§ 5.6 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
§ Clause 30:
§ Appeal to Minister against enforcement notice
§ 30.—(1) A person on whom an enforcement notice is served under section twenty-three of the Act of 1947. or any other person having an interest in the land, may at any time within the period specified in the enforcement notice as the period at the expiration of which it is to take effect, appeal to the Minister against the enforcement notice on any of the following grounds, that is to say—
49§ (g) that the period specified in the enforcement notice as the period within which any steps required by the enforcement notice are to be taken falls short of what should reasonably be allowed.
§ (5) On an appeal under this section the Minister may correct any informality, defect or error in the enforcement notice if he is satisfied that the informality, defect or error is not a material one.
§
LORD SILKINmoved to add to subsection (1):
and, if the person on whom an enforcement notice has been served proves to the satisfaction of the Minister that the grounds contained in (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) of this section apply, the Minister shall not confirm the enforcement notice.
§ The noble Lord said: We are now embarking on Part II of this Bill, which provides the new procedure for enforcement. I must say, speaking for myself, that I regret the passing of the magistrate in this connection and that all appeals will now have to go to the Minister. My Amendment, however, does not deal with that point, and I have accepted it because I realise that the new machinery will be speedier than the old; and, particularly in questions of enforcement, speed is important.
§
Clause 30 provides a number of grounds upon which an appeal may be made to the Minister against the enforcement order. In the case of most of these grounds the person against whom the enforcement order has been made will have a statutory right to carry on what he is doing, and I find it difficult to understand what is the purpose of stating that these are grounds upon which he can appeal. For instance, take subsection 1 (b), which refers to the ground:
that permission has been granted under the said Part for the development to which the enforcement notice relates".
In such a case the person is entitled to carry on and has not to ask permission; he has already been given permission. The same applies to subsection (1) (c) which says:
that no permission was required under the said Part III".
§ And the same also applies to paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of subsection (1). In all these cases the person against whom the enforcement order has been made has a right to carry on.
§ It may be that the intention of this clause is that a person should be put on 50 proof. It may be that the idea is to say to the person: "You say you have had permission to carry on", or, "You say that four years have expired, and that therefore subsection (1) of Section 23 is no longer applicable—prove it." I can understand it if that is the intention of this clause, although I find it a little difficult to visualise a case in which a person who has received planning permission should be required to prove that he has had it, and in which a local authority would go so far as to serve an enforcement notice on him even though he has had planning permission. But I will accept all that for the purpose of my argument, and I will assume that there has been some doubt as to whether he has had planning permission or whether he has, in fact, gone beyond the planning permission, and so on.
§ Let us take, for example, paragraph (b). Suppose the man establishes that he has had planning permission; that the Minister has held an inquiry; that he has come along and said "Here is my planning permission", and that the Minister is quite satisfied. My Amendment is directed simply to the point that, if the Minister is satisfied then the enforcement notice must be withdrawn. There is nothing in this clause which provides that. It says merely that a person may appeal on certain grounds—and it then sets out those grounds. But if he satisfies the Minister on the grounds on which he has appealed, as the clause is drawn the Minister may still confirm the enforcement notice. I do not know whether or not that is the intention. If it is, I think that is utterly wrong. If that is not the intention, then I think that some such words as my Amendment are required in order to make it quite clear that if a person does satisfy the Minister on these particular points—(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f)—then the Minister should not confirm the enforcement notice. I hope that I have made my point clear, and I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Earl has to say in reply. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 25, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVEThe purpose of this Amendment, as I understand it, is to require the Minister to quash an enforcement notice on appeal under 51 Clause 30 if he finds in the appellant's favour on any of the grounds contained in paragraphs (b) to (f) of subsection (1). I am bound to say that I am advised (and I know the noble Lord will forgive me when I say this) that the drafting of the Amendment is not altogether apt for that purpose, although I anticipate what the noble Lord will say: that, if that is the only trouble, we can get together on drafting it correctly. But I must point out that it should not apply, I am advised, to the grounds of appeal in paragraph (f)—that the requirements of the enforcement notice are excessive—since if the Minister were to find in favour of an appellant in this respect (and there were no other grounds for quashing the enforcement notice) his proper course would be to vary the terms of the notice under subsection (6) of Clause 30. But the noble Lord does not wish me to take that point.
§ LORD SILKINNo; I realise that.
§ LORD SILKINIs it subclause (5)?
EARL WALDEGRAVEIt is subsection (6) of Clause 30:
On the determination of an appeal under this section the Minister shall"—note the word "shall"—give directions for giving effect to his determination, including where appropriate directions for quashing the enforcement notice or for varying the terms of the enforcement notice in favour of the appellant.So much for that.As to the other point the noble Lord made, the Minister will not, strictly speaking, "confirm" an enforcement notice. If he were to dismiss an appeal, the enforcement notice would stand without any confirmation. It is a question of an appeal. In any case, however, the Government are advised that an Amendment for this purpose is unnecessary, in view of the terms of subsection (6) of Clause 30, for this places a duty—I refer again to the word "shall"—upon the Minister to give directions for giving effect to his determination of an appeal, including, where appropriate, directions for quashing the enforcement notice. If the Minister were to determine an appeal in favour of an appellant on any of the 52 grounds set out in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e), he would be bound to give effect to his determination by quashing the enforcement notice. If an appellant comes to the Minister and says that the enforcement notice is invalid, under paragraph (b), because he has been granted his permission already, or some such point under these five headings, we think it inconceivable that the Minister would dismiss an appeal notwithstanding the fact that he had accepted the submission by the appellant that the enforcement notice was invalid for any of the reasons given from (b) to (e). If he were to do so, his decision would be subject to appeal to the High Court under Clause 31, the next ensuing clause, as the noble Lord will see. I will not quote the whole clause, but the rubric to Clause 1 is:
Appeal from Minister to High Court on questions of lawOn those grounds—that we believe the insertion of these words to be unnecessary, and in any case not in their present form aptly drawn—I hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
§ LORD SILKINI will not press the Amendment because the wording is stated to be defective, and I should like to have another look at it; but I do not think the noble Earl has really met the case. This clause says that a person may appeal to the Minister on any of the grounds set out. But it does not say what the Minister is required to do if he accepts the grounds. The noble Earl may say that the Minister is most unlikely to do it, and that if he does it a person may appeal; but I want to make quite sure that if a person succeeds on any of these grounds then that is an end of the matter. I hope that the noble Earl, having heard my explanation, will be prepared to give further consideration to this point. For my part, I will have another look at it and will see if I can produce a more watertight Amendment, which I very much doubt. But, on that basis, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
EARL WALDEGRAVEAs the noble Lord fully understands, I can give no undertakings on this matter, but I will, of course, before Report stage, consider the argument that he has advanced. If, when the noble Lord has considered my argument, such as it is, and has read 53 in the OFFICIAL. REPORT the words that I have used, he still wishes to raise this matter on Report stage, he can, of course, do so.
§ LORD SILKINWe are in agreement as to the purpose. The noble Earl says that it is not necessary, and I say that I think that it is necessary; but that is all. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 5.20 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSmoved, in subsection (5), to leave out "he is satisfied that". The noble Viscount said: Under the old enforcement procedure, an enforcement notice could be challenged in the magistrates' court. In the course of time, a not inconsiderable amount of Case Law grew up on the technicalities of the wording of enforcement notices and it became an extremely difficult matter to draft a correct enforcement notice in cases of difficult development. It is now being remedied by Her Majesty's Government in this Bill by allowing the Minister to correct, on appeal, any informality, error or defect in the enforcement notice if he is satisfied that it is not material. From the decision of the Minister on appeal there is a further appeal under Clause 31 to the High Court on a point of law, but apart from that it is provided in Clause 30 (8) that matters of appeal under paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (1) of this clause shall not be dealt with on any point of law.
§ It may well be that these four paragraphs cover the majority of cases in which a point of law is going to arise about the validity of the form of enforcement notice, but the fact remains that there are almost certain to be other points not covered by these four paragraphs. If that is so, it will be possible not only to raise them on appeal to the Minister but also to raise them under Section 24 of the 1947 Act at the moment when the local planning authority try to enforce their enforcement notice in the magistrates' court. In that case, the person on whom it was served, presumably having failed to raise the point to the Minister, raises it in the magistrates' court. And once more case law will emerge on whether it is an important defect such as 54 will completely invalidate the enforcement notice.
§ As I see it, there are going to be two streams of decisions on the validity of enforcement notices, one going up to the Minister and the other going to the magistrates' courts at the later stage. As the Bill now stands, the Minister's power to correct is not susceptible, I think, of being taken up to the High Court, because he has only to say that he is satisfied that the defect is not material and there is no point which can be taken up. If that is so, it may well be that the answer is that we must trust the Minister; but I cannot say that I like it very much, and I have moved this Amendment in order if possible to make the corrections, errors and defects justiciable.
§ Although lawyers have had a great deal of fun with it in the past, none the less an enforcement notice is a legal document which affects the rights of the person on whom it is served, and I think it not unfair to say that that person should expect it to be accurate and valid. If it is not, he should be able to take the matter to court, because it is a legal document. I do not think that his road to court should be blacked by the Minister correcting an error and then saying that he was satisfied that it was not material. If your Lordships agree with my Amendment I hope that I have succeeded in allowing such a point of correction to be made on appeal to the High Court, wherein the two streams about which I was talking can be co-ordinated in one collection of Case Law, so that no one will then be in doubt, I hope, about what is material or not in an enforcement notice. I commend the Amendment to your Lordships' attention and beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 6, leave out ("he is satisfied that").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy noble friend, who is a lawyer, has put his point clearly and well, but I hope that it will not have convinced your Lordships, because it certainly has not convinced me. I see exactly his point as a lawyer. He would like to have as much as he can to be made what he called "justiciable" and as little as possible left to the discretion of Ministers. This is an important paint and your Lordships will forgive me 55 for going in some detail into the purpose of Clause 30 (5) as now drafted. I hope to be able to convince your Lordships that it is necessary and desirable to leave in the words which my noble friend seeks to take out.
Subsection (5) enables the Minister on appeal to correct a minor defect in an enforcement notice which may affect, technically speaking, the validity of such a notice, if he is satisfied that it is not a material defect. For example, there may be an error in the person's address or in the description of the land, or in a date, which would in no way affect the sense of the notice or mislead the appellant. It is desirable that the Minister should have this power in order to avoid, so far as possible, cases of litigation on purely technical grounds which do not affect the merits of the enforcement notice—indeed, the sort of points that might be taken by an unscrupulous developer who was determined to press forward by whatever methods he could use and delay enforcement action for as long as possible. Given that the Minister is to have power to correct minor technical defects in an enforcement notice I think it is right to make that power effective. His decision should be final and the enforcement notice, as corrected, should not be subject to further challenge on minor technicalities. This Amendment would have it otherwise. Its apparent purpose is that the Minister's decision to correct an enforcement notice should not be final and should be subject to review in the High Court or some other court of law.
I am advised that it is doubtful whether the omission of these words "he is satisfied that" would make the Minister's decision subject to right of appeal to the High Court under Clause 31 of the Bill. The question of whether a defect is a material one is not in itself a question of law, and I do not think it could be taken to the High Court. It is only as regards a question of law that Clause 31 provides for an appeal from the decision of the Minister to the High Court. The Amendment would clearly leave it open to an appellant to challenge the action of the Minister in correcting an enforcement notice, in some collateral action for a declaratory judgment, as I understand it is called.
56 I am in some difficulty all the way through this series of Amendments, because owing to the fact that this Committee had to be extended to to-day, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who would have taken part in the discussion of these highly technical legal matters, is not able to be present. But this kind of collateral declaratory judgment is just the kind of proceeding which it is the whole purpose of Part II of this Bill to preclude. We should be bringing back a number of "streams" which the noble Viscount mentioned and which we think we have largely got rid of by the procedure under Part II. If we agreed to this Amendment we should be subject to all the appeals and collateral actions going on in the courts. In view of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will not seek to press the Amendment.
§ LORD SOMERSSurely by this Amendment, as it stands, the Minister will still have this power to make any correction provided that it is not material. The judgment as to whether or not it is material must rest in the hands of the person on whom the notice is served. But if it is merely a question, as the noble Earl suggests, of correction of an address or something like that I hardly think that anybody would question it.
EARL WALDEGRAVEIf I may say so, that is the whole point. If you put in the words, "The Minister is satisfied that this is not material" there is nothing about which to go to the court. But if the words, "he is satisfied that" are taken out, then the clause reads:
On an appeal under this section the Minister may correct any informality, defect or error in the enforcement notice if the informality, defect or error is not a material oneThere is no question of opinion. It is open to the obstructive developer to go to the court and say: "Please rule whether this was informal and whether the defect was material or not." Meanwhile, the Minister's decision has to stand over until the court has decided whether it was material or not. The person who goes to the court for such a judgment may be well aware that he will lose his case, but he is playing for time; and that is just the kind of point we are trying to get over by the new provisions for enforcement in Part II of the Bill.
§ LORD SILKINI have great sympathy with the Amendment, but having swallowed the principle that there is to be no appeal to the magistrates, I think we are rather straining at a gnat over this. We are not giving the Minister very great powers here, but merely powers to correct something which is a defect or error of a kind which is not material. I know that it could be justiciable, but I think it would be in the interests of all parties that, in the circumstances, it should not be so. I cannot imagine that the Minister, on the advice that he gets, would correct a notice which is seriously wrong and which would do an injustice to the person on whom the enforcement notice was served. Since the whole object here is Ito devise a more speedy machinery for dealing with enforcement notices, I think it would be a pity to frustrate it, as we should be doing by refusing to the Minister the right to correct errors which are not material and have not prejudiced the person on whom the notice was served.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSIn the first place, I owe an apology to the Committee, in that this is indeed a declaration, as my noble friend has said. But I think he has to some degree pinpointed the difficulty himself. If one takes these matters of appeal to the Minister it is going to be necessary in each case to argue whether or not the error is material, because the Minister's decision is not a precedent; whereas, supposing it were to go to the court on a declaration, it would soon be established that a mere error of name or the address to which the notice was sent was not something on which one would get a declaration at all. Consequently, I cannot see that a great deal of harm would be done, in the long run, even if there were a few trial cases.
The other point, which my noble friend has not answered, is: what is going to be the situation where the cunning developer does not take this point to appeal, but reserves it until the enforcement notice is enforced against hint in the magistrates' court? He then challenges its validity, and in exactly the same way as heretofore the matter will have to be decided by the courts, and thus you are going to have two separate lines of decision on exactly the same point. I wonder whether my noble friend could answer that.
EARL WALDEGRAVEI think I understand what my noble friend means. We cannot force a man to appeal in order that the Minister can give a decision and clear the matter up, and if at some later date he goes to the court, that is something which, I would say offhand, we have to risk. My noble friend really is asking that there should be some machinery which would make the man appeal so that we could get a decision.
§ LORD SILKINOr, alternatively, if a person has failed to take advantage of his right to appeal, he should in those circumstances be able to go to the magistrates. I thought subsection (8) was intended to provide for that; but if it does not, perhaps the noble Earl might look at that paragraph again.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSSubsection (8) only prevents an appeal in certain cases. Admittedly they would be a large proportion, but I do not think they would be all. However, in the circumstances, as I have no support from the Cross Benches, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 30 agreed to.
§ Clauses 31 to 36 agreed to.
§ Clause 37 [Repeated operation of enforcement notices]:
§ 5.39 p.m.
§
EARL WALDEGRAVEmoved, after subsection (1) to insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to subsection (1) of this section, any requirement in an enforcement notice for the discontinuance of any use of land shall operate as a requirement for the permanent discontinuance of the use to the extent that the use is in contravention of Part Ill of the Act of 1947, and accordingly the resumption of the use at any time after its discontinuance in compliance with the enforcement notice shall to that extent be in contravention of the enforcement notice")
§ The noble Earl said: We now come to a series of Amendments standing in my name. They all hang together, and although I cannot move them together I think it would be convenient if your Lordships would allow me to speak to them at the same time. This series of Amendments runs from No. 33 to No. 38. The Government have given further consideration to the terms of Clause 37, in the light of the considerable discussion that took place in another place, and 59 have come to the conclusion that certain Amendments are desirable for the sake of clarity and to remove certain defects that might arise in the operation of this clause as it now stands. Clause 37 is concerned with the continued operation of enforcement notices which either require buildings or works to be demolished or altered, or require uses of land to be discontinued. Your Lordships may be familiar with a case (I think it was Postill v. East Riding County Council) in which it was held that a notice once complied with was spent. That is really the origin of the whole of Clause 37, to ensure that, if there has been an enforcement notice, the would-be developer will not be able, to put it in ordinary language, "to do it again". The enforcement notice is not automatically spent.
§
The first words of Clause 37 are
Compliance with an enforcement notice, whether as respects—
Amendment No. 33 is designed to make it clear that an enforcement notice will continue to apply to a use of land which is resumed after being discontinued in compliance with the notice. Amendment No. 34, which seeks to insert the words: "Subject to the provisions of this section", merely paves the way for the next Amendment, No. 35. This Amendment substitutes a new subsection for the present subsection (3) of Clause 37. This is concerned not with uses of land, but with the reinstatement of buildings or works which have been demolished or altered in compliance with an enforcement notice.
§ It will be seen that subsection (4) of this clause imposes a penalty on the person responsible for carrying out the reinstatement of the buildings or works to which the enforcement notice relates. In view of this, there is no real need to apply Clause 33 of the Bill, which makes the owner of the land liable for failure to secure that the enforcement notice is complied with. All that is necessary is to ensure that if the buildings or works have been reinstated in contravention of 60 an enforcement notice, the local authority can, if need be, exercise their power, which they already have under Section 24 (1) of the 1947 Act, to go in and remove or dismantle the buildings or works themselves, and recover the cost from the owner. (Under Section 24 (2) of the 1947 Act the owner, in turn, can recover his expenses from the person responsible for carrying out the development.) But for this purpose, we think that the local authority should give reasonable notice to the owner and occupier of the land of their intention to act, so as to give them an opportunity of taking the necessary steps themselves once they know that it is the intention of the local authority to act. That is what is provided for in this new subsection.
§ If your Lordships will go forward to Amendment No. 36, you will find that that simply paves the way for Amendment No. 38. So I must go back to Amendment No. 37, which is on page 25, line 25. That is to meet the point that a person who undertakes the reinstatement of buildings or works subject to an enforcement notice should not be guilty of an offence under subsection (4) if he has obtained planning permission to do so. We have to put that in to ensure that this should not happen. This corresponds with the provision now made by subsection (1) of Clause 35, which is in lieu of the earlier provision in Section 24 (3) of the 1947 Act, which is repealed by Clause 33 (3).
§ The final Amendment in this group, No. 38, introduces an express provision to make it clear that Clause 33—that is, the owner's liability—will not operate. It clearly should not operate because subsection (4) of Clause 37 has penalised the person who is actually at fault. He is liable for a criminal offence, and there is a penalty on him. In addition, under the new subsection (3) the local authority can "enter and do". I hope that I have made this matter—though I do not pretend it is simple—fairly clear to your Lordships. If there are any points of course I will try to answer them; otherwise I should suggest that we discuss the matter now as a whole, and I will move the Amendments more or less formally as we come to them. I beg to move.
61
§
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 7, at end insert the said new sub sect ion.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 16, after first ("and") insert ("subject to the provisions of this section").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 25, line 19, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("( ) If at any time after an enforcement notice takes effect any development is carried out on land by way of reinstating or restoring buildings or works which have been demolished or altered in compliance with the enforcement notice, the local planning authority shall, not less than twenty-eight days before, under subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1947, taking any steps required by the enforcement notice for the demolition or alteration of the buildings or works in consequence of the reinstatement or restoration, serve on the owner and occupier of the land a notice of their intention to take those steps.")—(Earl Waldegrave.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 25.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 25, after ("who") insert "(without the grant of permission in that behalf under Part 111 of the Act of 1947").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 29, at end insert ("and no person shall be liable under section thirty-three of this Act for failure to take any steps required to be taken by an enforcement notice by way of demolition or alteration of what has been so reinstated or restored").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 38 agreed to.
62§ 5.48 p.m.
§ LORD MESTONmoved, after Clause 38 to insert the following new clause:
§ Planning registers
§ ". The Minister shall make regulations for the maintenance by planning authorities of a fully informative register of planning decisions with identification of plans and planning applications to which such decisions respectively relate, such registers to be available for public inspection."
§ The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. In my view, the grant of a planning permission to-day is of importance not only to the parties concerned but also to the general public. When I refer to "planning permission", I include the plan upon which the permitted development is specifically shown. That is always most important. I understand that at the present time applicants for town planning permission frequently send duplicate plans with their application and require one copy to be returned identified by the local authority as the plan referred to in the application. Some, but not all, local authorities comply with that request, and they return and identify the plan. I further understand that in 1959 the Minister sent a circular to local authorities suggesting that the provision of factual information about existing permissions should present no problems to local authorities. To put the matter in a nutshell, I believe that the Minister and many local authorities do all they can to help in this matter, but I am asking for something much more definite.
§ Suppose, for example, that the man who lives next door to me and whose land entirely surrounds my garden, obtains permission for building on that land. That fact may never come to my notice. It is not my immediate business, and it may be said that I have no right to take any interest in the matter. But from the selfish point -of view it is a matter of great importance. Therefore, I submit that any member of the public should be able to go to the headquarters of the planning authority, say in the county town, and see there a register of planning permissions with plans attached thereto indicating exactly the nature of the proposed development. I believe that it is a matter of very general interest, and I submit that we should not be satisfied with what the Minister and planning authorities have already done, although they have done it in a very helpful way, 63 but should ask that something very much more concrete be inserted into the Bill. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 38, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Meston.)
EARL WALDEGRAVESection 14 (5) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, requires every local planning authority to keep a register of planning applications, including information as to the manner in which such applications have been dealt with. Every planning authority is required to make that register available for inspection by the public at all reasonable hours. As your Lordships will know, Article 12 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, 1950, prescribes that the register shall include the decisions of the local planning authority and the Minister on any such applications. From the point of view of planning applications, the Amendment is, therefore, I think, unnecessary.
The noble Lord makes the point that he wants actual plans in the registers. I hope that he is not referring to elevations of buildings and so on. Surely it would hardly be practicable to include the actual plans. It would involve voluminous files of plans and much extra expense, and surely h should not be necessary for the register to include the plans in order to indicate the sites of the development. They can be identified in other ways. And it would of course be quite impracticable for the register to include copies of all the architect's drawings and elevations of buildings, and so on. If the new clause is aimed at informing the public before final decisions are taken, it would not, in any case, work as drafted, since it requires only a register of decisions, and the existing registers are registers of applications with details of decisions added subsequently. So in a sense I think we already have more than the noble Lord is putting forward.
The noble Lord's point, that as many people as possible should be aware of what is going on in this planning matter, is, of course, a valid one. My right honourable friend is considering closely the question of more publicity for planning decisions, and he has it in mind to give further guidance to the 64 local authorities. We have to-day dealt with one of the stages of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Bill. My right honourable friend has had it very much in mind, when that Bill becomes law, to issue more advice to local authorities about publicity in general. Because, after all, that is the purpose of that Bill—that the work of public authorities should be more readily available to the public. I think that would be the time to go into the detail of how the words fully informative" should be met. I sympathise with that desire, and my right honourable friend sympathises with it. These registers should be fully informative, and we hope we shall be able to deal with it in that way. I hope the noble Lord, therefore, will not press this particular Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGEI hope that the noble Lord will be persuaded by my noble friend, because I do not believe that what he is proposing is very practicable. I think that the sort of information he would get would not give him all that he required. So many planning applications arrive at the planning authorities in the form of an application for permission to develop in outline, and the consent on those lines is often given with the added condition that, in due course, the details, the elevations, will require the consent of the authority. I think that at present the public have access to all the decisions that have been given in outline, but I do not know whether that is exactly what the noble Lord wants or whether it would correspond to his description of "fully informative". I have often sympathised with the desire of the public to be more informed about what their neighbours are doing. In fact it is possible for a planning authority to cause inquiries among the applicant's neighbours to see what their reactions would be and the authority is compelled by law to do so in respect of certain forms of development. It is always possible for a sympathetic authority to make further inquiries. I have no doubt that it would be quite possible for the Minister, with his code of conduct to get the less sympathetic authorities working on the same lines.
§ LORD STRATHCLYDEI wonder if my noble friend would make something a little clearer to me. He said that his 65 right honourable friend was considering whether further publicity could be given to planning decisions. What we want, I think, is further publicity for applications for planning permission. I thought the right honourable gentleman in another place was considering whether notice should be given to neighbouring proprietors that planning permission had been requested, because if they have to wait until the planning decision has been made it does not help them very much, whereas if they are notified beforehand they can take some steps in their own interest about it.
§ LORD SILKINThere is the point that in Section 37 of the 1959 Act there is an obligation on the applicant, in a good many cases, to give notice of his application. I do not think it goes far enough; it could be extended. But this Amendment does not deal with applications; it seeks to supply a register of decisions. I think the noble Earl is quite right there is already provision for that. The difference, as I see it, between the noble Earl and the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, is that the Amendment seeks to include in the facilities to be open to any person a sight of the plans. The noble Earl says that would not be practicable and that they would not be contained in the register. I agree that the register would become a very unwieldy kind of document if one had to include plans, which are often quite voluminous.
I agree also with the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, that quite often—I would say almost generally in the case of large-scale development— the decision is in the form of a general decision in outline and is subject to the submission of detailed plans. But I can see no reason why some machinery should not be devised by which the local authority should be under an obligation to produce the plans if anyone so desired. The plans need not be with the register. After all, the objection is a very small one—namely, that the register would become unwieldy or bulky, and that it would cause administrative difficulties. With great respect to the noble Earl, I am getting a little tired of hearing about the administrative difficulties of doing the right thing. If it is right that the public should have access to the planning decisions, and if it transpires that the 66 planning decision is meaningless without seeing the plans, then surely the local authority must be under an obligation to produce the plans in order to make the planning decision intelligible to the inquirer. Although this Amendment is probably badly worded, as is every Amendment—
§ LORD SILKINExcept Government Amendments—nevertheless, I should have thought that the noble Earl would have been prepared to accept the principle here. That is, to incorporate something by way of amendment of the Development Order of 1950, so as to ensure that when a person makes inquiry about the planning decisions the actual plans are also available to him.
EARL WALDEGRAVEI am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin for the reasonable and helpful way he has spoken on this matter. I must say that I foresee great difficulty if we are to have plans for applicants. A great volume of plans is going to be there, and I must reaffirm what I said: that my right honourable friend already has it in mind to examine how better publicity can be given to decisions. But I am not clear—I must certainly consult my right honourable friend about this, and I will do so—how far we can go to meet the wishes of your Lordships in this matter for giving publicity at an earlier stage.
§ LORD SILKINMay I just put to the noble Earl (I am sorry that I did not do so in my speech) that it is at times most important for the general public to know that permission has been given in outline form: but unless they see the plans and what this outline form means, they have no way of making representations. I think it should be possible for the local authority to produce the plans relating to, say, a permission in outline before it is too late.
EARL WALDEGRAVEI was really agreeing with the noble Lord. I was saying that I will examine that suggestion with great sympathy to see whether we can help your Lordships. I think the noble Lord, Lord Meston will agree that this particular Amendment does not meet the point, because it is concerned only with decisions, and he was asking 67 for something more: that planning permission, with outline plans, might, under some arrangement, be made available. I have to resist any idea that that plan should be part of the register. I think your Lordships will agree with me in resisting the suggestion that, before any permission has been given, an application should be made available. I think that that would largely be redundant, because the public do not want to know a great many things that have been turned down and are therefore not to be proceeded with.
It is all very fine of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to say that he is getting tired of hearing that it would be administratively difficult. It is not only administratively difficult. We do not want to lay upon ourselves the burden of doing things which are enormously expensive and are not really needed, because one is only accused of "Parkinson's Law" and the question is asked, "Why have we so many civil servants?" We must be most careful to provide the kinds of things which are expensive to provide, in labour, time and money, only if they are really necessary. If the noble Lord, Lord Meston, could see his way to withdraw this Amendment, I will certainly look at it again and bring what has been said to the notice of my right honourable friend. Then, if necessary, and if the noble Lord so desires, we can discuss it again on the Report stage.
§ LORD STRATHCLYDEMay I just put to the noble Earl that it is not much good knowing that a decision has been taken if you do not know beforehand that an application has been lodged? It is no good knowing a thing after it has been decided; we want to know before that. Would the noble Earl put that point to his right honourable friend?
LORD MESTONI am most grateful to the noble Earl for his reply and also to noble Lords who have assisted me, sometimes in a somewhat modified form. For what it is worth, I am informed that the register of town planning decisions is required to contain only the most meagre description of the subject matter, and the local authority can refuse to supply any further information on inquiry. They can certainly refuse to produce the plans mentioned in the application, or the permission, or the refusal. I want to make 68 it quite clear that no one is asking the planning authority to send copies of voluminous documents to any member of the public, because it should be the duty of the member of the public to go to the register, and no doubt pay a small fee, and then examine the permission coupled with the plan which is laid before him.
I am most grateful to the Minister for proposing to give guidance to local authorities to give more publicity to planning decisions. The only weak point about that is that, in the course of time, some local authorities might become rather slack in the matter and forget all about the excellent guidance that they have been given in the past. But I am grateful to the noble Earl for considering the matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 39 agreed to.
§ Clause 40 [Additional powers of entry for purposes of control of development]:
§ 6.8 p.m.
§ LORD SILKINI hope that I may take this Amendment shortly. It seems to me self-explanatory, and I had not proposed to say anything in support of it. But I find that my Amendment was defectively drawn, and the noble Earl has put down certain Amendments to my Amendment. I think they probably improve my Amendment and I am glad to accept them. Therefore, I shall move my Amendment, but in due course will accept the Amendments to the Amendment.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 26, line 39, at end insert—
("(2) This section shall apply in relation to an enforcement notice served before the commencement of this Act as well as in relation to one served after the commencement of this Act.")—(Lord Silkin.)
§ EARL WALDEGRAVEmoved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out "an enforcement notice served" and insert "a notice or order served or made". The noble Earl said: In moving the first Amendment to the Amendment, perhaps I may speak to them both, and also reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. We must take all three together, because Clause 40 extends the powers of entry conferred by Section 103 of the 1947 Act so as to enable officers of the local 69 planning authority to enter upon land for the purpose of ascertaining whether the notice or order has been complied with. It is clearly desirable that this power of entry should apply to notices served before, as well as after, the commencement of this Bill, as this Amendment proposes. Therefore, I am happy to accept the Amendment in principle.
§
My advice, however, is that we should no; confine this Amendment to enforcement notices, because Clause 40 refers to other notices or orders under Part Ill of the 1947 Act including, for example, orders under Section 26 of that Act—discontinuance orders. The two Amendments; to the Amendment are simply to add the necessary additions to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The whole Amendment will then read:
This section shall apply in relation to a notice or order served or made"—
we have to use the two words there—
before the commencement of this Act as well as in relation to one served or made after the commencement of this Act.
Subject to what may be said by the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, I should like now to accept Amendment No. 40 and to move Amendments Nos. 40A and 40B.
§
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Line 1, leave out ("an enforcement notice served") and insert ("a notice or order served or made").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
§ On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Line 3, after ("served") insert ("or made"). (Earl Waldegrave.)
§ On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 41 [Application of Part II to special powers of control]:
§ EARL WALDEGRAVEmoved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Earl 70 said: This Amendment should be read in conjunction with the new clause (Amendment No. 42) and with the new Schedule (Amendment No. 58). In another place there was some criticism of Clause 41 (1) of the Bill, which provided for the application of the new procedure relating to enforcement notices in Clauses 30 to 37 of this Bill to notices served under Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 (which relates to the protection of buildings of special interest), and to notices under Section 33 of that Act (which relates to maintenance of waste land).
§ Clause 41 (1) as drafted leaves it to the Minister to apply the provisions of this Bill to these notices, subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed by regulations. Now these regulations will, in part, supersede the present regulations made by the Minister under Section 30 (8) and Section 33 (2) of the 1947 Act. It was suggested in another place that provision should be made in the Bill itself, rather than by ministerial regulations, for applying these enforcement provisions (including the new provisions in this Bill) to notices under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1947 Act. These Amendments are merely to give effect to the suggestion that enforcement should not be by ministerial regulation but should be part of a Statute. Accordingly the Amendment I now move would leave out Clause 41 (1), and the following new clause (which is the next Amendment I wish to move) would take its place. That new clause introduces the Schedule which is necessary (Schedule 58). I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 40, leave out subsection (1).—(Earl Waldegrave.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 41 insert the following new Clause—
§ Notices under sections 30 and 33 of Act of 1947
§ ".—(1) The Schedule (Enforcement of sections 30 and 33 of Act of 1947) to this Act shall have effect as regards notices under subsection (8) of section thirty and notices under section thirty-three of the Act of 1947 (which relate to buildings of special interest, and to 71 the proper maintenance of waste land) and sections twenty-three and twenty-four of the Act of 1947 shall not apply to such notices.
§ (2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply in relation to a notice served before the commencement of this Act."—(Earl Waldegrave.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clauses 42 to 46 agreed to.
§ First Schedule:
§ Cases where a Caravan Site Licence is not required
§ Use by a person travelling with a caravan for one or two nights
§
2. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site by a person travelling with a caravan who brings the caravan on to the land for a period which includes not more than two nights—
(a) if during that period no other caravan is stationed for the purposes of human habitation on that land or any adjoining land in the same occupation, and
§ Use of holdings of five acres or more in certain circumstances
§
3.—(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land which comprises, together with any adjoining land which is in the same occupation and has not been built on, not less than five acres—
(a) if in the period of twelve months ending with the day on which the land is used as a caravan site the number of days on which a caravan was stationed anywhere on that land or on the said adjoining land for the purposes of human habitation did not exceed twenty-eight, and
§ (3) The Minister may make different orders under this paragraph as respects different areas, and an order under this paragraph may be varied by a subsequent order made thereunder.
§ (4) An order under this paragraph shall come into force on such date as may be specified in the order, being a date not less than three months after the order is made; and the Minister shall publish notice of the order in a local newspaper circulating in the locality affected by the order and in such other ways as appear to him to be expedient for the purpose of drawing the attention of the public to the order.
§ Sites occupied and supervised by exempted organizations
§ 4. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land which is occupied by an organisation which holds for the time being a certificate of exemption granted under paragraph 12 of this Schedule (hereinafter referred to as an "exempted organisation") if the use is for purposes of recreation and is under the supervision of the organisation.
72§ Sites approved by exempted organizations
§ 5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land as respects which there is in force a certificate issued under this paragraph by an exempted organisation if not more than five caravans are at the time stationed for the purposes of human habitation on the land to which the certificate relates.
§ (2) For the purposes of this paragraph an exempted organisation may issue as respects any land a certificate stating that the land has been approved by the exempted organisation for use by its members.
§ (3) The certificate shall be issued to the occupier of the land to which it relates, and the organisation shall send particulars to the Minister of all certificates issued by the organisation under this paragraph.
§ (4) A certificate issued by an exempted organisation under this paragraph shall specify the date on which it is to come into force and the period for which it is to continue in force being a period not exceeding one year.
§ THE EARL, OF IDDESLEIGHmoved, in paragraph 2, to leave out "two" and insert "three" [nights]. The noble Earl said: We all accept that if this Act is to have effect, the individual caravanner has to submit to a good many restrictions. My purpose in moving this Amendment is to give the opportunity to the House of deciding whether such very stringent restrictions on the individual caravan camp are really necessary. I believe it is reckoned that 2 million more people take annual holidays to-day than was the case before the war. There would not have been room for them to take those holidays had it not been for the opportunity provided by the caravan. We ought, therefore, to be grateful to the caravan as providing a means of happy, healthy family holidays for great numbers of families who would not otherwise have been able to take holidays, or would have been reduced to the necessity of seaside lodgings which, in the case of a family with young children, are subject to well known and disagreeable factors.
§ It is intended that the person travelling with a caravan should go either to a licensed site or a site of five acres where, under paragraph 3 (1) (a) of this Schedule he may stay for 28 days; or should join a caravan club and take advantage of the sites which will be permitted to that club as an accepted organisation. But, in the first place, there is not nearly enough room on licensed sites for all the caravan 73 holidaymakers who want to go there; great numbers are turned away every year. It will take time to get the licence and establish the caravan sites contemplated in paragraph 3—the five-acre sites; and there are many people who are opposed to joining even so good an organisation as the Caravan Club, and it is contrary to public policy to use compulsion on individuals to join any organisation.
§ What, then, can the individual caravanner do? The only thing he can do is to stay for two nights at some site which he has been lucky enough to find. After those two nights he must set out again on the road. As I ventured to say on Second Reading, we do not want him on the road more than is absolutely necessary. I therefore ask the Committee to say that a man who has found a site and gained permission from the owner to stop there and has brought his caravan there should be allowed to stay three days rather than two. I would suggest that the danger to public health arising from a stay of three days is not material, especially if it is by one caravan; and we may very reasonably make this concession to the family man who is seeking an open-air holiday.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 12, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(The Earl of lddesleigh.)
§ LORD STRABOLGII should like to support this Amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, has put up a very good case, if I may say so. One of the great advantages of the caravan holiday should be that one can get away from a crowd of people. Yet, if one can get away on an isolated site and stay there for only two nights it does not seem to me to be long enough. I think that much more latitude should be allowed to the individual caravanner who wishes to stay for a longer period, if he is able to make arrangements with the owner of the land concerned. I hope that this Amendment will receive the favourable consideration of the Government.
EARL WALDEGRAVEI have great sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, have said. We do not want in any way unnecessarily to restrict the liberties of people who are touring and recreational caravanners. But I do not think it is really correct to say 74 that there is not enough room on licensed sites. It is surely rather early to say that, because no sites have been licensed by the Bill yet. I would put also to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that this is not the only exemption from licensing, and this is not by any means the only place that the caravanner can go to for two nights.
I have had a table made out for my own convenience, because it is somewhat difficult to follow what all these exemptions are in this part of the Schedule. This is the exemption which exempts from licensing the touring caravanner—this is for one caravan—who may stay anywhere for two nights without licence and without planning permission, providecl, of course, that he is not trespassing and the person whose land he is on gives him permission. We think that this exemption in paragraph 2 of the Schedule should be confined to two nights. We must draw the line somewhere. I think that this exemption started as one night—I am not sure about that, but I think it did—and then it became two nights. I do not think that we can take this on to three nights, because then somebody will say, "Why not a week?". The answer is that there are the other exemptions in the Schedule by which you can have a caravan somewhere for 28 days.
For instance, the occupier of five acres or more can have (now I must refer to my table) three caravans, unlicensed and unplanned, on his site for 28 days in any one year. Then there are, under paragraph 4 of the Schedule, the sites occupied and supervised by the exempted organisations. They can be of any size and hold any number of caravans. Then there are the sites approved by the exempted organisations. I think that there must be only five caravans on them at any one time, but there is no day restriction; you can be there for as long as you like. I go into this question in detail on the first Amendment concerning the exemptions because I think they may not have been clear to all your Lordships, any more than they were to me until I applied my mind to them, using a wet towel, to see what all the exemptions were. Then I must mention the exemption for the man "within the curtilage". That deals with the noncommercial caravan and the man who 75 does not pay. He has come to you and your spare room is occupied and you let your friend take his caravan into the garden, without payment, and he may stay there for as long as he likes.
But we do not think we can agree that this two-night exemption for the touring caravan should be extended. I do not think it is necessary. We shall begin to get into trouble. It will be difficult to police these things. The local authority will want to know under which paragraph of the exemptions the caravan is there. If we give the caravanner two nights, instead of the one we originally had in mind, I think we have done all that he can fairly ask for, when there are the other exemptions he can claim, and the other sites—the other small sites —that will be available for him to go to. I hope that the Committee will not press this Amendment, because I believe we shall be getting our foot in the door, and we must draw the line somewhere.
BARONESS HORSIBRUGHMay I ask for a further explanation from the noble Earl? If somebody invites a friend to stay with him and, because he has not got a spare room, suggests that he occupies a caravan in the garden, I take it that he may stay there for as long as he likes. Suppose that a friend arrives at your house and says, "Here I am. I cannot get on to-night and I want you to give me permission to bring my caravan here." So long as he does not pay, can he also stay for as long as you are willing to have him?
EARL WALDEGRAVEYes. Paragraph 1 of the Schedule says:
A site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site if the use is incidental to the enjoyment as such of a dwellinghouse within the curtilage of which the land is situated.The noble Baroness will see that that provision is there. This is for the use of land as a caravan site. I would suggest that, under that provision, more than one caravan could be there that is, in your own garden. There is no restriction on that at all. That, I think, was the question which the noble Baroness asked me.
§ BARONESS HORSBRUGHOn your own land? It need not necessarily be in your garden by the side of your house, need it?
EARL WALDEGRAVEThe noble Baroness must not ask me to define a legal term. The phrase is "a dwellinghouse within the curtilage". From memory, I think that that is the same phrase as is used in the Public Health Act, which this Act supersedes and which deals with tents. I may be wrong there, but it is a well-known legal description. The noble and learned Viscount could tell us about that. I think that is permissible —as many caravans as you like within the curtilage, provided they are incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling-house.
§ LORD SILKINI do not know whether I am strictly in order, but our discussion seems to have developed rather beyond the particular Amendment. What I want to refer to is something on the same lines as the point raised by the noble Baroness who has just asked the question: that is, the position of a person who is having a house built on his own land and wants to watch the building going up. He may be building it himself with his own hands or with the help of members of his family, or he may have a builder on the site and desire to supervise him and see what is happening. If he is putting a caravan within the curtilage of his own land, may he live there indefinitely, or until the house is built? This question was raised in another place, and I believe that the Minister said he would consider it, but I see no Amendment down. It is a relatively common occurrence for people to want to have a caravan on a site where a building is going up, and it seems to me that no harm would be done if it were permitted. I should be grateful to have a reply on that point.
EARL WALDEGRAVEI do not think it would be permissible under paragraph 1 as it now stands. I will certainly have a look at it. But I wonder if the Lord Chairman of Committees would like us to take the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, before we go on to these other things.
§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHThat is what I was going to suggest, if it is permissible to speak again. The debate on my Amendment has ranged wide, and we seem to have discussed a number of other points which are not strictly relevant to what I am asking the noble Earl to 77 accept. My arguments have been met by the statement that we need not assume that there will be any lack of room on licensed sites. I can only say that all the site owners I know or have met who are at present operating holiday caravan sites tell me that they have to turn away a great many caravanners who apply to them. They tell me that they start getting applications for the summer in the previous autumn, and that by Christmas they cannot take any more caravans; and as we are now, through the model standard provisions, as I suppose and hope, going to decrease the number of caravans on the sites, the likelihood that the licensed sites will prove quite insufficient appears to me very great indeed. Another point which has been made is that my Amendment will make enforcement more difficult. How can it make enforcement more difficult? It is much more easy to enforce a reasonable provision than it is to enforce an unreasonable one.
Finally, I would point out that my period of three nights is not "putting a foot in the door". This is no occasion to "put a foot in the door". I am putting it forward as a reasonable and proper period of time (which would, incidentally, cover a Bank Holiday week-end, or even a normal week-end) in the case of a man whose chosen site is near his work and who does not have to work on Saturdays. I have put forward substantial arguments in favour of three nights, and I am very disappointed that Her Majesty's Government do not feel able to accept so reasonable a provision. I am not satisfied that the ordinary caravan user who does not belong to the Caravan Club (whose subscription, incidentally, amounts to two guineas a year) is getting a fair deal.
§ LORD STRABOLGIBefore the noble Earl withdraws his Amendment, if he is going to, may I ask the noble Earl who is replying for the Government one point on something he raised which I did not really understand? The argument which he developed I took to mean that, because there were many sites available, there was no reason why the individual caravanner should stay for more than two nights on an isolated site. In other words, you have to camp with a whole crowd of people, or for two nights only by yourself. That does not seem to me a valid argument at all in the case of the 78 caravanner who wishes to get away from a crowd of people and to enjoy the country in isolation, which seems to be one of the most important and attractive aspects of caravanning. He also raised a question of the local authorities and of the police—which, if I understood the noble Earl aright, I thought should cause considerable disquiet. What harm is an individual caravanner doing on a site where he has arranged to camp with the permission of the owner of the land? Why on earth should police officers come round asking him what lie is doing, and so on? It seems to me a most disgraceful infringement of liberty.
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALECan my noble friend explain to me how you are to be sure that this fellow is alone? I am deeply puzzled by this. In asking the question, may I say that if there were a Division I would tend to support my noble friend, though I am not wholly convinced of the great merit of two nights as opposed to three. There may be many noble Lords who have not had the experience I have had, of living in the Lake District, where my constituency was. There, the caravan is a great blessing to the person who has it, but, if taken to excess, can at: the same time become a blot on the neighbourhood. It is so easy for two to become three, for twelve to become fifteen and for a hundred to become a thousand, and before you know where you are one is planting little Blackpools and little Morecambes in beautiful parts of the country, such as the Lake District and Lake Windermere.
Now Blackpool and Morecambe have their place—and, indeed, no one could know better than I how important were the 20,000 voters of Morecambe who voted for me—but we do not want them spreading. Your Lordships may think it is a far-fetched story, but it is not. They spread as germs multiply in an appropriate medium, and if you have not got some strict control you get beautiful countryside spoiled for the benefit of a few. It is therefore desirable that those who are going to stay in a place should stay in a registered place, or in an approved place, and that those who are going to move on should stay for only a short time. I am not prepared to say whether two nights or three nights is right; but this Bill has come from another place, and it would seem very 79 argumentative to change it now. May I ask the noble Earl how we are going to know that this man is alone? Suppose another fellow turns up. Are both breaking the law?
EARL WALDEGRAVEThe noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was frightened by the question of the use of police, but I did not say "police"; I said "policing", a word I used for seeing that the regulations were carried out, presumably by an inspector of the local authority.
§ LORD STRABOLGIA euphemism, in other words.
EARL WALDEGRAVEYes, a euphemism. The noble Lord asked: why should a man not stay on a site for more than two days, if he has permission? He can do so, provided the occupier is an occupier of five acres or more; then he can stay for 28 days. But once we go for longer than that, surely we are moving into the area of permanent sites which ought to be licensed so that they can have sanitary arrangements and so on. This particular exemption is to deal with the two-night stop and there is no acreage limit. If a caravanner warns to stay for more than two nights, he can make private arrangements with any occupier of five acres and more. And in a subsequent Amendment it is going to be suggested that we might reduce this to three acres. I do not know what your Lordships are going to do when we come to this Amendment, but I think it would be much better to deal with it in this way rather than to increase the two nights. I am not sure that I follow the point of my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale about how we can know if a caravanner is alone.
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALEThe Schedule says it is right for two nights, if alone, and it is probably not right at all if you are not alone. A caravanner arrives on a bit of land for only two nights, but he arrives at nine o'clock and finds another man there. Has he to go away?
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALEI think that is unreasonable.
EARL WALDEGRAVEIt is not unreasonable. On this small site, where there are no licensed facilities and planning permission, the occupier should not allow a caravan on it for more than two nights and should not allow more than one caravan. If the occupier has a larger site, five acres or more, then the caravanner can stay for 28 days. And I have given the noble Earl a hint about what may happen to his suggestion, if your Lordships wish, to make that three acres. But if the caravanner wants to stay for a year, then we say that the occupier must go and get a site licence, because that is not temporary recreational caravanning. But we are being kind to these caravanners. We say that if they are members of one of the certificated associations, they may use sites which are already earmarked and which are permanently supervised and can stay there for so long as they like. But all these sites will be approved by organisations such as the Caravan Club, though that will not be the only one. Even here the caravanners can stay only five at a time because they are small, unlicensed sites.
§ LORD SILKINThe noble Earl did not deal with a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, which I thought impressive. In regard to people who take long week-ends—Friday night, Saturday night and Sunday night—he suggested that three nights would be a convenience to them, if they wanted to stay in one place for the whole week-end. There may be a good answer to that and I should be grateful if the noble Earl would deal with this point.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)If the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Earl would look at the plan of the Schedule, I think that the answer is to be found there. First of all, a site licence will not be required for the use of land as a caravan site if the use is incidental to the enjoyment of a dwelling house. That is to say, you can ask your friends to stay with their caravan on your land, a point which the noble Baroness elucidated a short time ago. Lord Fraser of Lonsdale's second traveller would be all right, if he was a friend. Then there is the position which is out of friendship and in the commercial use of sites. In this exemption, we are anxious to cover the 81 person who is travelling and not the person going to a site which is the end of his journey. As my noble friend Lord Waldegrave pointed out, originally the idea was to limit this to one night. Then it was thought that a traveller might want a day's shopping or a day looking at sights, and it was made two nights. That is the answer to the noble Earl's point, which was underwritten, if I may so say it, by the noble Lord, Lord Silk in. We are not dealing in this exception with the person who wants to stay put.
As regards the second caravanner of my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, he should not really ask for permission to stay at a private site because the occupier should not give it. It would be a breach of the exemption. But as soon as we get beyond that, we get into the numerous other exemptions to which my noble friend Lord Waldegrave has referred. The Schedule deals with numerous other possible situations. For the week-ender, for the people who have come to the end of their journey, we ought to come to another exemption, or otherwise we are getting into exactly the difficulty we are trying to avoid by this Bill, of having commercial sites which are made for the hard case (here I come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi), and of transforming by the hard case a site for travellers into a site for end-of-journey caravanning.
If I may, my Lord Chairman, go slightly wide, I would point out that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will see that there is a provision for building and engineering sites in paragraph (9). What is referred to there is the case where the use is required for the accommodation of a person or persons employed in connection with the said operations. That is looking at it from a rather different angle from the noble Lord. He was thinking of the building owner as doing some slight supervision, and at any rate wanting to see how the building gat on, and I should like to have a look at that point. I once gave a judgment in a rating appeal on temporary structures, and, having done that. I should not like to give an opinion, if I may so call it, off the cuff without looking into the matter further. But I will certainly do that before the next stage.
§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHIf my noble friends who have supported me 82 have no objection, I will not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 6.52 p.m.
§
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after paragraph 2 to insert:
( ) The Minister may by order contained in a statutory instrument provide that, in any such area and for such period of time as may be specified in the order,
§ The noble Viscount said: I hope that this may be a helpful Amendment. My noble friend Lord Waldegrave has already referred to the difficulties of policing the operation of the restrictions on these caravan sites, and I envisage the time, if it has not already arrived—for instance, at such periods as Whitsun and August Bank Holiday—when the flood of traffic and caravans going out into the country will be such that not even all the exemptions in this First Schedule will provide enough sites to deal with them. Moreover—and this is perhaps even worse—that will be exactly the time when the local authority inspector is also enjoying his Bank Holiday. I therefore move an Amendment which would allow the Minister to exempt from the provisions of paragraph 2 of the Schedule such periods as hank holidays, so that during those special times a particularly small and unsuitable site may be used to get the caravans off the road, even, if need be, unhitched from the car, thereby helping the traffic problem. I know that this is a problem which has arisen very much in the Lake District, and I have no doubt that it also arises during these particular short periods in many other parts of the country. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment may prove acceptable and helpful to deal with it. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 20, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
EARL WALDEGRAVEThe reasons I am not attracted by this Amendment, although it has been cogently argued by 83 the noble Viscount, are very much the reasons I adduced when I resisted the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. I am not at all sure that one wishes to see an uncontrolled influx of caravans into areas of special beauty, even at Bank Holiday times. It may be convenient for the caravanners, but there are other people besides the caravanners who will have gone to the beauty spot to enjoy its beauty. If we are to make this exemption to this carefully drawn Schedule, so that the Minister has power to make this relaxation at what may be the all-important time, I can certainly see the advantage to the caravanners; but I rather think that the disadvantage to the non-caravanner, that is to say, the other person in the area of natural beauty, outweighs it. As I said to the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, on his Amendment, there are these other exempted sites—the 28-day sites, the 3 caravans on the 5-acre site and so on—which will all be arranged and which do not need the widening of this particular exemption in this way. I hope that the noble Viscount will see fit to withdraw this Amendment, because we do not feel that, with the other facilities the Bill affords for the holiday caravanner, we ought to extend this exemption in the manner proposed.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSI am grateful to the noble Earl, and I quite see his point. But I wonder if he can explain a little further how he thinks the local authorities are going to be able to enforce these restrictions, not only on this paragraph but on the other paragraphs, during such periods as Bank Holidays.
EARL WALDEGRAVEI do not know whether what I think about how the local authorities are going to carry out their duties comes to be discussed under this Amendment, but I am sure that those duties will be within the powers of the local authorities; and it will be to the advantage of everybody, when this Bill becomes law, that there should be control of caravan sites, with the proper exemptions for the travelling and holidaying caravanner that we put in. As I said on the previous occasions, I beg your Lordships not to be pessimistic and to assume that we are putting into the hands of the local authorities machinery 84 which will prove too burdensome, and which they will not be able to work; because I do not think that is so. My straight answer to the noble Viscount is that I think the local authorities will be able to see that these regulations and exemptions are carried out; and I sincerely hope so.
§ LORD BOSTONWe have heard the legal argument of what should happen, but I should like to point out what actually happens. When these caravans have been in a field for, say, 27 days they then move into the next field where they can stay for another 27 days; and so far as I know, the local authority can do nothing about them. That has been the whole trouble: that the local councils cannot enforce the 28 days because these people move from one field to the next.
EARL WALDEGRAVEThe noble Lord realises that they cannot do that unless they go into a field that is in another occupation. There are areas of the country where the land is divided up into very small holdings, but it will be seldom that each field will be in a separate ownership. There are only these statutory limits of caravans, three on five acres, in land within a single occupation. And unless the occupier or owner specifically gets a licence, or has an authorised site from one of these certificated organisations, even if he owns (I think I am right in saying) 1,000 acres or more of contiguous land, he must only have the number of caravans and the duration of time permitted for five acres (or it may be three acres) and so on. It is not right to say that when this Bill has become an Act the caravanner would be able just to move into the next field: the land must be in separate occupation. I am advised that it will not be possible to take a five-acre or ten-acre field and divide it up into small units for this unless they are legally separate occupations and I suggest that to make separate legal occupations would hardly be worth the candle.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
85§ 7.1 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHThis Amendment seeks to alter five acres to three acres as the minimum size for the type of unlicensed site which may be used for 28 days by three caravans. It seems to me that five acres is an enormous area on which to stand three caravans, and that three acres would be much more reasonable and a less restrictive area. I remain very concerned to know whether the holiday caravanner is going to find enough room. If he does not find room where he can legally enjoy his caravan holiday, I believe that he will be driven on to the verges of the road or to practices which contravene the law. On those grounds, I am anxious to make it as easy as possible for sites to be established. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 25, leave out ("five") and insert ("three").—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)
VISCOUNT GAGEMy noble friend indicated that of the two Amendments to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, he preferred this one. I should have preferred the noble Earl's first Amendment. Why was this Bill ever introduced? It was introduced because for years the site operators had been driving coaches-and-fours right through the whole structure of the legislation dealing with caravans. If everybody was reasonable, there would be no reason for the Bill at all. We have to deal with people who are out to evade laws automatically. I am not referring so much to caravanners as to people who own these caravan sites, which are valuable things.
If any owner of land wants to go in for caravans, there is absolutely no reason why he should not go through the procedure of applying for a site licence and planning consent. But in this particular case I would ask: how are local authorities going to control these unplanned caravan sites? The local authorities do not go round with measuring appliances, and I have no doubt whatever that, whatever the law says, there will be caravans stationed on less than five acres. I think it is easier to see whether the law is being contravened in an area of five acres than in an area of three acres. If the Government are concerned with trying to make concessions on these matters, I hope they 86 will at least consult the associations of authorities with whom already a considerable amount of consultation has taken place. At least I should like to feel that their responsibility had been properly considered before agreement is made on a matter of this sort.
EARL WALDEGRAVEAS the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, said, it was in my mind, if your Lordships wished it, that we should amend the Bill in the manner proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. But I hold no strong views about this. At the moment I have two views: the view of the mover and the view of the opposer. My own view is that, on the whole, this would give a rather wider measure of freedom to the touring caravanner, and that a maximum of three caravans on a site of three acres or more need not be regarded as excessive. I should be prepared, if it is your Lordships' wish, to accept this Amendment; but I would certainly not urge its acceptance if your Lordships were reluctant to accept it.
§ LORD SILKINI hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment. The noble Viscount gave us one reason why this Bill was being introduced, but I understand there is another reason, and that is that, side by side with the desire to enforce the planning law as regards caravans, we also want to provide greater facilities for caravanners. We have to recognise that caravanning today is an accepted way of life; that large numbers of people want caravans, both for the purpose of permanent residences and also for recreation. As a democratic nation, we ought to accept that position and not create difficulties in the way of people doing what they wish.
Therefore, I should have thought that any concession which can properly be made to caravanners to enable this increasing demand to be met should be made. Furthermore, the more we provide lawful facilities for caravanners, the less likely we are to have breaches of the law. On reading the Bill, I felt that one caravan to five acres was not very generous in those circumstances, and not really meeting what is this increasing demand. I was glad to hear the noble Earl hinting on the earlier Amendment that he was prepared to consider this Amendment favourably. I hope he will 87 not be seduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, to depart from this generous impulse.
§ LORD CHORLEYI find myself strongly on the side of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, in regard to this matter. It is, of course, quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, that a large number of people are anxious to use these caravans for recreational purposes, but they are doing so at the expense of a much larger number of people who wish to visit the lovely parts of the country like the Lake District. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, he does not know the Lake District as well as I do. The problem of these caravans in that area is a very difficult one indeed.
§ LORD SILKINBut this Bill is not confined to the Lake District—it applies to the whole country.
§ LORD CHORLEYThe Lake District is not the only beautiful part of the country. But this matter in fact applies to many areas all over the country which are exceptionally beautiful. There are many people who are in the business for letting these small sites for caravans which are going to litter the countryside. It seems to me obvious that the larger you keep the area—within reason—the more you have it under control. The more you allow small, isolated bits of land to be bought up by these people, many of whom are in this business in a speculative way, the more you allow the matter to get out of control. The whole object of the Bill is to keep this problem under control. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, is quite right in his approach.
§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHThere can be no question of buying up land for speculative purposes, because under this paragraph the maximum amount of time for which caravans can remain on the site is 28 days. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no question of speculators buying up the land. Nobody would buy a site in order to keep caravans on it for 28 days in a year.
§ LORD CHORLEYI can assure the noble Earl that these sites are let at very good prices indeed, and it is one of the matters which a man has in view in 88 buying a small area of land which comes into the market in a part of the country, from which he can get a good income.
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALEI think it is true that people buy land with this in mind. They then sell the caravanners milk and butter and cheese and so on. There is no limit to the number of days you can have. You can have 3 periods in May, 3 in June and 3 in July.
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALEI beg your pardon.
§ THE EARL OF DUDLEYThe noble Earl has not given much away so far, and I am rather surprised that this is practically the first Amendment he is giving away. I am inclined to agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I think we should have a little more time to consider this point. Could the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, defer it until Report stage, so that we could think again on this matter? I do not feel prepared to say "Yes" at this moment.
§ On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
§ LORD SILKINDo we really want a Division? I think the noble Earl would be quite willing to withdraw the Amendment and have it considered on Report.
§ LORD CHORLEYI quite agree with Lord Dudley's proposal that it might be a good thing to look at it again.
§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHIf it is in order, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment now.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
VISCOUNT GAGEmoved to add to paragraph 4:
Provided that this paragraph shall not apply in relation to land allocated for Green Belt purposes in a development plan approved under the Act of 1947 or desienated a National Park or an area of outstanding natural beauty or scientific interest under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, unless any planning permission required under the Act of 1947 has been granted by the local planning authority on consideration of an application in that behalf or by the Minister on appeal or is deemed to have been granted under section sixteen of this Act.
§ The noble Viscount said: This Amendment deals with the Caravan Club. I am in no sense critical of the Caravan Club; in fact, I would pay a tribute to what they have done to raise standards of caravanning. I am quite ready to agree that any caravan sites supervised by them would be completely in order. I am not asking that they should be subjected to licensing control. What I am asking is that on the particular sites where great efforts have been made to preserve amenities and a great deal of money spent on that object—the Green Belts and National Parks and areas of high landscape value—they should be subject to ordinary planning control. I understand that although they are not given exemption in the Bill, it is the Minister's intention to provide in the General Development Order that they shall not be subject to ordinary planning control.
§ What is puzzling me and puzzling the County Councils Association, which, after all, represents the large bulk of planning authorities that look after caravans, is why this particular exemption should be given to the Caravan Club. Why should the Caravan Club be put in this exceptional position? After all, it has been found necessary to put agricultural buildings over a certain size under planning control, after the short experiment in freedom. I do not think that the Caravan Club need feel anything invidious about this. Even the noble Lord, Lord Mills, who was quoted as champion despoiler of rural areas when he was Minister of Power, had to consult: planning authorities. I do not necessarily say that he paid a great deal of attention to what was said. Let me just quote an area I know very well, the South Downs. There, before the 1947 Act was ever thought of, we contributed money and paid compensation to establish the amenities, the rural nature of the South Downs. I think it would be legally possible—I do not say probable—for us to wake up one morning and find on top of the South Downs a large caravan site of which nobody had any previous warning.
§ When this point was referred to in another place the Minister, in effect, said "You will see in paragraph 12 of this Schedule that I can cancel my certificate of exemption at any time if I am satisfied 90 on complaint from a local authority that the Caravan Club has been abusing its position. I will certainly see that it will not happen again. And you will also understand that the Caravan Club, with this threat of removal of exemption hanging over their heads, will, in fact, always consult you." In other words, "Let it happen first and then leave it to the Minister." It does seem rather a tortuous way of going about things. If the Minister really intends, as I think he does, that the Caravan Club should consult the local authorities, a more direct way of doing it would be to indicate that they should, in these special areas, apply for planning consent. It seems to me the simplest way of doing it. If the Minister thinks local authorities are likely to be unduly prejudiced against the Caravan Club, he can always call in a particular application or call in all applications. The principle we stand out for, and I think it is reasonable, is that there should be prior consultation before the Caravan Club establish these sites, and we do not see why they should be in this exceptional position. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 18, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Gage.)
§ LORD CHORLEYI hope that the Government will be able to see their way to accept the Amendment. This particular problem has given some concern to the amenities societies. My noble and learned friend, Lord Birkett, was anxious to be here. Unfortunately, the traffic chaos to-day has prevented his being here, but I have had a special message asking me to do my best to fill the gap. I should have been speaking in support of the noble Viscount in any case.
I do not want anything I say to be taken as casting any sort of reflection on the Caravan Club. I have had a close and happy association with them, as have all the amenities societies, and we have great confidence in their judgment in these things. In actual fact, in some of the National Parks there exist the closest relations between the Caravan Club and the planning authority, and working together they have succeeded in establishing a number of very good caravan sites. But that has been by working together, and the first impressions of the Caravan Club have by no means always been found in the end, after consultation 91 with the planning authorities, to be those best required in the district. I could mention two or three cases in the Peak District where that has been very much so. In a way it would be very much better, as the noble Viscount is proposing, to leave it on that basis. I am quite sure that the Caravan Club themselves would work happily, as they have in fact been doing in the past, in consultation with the planning authorities, and I hope that the Government will be able to see their way to preserve that situation.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI hope I shall be able to show to your Lordships that the suggestions which the Government have in mind will secure the object of this Amendment. I am afraid I must deploy them at a little length, and I should like noble Lords who have spoken to do me the honour of considering these suggestions perhaps a little further. As your Lordships see, this Amendment refers to the exemption in paragraph 4 of the First Schedule for caravan sites which are occupied and managed by organisations which hold certificates of exemption from the Minister under paragraph 12. The effect of the Amendment would be to make the exemption in the case of such a site in the Green Belt or a National Park or an area of outstanding natural beauty or scientific interest, conditional upon the site having planning permission for the caravan use granted on an application.
I should like to say again what my noble friend and I have said several times before: that we appreciate the purpose of the Amendment and we recognise that the siting of caravans in the areas to which it refers calls for special care. But this exemption is in no way intended to dispense with the need for special care on the part of the exempted organisations in the choice of their site. It is the terms of the Amendment which we think are unnecessary, and I will come now to the reasons. The First Schedule to the Bill is concerned only with the exemptions from the licensing requirements under Part I of the Bill: it is not concerned with planning control. There is nothing in the Schedule itself which will exempt caravan sites from the normal planning requirements. This is where I want my noble friend Lord Gage to think again. I suggest that the proper instrument for 92 providing exemptions from the planning control or, to be more accurate, for giving a general blanket permission for particular types of development, is the General Development Order made by the Minister under Section 13 of the 1947 Act.
Therefore, let us look at the position under the General Development Order. Clause 1 of the General Development Order for 1950 already gives a general permission of this kind for uses of land for the purpose of recreation, and this would cover holiday caravan sites run by certain organisations approved by the Minister. I am not going to jump on to the other Amendment, but my noble friend Lord Gage will see that, subject to a matter of arrangement, there is substantial agreement between us. I say that only in parenthesis. But there are other provisions in the General Development Order at present which cover temporary uses of land, including use by caravans which is carried on for not more than 28 days in a year. When the Bill becomes law it is proposed to amend the General Development Order so as to bring these provisions, in so far as they affect caravans, broadly into line with the exemptions from licensing under the Bill; and that accords with the general policy of Part I of the Bill that the only licensing system should be co-ordinated with planning controls. But if it were desired to do so, the amending Order could quite well be framed in such a way as to leave certain types of caravan sites subject to specific planning control, although exempt from licensing under the Bill. That is a matter which would be perfectly possible.
Whether or not specific planning permission should be required for the types of site to which this Amendment refers is, therefore, a matter which should be more properly considered in connection with the Order to amend the General Development Order than in the context of the Schedule to the Bill. But, in practice, the Minister would expect any organisation to which he gives certificates under paragraph 13 of the Schedule, to collaborate with the local planning authority over the location of any caravan sites they propose to establish. There will be no misunderstanding about this; it is already the practice of the Caravan Club to obtain the agreement of the planning authority before themselves opening a caravan site.
93 I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley said: that they often came to different conclusions. That seams to me to be absolutely right and wise. But the point I am making at the moment is that the Minister will expect them, and any other organisation that may apply for a certificate of exemption, to obtain the agreement of the planning authority as regards any new sites that may be established under paragraph 4 of the Schedule. By that method the object of the Amendment will be secured. In my submission to your Lordships that is the logical way of doing it. My noble friend Lord Gage asked, "Well, why not do it now?" But surely for once the onus is on my noble friend. If he is going to try to introduce into a licensing part of the Bill matters that affect planning permission, that is a most heavy onus to assume, because it is an illogical way of dealing with the matter. Surely one ought Ito deal with it under the changes in the General Order to which I have referred.
I use the other point to which my noble friend Lord Gage referred only as a make-weight in this matter; but it is a considerable make-weight, because if any further safeguard should be needed it will be found in paragraph 13 of the Schedule, which enables the Minister, on the application of the local planning authority, to withdraw the exemption in a particular area. Further, it will be noted that under paragraph 12 of the Schedule the organisation's certificate of exemption may itself be withdrawn at any time. Therefore there is no doubt that there will be ample safeguards against any possible abuse of the exemption; and I think I have demonstrated that they are real safeguards which exist positively. But I should like my noble friend to consider the argument that I have deployed on the planning permission. If he is still not satisfied, if he or the organisation of which he is a notable member and supporter will point out where the worry exists, I shall be very pleased, with my noble friend Lord Waldegrave and those who are helping us, to consider it again. But at the moment I am not putting forward the argument that the purpose is wrong: I am saying that the object of the Amendment will be secured by the method I have put before the House. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will 94 at any rate reconsider the matter and will not press his Amendment to-day.
VISCOUNT GAGEWe seem to run a rather irregular track in this debate. So often have I been told by the Government that they entirely agree with some object which other noble Lords or I have put forward, but that we are trying to do something in the wrong words or in the wrong place. In this case it is probably both—the wrong words and the wrong place. I apologise for that. It may be that those who advise me on this matter have overlooked that the proper place to amend this is in the General Development Order; although I do not know whether we could amend that Order.
As I have explained to my noble and learned friend—and it is a simple point—we feel that a caravan club ought to apply for planning consent. My noble and learned friend says he agrees with that, too. I then say that we should enact that they should do so. He says that it should be done in a different way, and I invite a suggestion on how it should be done. My noble and learned friend then says, "Why do you want to make such a bother about it?" And I may be told that in the long run it will all come right. I have no doubt that it will, but it seems a long way round. We have to wait until something happens again, upon which we make a complaint, and then action will be taken. It is difficult for the layman to understand why that elaboration should have to be gone through, but this is hardly the occasion for a battle with the Government and I must, of course, do as my noble and learned friend suggests. I do not think it is possible for Members of this House to suggest amendments to the General Development Order; I may be wrong. I am not satisfied with the position as my noble and learned friend has described it but I will reconsider the matter. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment by leave withdrawn.
§ [The Sitting was suspended at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at half past eight o'clock.]
§ VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSmoved to leave out paragraph 5. The noble Viscount said: Before the adjournment, the Committee were discussing, in 95 general terms, paragraph 4 of this Schedule, and I think that much of what was said applies also to paragraph 5. Under paragraph 5, an exempted organisation, whatever it may be, is able to remove from a site both planning and site-licensing control and may thereby enable the site to be used, as this Bill stands at the moment, for any sort of caravan for the twelve months of the year. I think, if I may anticipate slightly, that the addition which my noble friend Lord Waldegrave may move later on will do a lot to dispel any doubt about the use of the site for other than recreational purposes all the year round. However, the fact remains that, as this Schedule stands, any exempted organisation may certificate any number of sites all over the country and thereby remove from them all the controls of the local planning authorities and everybody else. We have no idea how many exempted organisations there are going to be; nor how many sites each of them is going to certificate. Nor have we any idea on what grounds they are going to choose to issue their certificate. Nor, further, is there anything in the paragraph which makes them supervise in any way the sites they have thus exempted. I do not think it is even clear, as the paragraph stands at present, that the sites so exempted are to be used only by their members. I think it is an arguable point. The second part of the paragraph looks to me as though it provides that a certificate may say that the land is to be used only by the members or that it has been approved for such use. I still do not think that that necessarily excludes those caravanners who are not members of the exempted organisation from using it.
§ Therefore I think the situation created by this paragraph is to free almost any number of sites all over the country from any control by the local authorities, and to free them also from any control by the exempted organisation itself, so that they may be used by any caravanner who comes along; although it is true that only five caravans at a time may be stationed on the site. The only sanctions that there are for this state of affairs, if anything should go wrong on one particular site, are either that the Minister should refuse, when it comes round to the annual review, his certificate 96 for the whole organisation—which is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut—or else he may, under paragraph 11 of this Schedule, arrange that the total exemption of paragraph 5 shall cease to apply to any particular area. And that, as I read it, means not only that the offending organisation will not be allowed to certificate in that area, but also that all other organisations will be precluded from doing so. And such being the case, I cannot see but that this goes much too far in allowing the whole trust and the whole reliance to be placed upon the good faith of the exempted organisation.
§ If this paragraph contained some such provision as that the exempted organisation must have some sort of supervision, even if it were only through the person who owned the land and who was appointed as their agent; and if it were laid down that only the members of the organisation might use the site; and if, moreover, under sub-paragraph (3), not only the Minister but also the local authorities and, I think, the public (possibly at a price), could get hold of the lists of these exempted sites, then the control might be strengthened. But, as it is, I feel that this paragraph goes much too far. Moreover, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has just told us of a change that is to come in the General Development Order. I do not exactly know what this is going to entail, and I should be grateful if he would explain a little further what he had in mind. But, as it is, I suggest to your Lordships that this paragraph requires considerable amendment if it is not going to pass into law and leave a situation which will become entirely unenforceable and uncontrollable. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 20, leave out paragraph 5.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
EARL WALDEGRAVEThis Amendment would remove the exemption in paragraph 5 of the First Schedule for sites approved and certified by organisations holding certificates of exemption from the Minister under paragraph 12 of the Schedule. This exemption serves, of course, an entirely different purpose from the exemption in paragraph 4 of the Schedule, which covers only sites directly occupied and managed by an 97 exempted organisation. There are very few such sites in existence at present, and I do not anticipate that there will ever be a very large number of them. But paragraph 5 is intended to cover a much larger number of smaller sites which are certified by an exempted organisation as being suitable for the use of its members while touring with their caravans.
The Caravan Club has for many years been operating a system of approved sites of this kind; and, like certain other recreational organisations, the club has held a certificate of exemption from the Minister under Section 269 of the Public Health Act, 1936. In consequence, these sites have hitherto enjoyed exemption from the licensing requirements of the Public Health Act, and they have also been exempt from the need to obtain specific planning permission by virtue of the Town and Country General Development Order, 1950. These exemptions have occasioned little or no complaint in the past, and the Government consider it only reasonable to provide for a corresponding exemption, subject to the necessary safeguards, in this Bill.
The exemption is not intended to benefit only the Caravan Club. Any other responsible recreational organisation which is prepared to exercise proper care in the choice of its sites, and to take steps to see that they are properly conducted, will also be able to apply for a certificate of exemption, and I think the noble Viscount who sits behind me can be quite satisfied that it will be only members of the certificated organisation who will be entitled to use these sites. I think the clause is conditional, and I shall be interested to hear whether it could be construed otherwise. There are ample safeguards in the fact that the certificates of approval under paragraph 5 will be renewable. They will be renewable from year to year: and that, surely, should be a guarantee of good conduct for each site. It is not a long-term certificate. It is renewable year by year; and my right honourable friend will be furnished with particulars of all the certificates issued, and he will know the number of sites to which exemption applies at any given time.
As for the Minister's power of control, the exemption in paragraph 5 is entirely dependent on the organisation itself holding a certificate from the Minister, 98 under paragraph 12; and such a certificate, of course, could be withdrawn at any time. Further, it is worth nothing that the Minister will have power, under paragraph 13, to withdraw this exemption in particular areas by order on the application of the local authorities. Therefore there will be effective means of controlling the use made of the exemption and of curtailing it if that should prove necessary in the light of experience. That being so we think that it would be unreasonable to condemn it at this stage on the ground that it will be too widely used, or used in some objectionable way. I hope that the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSIs the noble Earl not disposed to consider the suggestions I made towards modifying this? I apologise if I misled him. First of all, there should be some supervision by the exempted organisation on every site; and secondly, not only the Minister but also local authorities should have copies of these site lists.
EARL WALDEGRAVEOn the noble Viscount's second point, that local authorities should have copies of the list of sites, I certainly will consider that, because the associations will publish lists for the use of their members. But whether the Minister has to send these to the local authorities, or whether the local authorities will themselves take care to get these lists from the exempted organisations, is a matter to be looked into. On the point of supervision, I do not think I am prepared to consider requiring organisations to supervise these sites because that brings them into paragraph (4). These sites will be small; they will be chosen in agreement with the local authorities and, obviously, with the owners of the land; and they will have only an annual exemption. I should have thought that these organisations would see that their members used these sites reasonably and properly, because, if they become a nuisance, the local authority will press the Minister not to give an exemption the following year. I think that that is as far as we should go without putting too onerous a burden on the organisations whose sites we shall exempt.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSPerhaps the noble Earl could tell us a little more about the requirement that 99 they should co-operate with the local authority in acquiring these sites. This is the first I have heard of this as regards paragraph 5, although I understand that this is the case as regards paragraph 4.
EARL WALDEGRAVEI do not know what the noble Viscount means by co-operation with the local authority. The organisations will choose these sites and issue a list of them in their magazine, or whatever means they have of telling their members. If I gave the noble Viscount the impression that they have to go to the local authority before they choose these sites, I am sorry, because I do not think that that is so.
§ LORD BOSTONCan the local authority be made responsible for seeing that members of these clubs do not let their friends go there or sub-let their caravans on these sites? I feel that the exemption ought to be restricted to members.
§ 8.45 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVEI will certainly take care to look at that point. But these sites are really approved for the organisation, and the organisation is the corpus of its members. I cannot see why the organisation would want to bring in people other than its members. After all, other people are not going to pay the subscription to become members of the organisation. It will be remembered that there is a limit of five caravans on these sites—they are not big sites —and I should have thought that the organisation concerned would want the members to get the maximum benefit from membership of the organisation and from the exemptions that the organisation had got for its members, and one would expect the organisation on these small sites of five caravans only to restrict this privilege very much to its members.
VISCOUNT GAGEFor the sake of clarity, could my noble friend inform me where it states that the exempted sites are reserved for members of that organisation? If that is true, it seems to me that my next Amendment, on which the Government have a similar point to make, is unnecessary.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIt seems to me that in paragraph 5 (2) the condition is the certificate. It says: 100
For the purposes of this sub-paragraph an exempted organisation may issue as respects any land a certificate stating that the land has been approved by the exempted organisation for use by its members.It is on that certificate that the exemption works. I confess that it had not seemed to me that the organisation could issue a certificate which applied to people outside its own organisation. My noble friend and I will willingly have another look at that point, if my noble friend Lord Gage is in any doubt about it. I should not have thought that it affected the point covered by his next three Amendments and our Amendment No. 56. I am always anxious to satisfy my noble friend and I will willingly have another look at this, in case I have misread it.
§ LORD SILKINBroadly speaking, I support the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, in not accepting this Amendment, But the noble Viscount has expressed some fear that an individual site may not be well conducted, and obviously there cannot be individual supervision of each site by the exempted organisation. But is not the answer that, if such a thing should happen, when they come up again for their licence attention could be drawn to the fact that a particular site was not properly conducted, and either the licence in respect of that site could be withdrawn or the Minister could take any other action he thought fit? It seems to me that that is a complete safeguard against the inadvertent negligence, if that is not a contradiction in terms, of a responsible organisation.
EARL WALDEGRAVEI think the noble Lord has put it very clearly and fairly, and I entirely agree with what he said. May I say one more word upon this exemption and about members? Looking at sub-paragraph (2) I should have doubted—although my noble and learned friend has said in his usual generous way that he will look at this point again—whether there can be any two meanings of it. I will quote what it says:
For the purposes of this paragraph an exempted organisation may issue as respects any land a certificate stating that the land has been approved by the exempted organisation for use by its members.I should have thought that that was as clear as could be.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSI am grateful to my noble friends in front of me, and I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for saying that he will look at this point again. I am not quite satisfied that the "use by its members" does not apply only to the approval and not to use of the land. If it is in fact the intention of Her Majesty's Government that this should be so, and that the site should be used only by the members, at least that is one difficulty which has been removed. Furthermore, I am delighted to hear the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, say that the local authority will have, by one means or another, a full list of all its sites. As regards the supervision, I am not at all in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that it would be beyond the ability of an exempted organisation to see that somebody, even if only the landowner in his own interests, supervised this property. However, this matter has been clarified, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT GAGEmoved, in paragraph 5 (1), after "caravan site" to insert "for purposes of recreation". The noble Viscount said: This and the next Amendment deal with the same principle my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has already raised: that is, the real effect of these exemptions by the Caravan Club of sites for which it is not definitely responsible for supervision. What the County Councils Association fear is that a farmer who has on his property a site exempted by the Caravan Club may permit (I am sure, contrary to the intention of the Caravan Club) a caravan of an entirely different description from that contemplated by the licence. That is to say, he may permit a permanent caravan. It is contrary to the terms of the licence, but your Lordships will see that if that farmer is attacked by the local authority for having on his land an unlicensed permanent caravan for which no licence or planning consent has been given, all he has to do is to produce a certificate of exemption and he can quite clearly show that he is outside the control of the local authorities.
§ I think the Government accept that point, because they have introduced an Amendment dealing with it, but dealing 102 with it in rather a different way. That is what is slightly confusing me about the interpretation placed on this clause by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I have no doubt that technically it is quite correct that this exemption is supposed to apply only in favour of members of that organisation, but it is difficult to ensure that that is so. We in the County Councils Association think that if we can see that a man is abusing his position and the terms of this exemption by permitting permanent caravans, we should have power to prosecute him.
§ I do not know if I am in order in referring to the Government Amendment a little later on.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI hope that my noble friend will do so, because obviously the Amendments all cover the same subject. They will have to be put separately, but it will be convenient to us if he will discuss them together.
VISCOUNT GAGEI am much obliged. The Government take this point that there may be abuse, and they agree that it ought to be rectified. They agree that these sites ought to be kept for recreational caravans and for the members of those organisations that cater only for recreational caravans. But their argument seems to be that again it is a matter for complaint to the Caravan Club who will take up the matter. If I may say so, we seem to be going about things in a rather roundabout way. The local authority see the stationary caravan; they complain to the Minister about it; the Minister complains to the Caravan Club; the Caravan Club complains to the farmer. And after everybody has complained to everybody else, the offending farmer finds that his site is on longer exempted by the Caravan Club certificate, and he is then open to prosecution by the local authority. We feel that it would not be unreasonable to make it quite clear to the farmer that if he permits his site to be used for the purpose of permanent caravans—in other words, if he allows his site to be occupied after a certain date in the year —he is liable to prosecution, and we cannot see anything difficult or unreasonable about it. I have not heard the Government's reasons for their Amendment: I am only pointing out that they 103 themselves acknowledge that this privilege can be abused. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 21, after ("caravan site") insert ("for purposes of recreation").—(Viscount Gage.)
EARL WALDEGRAVEI think it will be most convenient, if your Lordships will permit me, if I speak to my Amendment No. 56, because this Amendment, as the noble Viscount says, is dealing with the same point. We put this Amendment forward as an alternative to Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. Paragraph 5 of the Schedule provides an exemption for caravan sites approved for the use of its members by an organisation holding a certificate of exemption from the Minister under paragraph 12 of the Schedule. If we turn to paragraph 12 of the Schedule, it will be seen that the Minister may grant certificates of exemption only to organisations whose "objects include the encouragement or promotion of recreational activities". It is certainly the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the exemption in paragraph 5 should cover only sites used for recreational purposes, as distinct from permanent residential, commercial sites.
It may be thought desirable—and the noble Viscount probably does think it desirable—that we should clarify this and make it clearer than it seems to me to be already. The insertion of the words, "for the purposes of recreation". in paragraph 5 (1), which is the noble Viscount's Amendment, would be open to certain objections. The effect would be to place the onus of compliance upon the occupier of the land, who will usually be a farmer. He would be responsible for seeing that the caravans on the land were, in fact, used only for the purpose of recreation, and for no other purpose; and he would be at risk of prosecution under Clause I of the Bill for allowing his site to be used as a caravan site without a licence if he failed to do so. It would hardly seem right to put this burden on the occupier of the land, and in practice it would not make for very effective control.
We think that the purpose would be much better secured by inserting at the end of paragraph 5 (2) the words "for 104 the purposes of recreation." That would put the responsibility where it should properly belong— namely, on the organisation which approved the sites in the first place; and they would be able to approve sites for recreational uses only. The effect would be to give the exemption as a whole the right "recreational flavour", if that is the right way to put it. If it is suggested by anybody that this does not really go far enough, and that a site approved for recreation may still be used for some other purpose, the answer lies in the fact that under paragraph 5 (4), the exemption will again depend on the annual certificate for each site. If it were ever found that one of these sites was being used for some purpose other than recreation—which would be made so much clearer if my Amendment is accepted—that could be brought to the notice of the organisation concerned, and the site would clearly be in danger of not having its certificate renewed. I ask your Lordships to consider very carefully whether this Amendment No. 56 that we are proposing does not cover the point better than the two Amendments to which the noble Viscount was speaking a moment ago.
VISCOUNT GAGEI have but few comments to make on what my noble friend has said. The first is that he knows sufficient about farmers—more than I do—to know that they are not quite such simple folk as he, in his local capacity, as opposed to his agricultural capacity, would have us believe. I think they are perfectly capable of knowing when they have done wrong in permitting a site which was licensed for recreation to be used as a permanent caravan site. I do not think there would be any trouble about that. It is hardly a matter for which one would go to the stake. It seems to me that in this matter the Government delight in going about things in the most roundabout possible way. They get to the same point as the County Councils Association wish them to get to, but by a most devious route. However, it is no use my pressing this point. I think that we in the County Councils Association are probably right. I shall just have to leave it there. I am grateful that the Government have gone as far as they have done, because they do recognise that once an owner has an exemption, it is 105 no use the local authority trying to proceed against him at all.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 9.4 p.m.
§
VISCOUNT GAGE had given notice of his intention to move to add to subparagraph (1):
Provided that this paragraph shall not apply in relation to land allocated for Green Belt purposes in a development plan approved under the Act of 1947 or designated a National Park or an area of outstanding natural beauty or scientific interest under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, unless any planning permission required under the Act of 1947 has been granted by the local planning authority on consideration of an application in that behalf or by the Minister on appeal or is deemed to have been granted under section sixteen of this Act.
§ The noble Viscount said: This is an adaptation of a previous Amendment that I moved on caravan sites in the Green Belt and National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. That Amendment was concerned with the larger sites of the Caravan Club, not only licensed but taken full responsibility for. This is an adaptation of that principle in regard to smaller unsupervised sites. The County Councils Association think that these sites, even more if they do not have the immediate supervision of the Caravan Club, ought to be subject to planning control. But I have agreed to withdraw on the other point, and it would be only correct, therefore, that I should withdraw on this subsequent point, on the understanding that we may have some further conversation about it. I do not move this Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 29, at end insert ("for the purposes of recreation").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD SILKINmoved to leave out paragraph 11. The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. It raises the question whether a local authority owning and managing a caravan site should be required to hold a licence. I concede straight away that there is something anomalous in a local authority, who are themselves a licensing authority, having to grant a licence to themselves. On the other hand, as the noble Earl knows from his experience of local 106 authorities, in practice it is not really an anomaly. There will be a committee which is concerned with the granting of licences and they will consider the application of the authority in the same way as any other; and there would be the advantage that the licensing committee of the council would be in a position to ensure that the standards of the local authority were at least as good as those they required of other people.
§ I believe that most local authorities would rather not be exempt. It puts them in the difficult position of being placed above the law; and in my view it is a bad piece of public relations if it can be suggested that everyone else has to get a licence but not the local authority themselves. And there is a danger of the local authority being more generous to themselves than they would be to other people. If it should be suggested that there would be any difficulty about the local authority's having to grant a licence to themselves, I may say that I do not myself visualise that difficulty. I was for a great many years—almost a whole generation— a member of a large local authority and I was well aware (and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will agree with me here) that committees of large authorities, and of smaller ones, act independently. There is no reason at all to believe that a committee of a council which made recommendations to the council on the suitability of a particular site would not act perfectly judicially, exercise careful discretion and make their recommendation in a perfectlybona fidemanner.
§ There is the other point: that whereas the ordinary site developer will have to exhibit a licence on the site, the local authority will not have to do so, because they will not have a licence. Obviously if the principle of my argument is accepted this paragraph will have to go, and something might be put in its place. might even suggest that if the Committee accept the principle that a local authority must have a licence, like anybody else, in their case the licensing authority might be some other authority, like the county council; although, frankly, I see some difficulty in the case of a county borough. We certainly could not expect a county borough to go to the county council for a licence. But I should be perfectly prepared to trust the county borough and the rural district 107 council, or whoever are the appropriate authority responsible for caravan licences. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be received with sympathy. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 30, leave out paragraph 11.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVEThe Amendment is certainly received with sympathy, and I want to look at it very carefully. I do not think I can quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who said he did not think that the position of the licensing authority and the issuing authority being one would be anomalous. I believe that, as the noble Lord indicated, there would be certain anomalies. If we can get round the difficulty he is in, in any other way, I should much prefer it, because we could get into a rather extraordinary position if we had the local authority issuing a licence to itself and appealing against it, and so on, even though it might be two committees in the local authority which deal with that. The noble Lord said two committees; but, of course, it might be that it would Abe the same committee of the local authority which would be managing the sites and issuing the licences.
Be that as it may, I was more impressed with the noble Lord's argument to the effect that, whereas private site operators will be required by Clause 4 (4) of the Bill to display copies of their licences, since the local authority does not have a licence of course it cannot display it, and there will be no corresponding obligation on the local authority and there should be at least something to indicate to the caravanners on a site what equipment and facilities they are entitled to. I appreciate that point of the noble Lord, and I am grateful to him for having raised it. I do not think it is really necessary—otherwise we should have put it in the Bill originally —because when providing their own sites local authorities will be required, by Clause 21 (2), to have regard to the model standards just as when licensing other people's sites. I think it is worth remembering that in the Arton Wilson Report, paragraph 134, Sir Arton Wilson said:
The local authority sites are well above average as regards the scale and quality of 108 their basic facilities. And it appears that some of the new local authority sites which are now being developed are being planned for a high standard of long-term amenity as well.I do not think we need have fears on this score, therefore, but I agree that if we could do something to help the noble Lord here it would be good. The model standards will be published, and any caravanner will be able to get a copy if he wishes; and if he thought the equipment on his site was in some way falling short of the model standards he would be perfectly entitled to ask the local authority for an explanation.But the chief purpose of the requirement in Clause 4 (4) is that people should know that the site is a licensed site, so that they can bring their caravans on to it without fear of finding the site closed down later. I think this is a good point that we must take into consideration. If no notice were displayed the sites might conceivably be suspect in the eyes of the caravanner. I should like to look at this point again. I do not think that we shall have to come back with any words to put in the Bill to deal with it. I would put it to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that we can deal with this point shortly by my right honourable friend bringing to the notice of the local authorities, in the circular which he will be issuing about this Bill, the points which we have just been making in this discussion; that it would be right for them to put up some notice to say, "This is a local authority site. The standards are according to the model standards", so that the caravanner going on to the site will find some sort of notice, which he has been accustomed to find on privately operated sites. If the noble Lord will leave it at that for the moment, I would rather deal with the matter in that way than leave out paragraph 11, as he suggests.
§ LORD SILKINI will certainly withdraw the Amendment, but I should be grateful if, when the noble Earl is considering this matter, he would consider also not only the point about the exhibition of something equivalent to a licence, but the fact that, whereas other people who apply for a licence may have conditions imposed upon them apart altogether from having to comply with the model standards, a local authority need not. In that sense, the conditions which they permit themselves, even though they 109 might comply with the general model laid down by the Ministry, may be lower than those of private developers. In any case, they ought not to be allowed to judge for themselves. I do not want to develop this matter at any length, but I am sure the noble Earl understands my point. A requirement in the licence may relate to something about planting trees, and that sort of thing. We had some argument about that last week. The local authority can impose that kind of condition on others: it may be equally desirable that it should obtain in the case of a local authority site. If the noble Earl would look at the whole thing from that angle, I should be very willing to withdraw the Amendment, and perhaps we could consider the subject again on Report stage.
§ LORD SILKINI beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ 9.17 p.m.
§ EARL WALDEGRAVEmoved, after the First. Schedule to insert the following new Schedule—