertakings will not be necessary. But I therefore ask him not to commit himself to having a Report stage, say, on the Monday a week following next Monday.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will know, it is not for me to arrange these things; but I thought it only right to say that my noble Leader and the Chief Whip and I have been discussing this matter, because it is clear that there may be matters which we must consider—it is quite likely—between this stage and Report stage. I was only trying to say now that we will do the best we can, though we are all inhibited by the inescapable fact of the Parliamentary timetable. We must have a Third Reading; this Bill has then to go back to another place; and our Amendments (and I hope there will be quite a number, because I have to move a number myself) will have to be considered there. It is no good, in the vernacular, "kidding ourselves" that we can have too much time on this matter, because I think that will be impossible. But we will do all we can to give as reasonable a time as possible, and I have that undertaking from the Chief Whip, which will be no doubt arranged through the normal channels.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall be agreed to?

LORD BOSTON

While I welcome this Bill, I cannot help wondering whether in rural districts, which are predominantly agricultural, there will be sufficient staff to see that the intentions of the Bill are carried out and its provisions enforced. No doubt that will compete with the necessary office work. Will they be able to ensure that no caravans in excess of the number authorised are on each side and that visiting caravans do, in fact, move on within the specified period? I very much doubt it. Furthermore, will they not also tend to turn a blind eye to numbers in excess of the number permitted in order to encourage the tourist industry and the money it brings into the country? Provided that there is no danger to health, I fully except that in agricultural areas composed of small farms this Bill will do no more than enable the council to take action. In many areas without voluntary wardens the Litter Act has had no effect; and I feel that, without more staff, the local authorities will find it very difficult to make this Bill work.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

In reply to my noble friend Lord Boston, of course the enforcement procedure will impose burdens upon the local authorities. Any new legislation of this sort is bound to do so. But my right honourable friend is circularising, and is in close touch with, local authorities; and we hope that in this Bill we shall have a workable, reasonable and acceptable procedure which will not impose undue burdens or cause great delays. Nobody will be more sorry than my right honourable friend if this Bill imposes undue burdens, or if the provisions are creaky when we try to carry them out; but I think it would be unduly pessimistic to suppose that we are putting such burdens on the officers of local authorities that they will not be able to deal with the matters this Bill will require them to deal with.

LORD BOSTON

I thank the noble Earl for his reply.

On Question, Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Duration of site licences, and power of local authorities to attach conditions thereto

4.—

(3) A site licence issued by a local authority in respect of any land may be so issued subject to such conditions as the authority may think it necessary or desirable to impose on the occupier of the land in the interests of persons dwelling thereon in caravans, or of any other class of persons, or of the public at large; and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, a site licence may be issued subject to conditions— (b) for controlling (whether by reference to their size, the state of their repair or any other feature) the types of caravan which are stationed on the land;

(4) A site licence issued in respect of any land shall, unless it is issued subject to a condition restricting to three or less the total number of caravans which may be stationed on the land at any one time, contain an express condition that, at all times when caravans are stationed on the land for the purposes of human habitation, a copy of the licence as for the time being in force shall be displayed on the land in some conspicuous place.

3.30 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

moved, in subsection (3) (b), after "feature" to insert "prejudicial to the amenity of the site". The noble Viscount said: In addition to planning control, this Bill introduces a site licence for a caravan site, and Clause 4 sets out the various matters which may be included by the licensing authority in the conditions attached to a site licence. I believe that, under paragraph (3) (b) the Minister has it in mind to allow a local authority, when issuing a licence, the power to prevent the use of such things as tram bodies, and curious structures of that sort, on caravan sites. But if one looks at the wording of the paragraph, it is apparent that they could in fact do considerably more than that; they could make the most absurd restrictions—such as, for example, on the colour or other such features of the caravans. I believe that there has been an instance in Yorkshire where one local authority issuing a caravan site licence insisted that all the caravans should be green. Clearly, this goes too far. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has obviously spotted the same problem, and, if I may say so with respect, I prefer his form of wording to mine. None the less, I am sure that the clause as it stands is too wide, and ought in some way to be restricted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 40, after ("feature") insert ("prejudicial to the amenity of the site").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I think that this Amendment would be unduly restrictive of the local authorities' power to attach conditions to a licence to control—not necessarily to prohibit—the types of caravans on a site. The words "any other feature" will enable them, for example, to control the use of structures such as disused 'bus bodies—which, although caravans within the definition, may be unfit for habitation. But this would not be merely a matter of protecting amenities: a converted 'bus body, presumably, if properly screened and freshly painted, might not be prejudicial to the amenities of the site, even if it was objectionable for other reasons. I think, and I hope your Lordships will agree, that this power of control should be retained. I think it is important. It is difficult to specify the features, but some form of words which gives flexibility is necessary here.

As to the colour of caravans, I think it would be unreasonable that a local authority should require all caravans to be a uniform colour. After all, caravans are moving from place to place, and they cannot be like chameleons and change their colour at each site they go to at the whim of the local authority. On the other hand, I can conceive that in certain cases it might be right. It might be right in National Parks, and so on, that there should be the power of control over extremely garish colours, or features of that sort. Surely the effective safeguard against any improper conditions in a licence—and it is a completely effective safeguard in this as in other respects—lies in the right of appeal to the courts. You can go to a magistrates' court and say, "This is a vexatious licensing condition". That, surely, is the safeguard against any abuse of these powers, and I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Is the noble Earl not inclined to consider this matter at all? I have a feeling that, despite the appeal to the magistrates' court on the grounds that the condition is unduly burdensome, there still remains a tremendous scope which, in my opinion, is too wide. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has any opinions on this subject at all, but I should have thought that something in the nature of his Amendment might well be accepted.

LORD SILKIN

The noble Earl will know that this was the subject of a good deal of discussion in another place. A large number of Members felt that the words "or any other feature" were too wide, and that somehow they should be restricted. In my Amendment I have tried my hand at laying down the kind of restriction which I thought was desirable. I am not wedded to these words, but I am sure that the noble Earl ought to consider whether some restriction is necessary. Indeed, in another place the Minister, as I read the proceedings in the Committee stage, was so impressed that he gave an undertaking that he would consider these words again. I do not know whether the noble Earl is now giving us the result of his consideration, that these words must stand, or whether he has not so far given consideration to it. It is quite true that a local authority could lay down conditions as to colour, as to external appearance and as to fitments, none of which really affect the licence at all. I take it that there will be a general standard laid down by the Minister as to what is appropriate for caravans, and that that will be observed; but, as the clause stands at the moment, it would be open to any local authority to require additional conditions over and above what the Ministry may lay down, and that would, in my view, be quite unreasonable.

I know that there is a right of appeal, but that, surely, is not a very sound doctrine—that it does not matter how much hardship you impose by laying down conditions in a licence as long as you can appeal to the magistrates. Why should the subject have to appeal to the magistrates in order to get justice? Why can he not get justice from the local authority itself? I hope that the noble Earl will be prepared to ask the Minister to reconsider this and to put in something (not necessarily my words) which will meet the objection which has been raised in so many quarters and on both sides of another place.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I hope, on the other hand, that the Government will not give way too much on this point, because although I agree with what the noble Lord has said about minor alterations, I think the local authorities should at least have the power to see that these caravans are mobile. It is a different matter, I know, but when my noble friend talked about 'bus bodies I began to be rather nervous, because we have in the past suffered a great deal from structures which call themselves caravans but which really have been nothing more nor less than shacks or shanties.

LORD CHORLEY

As we have strayed a little wide of this Amendment and on to the next Amendment, at any rate in a general way, I should like to say a word or two on the subject of colour and appearance. There is a good deal of feeling in the societies which are particularly concerned with National Parks that it is important that there should be some control over the colour and appearance of these caravans. The Minister himself referred to National Parks. In the Lake District, certainly, and in some of the other National Parks, we have had very unhappy experience with garish caravans placed in vulnerable sites from the point of view of the lovely scenery. We all know that there are people who rather pride themselves, not only in respect of their personal adornments but in respect of the adornments of their motor cars and their caravans, in being distinctly outré, and two or three caravans belonging to a little group of rather peculiar people of that kind, pitched, for example, in the valley of Borrowdale, with which my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett is familiar, can almost completely destroy a lovely place in England while they are there.

It would be unwise to cut down the powers of the registering authority in this matter, because they are the people who understand the requirements of their districts, and one district varies very much from another. The Lake District and the High Peak, for instance, are very different in their characteristic beauty. And I do not think it is possible for the Minister in Whitehall to issue general regulations appropriate equally to the Lake District and Dartmoor, to the Peak District and North Yorkshire. It is a wonderful thing that in this small country we have such extraordinarily varied beauty, a wonder which no other country in the world shares with us. I suggest that it is the local people who understand their requirements and that it would be unwise to cut this out.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I think that the speeches we have heard typify what we shall have to do this afternoon: we shall have to hold two things always before our minds. We have to accept that caravans are a way of life and of holiday-making and we are not prepared to prohibit them out of hand. On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said, we have to plan in order that the amenities of these areas of natural beauty shall be protected. What we have to do is to steer a middle course. We have to give the local authorities reasonable powers to carry out the duties under this kind of legislation—and those duties will be by no means easy. Therefore we must give them a certain amount of flexibility. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I would say that of course my right honourable friend has considered carefully the points raised in another place, but he has come to the conclusion that this word "feature", which was carefully chosen, is the right one to enable local authorities to take cognisance of such matters as those which have been raised in this short debate—'bus bodies, areas of natural beauty, colouring and so on.

I do not think it is right to be pessimistic before we start and say that the local authorities will be oppressive and people will have to appeal to the magistrates' courts. I did not mean to imply that at all. I do not think that local authorities can be accused of acting in that way in their normal work, and they will not do it here. We have the model standards set out under Clause 4 (7), and it is within the ambit of these model standards that the licence conditions will be considered. Frankly, I do not think that any reconsideration of this point, which has already been considered very carefully, will lead my right honourable friend to come to a different conclusion. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am afraid that I have confused the issue by bringing in the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, too early. Naturally, if my Amendment is not satisfactory I shall not press it, but I am still not happy about the word "feature", and while I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, I give notice that I may raise this point on a further occasion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.44 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

moved, in subsection (3), to add to paragraph (b): but the local authority shall not be entitled to make any conditions as to the standard of construction, colour, external appearance or fitments of any caravan;

The noble Lord said: I am not going to make another speech on this Amendment, because to some extent I have said what I wanted to say and the noble Viscount said it partly for me in moving his own Amendment. But I want to say a word to my noble friend Lord Chorley. Is he not confusing the issue? He talks of caravans in the most beautiful parts of the Lake District and Peak District. I sincerely hope that no caravans will be permitted in those places and that the planning authority will have complete power to say that caravans are inappropriate in those areas, regardless of their colour.

I was under the impression that in another place the Minister had disclaimed any idea of interfering with the colour of caravans, saying that it was rather ridiculous to impose conditions about colour. That is why I incorporated this word in my Amendment. Am I now to understand that the Minister has gone back on that and wishes to be able to regulate the colour of caravans, as well as interior fittings, other than by means of his model standards? In spite of what the noble Earl says, I think that this matter wants looking at again, because these words go much wider than the ostensible reason for including general words. I have no objection to some general works, but I think that "or any other feature" are the wrong general words and give the licensing authorities far too wide powers. The noble Earl need not give any undertaking, but he will have the whole thing argued over again, because we are not satisfied that these words are not too wide. The wisest thing would be to have another look at the matter, so that he may be clear about what he thinks should be regulated.

May I ask specifically: do the Government think that in a licence we should be able to make conditions about the standard of construction of a caravan or the colour or external appearance or interior fitments? If they think that these are appropriate conditions to impose, then they ought to say so—because they have never said so before. They have disclaimed any idea of interfering with these matters. Then we should know where we were and whether we want to give local authorities power to incorporate these things in their licences.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My noble friend was talking about the model standards under Clause 4 (7). I do not know what these standards are intended to cover, but would it be of any assistance if this subsection were to be tied in some way to the categories of these model standards which the Minister is going to lay down?

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I welcome the noble Lord's Amendment in these specific terms. He has asked me a specific question on this Amendment and I would say, first of all, that it is certainly not the Government's intention that local authorities should attempt to lay down standards of construction for caravans under this clause. We think that this is a matter which should be dealt with on a national rather than a local basis. As my right honourable friend stated in another place, the British Standards Institution have already been approached with a view to the preparation of suitable standards of construction. So the noble Lord can rest assured about that.

Colour and external appearance is a more difficult matter. First of all, I should like to make it clear that my right honourable friend did not, in discussions in another place, rule out absolutely conditions about colour. What he did say—and surely it is right—is that any conditions about colour should be very judicially used, and that will be part of his—I do not think he gives instructions to local authorities, but his circulars and advice to local authorities in these matters. There may be legitimate concern to the licensing authority about colour and external appearance.

Then, the noble Lord mentioned fitments. I think it may be accepted that fitments in the caravans should not as a general rule be controlled by licensing conditions, any more than should standards of construction: that is all one on that aspect of the problem. But I should think it would be unwise to be too dogmatic about the matter of fitments at this juncture. There may be occasions when some control of fitments is desirable. I can think of occasions in connection with sanitary arrangements on the site, or with fire prevention. It may well be that licence conditions should apply to fitments of that sort. Your Lordships will know that there have been many tragic accidents owing to fire on some of these caravan sites; and, of course, there is also the health risk.

I think, therefore—and I hope your Lordships will agree—that it would not be desirable to restrict the reasonable discretion of the licensing authority by putting in words which exclude or restrict this discretion too much. It will be much better to leave this to the good sense of the authorities, subject to the guidance they will get from the Minister; and I am sure they will exercise their powers, as they generally do, in a reasonable manner. As I say—but I do not want to overstress this—if there is any cause for the site occupier to think that the licensing conditions are vexatious or unduly onerous or not reasonable, he has a very potent and easy appeal: he can go to his local court. That, I hope and believe, is sufficient in this matter.

LORD SILKIN

The noble Earl has evidently got instructions that he must get this through by hook or by crook. He has already given me part of my Amendment by admitting that local authorities ought not to have powers to deal with the standard of construction. Therefore, to that extent, the Amendment is justified. He mentioned that they might want to provide for sanitary arrangements. But surely the sanitary arrangements are essentially a matter which will be provided for in the model conditions; and so will fire appliances. If not, then I do not know what these model conditions are intended for. Surely the most essential things of all are the safety of the individual and his conveniences. However, if the noble Earl is determined not even to give an undertaking to look at it, I will withdraw the Amendment; but I will put it down again on the Report stage. We are not really saving time, because the noble Earl will have to reconsider it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

I should like to plead with the noble Earl to look again at this matter of colour. Earlier in the debate I thought he had pointed out himself that the difficulty about the laying down of conditions of colour by a local authority was that a caravan moves. If it is to be said that a local authority have to know what colour they wish the caravans in their area to be, surely it will be much better to lay that down from a national point of view. I cannot see how you will get a scheme in which a caravan is to be permitted to be a particular colour in one local authority area, but if it leaves to go to another area, it will be excluded or have to be repainted.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

I, too, would ask the Government to reconsider the colour bar question. If a caravan moves from Devon to Dorset and finds that in the course of doing so it cannot be admitted to Dorset because it is painted green and it must be painted brown to suit the Dorset scenery, then a great wrong will be done. The noble Earl says that there is an appeal to the magistrate. But if on account of the colour the owner cannot get into Dorset, how can he appeal to a magistrate? And how can a magistrate deliberately refuse to the county the right to settle the colour of a caravan when that right is included in the Act? I beg the Government to give careful consideration to this matter from the practical point of view.

LORD CHORLEY

Everybody seems to assume that in this matter local authorities will behave like a set of idiots, which they obviously are not. If this Amendment were accepted by the Government, it would mean that a caravan painted vermilion, or something like that, could not be kept out of—

LORD SILKIN

Is the noble Lord not aware that one decision in three by local authorities is upset by the Minister?

LORD CHORLEY

Not on this sort of question. On a matter like this, obviously the local authority is going to behave reasonably. But if this Amendment is accepted, it means that they have no sort of control over vermilion or the most outré colours. Surely the sensible thing is to have the general instructions from the Minister and to leave the local authority to behave like a set of reasonable people, which of course they are.

LORD MOYNE

I cast my mind back to gypsy caravans which were often very beautiful and painted in bright colours. The kind of artistic dictation proposed is intolerable, and I do not think should be accepted for one moment.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

Between Paignton and Torrington there are six permanent sites for caravans which are hired out and some people live there permanently. On the other hand, you get a man who is arriving from London very tired, and he opens a gate and goes into any park at half-past eight or nine o'clock and nobody is there. He has a spade, and he just goes up the garden with his spade when he wants to relieve himself; and you cannot catch him because it is too early in the morning.

LORD AMWELL

Is it not possible to get the opinion of Picasso on this? What is the matter with colour anyhow?

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I am willing to consider this; that is to say, my right honourable friend will have his attention brought to it and will read carefully everything that has been said to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said that, whether I reconsider it or not, I shall have to reconsider it on Report stage, because he will put down another Amendment. But I thought it only right that I should let your Lordships know what up to the present time, after considering the facts and debates in another place, my right honourable friend's opinion on these matters is, and I tried to state it clearly. But it is obvious that your Lordships feel strongly about this question of colour. I tried to say that my right honourable friend has to-day an open mind about this; "he did not rule it out", are the words that I used. That is as far as he has gone. Perhaps he will come to rule it out. But I think we must keep in our minds the difficulties of all the different kinds of caravans for which we are legislating in this Bill. This Bill was designed originally for residential caravan sites. That is what the Arton Wilson Committee's Report was about.

While it might conceivably be reasonable to have colour control on a site where there are permanent residential caravans, it would be quite unreasonable for caravan sites which were of short duration or were exempted in the Schedules. After all, they will not be subject to licence at all, and so they would not have their colour control. I think it is fair to say that these mobile caravans, just stopping for one or two nights, will not be subject to control at all. They will not have to change their colour every time they stop.

The reason for having these powers in the hands of the local authority was that we were trying to legislate for the permanent residential sites and permanent holiday sites. If this matter is raised again on Report stage we will deal with it again and, of course, we will look at it before then. But I can give no undertaking that my right honourable friend will be able to come to a different conclusion. That is all I can say.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

May I say—

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I am faced with a request by the noble Lord who moved this Amendment that he should be allowed to withdraw it, and I think I ought to put that to the Committee. It is, of course, open to the Committee not to give leave if they so wish.

LORD SILKIN

I took it that by continuing the discussion my request to withdraw the Amendment had been in a sense negatived by the Committee. In asking the noble Earl for an undertaking that the matter should be looked at again, I meant it quite literally. I am not asking for an undertaking that when it has been looked at the decision will be favourable to the Amendment. As a result of discussion in this House it often happens that matters are brought to the attention of the Government which are worthy of further consideration. I am hoping that we have done that here as a result of this discussion. I do not say that we have convinced the Government, but I think that the discussion is worthy of further consideration. It is in that hope and, of course, without asking for any undertakings of what the result of the consideration may be, that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

On those terms we will of course reconsider this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.4 p.m.

LORD MESTON

moved to add to subsection (3): (g) for ensuring that rents charged to tenants are properly related to facilities provided; (h) for protecting tenants against orders to quit a site without reasonable notice and without just cause.

The noble Lord said: I want to make it quite clear that I am not suggesting by this Amendment that any form of rent restriction or control of tenancies should be introduced. I appreciate the fact that when a site owner—sometimes called a site operator—has spent a great deal of money in introducing services such as water supply and good sanitation, he is entitled to a proper return on his money. On the other hand, I feel that an individual caravanner should not be compelled to pay some exorbitant rent. It is a question of fact in each case, and I do not propose to try to lay down any line.

Somewhere in the course of our very lengthy proceedings, which may end at about midnight on Monday, I see there is an Amendment to the effect that the premium should be disallowed. I am very much in favour of that. In dealing with caravans, I prefer to call it "key money", rather than a premium. I think it is unfair that an individual caravanner should have to pay not only a rent but also "key money" in order that he may obtain the tenancy. Incidentally, I should like to ask the noble Earl a rather interesting question. Are these people really tenants, or are they, in law, licensees? They are referred to throughout the Bill as tenants, but it may well be that they are in law only licensees. However, that is by the way.

In regard to paragraph (h), it has been suggested to me by people who are interested in this question that it is unfair to turn a man out from his site at a few hours' notice, and that he should receive at least a month's notice. I am not pressing the point, but I think a caravanner should be entitled to a little consideration. After all, a person who is a trespasser sometimes gets a little consideration in the courts, and I feel that is a matter which the Government might care to consider. May I be forgiven if I act in a most improper way and refer to Clause 6 of the Bill, which I see gives a right of appeal, within 28 days of the date on which the licence was issued, against any condition imposed. The point I wish to make is that a condition may be quite fair when imposed, but in the course of years, owing to change of circumstances, it may become unfair. In those circumstances, there is no right of appeal to the magistrates' court at all. Therefore, I think that this time limit ought to be abrogated altogether. That is more or less apart from my original Amendment, which seeks to ensure that rates charged to tenants are properly related to facilities provided, and also to protect tenants against orders to quit a site without reasonable notice and without just cause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 16, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Meston.)

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I doubt whether there is any need to provide for the fact that if a site occupier has provided facilities he is entitled to a fair return on them. That is a matter that he will arrange with his tenants. He will not let the site unless he can let it at a market rate which he thinks is going to pay. I do not think we can bring into the Statute what, in a free market, the occupier arranges with his licensees or tenants—they may be either of course; it depends upon the agreement he has with them. I admit that at first I thought this Amendment was designed to incorporate a rent control so that the rents should not be too high. I was going to advise your Lordships to reject that, because I do not think it would be proper to bring these types of dwellings under specific legislation for rent control. The other point which the noble Lord made on Clause 6 surely cannot be brought in. I do not think the Chairman of Committees would wish us to discuss that on this Amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord will bring it up again later if he wishes to do so.

LORD MESTON

I thank the noble Earl for his reply. It is quite clear that my efforts at socialism have hopelessly failed. I am not attempting in any way to introduce a system of rent control or rent restriction. I am trying merely to protect individual caravanners from being obliged by circumstances to pay rates which would be held by any person to be exorbitant. I think it is quite wrong, and I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will have better luck later on, about midnight on Monday, when he moves his Amendment to abolish premiums. I think that premiums and key money should not be allowed in regard to these sites. As I have no one to support me, I have much pleasure in withdrawing this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.10 p.m.

LORD BIRKETT

moved, in subsection (4), after the first word "land" to insert:

1. ' "(a) shall contain an express condition that any conditions attached to the permission mentioned in subsection (3) of section three of this Act shall be deemed to be conditions attached to the said site licence;
2. (b)"

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name and in the names of my noble friends Lord Winster and Lord Chorley. I hope that it may be convenient to your Lordships to take with the Amendment to Clause 4 the Amendments to Clauses 6 and 7, because they stand or fall together and those two are consequential upon the first one.

I do not propose to take up a great deal of time, because the point of the Amendments can be stated quite shortly, although it is clear from the discussion which has already taken place that many of the terms and conditions of the Bill are of a complicated character, and also that circumstances may alter cases. I think it important that I should say at once that these Amendments are really designed to meet the interest of National Parks and the planning authorities connected with National Parks. Perhaps I can put the point in this way so that your Lordships will follow it. The point of these Amendments is really this: that the conditions which are laid down by the planning committee, which is an essential step before the site licence can be granted by the local authority, should be written into the licence and should be undisturbed by any form of appeal. It may seem a little didactic to put it in that form but that is the purpose of the Amendments. I think I shall be able, in a few sentences, to show that if these Amendments were accepted, no possible harm could come to anybody, whatever his interests might be, and that a great deal of benefit might come to those who are looking after the natural beauty of National Parks. I think I ought therefore to say further that I very much welcome this Bill; I think it is a splendid Bill and I endorse everything said by my noble friend Lord Chorley on the Second Reading. And I think it might be made a better Bill if these Amendments I venture to move this afternoon are accepted.

If your Lordships would be kind enough to turn to Clause 3 of the Bill, which is, of course, the operative clause dealing with the provision of a site licence, you will see that subsection (1) says: An application for the issue of a site licence in respect of any land may be made by the occupier thereof to the local authority in whose area the land is situated. Of course that provision is quite new. The permission which has been granted in earlier days is now to be supplemented by the grant of a site licence. Perhaps I might just say this to your Lordships about the permission. The planning committees, particularly in the Lake country and in the National Parks, are very expert committees, particularly chosen for their fitness for knowing what the area requires. And the kind of conditions which the planning committee have hitherto laid down have invariably been that so many caravans should be permitted on the site, and no more; no caravans to be permitted on the site at certain periods of the year; no caravans to encroach upon the shores of the Lakes at any time; screening by trees; the banning of felling of trees—in fact, all matters connected with amenity in these very lovely districts. These conditions have been the subject of careful consideration by the most expert committees, and the system worked very well. Certainly planning committees in the Lake country have exhibited the utmost efficiency.

The safeguard has always been this: that if it was felt that the planning authority had been a bit autocratic, a bit unreasonable, there was always the appeal to the Minister; and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred to the number of times the Minister has altered decisions—not many in the Lake country, but the power was always there and it was most satisfactory. Therefore, subsection (3) of Clause 3 of this new Bill reads in this way: A local authority…"— possibly a rural council, possibly a district council— may on an application under this section issue a site licence in respect of the land if, and only if, the applicant is, at the time when the site licence is issued, entitled to the benefit of a permission for the use of the land as a caravan site granted under Part III of the Act of 1947…"— that is the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, under which the planning committees are set up, and under which the planning committees work. Section 16 of that Act gives the right of appeal to the Minister, and that section has worked very well. So, before the local authority embarks upon this entirely new matter of issuing a site licence, as distinct from planning permission, there must be the essential condition that there is in existence a permission granted by the planning authority.

To come on to Clause 4 of this Bill, subsection (4) as printed begins A site licence issued in respect of any land… Then I seek to insert— shall contain an express condition that any conditions attached to the permission mentioned in subsection (3) of section three of this Act shall be deemed to be conditions attached to the said site licence; That is to say, I desire that there should be written into subsection (4) of Clause 4 a clear, express provision that the conditions so carefully considered by the planning committee and regarded as so desirable in these places of natural beauty shall without question, by the local authority or anybody else, be put straight into the licence. I fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said, that one must consider that local authorities will act reasonably. I am sure they do; and I was very much encouraged, if I may say so, by the very sympathetic way in which the noble Earl referred to the previous matters in connection with this Bill. I venture to submit to the Committee that it is not unreasonable at all to say that these careful conditions, all designed to preserve what we have left of the natural beauty of this country, should not be subject to risk. Write them into the licence. When the licence is issued by the local authority, whatever it may be, whether it is a rural council or an urban council, let it include the conditions which the planning committee have laid down, after their long experience and their co-operation with the Minister, so that they are there and can never be taken away.

The point of the subsequent Amendment to Clause 6 to leave out "condition" and insert "conditions", refers merely to the conditions which I want written in, which are the conditions laid down by the planning committee. So far as Clause 7 is concerned, I want to add to Clause 7: Provided that the conditions attached to a site licence shall not be altered by the variation or cancellation of either of the conditions referred to in subsection (4) of section four of this Act. The only other thing I want to say about this matter is this. Quite clearly, unless something of this kind is done, and these words are written into the site licence, there will arise situations of great difficulty, with disagreements between the planning committee and the local authority which it is most undesirable to have.

The situation is really this. The site licences can contain the conditions set out in subsection (4) and the conditions which are set out in Clause 4 (3). If your Lordships will just glance at those—they have been referred to already this afternoon—you will see that Clause 4 (3) (d), for example, reads in this way in regard to powers to be taken by the local authority: for securing the taking of any steps for preserving or enhancing the amenity of the land, including the planting and replanting thereof with trees and bushes; That is the work of the planning committee, but the power is now given to the local authority. The situation might clearly arise where the local authority was in disagreement with the conditions laid down by the planning committee—a most undesirable thing; and the appeal from the decision of the local authority is not to the Minister but to the magistrates.

I hope I may be able to say, having had, I was going to say a life-long experience of magistrates, both by appearing before them, by sitting and hearing cases stated by magistrates, and by sitting as a chairman of quarter sessions, that nobody in this country could admire the magistrates more than I do. But there are certain things that magistrates are fitted for more particularly, and this matter—what I may generally call the amenities in the lovely areas of the land—is strictly not a matter with which magistrates are particularly qualified to deal, and certainly not in comparison with the years of experience which lie behind the decisions of the planning committee. Therefore, there would be this situation. Under the powers given to the local authority by Clause 4 (what I call the amenity powers), conditions may be written into the licence which, on appeal to the magistrates, are confirmed, and they might be quite contrary to the decisions of the planning committee.

The Minister in another place dealt most sympathetically with this matter, which was raised in the form in which I am raising it to-day, and he said expressly that nothing that the local authority can do can alter the validity of the planning conditions laid down by the planning authority. I recognise that. But if you have a decision of an authority, supported, it may be, by the magistrates, which is contrary to the conditions laid down by the planning committee, there is little hope under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and the rather cumbersome procedure of enforcement, that those conditions laid down by the planning committee can be enforced.

That is pretty well all that I want to say. I submit finally to your Lordships what I said a few sentences ago: that to write these conditions into the site licence cannot possibly do any harm to anybody. The Minister in the debate in another place said that they are in a sense sacrosanct—you cannot touch them. The local authority cannot alter them; they cannot destroy them. Therefore what is the difficulty about saying, "Very well then, that being so, let us write them into the licence; then there will be no further trouble about it"? I ask the noble Earl who is in charge of this Bill—or it may be that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may decide to speak upon the legal matters raised; if so I shall greatly welcome it—to consider what I venture to submit: that this Amendment, along with the two subsequent Amendments, cannot possibly do any harm to anybody or to any interest. Certainly so far as the National Parks are concerned, and particularly so far as the Lake District is concerned, the planning committees are most anxious that all their patient work—and perhaps I may say that I know it at first hand, having been for nearly 25 years President of the Friends of the Lake District, a post now occupied by my noble friend Lord Winster; and my noble friend Lord Chorley has been a great Friend of the Lake District for more than a quarter of a century—shall not be disturbed. It would be received with great pleasure if this Committee decided that no harm could come to anybody by writing in these provisions of the planning committee, and also writing in the fact that nobody should be able to disturb them. I venture to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 14, after ("land") insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Birkett.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could explain this matter to us a little further? Suppose these provisions were to be accepted, how would the conditions attached to the planning permission be enforced? Would they be enforced under the enforcement notice that is the present method under the 1947 Act? Would they be enforced under Clause 8 of this Bill? Or would it be possible to do it under both?

LORD BIRKETT

I think it would be possible to do it under both. But, as a matter of fact, it would be much better, much more expeditious, to be rid of the rather cumbersome machinery of the Act of 1947, and to say under Clause 8 that any breach of these conditions involves a fine of £100 in the first instance; for a second or subsequent offence, £250; for conviction after two previous convictions, revocation of the licence. That can be done by just writing this into the licence issued by the local authority, which could be enforced by the local authority before the local courts.

LORD SILKIN

I want to put a question to my noble friend. He says that the acceptance of this Amendment can do no harm. So far as I can see, probably that is so. But he is not moving the Amendment in order not to do any harm; his purpose is that it should do good. I understand the good that he is intending to do—namely, to remove a possible source of conflict between the planning authority and the licensing authority. How does he do it if he retains the power of the licensing authority to make conditions for securing the taking of any steps for preserving or enhancing the amenities of the land, including the planting and replanting thereof with trees and bushes"? That is the provision which he read out. That is still being retained in the Bill, and I do not think that the noble Lord has put down an Amendment to delete this power of the licensing authority.

So the planning authority will be able to make conditions of this kind regarding the planting of trees—quite a common condition which they make; I imagine they make it in the Lake District frequently, and in other parts of the country, too—and so will the licensing authority. Although under the Amendment the licensing authority will be required to incorporate in their licence the requirement of the planning authority, that still will not preclude them from making conditions of their own, which, being reasonable people, they would not make in conflict with those of the planning authority but which nevertheless they could make in such form as to create difficulties. I should be glad if the noble and learned Lord could explain how he is actually improving the position when we have two authorities each able to make similar conditions, one in planning permission and one in the licence. I hope I have made my dilemma clear.

LORD BIRKETT

It is certainly a rather long question but it was quite clear. We did consider putting down an Amendment to take away from the local authority these powers in Clause 4 (2) (d) which, strictly, belong to the planning committee, but on consideration we felt that providing we get into the site licence issued by the local authority those essential conditions which the planning committee have laid down, the provision would be improved. I rely on what has been said by my noble friend Lord Chorley. One must expect a local authority to be sensible. The planning authority has said, "You may use this site for caravans providing you do not put in more than 50." A local authority writing that in could not possibly say, "We will make a condition that you can have 100."

LORD SILKIN

Even if it was written into the licence, the local authority would be well aware of those conditions, would not they? But they would be equally senseless if they made a condition which contradicted the decision of the planning authority, even though it is not written in the licence.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)

It may be convenient if I intervene at this stage because I feel it is implicit in the difficulty found by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett is really attempting to press together two matters which operate distinctly; I hope he will allow me just to indicate why. I want to make clear at once, by reinforcement of what my noble and learned friend has said, that in any case there need be no fear—nor can there be—that the conditions of a licence would in any way undo or set aside any planning conditions applying to the same site. Whatever may be said on the licence, the planning conditions would remain effective and could be enforced, if need be, under planning law.

I speak with great diffidence standing opposite two Law Lords who have been Ministers of Town and Country Planning and beside my noble friend who had the same duties for Scotland, but I do not believe anyone would contest, at the start, that whatever is done here cannot undo or set aside any planning conditions applying to the same site. Now one comes to the approach. If one may consider the matter a priori, one sees that the planning conditions and the site conditions are designed to serve two different purposes. Planning conditions will be concerned primarily with the impact of a caravan site on its surroundings, while the licence conditions will be more concerned in the various ways indicated in Clause 4 (3) with the internal lay-out, equipment and so forth of the site.

If I may take the example raised by my noble and learned friend, I would point out that Clause 4 (3) (d) is not meant to encroach on the functions of the planning authority. It refers to the part of the land (that is, the conditions within the site) and not necesarily to the planning aspect—that is, the impact of the site on its surroundings. My noble and learned friend mentioned the enforcement machinery, but I would point out that the enforcement machinery is strengthened by Part II of this Bill; and I will not refer to it further.

May I however put this real difficulty to my noble and learned friend? Some planning conditions (for example, a condition affecting land under the applicant's control but not forming part of a caravan site), which would be a perfectly natural matter for the planning conditions to bite on, would be altogether out of place in a site licence, because it would be dealing with something which was not concerned with the site. Having put these difficulties, I want to say, as a practical matter, that my right honourable friend, my noble friend Lord Waldegrave and I are in entire agreement with the purpose of the Amendment. It is most desirable that the two sets of conditions—the planning and the licensing—should in no way conflict with one another, and my right honourable friend intends to give some guidance to local authorities about this in the circular he will be issuing with regard to the Bill. He will point out in much more detail, as well as with greater authority, what I have endeavoured to indicate quite shortly: the different planes on which the two matters function.

If there is a possibility of any confusion and inconsistency between the two kinds of conditions—and I do not think that there is, in view of the distinction I have drawn—then, in my view, the proper remedy is not to duplicate them in both planning permission and licence, but rather the reverse: to be clear as a matter of administration where the line should be drawn between the two; that is to say, what conditions are required for planning purposes and what should more properly be left to the licence.

It is on that point that my right honourable friend will also be giving guidance for the local authorities, for, as I have said, I do not believe there is great risk of conflict. And, again, I hope that at any rate I shall be supported as to procedure. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin made the same point a moment ago. The local authority will always have the planning permission for the site before them when they come to the site licence. They will know what are the planning conditions, and naturally they will take those into account in framing their licence conditions. Fundamentally, again, in this Amendment we have to make a choice. We can either (to put it colloquially) jumble up the two matters which are dealing with different aspects of the problem, or we can keep them separate and try to make clear, by the guidance which is part of the partnership between national and local government, where the different functions lie.

I have had to deal with the argument advanced by my noble and learned friend on the position as I see it. I should not like him or any of your Lordships to think that we have not sympathy with his general plan. Of course we have. It is simply a question of the best method of attaining the desired objective. Again, my right honourable friend and all of us who are concerned with this Bill will look into the point. If we see any possible difficulty that we have not seen or read in examining the legal position, then I will at once communicate that to my noble and learned friend and bring it before the House at the Report stage. But I do not think he would be doing a service to the general operation of our planning law if he sought to mix up two matters which, if kept distinct, will, I think, improve the general situation, which is our universal desire.

4.45 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

I should just like to say a few words on this matter which I did raise, up to a point, in my speech on Second Reading, when I told your Lordships that the Minister was giving great concern to the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the other amenity societies. While one is a little reassured by what the noble and learned Viscount has just said, I do not know that we shall be completely reassured, because, of course, what the Minister puts into his general circular of guidance has not the force of law. While the noble and learned Viscount raised one technical objection to the Amendment which my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett has moved, I think that that could be overcome by saying "the conditions attached to the planning permit so far as they affect the site", or some words of that sort. If they are wider than the site, they could be limited.

This problem is, as I say, giving great concern to the amenity societies. It is particularly important, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, has explained to the Committee, from the point of view of the National Parks. The difficulty, as the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, explained earlier, is, of course, that this Bill has been framed with a quite different kind of caravan site in view; it has not had the National Park situation in view at all, if I may be allowed to say so. I think that is quite obvious from the remarks of the Minister in the Committee stage in another place, because all his remarks are obviously addresssed to the permanent residential type and not to the type of caravan site which exists in the National Parks. For example, he said that: In the normal case, after this Act has been passed, I cannot think that the planning authority will seek to limit the number of caravans because the district council will do it. In the Lake District I am quite sure that the joint planning committee, which has given tremendous consideration to exactly this sort of problem in regard to all the matters which have been before us, will not wish to abdicate its control which it has had over this subject—indeed, that would be disastrous.

Again, from column 118 of the Hansard of the Committee stage, it is quite clear that the Minister is looking at this matter not from the point of view of the National Parks at all. I could read what he says there, but I will not take up your Lordships' time with it. The fact is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, has pointed out, that over the years during which the National Parks have been in existence, there have been built up several really admirable joint planning authorities, which have acquired great experience and have become extraordinarily good at doing this sort of thing. In the Peak District, for example, I think there are no fewer than six county authorities or county boroughs represented on the Peak Joint Planning Board, which has done really outstanding work.

Where there is a joint planning authority it must always remain quite distinct from the licensing authority. It may well be that up and down the country the planning authority and the licensing authority will often be the same authority; but that cannot be so in the case of the National Parks. In this particular type of district the small local authority is exceptionally ill-equipped, if I may say so, for handling this sort of problem, because it cannot afford to employ the experienced, professional experts who are employed in the National Park areas. So these small local authorities will not be competent to reach decisions in regard to matters which have already been before the planning authority. I know quite well that, as a matter of law, they cannot override the planning authority—the noble and learned Viscount has painted this out; and that is undoubtedly so. But in this type of area, as the Minister pointed out, one often finds a certain amount of disagreement between the planning authority and the smaller local authority. The Minister said: When I was a member of the Hampstead Council we were often in disagreement with the London County Council, which is the planning authority. I suggest that where someone came in and wanted to establish a caravan site in some part of the Lake District—which was going, as the local authority members thought, or the rural district council thought, to bring a lot of money into that area—the local authority might well find themselves in disagreement with the planning authority, and the licence might well contain clauses which were not in the planning permit. It is true that in the end the planning permit carries the day, but while that matter was being resolved a very difficult situation might exist. I think that the noble and learned Viscount appreciated that that might be so, because he said that the Minister was anxious to avoid a difference of opinion of this kind.

The difficulty in the past in regard to the planning in the National Parks has been this problem of enforcement. The National Parks Act is defective in regard to enforcement, and we are very grateful indeed that the later part of this Bill very much improves the enforcement provisions. But I am not at all clear how far that is going to help the planning authority, as such, in this type of case. For that reason, it seems to me, as it does to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, that it would be very much better if we could have the conditions of the planning permit written into the licence so that there would not be any question about it at all. The matter would be there, and the condition could be enforced as it stands on the face of that licence. I am quite sure that that would simplify the position enormously and would enable the enforcement side of the matter to be carried through much more effectively.

LORD SILKIN

May I say one word? This is not, as one would gather from the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, and my noble friend Lord Chorley, a matter only of the National Parks. These Amendments are of general application throughout the country; and the number of caravans in the National Parks would, I imagine, be relatively small in comparison with the total number throughout the country.

I should like just to make a suggestion for the consideration of the noble and learned Viscount. I follow his point that the licensing conditions are intended to be of a different kind and relate to a different aspect from those that might be incorporated in the planning permissions. But anyone reading, for instance, Clause 4 (3) (d) would not gather that. I will not read it again; but reading that language makes one think it is just the kind of condition one would expect to find in many of the planning permissions. I wonder whether this provision could not be looked at again, so as to ensure that this distinction, which the noble and learned Viscount has made so clearly to us, could be made manifest in the Bill itself; and what was the precise function of the licensing authority in making these conditions. I do not think we need say what the function of the planning authority is: that is already laid down. But since we are introducing this new conception of a site licence, if it could be made clearer in this clause itself that the licensing authority's functions were not intended to be in conflict with the planning authority's and were quite different, then I think that might meet the case.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I shall be very pleased to consider that. I tried to make it clear that that was referring to the amenity of the land and to the conditions within the site, as opposed to the broader impact of the existence of the site on the land. I should like to consider whether that could be done. Frankly, neither my noble friend Lord Waldegrave nor I had applied ourselves to that solution, and I should like to think it over. But, on the general point, sympathetic though I am, as I said, with the purpose and objective of my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett and of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I think that to do it in this way, if one can use the old cliché, would be "multiplying the moon by half-past-two", because you would be trying to combine two things which really have different objectives. However, I will consider it. Everything that has been said has been said with great force but, at the same time, with great restraint and moderation by the two noble Lords who have supported the Amendment. I should not like them to be under any misapprehension as to how it appears to me, but I will certainly consider the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and see whether we can get some clarification in that way.

LORD BIRKETT

I must say that I am intensely grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the extremely sympathetic way in which he has viewed this little problem. The noble and learned Viscount was not always a noble and learned friend of mine, but for very many years he has been my learned friend. I have had to negotiate settlements of cases and matters of that kind with him, and I have always found him, as I have found him this afternoon, most conciliatory. I am much obliged for the sympathetic way in which he has dealt with this matter.

Perhaps I ought to say this. One of the reasons why we felt we ought to put down an Amendment of this kind was largely owing to the attitude taken by the Minister in another place. Again, I ought to say that, having worked with the Minister in another capacity in connection with the University of London for many years, I yield to none in my admiration for him. I did not quote from the speeches that he made there, but he seemed to think that the planning authority would in some degree at least abrogate its work and would leave it to the site authority, and, from past experience in the Lake country, we were anxious to see that that did not happen. That is the real reason why this Amendment and the next two that stand in my name were put down.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Silkin for his helpful contribution to this matter, and for his helpful suggestion. Whilst I am quite content that this matter should be looked at again, somehow I think it is very important, because the Minister has said that he thought this matter was resolved by what he called this new Government clause, which appears in the Bill as Clause 20, and which makes it incumbent upon the planning authority to consult the site authority when any application is now made to them. But, with great respect, that does not meet the case. What we are anxious to do is to have it plainly and clearly in the Statute that those things which the planning committee desire as essential things shall be certain of enforcement.

However, in all the circumstances I would beg leave to withdraw this Amendment and the two following Amendments which stand in my name. But perhaps it would be right for me to say that I lay great hopes upon the consideration of this matter, and it may very well be that at the Report stage an Amendment will be put down in fairly similar terms but confining it to the National Park areas. I do not say that it will be so, but it is a possibility, and I therefore mention it. But I cannot leave the matter without again repeating how grateful I am to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the way in which he has dealt with it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

This is purely a drafting Amendment. Clause 4 at present deals with two distinct subjects: the duration of site licences, dealt with in subsections (1) and (2), and the conditions which may be attached to site licences, which are in subsections (3) to (7). We think that, as a matter of presentation, it would be desirable that the two subjects should be dealt with in separate clauses. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Divide Clause 4 into two clauses, the first to consist of subsections (1) and (2); and the second to consist of subsections (3) to (7) inclusive.—(Earl Waldegrave.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as divided, agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Provisions as to breaches of condition]:

4.57 p.m.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

moved, in subsection (2), to omit "revoke the said licence" and insert: make an order for the revocation of the said site licence to come into force on such date as the court may specify in the order, being a date after the end of the period of fourteen days mentioned in subsection (1) of section eighty-four and subsection (2) of section eighty-seven of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, as the period within which the person convicted may bring an appeal, whether by case stated or otherwise, and if before the date so specified an appeal is so brought the order shall be of no effect pending the final determination or withdrawal of the appeal. The person convicted or the local authority who issued the site licence may apply to the magistrates' court which has made such an order revoking a site licence for an order extending the period at the end of which the revocation is to come into force, and the magistrates' court may, if satisfied that adequate notice of the application has been given to the local authority or, as the case may be, the person convicted, make an order extending that period.

The noble Earl said: We feel that an Amendment at the end of Clause 8 (2) is needed to enable magistrates' courts, when revoking a licence, to state when the revocation shall take effect. It may be desirable to postpone a revocation in order to allow a reasonable time for the caravans to be removed from the site, or for someone else to take it over. This is very much in the interests of the dwellers on the site, we feel. The Amendment also provides for the suspension of the revocation in the event of an appeal against the conviction which gives rise to the revocation order, and it enables the court to make a further order to extend the time upon application by the licensee or the local authority after due notice to the other. I think I need say little more about this Amendment, which I hope will meet with the approval of the Committee. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 26, leave out from ("situated") to end of line and insert the said new words.—(Earl Waldegrave.)

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 [Transfer of site licences and transmission on death etc.]:

LORD SILKIN

moved, in subsection (1), after "situated" to insert which consent hall not be arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld,".

The noble Lord said: This, I hope, is a perfectly simple and innocuous Amendment. Clause 9 provides for the case where the holder of a site licence wishes to transfer his licence, and it implies that the local authority may grant that licence to some other person. I should like them to be under an obligation to do so if there is no objection to the transferee—that is, that they should not withhold their consent arbitrarily or unreasonably in such a case. These words are perfectly well known in other contexts where permission has to be given, and it seems to me quite reasonable that the local authority should permit the transfer of the licence to some other person as a matter of course unless there is some objection to the person to whom it is proposed to transfer. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 37, after ("situated") insert ("which consent shall not be arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld,").—(Lord Silkin.)

LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE

May I ask this question? Suppose a local authority, for good reasons, want to reduce the number or to clear a site, and may be doing it by the method of waiting for leases to fall in over a period, which is the kindest way of doing it, it might be in the public interest to stop such a transfer.

LORD SILKIN

I think the answer is that where there is a perfectly valid licence in existence, which could not be interfered with and has a certain term to run, it would be wrong if a person legally in possession of that licence was not able to transfer it to a responsible person.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

We doubt whether the proposed words in the noble Lord's Amendment are really necessary. A similar Amendment was proposed in another place and, after argument, was withdrawn. I think that the noble Lord's point is covered in the next Amendment which I am going to move, which covers the transferee of a site licence where there is delay of approval of his transfer and he may be on the site and in breach. My Amendment provides that he can apply for his licence in advance. If your Lordships see fit to accept my Amendment, I think that it will cover the noble Lord's point; and unless there is some legal point that I have not appreciated, I feel that his Amendment is unnecessary.

LORD SILKIN

As I understand the noble Earl, if a person wants to acquire an existing site and site licence, he will get it as a matter of course, although he will have to apply. Is the difference simply that in my case he would get it merely by writing a letter asking for permission to transfer, but in the other case would have to apply for a licence and would be granted one unless there was anything against him?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the noble Lord will look at subsection (6), he will see that it says: Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, a local authority shall not at any time issue a site licence to a person who to their knowledge has held a site licence which has been revoked in pursuance of the provisions of this Part of this Act less than three years before that time. It would be possible for the transferee to write for consent and for the local authority to say that he was disqualified. We had to be quite sure that he will not be under a disadvantage where the local authority has made a mistake. And accidents happen in the best regulated authorities. That is why my noble friend put down this Amendment, permitting the transferee—in this case somebody who was buying the land and not getting it by inheritance; that is dealt with separately—to apply in advance. In 99 cases out of 100 the local authority will agree and he will get his site licence. If the local authority say "No", he has time to put in his application and go through the procedure of appeal. We think that this is the best method of dealing with it.

The noble Lord will appreciate that a local authority have no motive for refusing consent to the transfer of a site licence. Indeed, it is unlikely that they would ever wish to withhold consent, since the site would already have planning permission, so that in any case the new occupier would be entitled to a fresh licence under Clause 3. So far as I can see, the only reason why they should refuse consent is where they make the objection in subsection (6). I should never predicate to myself full knowledge of all the consequences, but that is the only one I see at the moment, and it is dealt with. I think that what the noble Lord has in mind is covered, but if he finds any difficulty and thinks our machinery is defective, perhaps he would let my noble friend know and we will look into it again with pleasure.

LORD SILKIN

The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, has put ideas into my head about the possibility that local authorities may have motives for withdrawing permission, but I accept the explanation of the noble and learned Viscount. I will look at this matter again to see whether it is all right, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.8 p.m.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I do not think I need elaborate the argument which I have already put forward. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 45, at end insert— ("(3) If an application is made under subsection (1) of this section for consent to the transfer of a site licence to a person who is to become the occupier of the land, that person may apply for a site licence under section three of this Act as if he were the occupier of the land, and if the local authority at any time before issuing a site licence in compliance with that application give their consent to the transfer they need not proceed with the application for the site licence.")—(Earl Waldegrave.)

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

I should like to seek elucidation of a point which the noble and learned Viscount made a few moments ago. He said that once planning permission had been given it was impossible to refuse a site licence, and that would cover the point which was raised in my noble friend's Amendment, or, at any rate, it would be covered if the present Amendment were agreed to. Surely the point here is this. Where the ownership of land is going to be transferred, or at any rate a portion of the ownership—it may be by means of a lease or a conveyance of freehold—and the owner is entitled to the benefit of a planning permission, he can apply for a site licence and a site licence must be granted to him. But the prospective purchaser or lessee is not entitled to the benefit of the planning permission. It has been obtained by somebody else and that person is entitled to it.

It may be said—and perhaps this is the explanation—that planning permission, once granted, attaches to the site, and therefore if the ownership of a site is vested in somebody who has not a site licence, that person will then become entitled to apply for a site licence because he is the owner of a site for which planning permission has been given. But it seems a rather complicated way of going about this when it could so simply be dealt with by allowing—unless there were some specific objection to the character of the transferee under Clause 3 (6)—the site licence to be transferred automatically.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I think the real point here is that the local authority must have a record. It has to go and see to the sites and see that the licence conditions are carried out; and the planning authority has to do that, as well. We feel that any system of automatic transfer, which nobody would know anything about—

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

I did not say that nobody would know anything about it.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

Well, it would be difficult. The simplest way of ensuring that the authorities who have duties to perform know who is the legal occupier of the site is surely that when a site changes hands the new site occupier should apply for a licence. Under this Amendment a licence will almost automatically be granted—as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has said, he can only think it would be under Clause 3 (6) that they would be likely to withhold a licence for a duly authorised site—and surely that is the better way to deal with the matter. All we are doing by this Amendment is overcoming a technical difficulty which, for some reason or other, may arise when the licence is applied for by the transferee. If I may assume for a moment that it got lost in the post or in the local government office, the person would then be an occupier of an unlicensed site; and that would be to his disadvantage, as well as to the disadvantage of the people who were on the site. So when a man wants to accept transfer of a site, his application can be accepted before even the transfer takes place, and it will therefore go through with all the documents and dealings that will have to be done in connection with the transfer of the site. That is all we are doing by this Amendment.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

With all respect to the noble Earl, surely that is not what his Amendment says. He says that this will be useful if the application made for consent for transfer has been lost in the post, or something of that kind. But here is the Amendment. It starts off with a condition precedent that there has got to be an application made under subsection (1) of this clause for consent to the transfer. Therefore you must have an application made by the transferor and an application made by the transferee, as well; that is to say, two separate applications, one for consent to a transfer and the other for a new licence. Surely this is not simplifying transactions, but making them far more complicated than they need be. If it is said that the local authority does not know who the occupier of a site is, I would say that local authorities are engaged in finding this out day after day, because they are rating the occupiers, who are the only persons upon whom rates can be levied.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I wish I could convince the noble Lord. There is nothing more in it than I have said. If the consent of the local authority were to be withheld for any reasons, good or bad, for any time, the person taking over the site would be in a difficulty, as the Bill is drafted, in obtaining a licence in time. He might find himself in the position of having caravans on his land without a licence and thus committing an offence under Clause 1. To meet this difficulty, all the Amendment does is to enable a person who is proposing to take over the site to apply for a licence in advance.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

Existing caravan sites not covered by permission granted on an application: modification of planning control

16.—

(3) Unless—

1. (a) before the expiration of a period of six months beginning with the date on which the application is made permission has been granted in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection for the use of the land to which the application relates as a caravan site, or
2. (b) before the expiration of the said period, and either before or after the commencement of this Act, the owner and occupier (within the meaning of the Act of 1947) of the land have been served with an enforcement notice under section twenty-three of that Act requiring the use of the land as a caravan site to be discontinued or with notice of an order submitted to the Minister under section twenty-six of that Act and requiring that use to be discontinued,

permission for the use of the land as a caravan site shall be deemed for all purposes to have been granted at the end of that period under the said Part III of the Act of 1947 without any condition or limitation:

EARL WALDEGRAVE

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 27, leave out from ("land") to end of line 28 and insert ("as a caravan site granted under Part III of the Act of 1947 otherwise than by a development order.").—(Earl Waldegrave.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.15 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

moved, in subsection (3) (a) to leave out "six months" and insert "twelve months". The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. This Amendment is quite short and simple and, so far as I am aware, was not moved at any stage of the Bill in another place. Its purpose is to increase from six to twelve months the period after which planning permission will be deemed to have been granted unconditionally and automatically unless the planning authority has either granted planning permission for the use of the land as a caravan site or, alternatively, required its use as a caravan site to be discontinued by serving an enforcement notice under Section 23 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, or by making an order under Clause 26 of this Bill. I feel—and I think this feeling is shared by other noble Lords—that the period of six months allowed by the Bill is unreasonably short, bearing in mind that many local planning authorities move somewhat slowly and often meet at infrequent intervals.

Noble Lords who, like myself, are farmers, will remember that it sometimes takes over six months to get planning permission for a farm building. I am not complaining of that: I agree that planning authorities should take the utmost care, and it takes time for them to make up their minds in coming to the right decision. It seems to me to be safer to allow a period of twelve months rather than risk an improper planning permission being deemed to be granted due to lack of time for mature consideration. It also occurs to me that it might be desirable and wise for the planning authority to look at the site during all seasons of the year before deciding upon its suitability. A site that might be suitable enough in the summer might for many reasons be quite unsuitable in the winter, and vice versa. I hope that the noble Lord will see the sense of this Amendment, and, even if he does not grant it, will discuss it with the Minister for the next stage of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 41, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve").—(The Earl of Dudley.)

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Earl in moving this Amendment, but I still doubt whether it is necessary. I appreciate that some planning authorities will have a large number of applications to consider. Even so, surely six months is a reasonably long period. They will in many cases already know about the sites in their possession and will not therefore be starting from scratch. The site operators will also have two months from the commencement of the Bill in which to apply for licences: that is provided for in Clause 13. Therefore in some cases there will be as much as eight months after the date on which the Bill comes into force. In all this one must consider the point of view of the site operator himself, and the people living on the sites in caravans. They will want to know as soon as they can after the applications are lodged whether or not the sites on which they are living are to be allowed to continue. I think it is reasonable to limit as much as we can the period in which they live in suspense, and I hope your Lordships will agree that to take twelve months rather than six would be excessive.

In moving his Amendment, the noble Earl seemed to feel, or he implied, that twelve months should be the rule and not the exception, and that it might be a good thing to hold up all the applications for twelve months so that they could be looked at in the summer and the winter. I do not think my right honourable friend, the local authorities, the site operators or the caravanners would take kindly to that idea. Of course, I will think about this between now and the Report stage, but I myself do not feel convinced—I do not know what your Lordships think—that the case is made for extending this period to twelve months.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. At the same time he admitted that there would be a great deal of work on the shoulders of planning authorities in dealing with this work of granting licences. I remember very well when I was in correspondence with the noble Earl over the question of a grant in aid for a chicken-house. The correspondence went on for well over six months, and that did not include the time I had been in correspondence with the planning authorities. What frightens me is that in a great many cases a bad site will be given permission because the local planning authority has not made up its mind during the statutory period of six months. I think it is a matter which ought to be looked at again before Report stage. However, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.23 p.m.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

moved, in subsection (3), immediately before the proviso, to insert: Provided that nothing in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in section twenty-three of the Act of 1947 shall authorise the local planning authority to require the use of land as a caravan site to be discontinued where that land is lawfully used as a caravan site by virtue of rights existing on the first day of July nineteen hundred and forty-eight;

The noble Earl said: Serious apprehension is still felt among the owners of caravan sites with regard to compensation for those sites which local authorities may deem it wise to suppress. It is to be hoped that comparatively few sites will be suppressed and that the local authorities will have a liberal policy with regard to sites in general. But it is accepted on all hands that some sites will have to be suppressed. In that case, it is only fair that the site owner, who may have put considerable sums of money either into the purchase or improvement of the site, should receive compensation. If the local authority proceed under Section 26 of the Act of 1947, then, under Section 27 of that Act, they must pay compensation. But there is some alarm at the power of the local authority to proceed under Section 23 of the Act of 1947, under which no compensation would be payable. I hope that this matter may be finally cleared up, and that the doubts which are felt among site owners may be removed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 13, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I am not a great expert on planning law, and I am sure the noble Earl who has just spoken knows more about it than I do, but I wonder whether he has confused the differences between enforcements under Section 23 of the 1947 Act and under Section 26. In a nutshell, enforcements under Section 23 are enforcements when there is an unlawful use of the site. Those, of course, do not carry compensation. It is the enforcements under Section 26, where there is a discontinuance of a lawful user, for which compensation is payable. This Amendment refers only to one of the alternatives—the alternative in paragraph (b)—of serving an enforcement notice under Section 26 of the Act. It is unnecessary as regards the former subsection, since an enforcement notice cannot in any case be served under Section 23 of the 1947 Act in respect of a lawful use of land. There is nothing in this clause which would authorise a local planning authority to take enforcement action in respect of a caravan site which has valid existing use rights. I do not know whether the noble Earl's fears have been allayed by what I have said, or whether he would still wish to press this Amendment. I hope he will not.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

The noble Earl has not dealt with the possibility that the enforcement notice might in fact have been served erroneously and without adequate grounds. In that case what happens?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not quite appreciate the relevance of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, because the Amendment which we are considering says that nothing in paragraph (b)…shall authorise the local planning authority to require the use of land as a caravan site to be discontinued where that land is lawfully used as a caravan site by virtue of rights existing on the first day of July nineteen hundred and forty-eight. I respectfully agree with my noble friend Lord Waldegrave that the Amendment refers only to the alternatives in paragraph (b). If your Lordships look at that paragraph it says requiring the use of the land as a caravan site to be discontinued, either by serving an enforcement notice under Section 23 of the 1947, Act or by making an order under Section 26 of that Act.

As my noble friend pointed out, with the alternative of serving an enforcement notice or making a Section 26 order, the Amendment is unnecessary as regards the serving of the enforcement notice, since an enforcement notice cannot in any event be served under Section 23 of the 1947 Act in respect of the lawful use of land. There is nothing in Section 23 which would authorise a local planning authority to take enforcement action in respect of a caravan site which has valid existing use rights. Then if one looks at it from the point of view of Section 26, one finds that the Section 26 order is the proper method of securing the discontinuance, where necessary, of a lawful use of land as distinct from a use which contravenes planning control, and such orders require confirmation by the Minister. Section 27 of the Act provides for the payment of compensation for any damage or loss that may result.

It is clearly desirable that for the purposes of this Bill the power to make Section 26 orders in respect of existing caravan sites should be retained. I do not think my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh would object to that; that is what he desires and what he has in mind. There seems no reason why existing caravan sites, and those alone, should be excluded from the normal statutory procedure of bringing authorised use of land to an end, where necessary, upon payment of proper compensation. Therefore I do not think the Amendment is necessary in that regard.

In the case where a notice is served on the wrong person, if the site operator thinks the enforcement notice is invalid he should appeal to the Minister under Clause 30. If the Minister upheld the appeal he would give planning permission for the site, provided for in Clause 30, subsection (2). Then the site would qualify for licence under Clause 3. If the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, is still worried on any point, if he will be kind enough to send me a note I shall be very pleased to look into it.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

I am much obliged. I think what the noble and learned Viscount has said has resolved my doubt.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

The very clear explanations given by the noble Earl and the noble and learned Viscount will go far to relieve the apprehensions to which I have alluded. Therefore I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I wonder if it would be convenient if I spoke—although they must be moved separately—on Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 together. It will be seen that in Amendment No. 17 I propose to move a new clause after Clause 16, and this new clause is the counterpart of the first Amendment that we had to-day which removes the reference to expiring planning permissions in Clause 3 (3). The purpose of this new clause that I shall move as Amendment No. 17 is simply to introduce a corresponding provision for existing sites which have planning permission with less than six months to run. The last part of the new clause reproduces the effect of the present proviso to Clause 16 (3). Amendment No. 15, which I now move, and Amendment No. 16, which I shall subsequently move, are consequential. I have to take them in that order; I hope your Lordships will permit me to do that. I beg to move the first of the three Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 10, leave out lines 14 to 21.—(Earl Waldegrave.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 24, leave out from ("made") to first ("the") in line 26.—(Earl Waldegrave.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I beg to move the new clause.

Amendment moved— After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:

Existing caravan sites with short term planning permission granted before commencement of this Act

"Where an application for a site licence is made in respect of an existing site and—

1. (a) the existing site has at the date of the application the benefit of a permission for the use of the land as a caravan site granted under Part III of the Act of 1947 otherwise than by a development order, but
2. (b) the said permission was granted before the commencement of this Act and in terms such that it will expire with a period of six months beginning with the date of the application,

no account shall be taken of the said permission either for the purposes of section three of this Act or for the purposes of the last foregoing section; and the last foregoing section shall have effect in relation to the said application as if for the references in subsections (3) and (4) thereof to a period of six months beginning with the date on which the application is made there were substituted references to a period of six months beginning with the date on which the said permission will expire."—(Earl Waldegrave.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17 [Conditions requiring reduction in number of caravans on existing sites]:

5.35 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

moved, after the words "conditions described in this section", to insert: shall not require a reduction in the number of caravans on a caravan site below the number thereon which accords with any standards which have been specified by the Minister for the time being under subsection (7) of section four of this Act, and so that the said conditions".

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment arises out of something of the same anxiety that has already been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. It is quite clear that an existing caravan site cannot be closed, if its use is a lawful use, without payment of compensation under the provisions of Sections 26 and 27 of the 1947 Act. But Clause 17 as it stands in the Bill at the moment allows a site licensing authority, in certain circumstances, and having regard to standards which the Minister is going to specify, to run down the numbers of caravans on an existing and lawful site. I want to make it perfectly clear—or rather I hope my noble friend Lord Waldegrave will make it perfectly clear—that there is no power under this Clause for the licensing authority to run down an existing and lawful site by stages so that at the end there is nothing left at all. If that were done, it seems to me Sections 26 and 27 of the 1947 Act would not apply and consequently the site owner would not have any compensation.

There is a further point. Even if the licensing authority have regard to the Minister's standards they may still consider that they should disregard those to some degree and reduce the site to numbers which are less than those specified by the Minister. In that case, although the site would not be eliminated altogether, it would none the less become completely uneconomic, and it would be the next best thing to the site owner's losing his site without compensation. I have therefore put forward a form of words which I hope would make quite certain that neither of these things could happen and which would, in those circumstances, set any anxiety at rest. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 11, after ("section") insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I hope that I shall be able to set the noble Viscount's mind at rest. The conditions requiring a reduction in the number of caravans on existing sites are very clearly set out in the first lines of Clause 17. The point which my noble friend may have overlooked is that there must be regard to any standards which have been specified by the Minister under subsection (4) of Clause 4 of this Act, which of course are the model standards that we have been talking about. Licence conditions of this kind would be subject to right of appeal to the magistrates' court under Clause 6 of the Bill. I sympathise with what I think the noble Viscount has in mind: he desires greater precision on this matter. But I am told that his Amendment, as drafted, would not work and would not give us greater precision. And if he reads this clause he will see his fears are not well founded; he is safe already. I do not know whether, with those few words, I have been able to convince my noble friend, but I hope so.

LORD SILKIN

I do not know whether the noble Viscount has been convinced, but I am not, because if you must "have regard to" a thing you are still left with a discretion. Certainly the licensing authority must have regard to the conditions laid down by the Minister. But having had regard to them, they would still be free, as this clause reads, to say, "We have had regard to it, but, nevertheless we think that we ought to reduce the number." The Amendment is designed to ensure that the local licensing authority do not reduce the number below what is required to comply with the Ministry's condition. I should have thought this a perfectly reasonable Amendment, however unfortunately it is worded. I do not know in what respect it is badly worded, but I am quite prepared to accept that it is. If the noble Earl would accept the principle of it and make quite certain that the local licensing authority do not reduce the number below what is required by the Ministry, I am sure that the noble Viscount would be satisfied with an undertaking that an Amendment will be introduced to that effect at a later stage. I think that as the Bill stands the matter is left open. I am sure that the noble Earl would agree that to say an authority must have regard to a thing is not the same as saying that they must not go beyond that.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I appreciate very much the point that has been made, and I think it is a point that it would be right for me to look at again before I come back to your Lordships on the Report stage; and that I will do.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I entirely accept that my wording may not be correct. It is, however, a little unfair to say that I had not noticed the model standards, because I had tied my Amendment expressly to them. None the less, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.

5.43 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

moved, after Clause 19 to insert the following new clause:

Publication of notices

"Section thirty-six of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959 (which relates to publication of notices of application for planning permission) shall be read and have effect as if the use of land as a caravan site were included among the classes of development to which that section applies."

The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. This Amendment to Section 36 of the 1959 Act seeks to require that an application for planning permission shall be advertised, the applicant's notice being published in a local newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land to which the application relates is situated. The classes of development which are designated for the purposes of Section 36, and accordingly have to be advertised in a newspaper, are specified in paragraph 7 (1) of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order of 1959, and can be varied at any time by the Minister. They are as follows:

1. "(a) construction of buildings for use as a public convenience;
2. (b) construction of buildings or other operations, or use of land, for the disposal of refuse or waste materials;
3. (c) construction of buildings or other operations (other than the laying of sewers, the construction of septic tanks serving single dwelling-houses, and works ancillary thereto) or the use of land, for the purposes of sewage disposal;
4. (d) construction of buildings or use of land for the purposes of a slaughterhouse or knacker's yard;
5. (e) construction of buildings and use of buildings for any of the following purposes—namely, as a theatre, a cinema, a music hall, a dance hall, a skating rink, a swimming bath, a Turkish or other vapour or foam-bath, a gymnasium, or a building for indoor games."

These activities are presumably considered by the Minister as unneighbourly, and are inserted in the General Order.

I will admit that this Amendment as at present drafted might impinge on the Minister's power to vary the General Development Orders and leave him inflexible, by seeking out caravans from slaughterhouses and knackers' yards, and by applying statutory sanction to caravans. I have set the Amendment down as it was set down on the Report stage in another place; but all I am asking for this afternoon is an understanding from the noble Earl, which I hope I shall get (because he has not given much away so far) that he will consult with the Minister between now and the Report stage with a view to using his powers to include caravans in the General Development Orders, together with the other developments which might be described as unneighbourly. This gives complete freedom of action to the Minister.

The Under-Secretary in another place suggested that caravans are not inherently undesirable as neighbours, as are such things as slaughterhouses, knackers' yards and Turkish Baths, which are naturally likely to arouse a certain amount of apprehension in their immediate neighbourhood. I do not agree with that at all as far as static caravan sites are concerned, and my disagreement is based on sad personal experience. I strongly believe that neighbouring agriculturists in particular have a right to previous knowledge of a further caravan site, in order that they may, if necessary, put their point of view to the local authority before permission is granted. There may be very good reasons indeed, from the neighbouring farmers' point of view, why permission should not be granted, which the local authority may know nothing about. The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, knows very well—no one better—that there are a great many agricultural activities which might be adversely affected by the close proximity of a caravan site.

Why is it that these activities should be secondary in importance to a static caravan site, which is a very undesirable thing anyway, even though perhaps temporarily unavoidable? Slaughterhouses, for example, are included in the unneighbourly activities; but it might be quite convenient to a farmer to have a slaughterhouse next door—it would save him carriage on his stock. Why should a caravan site be deemed less unneighbourly than a slaughterhouse? It might be that the farmer proposes to apply for permission to erect a chicken house on his field lying next to the site proposed as a caravan site. As the noble Earl knows, it is most necessary to keep the birds very quiet. It may be that the site adjoins the meadow of a dairy farmer who has no alternative grazing except that particular field. I have had a great deal of trouble in this respect. At the present moment my very large dairy herd is suffering unduly from an abnormal number of cut teats; this has been caused entirely by broken bottles thrown about the field, probably from the caravan site which leaves its refuse all over the place. I have also suffered loss of valuable stock from their picking up foreign bodies and dying. I am asking only that a farmer should have previous notice of what is going to happen, by means of a local newspaper advertisement, and the chance to put his objections forward. I beg to move this Amendment, which I think is most reasonable.

Amendment moved— After Clause 19, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Dudley.)

LORD BOSTON

May I briefly support the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, in his Amendment, which seems to me to be essential from an agricultural owner's point of view. It is essential, first, to protect neighbouring owners and occupiers from what might easily become a nuisance and lead to a considerable fall in the value of their property, and secondly—this is another angle—to afford an opportunity to owners to exercise some restraint over the councils who may not enforce the Act or their own regulations. So far, we have not had anything that an owner can do against the council.

May I state, briefly, two examples in my own parish? One of my farms is situated on a part of the coast which had been unspoiled until the council of the adjoining parish, who wished to exclude caravans from the village, persuaded the authorities to allow them to be moved to a narrow strip of land extending for a quarter of a mile adjoining my boundary. About 15 caravans were established before I knew anything about the application or approval. Within a few days I was receiving complaints that one of the caravan owners on more than one occasion had driven my tenants' cattle away from the only water supply on the farm. That caravan site was granted on the assumption that water was available nearby; but it had been overlooked that the supply was in fact 50 yards away on my side of the boundary and had twice failed to pass the test required, even for milk production. Trespass by persons exercising dogs or hitting golf balls was frequent until a barbed wire fence was erected and, to make it still harder, a bramble hedge was encouraged.

The other example is that of two small farms of about 25 acres which formed part of an estate of which I was an executor, which was sold in 1947 to pay estate duty. These farms were sold to the tenants at a special low rate. Farm A was promptly resold at a much higher price to a purchaser whose only intention was to develop a caravan site for about 50 caravans. In due course approval was given. The old tenants who purchased farm B carried on farming until their death. The point that I wish to make is that the shortest route from farm A to the sea is by a public footpath along the edge of a field belonging to farm B, over a stile within five yards of the back door, across the farmyard and out on to a public road via the farm track leading to farm B only. I suggest that this state of affairs could constitute a real nuisance to the occupiers of farm B and could depreciate its value very considerably.

My second reason for speaking now is to support the opportunity to exercise some restraint over councils and local authorities who fail to take advantage of the Act or to enforce their own restrictions. I have one in mind with which I will not bother your Lordships.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

The noble Earl was a little unkind to caravans and caravan sites. I would point out that a great many of the unsatisfactory caravan sites to-day are unsatisfactory largely owing to the lack of effective control we have over them until this Bill goes on the Statute Book. If we were to continue to think of caravan sites in those terms after the Bill goes through, we should be wholly pessimistic, and I do not think we should. The noble Earl, Lord Dudley, has put down this Amendment so that these words may be incorporated in the Statute, but I believe he anticipated what I have to say upon it. The types of development to which he referred—slaughterhouses, Turkish baths and so on—come under the General Development Order, and I was going to say that it would be unreasonable for us to pick out caravans and deal with them by Statute; but the noble Earl has himself said that that would be unreasonable. He also said, very reasonably, that he would not press the Amendment at the moment in the form before us if the matter could be looked at again before the Report stage.

I will certainly look at it and we will take careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Boston, has said in supporting the Amendment. In saying that I will consider the point, I must also say what is now in my mind: that there seems to be no good reason why caravan sites—and this clause would apply to all sites, however small or wherever located—should be tarred with the same brush as the developments to which the noble Earl has referred—slaughterhouses, knackers' yards, sewage farms and the like. Even if we were to do so, the noble Earl admits that the control must not be applied by Statute while the others are controlled only by Order. I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment as it stands. We will certainly look at it again, and, although I cannot give him any undertaking, I may be able to help him at a later stage in the Bill.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation and for saying that he will consider this point between now and the Report stage. He said I was unkind about caravan sites, but in my farming activities I have had bitter experience from a caravan site. Personally I should rather have any of the other activities specified in the General Development Orders than a caravan site, for so far as I can see, whether it is licensed or not, that site will go on being a confounded nuisance to me as a farmer—and there is no getting away from that. I agree that caravans cannot be singled out and that the Minister must have power to vary an Order as he wishes. I am only asking that caravans should be included in the Development Order.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 agreed to.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

moved, after Clause 20 to insert the following new clause:

Power of rural district councils to prohibit caravans on commons

".—(1) This section applies to any land in the area of a rural district council which is or forms part of a common, not being land falling within any of the following descriptions, that is to say—

1. (a) land to which section one hundred and ninety-three of the Law of Property Act, 1925 (which relates to the rights of the public over certain commons and waste lands), for the time being applies;
2. (b) land which is subject to a scheme under Part I of the Commons Act, 1899 (under which schemes may be made for the regulation and management of certain commons);
3. (c) land as respects which a site licence is for the time being in force.

(2) The council of a rural district may make with respect to any land in their area to which this section applies an order prohibiting, either absolutely or except in such circumstances as may be specified in the order, the stationing of caravans on the land for the purposes of human habitation.

(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of section one of this Act, any person who stations a caravan on any land in contravention of an order under this section for the time being in force with respect to the land shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

(4) It shall be the duty of a rural district council to take all reasonable steps to secure that copies of any order under this section which is for the time being in force with respect to any land in their area are so displayed on the land as to give to persons entering thereon adequate warning of the existence of the order, and the council shall have the right to place on the land such notices as they consider necessary for the performance of their duty under this subsection.

(5) An order under this section may be revoked at any time by a subsequent order made thereunder by the rural district council, or may be so varied either so as to exclude any land from the operation of the order or so as to introduce any exception, or further exception, from the prohibition imposed by the order.

(6) Where the whole or part of any land with respect to which an order under this section is in force ceases to be land to which this section applies, the said order shall thereupon cease to have effect with respect to the said land or part; and where an order ceases under this subsection to have effect with respect to a part only of any land, the rural district council shall cause any copy of the order which is displayed on that part of the land with respect to which the order continues in force to be amended accordingly.

(7) The provisions of the Schedule (Further provisions as to orders relating to commons) to this Act shall, subject as therein provided, have effect with respect to orders under this section.

(8) In this section the word "common" includes any land subject to be enclosed under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, and any town or village green."

The noble Earl said: This new clause redeems a pledge given by my right honourable friend in another place to consider introducing a further provision to deal with the stationing of caravans on commons. A special provision is needed for this purpose since, in the case of certain commons, there may be no "occupier" who could be said to "cause or permit" the use of the land as a caravan site under Clause 1 of the Bill; and where this is the case the licensing provisions of the Bill (which pre-suppose an "occupier") would not be applicable. Yet it is clearly desirable that there should be effective means to control the stationing of caravans on commons of this kind, which may range from a small village green to a large tract of open country.

Despite the complexities which we must admit exist in the general law relating to commons, this clause, though perhaps long, is—I hope your Lordships will agree—comparatively simple. In the first place, it applies only to commons which are not already subject to the restrictions in Section 193 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, which applies mainly to urban commons, or to schemes of management under the Commons Act, 1899, both of which include provisions for the control of caravans; so that we do not have to bring anything in here. This, therefore, applies only to certain rural commons. I say "certain" because I am advised that some of the rural commons are also subject to the provisions of the Law of Property Act to which I have referred.

In short, the clause enables rural district councils to make orders prohibiting the stationing of caravans on such commons in their areas, subject to any exceptions that may be specified in the order. The procedure for making the orders is set out in the new Schedule (Amendment No. 57). It includes prior consultation with any statutory conservators of the common and public advertisement of proposed orders, and it provides for objections by the lord of the manor or other owner of the land to the making of an order. That, I think, is very important. We have here provision for the lord of the manor to make his objections.

When an order has been made, notices must be posted on the land to inform the public of the effect of the order. Contravention of the order will be an offence, punishable by a maximum fine of £10. It will be seen by subsection (1) of the clause that it will not apply to any land which has a caravan-site licence under the Bill. The clause is therefore complementary to the new licensing system; and it is to be hoped that, together with the existing legislation dealing with commons, it will effectively fill any gap there would be otherwise in the application of this Bill to caravans on common land. I would say only this, further—the clause, taken in conjunction with the new Schedule, does not affect private interests in the land; nor is it in any way prejudicial to them. It leaves the status quo. With those words, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 20 insert the said new clause.—(Earl Waldegrave.)

LORD SILKIN

I have had little time to study this clause in detail, but I think that, broadly speaking, it provides a satisfactory procedure for dealing with the question of caravans on commons. The noble Earl did not mention that a member of the public who objects will have a right of hearing, but I think there is provision for such a person to object, and that a public inquiry will then be held if his objection is not withdrawn. If I am right on that, then that point goes, but I should like to be quite certain about it. However, the point I want to make is on subsection (2) of the new clause, where there is a definite bias against caravans being on common land at all, because it provides that the council may make with respect to any land…an order prohibiting, either absolutely or except in such circumstances as may be specified in the order". Is that the main purpose: that they should prohibit the use of caravans? I should have thought that already caravans, without permission, are prohibited on common land, and that the Bill itself secures that. Is that the real purpose; or should it not be that councils should have the right to control the use of caravans on common land rather than, primarily, to prohibit?

I should be grateful if the noble Earl could look at that point, because, as I understand it, that is really what is the purpose of this new clause: it is to regulate the use of caravans rather than to prohibit. There are commons on which there could be no possible objection to permitting a few caravans; there are others, of course, where nobody would dream of permitting them. But if in all cases the rural district council have to decide whether they must prohibit, either absolutely or in a qualified way, it is going to prevent the use of any of the commons for a purpose for which it might be quite appropriate to use them. I have not got an Amendment down on this matter, but if that point could be looked at, and possibly this subsection modified—to give them the power but not to put up the clause in this drastic form—I think it would be acceptable.

LORD OGMORE

I should like to ask the noble Earl a question. He said the point is quite simple. My experience of commons is that there is nothing simple when you deal with them. He said that this clause protected the right of the lord of the manor—and, of course, the lord of the manor is an important person: but what about the commoners? They have rights, too, and very often their rights would be far more disturbed by a caravan site than would be the rights of the lord of the manor, who is interested, after all, only in the freehold and not, as a rule, in the fruits of the common. He has no rights of turbary or pasturage or anything of that kind. So, first, I should like to ask whether the rights of the commoners are being carefully considered and provided for.

Secondly, what happens to any licence fees or funds that may arise? Presumably, if the licensing authority has the right (as indeed it has, as I read it, under this new clause) to grant licences in certain circumstances, there will be some consideration for that grant. I may be wrong, but I have not had much time to consider the matter. If that is so, is it contemplated by the Government that any proceeds coming as a result of the grant of a licence should go to the rural district council, or to the occupiers of the land, who are the owners, or to the lord of the manor?

The noble Earl said that the reason for the clause was that there may be no occupiers. But what about the commoners? Surely, if there is a common there are commoners, and, consequently, they are in fact the occupiers. I know very well that the common I know best in my own area, in the Royal Manor of Ogmore, things are very different; because in the only grant we have there is the word "resientes" which originally was considered to be "residents". Now there seems to be some doubt cast upon it, which is perhaps just as well, because, although there were very few people who were commoners in the old days, now a considerable bungalow town has grown up and there are a large number of people who would come under the term "residents" or "resientes". So it is important I think, when considering this point, to ascertain who the commoners might be who would have a right to object to any such order, because sometimes, in the case of some of the manors, it is not at all clear.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

As the two noble Lords have so clearly demonstrated, and as I said in my opening remarks, matters that deal with commons are complex, intensely complex. I said that the clause was reasonably simple in dealing with a complex subject. I never for a moment suggested that the subject of dealing with commons was other than extremely—any word you may use: esoteric and extremely complex. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I think, of one point. Anyone can object. That is the point of having the notice displayed, and so on—anyone can object.

The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raises the question of the commoners. I am advised that this clause (we shall, of course, come to the details of the Schedule later, though probably not this evening, when we can go into a great deal of detail on this matter), as it stands, will not in any way alter any rights that can be substantiated that anyone may have now in a common, whether he be a lord of the manor, or whether it be turbary rights or whatever it may be. I am advised that this clause is drafted so that no one's rights are abrogated or altered. As the noble Lord will know, the Report of the Royal Commission on Land is being studied most carefully at the moment by the Government, and our last intention is to alter in any way common rights at this stage before we have finished considering that Report.

I would just say this to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore: that surely the rights of commoners are unlikely to be prejudiced by the rural district council prohibiting caravans. Be that as it may, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked: Was this merely to enable the rural district council to prohibit caravans? I do not think that it is. This particular clause gives the right to prohibit, of course—a right which they had not got before. I will look at his point before Report stage, but it seems to me that if planning authority has been given and an occupier can be found who can be deemed to be an occupier, and so on, then there is no reason for this. I hope I am correct in this, but none of us has yet had a great deal of time to study this new clause. I said that in the case of certain commons there may be no occupier who could be said to "cause or permit" the use of the land, but that may not be the case for all commons. With those assurances, I hope your Lordships will see fit to put this new clause into the Bill. When we come to discuss the Schedule, and later on, at Report stage, when we shall have had more time to study this Bill, perhaps we can then go into some of these other points. Meanwhile, the points raised by the two noble Lords will, of course, be most carefully considered.

LORD OGMORE

I am very grateful to the noble Earl. The only point I had in mind was this. If the rural district council prohibit the caravan site, none of the considerations we have been putting forward applies. But I understood from him when he introduced the new clause (though I may be wrong) that there may be a case where there is no occupier, and that in such a case the rural district council takes the place, as it were, of the occupier. Even if there is an occupier, as I read this subsection (2) the council can make certain prohibitions except in certain circumstances. In other words, it is affirmative. In such a case the council would in fact be granting a licence, because it is, as it were, an affirmative exception to a negative prohibition—and I see that the noble and learned Viscount agrees with that. I am very grateful to the noble Earl for promising to consider it, because I think it is a point of merit.

LORD CITRINE

May I ask the noble Earl whether subsection (2) of the new clause simply confers on the rural council a power—not a requirement to do something but a power to do something? It can, if it wishes, prohibit the use of the common, or it can permit that use under conditions prescribed by it. Is that not correct?

EARL WALDEGRAVE

Yes, I think the noble Lord is perfectly correct. This new subsection (2) reads: The council of a rural district may make with respect to any land in their area to which this section applies an order prohibiting, either absolutely or except in such circumstances as may be specified in the order, the stationing of caravans on the land for the purposes of human habitation". It confers a power.

LORD SILKIN

It is a power to prohibit. I hope that the noble Earl has appreciated my point. I should like to give them a power to regulate, apart from prohibition.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

That is the point I will consider. The noble Lord is not asking for rural district councils to have the power to set up caravan sites?

LORD SILKIN

To grant permission.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

To grant permission for someone who can properly describe himself as the owner or occupier. Under the Bill, that surely can be so. The only difficulty we are in is as to the commons, of finding out who is the person who can apply for planning permission or for licensing conditions, as I take it. I may be wrong.

LORD SILKIN

The noble Earl has agreed to look into it. I think there is some confusion.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21:

Power of local authorities to provide sites for caravans

21.— (5) A local authority shall, in the performance of their functions under this section, have power, where it appears to them that a caravan site or an additional caravan site is needed in their area, or that land which is in use as a caravan site should in the interests of the users of caravans be taken over by the local authority, to acquire land, or any interest in land, compulsorily.

6.15 p.m.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

moved to add to subsection (5) Provided that a local authority shall not be authorised to acquire compulsorily under the provisions of this section any land, or any interest in land, unless and until the Minister is satisfied that the local authority are unable to acquire by agreement any land, or any interest in land, in their area.

The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to limit the powers of compulsory acquisition which the Bill gives to local authorities. So far as I am concerned, I really speak on behalf of the Scottish Landowners' Federation, whose President, the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, I am very glad to see in his place this afternoon. The Scottish Landowners' Federation represent landownership interests of all kinds, from the largest to the smallest, and they view with very grave disquiet any extension of compulsory powers such as are envisaged by Clause 21 of this Bill.

I regret that I was not present when the Bill was read a second time, but I have read all the speeches on the Second Reading, and I must say that I have failed to find any speech which justified these powers of compulsory acquisition as necessary. I am quite sure that it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government that a person who is unwilling to sell his land as a caravan site should be forced to do so, unless the public interest overrides every other consideration. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, in his speech on Second Reading, said as much himself. I think he will admit that. Let the Minister, then, decide what is in the public interest and what is not; because surely it is not in the public interest to leave this clause as it stands, with these unlimited powers left in the hands of the local authorities.

I feel that, in a Bill which should strike a happy medium between caravanners, with whom we all sympathise very much, and amenity, this clause is biased very much in favour of the caravanners. What is meant exactly by "public interest"? Surely there are other people to consider besides the caravanners. What about people who live within reach of such a site; people who may have bought a house or property for the very reason that it looks out on to an unspoiled scene? Why should these people be penalised by having a caravan site possibly on their doorstep? What about the tourists? We now have this "Come to beautiful Britain" drive, but surely they do not want to come and see a multitude of caravan sites all over the country. The noble Earl wishes to safeguard the amenities which belong to the nation as a whole, but I see no safeguards in giving local authorities such drastic powers.

To sum up, we think that such an extension of compulsory powers is neither necessary nor desirable. We feel that there are enough compulsory powers already, without adding to them in this Bill. With regard to sites already in use, we feel that if these are not run properly then local authorities can take steps under their existing regulations to put things right. With regard to new sites, we feel that compulsory powers should be exercised only where a local planning authority can prove to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that there is no other land in the vicinity that can be acquired voluntarily—and, of course, the onus of proof should be on the local authority. I submit that this Amendment merely carries out the intention of the Government as expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, in his speech on Second Reading. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 15, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Haddington.)

LORD MESTON

I have been closely connected with property questions in England and I have always resisted the extension of compulsory purchase powers. I only hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, is more successful in his efforts than I have been in the past. I think that this is a good Amendment and should be supported, but I doubt whether it will achieve very much of its object. In practically every case a local authority will try first of all to obtain land by agreement, and if they fail to do so will exercise their compulsory powers. However, it is satisfactory to know that the Amendment provides that they can exercise these powers only with the consent of the Minister and I presume that that opens the way to a public inquiry, if necessary. For that alone, I think that this Amendment should be supported.

LORD STRATHCLYDE

I should like strongly to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Haddington. I am somewhat distressed to find this power conferred by this Bill on local authorities. It seems to me quite unnecessary. I would go further than my noble friend: I should like to see subsections (5) and (6) deleted entirely from the Bill. I can see no purpose whatever in granting this power. It seems to me to be against the best interests of the country and of those who are responsible for the management of land. If a local authority cannot acquire land which they consider necessary in a way that is reasonable and agreeable to the owner, I cannot see why they should have any compulsory powers in this connection whatsoever.

LORD SILKIN

We are now entering into the field of political doctrine. I am sure that the noble Lords who are opposing the principle of compulsory purchase are not doing it because they think it is undesirable in itself but on the ground of doctrine.

LORD STRATHCLYDE

I would say for myself that I am not against the principle of compulsory purchase where it is necessary in the interests of the country. Where something has to be done, and where land cannot be acquired otherwise than by compulsory purchase, then that should be done. But in my opinion this is not a case of that nature.

LORD SILKIN

I do not understand the noble Lord. If it is disputed that the land is necessary in the public interest, the matter goes to the Minister; there is a public inquiry, and the Minister decides. No authority can acquire land compulsorily in opposition to the wishes of the owner without a public inquiry taking place, and it is for the Minister to decide whether in fact it is necessary in the public interest that that land should be acquired. It is also the duty of a local authority, before they make a compulsory purchase order, to satisfy themselves that it is in the public interest. They make an order on this ground and then it has to be confirmed by the Minister. So, in my opinion, this Amendment is wholly unnecessary. In so far as it provides that, before making a compulsory purchase order, a local authority should try to buy the land voluntarily, I imagine that every reasonable authority will try to do that. We have heard to-day that nearly all local authorities are reasonable, and they would not dream of using their powers of compulsory purchase until it was absolutely essential. There is protection to the landowner by virtue of the fact that there has to be a public inquiry and the Minister has to decide. A local authority cannot arbitrarily acquire land. Nobody knows that better than the noble Lord who has just spoken.

LORD DERWENT

May I ask the noble Lord if, in this connection, he would like to try to define "public interest"?

LORD SILKIN

Yes, certainly. In this connection I would say that if a local authority are of the opinion that a certain site is desirable in order to provide for caravans, then that is in the public interest. Under this Bill, I would say that we are doing two things. On the one hand, we are regulating where caravans should go and the conditions under which they should be sited. That will be a great help to the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, and others who have suffered in the past from the unauthorised and unsatisfactory use of caravans. We are also doing another thing. We are recognising that a strong section of the community now want to make use of caravans, either as permanent residences or for recreation, and it is the duty of local authorities to make satisfactory provisions for such people in their areas. If they cannot get land by agreement, they are empowered under this Bill to acquire it compulsorily.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

If the noble Lord is so opposed to what he calls the "big stick", what objection can he have to the words of the Amendment? The powers of compulsion remain. All we ask is that every avenue of voluntary agreement should be explored before these compulsory powers are used. It does not seem very much to ask; I feel that it is a most reasonable argument.

LORD SILKIN

Perhaps I was addressing myself more to the speeches made in support of the Amendment than to the Amendment itself, but I believe that the Amendment provides that if a local authority can buy land voluntarily anywhere, not necessarily the particular land they want, then they cannot get a compulsory purchase order for the particular land which they think most desirable for their purpose. So that the Amendment really goes beyond what the noble Earl has said.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

Although several noble Lords who come from North of the Border have spoken, perhaps I can reply to this point because I think it is a United Kingdom point. We must look at subsection (5) of this clause, which I think answers the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in regard to what is in the public interest. It says: A local authority shall,…have power, where it appears to them…that land which is in use as a caravan site should in the interests of the users of caravans be taken over by the local authority, to acquire land, or any interest in land, compulsorily. As I said on Second Reading, my right honourable friend has no intention whatever of using these powers in any way lavishly. Under subsection (6) the compulsory acquisition of land for caravan sites has to be authorised by the Minister. In practice, a local authority would not submit a compulsory purchase order before exploring all the possibilities of acquiring the site by agreement. It simply is not the way that any reasonable local authority goes to work. You do not put in a compulsory purchase order before you find out if you can do it by agreement.

But the proposed Amendment does not ask the local authority to do that. The Amendment requires the local authority to search the whole area in search of a site that might be obtainable by agreement. These are powers that we want to use as a longstop, when we have a wholly unsatisfactory site—perhaps the occupier has absconded and cannot be found—and when it has proved impossible to get the site into order. The local authority then, as the last step, say: "We must ask the Minister if we can purchase this site under a compulsory purchase order"; and in that case, clearly, it must be a compulsory purchase order. We are dealing with the difficult case of a man who has run away, and the authority will not get agreement with him. They will have to have powers to take the site over. The Amendment says: "No; you cannot take over that site under compulsory purchase powers unless you have searched the neighbourhood and found that there is not another landlord who would be willing to sell you another site". I do not think that could be brought in; it would not be a feasible proposition. I must hope that your Lordships will not wish this Amendment to be pressed.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Before we leave this point, would my noble friend explain a little more about the interests of the users? What sort of interests are envisaged by his right honourable friend the Minister as being needed to be protected by this particular means?

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I think we must use our common sense. This is purely a matter of imagination. This is to be in the interests of the user, and not in the interests of the local authority or of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The point of putting in those words, as I conceive it, is to say that these powers shall be used only if it would be in the interests of the people using the site, and as a last resort. I envisage these powers being used only when all else has failed; that is to say, when there has been a breach of the licence, the authority have tried an enforcement notice and everything and cannot get the site in order, and, finally, it has to be taken over. That is my own view of the matter, and I put it to your Lordships.

VISCOUNT GAGE

Would the noble Earl confirm what I think he said: that he would consider it to be right to take over an existing site if something was going wrong?

EARL WALDEGRAVE

Yes. That, I think, is the point of having these powers in the Bill. But I must be careful. I do not want to be tripped up by my noble friend, and I am sure he does not want to trip me up. He says, "if something is going wrong". But my whole point is that this will be not the first step, but the last step, to be taken. I would therefore rather he had said to me: "If something has gone wrong by every other means".

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

I am a little nervous about this, because it is the primary duty of the local authority to provide good houses for its population and here you are encouraging the local authority to obtain caravan sites in order to put more and more people into caravans, rather than putting them into proper houses, on account of financial stringency, or whatever may be the reason. The primary duty of the local authority must be to provide houses. I should be behind the noble Earl over this.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I absolutely agree that the primary duty of the local authority is to provide proper houses. There is plenty on the record, from my right honourable friend in another place and from speeches that I and others have made, to show that there is no intention in this Bill to encourage local authorities to go and purchase sites and make them into caravan sites instead of building houses. This is a longstop provision when all else fails, and I think I can confidently say that my right honourable friend will back me up if I say that and nothing else.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I think it has been shown that the Bill does go a little further than is really necessary. I hope that the noble Earl will consider this Amendment further between now and the next stage of the Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I quite appreciate the disquiet that has been expressed by some of your Lordships. The difficulty is to get into the Bill what I am sure all your Lordships will agree with; that is to say, what my noble friend Lord Waldegrave has described as using a longstop procedure. It is to deal with the case where a caravan site has become very unsatisfactory—and, after all, we have all seen them, or seen photographs of them; and in my youth I have appeared at inquiries in regard to them, so I know exactly the situation—and the ordinary procedure of dealing with the persons involved has failed. It may be that the local authority are driven to the situation of either allowing people to go on, under conditions which not one of us wants, or of taking the step of compulsory purchase. With that I do not think any one of your Lordships would disagree. On the other hand, if it were to be used as my noble friend Lord Dudley said as a means of avoiding housing responsibilities, there is not one of your Lordships who would support it.

The difficulty is to translate into the words of the Statute the wishes of your Lordships. With the greatest possible respect, I do not think my noble friend Lord Haddington has managed it, because, as my noble friend Lord Waldegrave said, if you had the unsatisfactory site, and if you predicate the bad conditions which I have attempted to indicate, then with Lord Haddington's arrangement, if you wanted to get that site by a compulsory purchase order—that is to say, the site you wanted to take and clean up and improve—you would not be able to do it so long as you could get another site by agreement somewhere else. With respect to my noble friend, that does not seem a logical way of tackling that particular problem.

What I suggest is that my noble friend Lord Haddington should not press his Amendment to-day, but that we should hear the discussion on my noble friend Lord Gage's Amendment (to which I am looking forward) and we will consider what is then said. I do not think my noble friend Lord Haddington will be in any way prejudiced, because he can put down an Amendment on the Report stage. We will consider the matter on Lord Gage's Amendment, and I shall venture to put before your Lordships some of the aspects that occur to me, and we can give the matter full consideration before the next stage of the Bill. I appreciate the difficulties in your Lordships' minds, but I also appreciate the difficulties of dealing with this problem in the Bill. This, as my noble friend Lord Waldegrave indicated, is only part of the general procedure of this clause, which I think is most necessary. Therefore, as a practical measure—and I hope the noble Duke will agree—I suggest that my noble friend Lord Haddington withdraws his Amendment; that we discuss my noble friend Lord Gage's Amendment, and then see where we are.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

On the assurances of the noble and learned Viscount I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.40 p.m.

VISCOUNT GAGE

moved to add to subsection (5): Provided that an Order shall not be made and confirmed for the compulsory acquisition of land used as a caravan site or any interest in that land so long as the conditions of any site licence and planning permission in respect of the use are complied with.

The noble Viscount said: This is not a general attack on the compulsory purchase principle. I agree with my noble friend Lord Haddington that there is a certain amount of concern among owners' organisations at the apparent readiness with which Government Departments include, almost as a matter of form, in any legislation acquiring property, and, indeed, in private legislation as well, provisions for compulsory acquisition. I am a local authority man, as it were, and I am quite ready to agree that if we are to have these new responsibilities which go with our new powers, in certain circumstances there might be cases, which I hope will be rare, when compulsory acquisition was needed.

Compulsory acquisition always tends to create bad feeling, and one always likes to feel that, if one is in the position of having to ask for compulsory powers, one's objective is quite right. I confess that I do not believe it will ever be right to acquire compulsorily an existing caravan site provided it is perfectly well conducted. Of course, I am not including compulsory purchase for an entirely different purpose, such as for schools or roads. I do not think it would ever be right for a local authority to acquire a well conducted site for the purpose of keeping it on for caravans. Where you come to the very wide definition that it is in the interests of the users of the caravans, I quite agree that, where you have a clear case such as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been discussing, where something is going wrong and where the site owner is disappearing or going bankrupt and letting his site get into a state of dereliction, there might be the reserve power to acquire that site compulsorily.

As one who may have to administer this sort of legislation, I should feel much happier if the words I propose now were added to the Bill. Then one would be able to say to the caravan site operator, "If you behave yourself you will be perfectly safe, so far as one can guarantee it, under town planning procedure. But if you do not behave yourself, and allow the site to become derelict, or if you try to evade regulations, then, as a last resort, you may be acquired compulsorily." I think that kind of provision would be much better than a vague threat hanging over the unjust and the just alike.

I have other Amendments which I am moving in conjunction with the County Councils Association. This is not a County Council Association Amendment, but I do not think they would be opposed to it in principle. In view of some of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, I am hoping that this modest and, I think, reasonable degree of protection can be given to well-conducted site operators. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 15, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Gage.)

LORD SILKIN

This sounds a very modest and innocent Amendment, but what does it really do? The noble Viscount knows better than anybody else in this House that before you can get a compulsory order confirmed there has to be a public inquiry. He is telling the Minister what the Minister should do at the public inquiry. He is saying to the Minister, "If this site is well-conducted and it is complying with all the conditions, you ought not to make the order". Now the Minister knows that perfectly well. It seems to me that in those circumstances it would be a most unreasonable thing for a local authority to want to acquire a site which is well-conducted, merely for the purpose of carrying it on itself. The noble Viscount made that point, and I agree with him. But he also made the point that there might be circumstances in which that site would be acquired for some other purpose, such as a school. The site might have been used for the purposes of caravans, and a licence might have been granted for a number of years in the knowledge that in due course it would be required for some other public purpose. This Amendment would prohibit the local authority from making a compulsory purchase order if it required it for this other purpose.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I did not intend that. I am quite ready to get it re-worded.

LORD SILKIN

The noble Viscount is a victim of the misfortune from which I have often suffered, in that my Amendments are read in a way which I never intended. But the fact remains that what he is saying is that, so long as the caravan site is being well-conducted, you cannot make a compulsory purchase order, for whatever the reason you may want to acquire the land. So I think the Amendment, if it does not carry out what the noble Viscount wants, cannot stand. I would add further, with all respect, that it is really telling the Minister the circumstances in which he should not confirm an order. I do not know any other conditions in which you may dictate to a Minister what his decision should be. He is an independent person who would judge all the circumstances himself on the evidence placed before him. He will make his decision, and no doubt if the intention were simply to carry on an existing site and for no other purpose, the sensible thing would be either for the authority not to acquire the site or for the Minister certainly not to confirm the compulsory purchase order.

LORD HAWKE

In listening to my noble friend Lord Gage and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I am not quite sure how to construe this subsection. As the Bill stands, will the local authority, if they want land for a school, be able to acquire compulsorily a caravan site unless they can prove that it is in the interests of the user of the caravans on the site that the site should be "pinched" and turned into a school? That would be one way of construing it, and it is one in which, it appears to me at first glance, the argument of the noble Lord does not make sense.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I may be a child in drafting matters, but I thought this Amendment referred to an order made under the Bill. I thought that if you made an order under this Bill it had to refer to caravans. Throughout my speech I said that I did not intend to give complete sanctity to any caravan site owner if that site had to be acquired for purposes other than caravans. I made that quite clear. While I am answering the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I think he will agree that it is not simply a question of the Minister. Cases in connection with caravans have been taken to the courts, and in some the decisions—particularly the decision made by the Lord Chief Justice some months ago—are among the things that have necessitated the making of this Bill. I do not think we can say that the Minister will put everything right. I do not intend telling the Minister what to do, but I want to give a man, if he has conducted the site perfectly well, the right of appeal to the courts, to prevent the local authority from taking it over to run three or four caravans themselves.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I say one word on our general philosophy towards compulsory purchase orders? I think there is little difference between us now, because we have had so much practical consideration of it. We all believe that the modern complicated, scientific State must interfere with private rights on certain occasions in order to carry out its duties properly; but I think that almost all of us equally believe that it should do so only where the need is clear and where it is demonstrable that the public interest outweighs the private interest affected. I should have thought that that was a generally accepted philosophy to-day. Of course, the other side of it is that there should be fair compensation, which is irrelevant to the problem before us.

If your Lordships, and particularly my noble friend Lord Hawke, would look at subsection (5), you will see that that says: A local authority shall, in the performance of their functions under this section, have power… I call his attention to the words "have power". This is conferring a power and a local authority can act only within its powers. The power is conferred upon them only …where it appears to them that a caravan site or an additional caravan site is needed in their area, or that land which is in use as a caravan site should in the interests of the users of caravans be taken over by the local authority, to acquire land… I always hesitate to give legal opinions when standing at this box which I should only do ex cathedra in another way, but I should have thought it would be legally wrong, and it would certainly be morally wrong of any local authority, to use that power, being given the power only where there is a need or where the interests of the caravanners demand it, to acquire the land and use it for something else. I should have thought it was quite outside the purview of the clause. Having got to that point, one then comes to the point that is inserted by subsection (6): that it requires confirmation by the Minister, and the Minister can have an inquiry. Then he must answer one or other of the questions which the local authority have posed to them before he can confirm the compulsory purchase order.

My noble friend, Lord Gage, suggests as the answer to this admittedly difficult problem that the power of compulsory acquisition should be limited to cases in which there has been some breach of the conditions of the site licence or planning permission. I just want my noble friend to consider, from his immense experience of local as well as national administration, four examples which have worried me, examples that do not necessarily involve any breach of the conditions. Of course, it might be an unlicensed site, in which case there would be no licence conditions to comply with. Secondly, it is possible that a site operator—this is a case to which my noble friend, Lord Waldegrave, drew your Lordships' attention on the last Amendment—when faced with the new licensing requirements might just abandon the site, leaving the caravans there with no one to manage the site; and if no one else were willing to take them on the local authority would have to step in.

The third example I give to my noble friend is one which he has probably seen—I have not actually seen it but I have had it drawn to my attention—and that is the fragmented site, the collection of small sites which could not be properly equipped and serviced as separate units. If no one else were willing to do so, then again the local authority might have to take over the sites in order to equip them to the proper standards as a single unit, because obviously there are going to be great difficulties from the point of view of sanitation and other amenities in dealing with fragmented sites. I remember the very troublesome and almost tragic stories which I have had to consider in regard to this problem. I am not going into the different motives for which people go to these sites; there are many, and I am not going to select them so as to support my own argument. But I think that everyone knows that the result can be tragic. And when you come to the point of enforcement, in my experience you almost invariably find you have to consider enforcement at a time in the family lives of the people who are occupying the caravans that is not only extremely hard but even extremely dangerous. I am not going into any more details than that. Where you have the fragmented sites, the only way of dealing with them is to try to get them together.

The fourth point is much more arguable, but the noble Lord, Lord Meston, to-day moved an Amendment in which he really suggested that the local authority should have price control powers, rent control, premium control. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, had in mind the cases where there was, in his submission, extortion. I agree that there is an answer to that. These bad cases are few, and they may well have been caused by the fact that there has not been a proper statutory control or a full enough statutory control in the past, and people are trying to make their money quickly before worse may befall. Even so, you may well have conditions of the kind that Lord Meston mentioned where again the people have got into, if I may speak colloquially, such a general mess that the only way was to buy out the site at a fair price. I put all those cases because they are cases where you could have the condition precedent of my noble friend Lord Gage, and that is that there has been some breach of the site licence or of the planning permission.

I think my noble friend Lord Gage might have the answer to me, which has force, that I am dealing with the present, rather than the future conditions when this Bill is working. But I would say that I have to cover the transitional period. Therefore I find his answer very difficult, and, as I rather anticipated—although I hope I did not do it discourteously because I was most anxious to hear what my noble friend Lord Gage had to say—I think we must "have another think" over this point. At the moment I find it most difficult to get the words of limitation which would meet the general wish which I predicated a short time ago; but I am willing to have another try. Again I make no promise, but I assure my noble friend Lord Gage, and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Haddington and others who have spoken on this matter, that we shall give it urgent consideration—I shall give it such assistance as I can—and if we cannot find anything we will let them know so that they can return to the charge on the Report stage. I hope that they will, at any rate, believe that we have given consideration to their wishes and, not only that, that we shall continue to give further consideration before coming to a final conclusion.

7.2 p.m.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is always so courteous to us that it is difficult to resist his blandishments, if I may so call them. I must confess that I was slightly shocked by one of the things he seemed to suggest—if it is not a crime to be slightly shocked at what the Lord Chancellor says. He seemed to suggest that one of the reasons why the local authorities might want to buy up an existing site was because they thought, in the sense of Lord Meston's argument, that the rents were exorbitant. That may sound most reasonable. But I wonder what would have happened if the Party of noble Lords opposite, when they were in power, had introduced this sort of principle into their housing legislation, and said that if they thought the owner of a house was charging too high a rent it could be taken over compulsorily.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I wonder whether my noble friend will allow me to answer him, because I think that this is worse than a crime—it is a blunder—and that he has really misunderstood my point. I did add—I did not particularise it sufficiently, although it was an essential part of my argument—that if, as the result of that position, people, by the scale of rents and the premiums they had been paying, had been reduced to a position where they could not improve their conditions, and the whole of that caravan estate was in an unholy mess, the only way was to buy out the site at a fair price. I was rather differentiating that from Lord Meston's idea of imposing a rent or premium control. I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I am certain that my noble friend Lord Gage, was perfectly entitled to draw the wrong conclusion; the fault was mine.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he would consider the most interesting argument which he has brought forward in connection with subsection (7) of this clause, which prohibits the local authority from providing caravans. I think he will be aware that a great many caravan site owners own the caravans and let or hire them to the tenants. I fancy that if the local authority is unable in those cases to take over the caravans with the sites, or to make any provision at all for providing the tenants with caravans, some of his arguments may lose their validity to some extent. I ask him to consider that point.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am grateful to the noble Earl, and I will certainly consider that point.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I confess that I feel slightly confused. I gather from my noble and learned friend that I was mistaken in thinking that the words "in the interests of the users", might be taken as an excuse for buying up compulsorily a site because, in the opinion of a local authority and the Minister, the rent was too high. If I am mistaken about that, I unreservedly withdraw. I feel that the phrase used, as has been remarked before, is an extraordinarily wide one, and that at some time or another it will have to be tested out in the courts. Of course, my noble and learned friend is much more competent to know about that than I am. In connection with the previous Amendment he has promised to have another look at this. I think it is slightly complex, and of course I must accept that with gratitude.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

May I thank the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said about looking into these two Amendments. Of course, he realises that while they both refer to compulsory purchase, they are entirely different. The Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, refers to existing sites; mine refers to any land, whether it be an existing caravan site or land which it is desired to acquire as a site.

LORD STRATHCLYDE

I accept the explanation which my noble and learned friend has put before us with regard to compulsory purchase. But here I am in some difficulty. This Amendment naturally deals only with one part of subsection (5). The previous part was dealt with in the Amendment that preceded this one. Here we have two considerations—first of all, where an additional site is required; and secondly, where a site is to be taken over. I would not differ from my noble and learned friend that where a site is being improperly managed, and conditions are not what they should be, then something must be done about it. And no doubt compulsory purchase, all else having failed, is the answer. But my great difficulty here is where an additional site has to be supplied.

So far as I can understand from this Bill, it deals with caravan sites in general. The whole of the argument that has been put forward to-day has been in relation to the permanent caravan site. This clause gives power to take over additional land, not only for a permanent site, but also for a temporary site—the kind of site that is used in the summer and which may be highly objectionable to people. For the life of me, I cannot understand how it comes about that compulsory purchase would be necessary to supply a caravan site which was obviously wanted by people using caravans. I should have thought that site could have been found perfectly easily by agreement, and that compulsory purchase would not be necessary. I would add to that that, like the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, I too am a local authority man. But I recognise that there are local authorities and local authorities, just as there are Ministers and Ministers; and I would far rather that there were no compulsory powers given to the local authorities, even under the safeguards provided in subsection (6). I do not believe they are called for. I think they are undesirable and unnecessary.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

It might save time if I said a word. I fully understand that the noble and learned Viscount is going to look at this again, and it might be that I could be excused from moving my next Amendment if, when he considers this rather obscure matter of rents, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, he would also consider my point about premiums. I quite understand that normally any such addition to the Bill would not be acceptable, but if the charging of premiums or the ending of tenancies at frequent intervals led to the state of affairs to which the noble and learned Viscount has referred as a "scandalous muddle", it might be that such compulsory purchase powers would cover that aspect also, and that I should not need to move my Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I want to make it perfectly clear, especially as my noble friend Lord Gage drew a different meaning from what I said, that I do not want to encourage my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross to think that in answer to his Amendment, any more than to that of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, we are prepared to consider the imposition of rent control. I feel that that would be something beyond the consideration of this Bill. I think it would also be beyond what could be done by local authorities. There would be the need for a whole system of rent tribunals or applications to the county court, or the like.

What I put to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross is the effect of the Bill as a whole on the problem of sites that have been bedevilled by excessive rents, premiums or the like. We have to consider the whole effect of the Bill. If there is any particular point perhaps he will have a word with my noble friend Lord Waldegrave or myself before the Report stage. But while I am prepared to consider any specific point, it would be disingenuous on my part if I permitted the idea that I was going to encourage a system of rent control.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

No, I had not at all intended that. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I wondered whether, if that difficulty came into the same category as those to which he has referred, such as would lead to chaos and complete mismanagement, that would be considered, as well as the question of excessive rents.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

On the basis of my small amendment of what my noble friend Lord Gage imputed to me, where we get a situation which has become—and I use the colloquial phrase I used earlier—such that the whole site is "an unholy mess", then I am prepared to consider the solution for that. But I did not want by a facile acquiescence to mislead my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

No, I am not misled. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 [Application of Part I to Crown land]:

EARL WALDEGRAVE

This is a simple Amendment. Its purpose is to exclude the operation of Clause 21, which enables local authorities to provide caravan sites and to acquire land for the purpose, in the case of land in which the Crown has an interest. In particular, it makes it clear that a local authority could not acquire such land compulsorily for the purposes of Clause 21. The Amendment would not, however prevent a local authority acquiring land from the Crown by agreement. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 19, leave out ("This Part of this Act") and insert ("The provisions of this Part of this Act relating to site licences").—(Earl Waldegrave.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

This is a drafting Amendment. It is correct to refer to land which "belongs to Her Majesty in right of…the Duchy of Lancaster", but land of the Duchy of Cornwall is properly described as belonging to that Duchy. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 22, leave out the first ("of") and insert ("to").—(Earl Waldegrave.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 [Interpretation of Part I]:

On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall be agreed to?

LORD BOSTON

I hope that I am not being stupid but I should welcome an assurance by the noble Earl that under this Act it will not be possible to erect what are known as "chalets" on a caravan site without a special application to the planning authority. In Anglesey we have had trouble over these chalets. In this Bill a caravan is described as: any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer, and any motor vehicle so designed or adapted, but does not include…any railway rolling stock which is for the time being on rails forming part of a railway system, or…any tent; This Bill requires legal interpretation, but as a layman I cannot help wondering whether it would be possible to transport, on a motor vehicle or trailer, quite a large prefabricated building in sections and "get away with" its erection on the site, under the wording of this definition. Furthermore, will old omnibus bodies, even double-deckers, and railway coaches come under the definition of a caravan, or must they clearly be excluded by the planning authority if they so wish? Can the noble Earl explain when a 'bus body, single or double, ceases to be a 'bus body and becomes a caravan of appearance equal to a caravan costing £1,000 or more? In the county of Anglesey the planning authority have been compensating owners for their removal. Must they continue to be put to this expense if this Bill comes into force?

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I did not see that the noble Lord had put down any Amendment and therefore I did not look up this particular point; but I had not found any particular difficulty with the definition contained in Clause 26. I should prefer to study all the conundrums the noble Lord has put, and the possible meanings and double meanings he has suggested, and either communicate with him or speak again on the Report stage—or perhaps both. At the moment I should not like to go into legal definitions, particularly in relation to such things as double-decker 'buses which might be moved on a transporter.

LORD BOSTON

I thank the noble Earl, and I apologise for not having given him some notice of the points I was going to raise.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [Application of Part I to Scotland]:

THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON)

This is a drafting Amendment, to avoid ambiguity. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 38, after ("reference") insert ("in subsection (3) of section one, or in section eleven, of this Act").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRAIGTON

I beg to move. This Amendment adopts for Scotland the Amendment to Clause 8 already adopted by the Committee.

Amendment moved—

Page 18, line 1, leave out from ("eight") to ("and") in line 4 and insert ("for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsections:— '(2) Where a person convicted under this section for failing to comply with a condition attached to a site licence has on two or more previous occasions been convicted thereunder for failing to comply with a condition attached to that licence, the court before whom he is convicted may, if the court thinks fit, make an order for the revocation of the said site licence. (2A) The holder of a site licence in respect of which an order is made under the last foregoing subsection may, without prejudice to any other form of appeal under any rule of law, appeal against the order in the same manner as against a conviction; and an order so made shall not come into force—

1. (a) until the expiration of the period of fourteen days commencing with the date on which the order was made or such longer or extended period so commencing as may be specified by the court either in the said order or subsequently from time to time on application in that behalf by the holder of the site licence; nor
2. (b) if an appeal against the order or the conviction which gave rise thereto is duly taken within the said period of fourteen days or, as the case may be, any longer or extended period specified under the foregoing paragraph, until the date when that appeal is determined or abandoned or deemed to have been abandoned.'")—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRAIGTON

The main purpose of this Amendment is to deal with the position that the new clause which the Committee discussed, giving powers to rural district councils over caravans on common land, does not apply to Scotland. The nearest parallel to common land we have in Scotland is public open spaces, over which the local authority concerned already has the necessary powers. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, leave out line 45 and insert ("the following sections shall be omitted, that is to say, section (Power of rural district councils to prohibit caravans on commons), section twenty-seven and section twenty-eight.")—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I think that this might be a convenient moment at which to adjourn the discussion on this Committee stage.

House resumed.