HL Deb 25 June 1963 vol 251 cc133-251

2.52 p.m.

Further considered on Report (according to Order).

Clause 9 [General duty of Greater London Council with respect to road traffic and abolition of London Traffic Area and Traffic Advisory Committee]:

LORD SHEPHERD

moved, in subsection (2)(ii) after "10(2)(b)," to insert "10(8)". 'The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 67. This could in some ways be regarded as a drafting Amendment, and it is in that sense that I wish to move it. Clause 9, subsection (2), sets out a number of powers that the Minister of Transport is adopting or retaining from previous legislation, and it is quite clear from the warding of that part of the clause that these powers would be used only as a last resort. Under Clause 10, subsection (8), we have the position that the Greater London Council and the Minister of Transport will have concurrent powers in relation to speed limits on roads other than restricted roads in the Greater London area. Now during the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, indicated that it was the Minister's intention that this particular power, contained in Clause 10(8), should be a reserve power. He said, on May 16, in column 1501 of the OFFICIAL REPORT [Vol. 249 (No. 85)]: The idea is—and I am happy to give the noble Lord the assurance he seeks—that this is intended to be entirely a reserve power … It is true that he goes on to give reasons why this particular part of the Bill should not be included with other reserve powers; but I shall later be moving an Amendment to retain the present position of the Minister.

I feel, in the interests of the Greater London Council, and also, I think, of the Minister of Transport, that since there are these particular powers in relation to roads inside the Greater London area, for which the authority will be the traffic authority, the powers should be clearly indicated and clearly defined as reserve powers. If there is any purpose in applying the definition of "reserve powers" to various provisions of the Bill, I should have thought that this would apply equally, using the words of the noble Lord, Lard Chesham, that it is the Minis- ter's intention that they should be reserve powers, to seeing that there is uniformity, and that Clause 10(8) should then be included in that part of Clause 9(2). With those few words, I commend this Amendment to your Lordships' House.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 14, after ("10(2)(b),") insert ("10(8)").—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, the noble Lord, I am sure, will understand if I deal with his proposed Amendment under two heads. I hope he will not think I am trying to be derogatory in any way when I deal with the Amendment on its individual merit first, because the unhappy position is that, were I to accept this Amendment, it would in fact not mean anything, simply because the Minister does not derive any powers from Clause 10, subsection (8). The reference to his powers in that subsection is purely to draw the attention of anyone who may be reading the Bill to that fact. So to that extent the Amendment on its own, if it were inserted in the Bill, would in fact be of no effect at all. If it was inserted, it would perhaps be, in a sense, confusing, indicating to someone who was studying the Bill that the Minister's power was subject to Clause 9, whereas in fact it would not be. Therefore, I do not think that is quite right.

I do not want to make a long story or heavy weather of this matter, but I think I should remind the noble Lord and your Lordships of the argument that I used before: that this is not a matter of uniformity of power for its own sake. The object of the Minister's having overall control of speed limits throughout the country is to try to achieve uniformity of application of speed limits everywhere. There has been, your Lordships will recall, a great deal of criticism as to the application of speed limits throughout the country. During the passage of what is now the Road Traffic Act, many of your Lordships called attention to the desirability of having speed limits properly organised, and it is in the interest of this that I think it is desirable for the Minister to retain the power. I think that must be right, and I hope that, if I repeat the assurance that subject to that, the intention is definitely that this power should be used as a reserve power, the noble Lord will not then wish to press this Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—I put it that way because he may want to reply to this point—I would point out that he said he wishes to see uniformity throughout the country. That is a point which we would not dispute. But, we are setting up the Greater London Council as the traffic authority, and if the Minister were to use this reserve power we should then assume that he would be using it contrary to the wishes of the Greater London Council, because in this particular case the Greater London Council would have concurrent powers. Therefore, if the Minister were exercising this power, we would assume it was only because the Greater London Council were not willing to make the particular order. If we had a case where we wanted to see uniformity, and if it were at variance to the advice and wishes of the traffic authority, are we to understand that in that case, in order to obtain unformity, although it would be against the advice of the Greater London Council, the Minister of Transport would, in spite of that, exercise this power?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I think it is perfectly right, particularly in view of the strong volume of opinion I know to exist on this matter, that the Minister ought to have the ultimate authority. I know that the Greater London Council will be a very large and, indeed, very responsible authority; but, all the same, it remains only one of a number of authorities in this country, and the Minister should have this ultimate sanction, even though, as is quite possible, it may never be used.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, there is one further point—I am sorry to keep jumping up. Am I to understand that the Minister could make this order without having to come and lay the order before this House?

LORD CHESHAM

Yes, my Lords, I think that is correct.

LORD SHEPHERD

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.0 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION moved, after subsection (2) to insert: () If it appears to the Council that any action taken by the Minister of Transport under any of the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the preceding subsection is detrimental to the Greater London Development Plan, the Council may apply to the Minister of Housing and Local Government for a public local inquiry into such action and that Minister shall either hold an inquiry accordingly or certify to the Council that in his opinion the public interest requires that no such inquiry be held. The noble Lord said: Subsection (2) of Clause 9 places upon the Greater London Council the duties of traffic regulation and, jointly with the Minister of Transport, the initiation of experimental traffic schemes in Greater London together with other matters contained in Clauses 10 to 19 of this Part of the Bill. It also restricts the power of the Minister to give to the Council a direction under subsection (2)(c)(i) or to exercise his power under paragraph (c)(ii) of this subsection unless he is satisfied, having regard to any matters appearing to him to be relevant, that the Council's duty aforesaid is not being satisfactorily discharged by the Council and that it is necessary for him to do so in order to secure compliance with that duty. Our Amendment visualises the possibility of disagreement arising between the Council and the Minister on whether or not any direction given by the Minister offends against the development plan adopted by the Greater London Council. I cannot imagine that this direction visualised by the Minister will have to be given very often, if indeed at all.

I certainly hope that such a direction would not be given, for I believe that it is unlikely that the council will fail satisfactorily to discharge their duties to such an extent as to cause the Minister to give any such direction. Most of the differences between the Minister and the Greater London Council about the exercise of the Council's functions under this and other clauses of this Bill will, between a sensible Minister and a sensible Greater London Council, be ironed out as a result of discussion between the Minister and the Council. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, himself said on Committee stage much the same as I am saying now in this connection; but the Minister's reserve power is included in this clause to meet the event of such a disagreement not being removed as a result of discussion. That is the reason, I take it, for the inclusion of these powers for the Minister of Transport. Such a disagreement would take place only in the circumstances in which both Minister and the Council felt 'they were disagreeing on a major principle. Those would be the only circumstances in which the Minister would be expected, and would expect, to have to use his powers.

It seems to us that, in the event of such a disagreement taking place on a matter affecting the Greater London development plan, this ought to be finally resolved, not by the Minister of Transport himself giving a direction under this subsection (2)(c)(ii), but rather by reference to the Minister of Housing and Local Government; and that he should, as a result of its being referred to him, hold a public inquiry at which all the bodies interested could appear and the inspector could make a recommendation. We put this point on the Committee stage and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred quite rightly to the concept of the corporate responsibility of the Cabinet. He asked, "What would happen if the Minister of Housing and Local Government held an inquiry under the terms of the Amendment? What would happen as a result of that inquiry? Is the Minister of Transport then to be overruled by the Minister of Housing and Local Government?"

I must admit that I thought that was a fair question put to the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in reply to our Amendment. But my reply to his question is that the Minister of Housing and Local Government would merely be asked to act as an arbitrator between the Minister of Transport, on the one hand and the Greater London Council, on the other. The Greater London Council in this regard has a dual function and capacity, that of being the initiator of the London development plan, on the one hand, and having traffic regulation powers, on the other; while the Minister of Transport has the sole function in this connection of traffic only.

To act as arbitrator only after both the Minister of Transport and the other interested bodies have deployed their arguments before a public inquiry, would not appear to us to be out of place and would not offend the concept which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, put before the Committee at Committee stage. I should have thought there was nothing particularly new about any Ministry's officers appearing before a local inquiry and putting the Minister's point of view to that inquiry. If it has not been done in the past, I can see no reason why it should not be done under the procedure that we set out in the Amendment. I hope that in the interval between the Committee stage and this Report stage the Minister has had another look and will be prepared to accept the Amendment which I am now moving. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 21, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Champion.)

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS)

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, will I hope be glad to hear that in the interval he has referred to the Minister has had another look at this matter and considered it and, as I hope to explain to the noble Lord, has found that this Amendment is in our opinion not necessary. The noble Lord himself said that this event is most unlikely to happen and it would occur only in absolutely fundamental disagreement in which the Minister of Transport felt it necessary to exercise his reserve powers after all forms of consultation had broken down. But then we come to the difficulty which the noble Lord put forward and which I made my main argument in Committee stage, that there would be a duty put upon the Minister of Housing and Local Government, if he is required by the Greater London Council, to hold a public inquiry into the actions of the Minister of Transport; and, however the noble Lord wraps it up, it is very difficult to get away from the fact that there would simply be a tension and a conflict between two Ministers of the Crown, both being also Members of the Cabinet.

What the noble Lord is in fact talking about is the question of administration. If the Minister of Transport were to exercise his reserve powers, or if he were thinking of doing so, in a way which might affect the Greater London development plan there would certainly be consultation at the official level between his Department and that of my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government; and the matter should be smoothed over at that stage. If it were not so smoothed over it would mean there had been a breakdown in the usual liaison which, as noble Lords opposite knew very well goes on in Whitehall circles. If, however, that which I think is unlikely should happen, I think the whole matter can again be looked after in an administrative sense. But I would direct the noble Lord's attention to Clause 87. Subsection (1) says: Any Minister may cause a local inquiry to be held for the purpose of any of his functions under this Act in any case where there is no duty and no power apart from this section to hold an inquiry. So that, if the worst came to the worst, and the duties of the Minister of Housing and Local Government were affected by the sort of action the noble Lord envisages, he could ask for a public inquiry.

I do not think that that is ever likely to happen: it would certainly be undesirable. I imagine that any difficulty could be smoothed out administratively between the Departments concerned; but, as I say, if anything went wrong, a public inquiry could be held under this clause. Therefore, I contend that it would be undesirable to insert this Amendment, which puts an actual duty on both the G.L.C. and the Minister of Housing, when the matter could be dealt with administratively and, in the last resort, without undue fuss under Clause 87. There is nothing to prevent the G.L.C. from applying to the Minister, without special instruction to do so. They can always make their complaints and no doubt will do so, if they feel it necessary. I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that his Amendment is not necessary.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I think that between Committee stage and Report, the Minister has "done his homework", and has improved upon the reply he gave me on Committee. We hear from him that inevitably there would be consultation between the two Ministers. I notice that my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth sotto voce expressed some doubt about the present Government in this connection, but I accept from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that this matter can be dealt with in the way he suggested. I accept completely the explanation he has given and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, assuming that the noble Lord opposite will go through with Amendment No. 69A, I do not propose to move No. 69.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, for taking that reasonable view, and I hasten to assure him that I have every intention of going ahead with the Amendment in my name. After the debate on the last occasion, we considered carefully what had been said by the noble Lord and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and my noble friend Lord Conesford. We felt that it was not sufficient to leave the G.L.C. completely alone, to set up an organisation to perform a function which The Times has rightly described as the biggest and most urgent challenge with which the new Council will be presented. Furthermore, it is a function which has never previously been performed by a local authority in London. Since 1924, it has been the function of the Minister of Transport, who, because of his long experience, and the fact that traffic problems have shown up earlier and more severely in London than elsewhere, has learned the importance of traffic management techniques. That is not always generally realised, as one sees from the small number of local authorities over the country who have sections practising traffic engineering techniques. Though the G.L.C. will be a big authority, it will none the less still be a local authority. It may be that its size is another good reason why it should benefit from the advice and experience which the Minister has to give. I think that the Minister would be failing in his duty if he did not give the G.L.C. the benefit of his advice and try to do whatever he can to see them away on this large task. The more assistance he can give, stopping short of anything like the compulsion to which noble Lords objected on Committee, the more likely they are to avoid mistakes. This makes it all the more unlikely that the Minister will have to use his reserve powers to put them right. I hope that I am right in thinking that there is a good deal of practical merit in doing it this way. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 23, leave out from beginning to second ("the") in line 24 and insert ("consult with the Minister of Transport with regard to the administrative arrangements to be made by the Council for")—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, this Amendment is an improvement on the text of the Bill, which requires the arrangements to be made "to the satisfaction of the Minister of Transport". We regarded this as derogatory to the principle of local self-government. The Amendment requires that the G.L.C. shall consult with the Minister as to the arrangements to be made, but, as the noble Lord said, the Council has the last word. But the best thing is that the two sides should try to agree with one another. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Minister of Transport, in the course of exercising the enormous powers that he has, especially in Greater London, had realised the importance of these functions. I quite agree. He has also realised, to quote the title of one of Oscar Wilde's plays, "The importance of being earnest."

A great deal of publicity has gone along with the exercise of these powers. I understand the need for them, because of the various highway authorities, but I have never liked this principle of conferring upon a Minister all the powers of traffic regulation and a great many highway powers, which has occurred in the Greater London area much more than in provincial cities. I must admit that it started in 1924, under the minority Labour Government, when my late friend Mr. Harry Gosling was Minister of Transport and when, under the London Traffic Act, there was set up a Traffic Advisory Committee representative of the local authorities, with the final word with the Minister. It meant that the civil servants who advised the Minister were also the civil servants who advised the Advisory Committee, so it was a little bit of a farce. But since then, especially under the present Minister of Transport, the Minister's powers have increased enormously.

I have already described the situation as converting London into something like a Crown Colony, an area which is governed not by its local councils but by a Minister in Whitehall. But this Amendment which has been moved by the Parliamentary Secretary is a material improve- ment on the Bill as it stands. I agree that the Minister can give the Council a good deal of advice and aid, arising out of his experience, and it will be up to both him and the Council to be reasonable. I do not see any reason why, in the end, they should not agree. Anyway, this is a much better situation than requiring them to submit proposals to the satisfaction of the Minister. This leaves the situation open for discussion between equals, leaving the last word with the local authority, though I have no doubt that they will be able amicably to settle the matter, provided the Minister is reasonable and does not try to dominate them or dictate to them. I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for tabling this Amendment, which has enabled me not to move mine, and I hope that the House will accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 [Traffic regulation in Greater London]:

3.22 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "made by statutory instrument instead of by". The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I was reading the Bill in the early stages I was rather intrigued with the words which I seek, in the first instance, the delete from the Bill. Referring to the powers of the Minister of Transport under Section 34, subsection (2) says that they shall be exercisable by order made by statutory instrument instead of by regulations … In the first instance, I was told that there was little significance in these words. I received a full letter from the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for which I am grateful, and it is now obvious that these words mean quite an important change from the law as it at present stands. Under Section 34 of the Road Transport Act, 1960, the Minister may make orders and regulations, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament. What is proposed by the Government's wording in this Bill is that the Minister may make orders, following the Road Traffic Act, 1960, but will not have to lay them before Parliament. Therefore, in regard to London we have a change in the position, in that the Minister will be able to make a number of orders without seeking Parliament's approval for them, as he must at the present time.

I would refer your Lordships to Clause 10(1). That says that: … the Greater London Council … may by order make provisions for controlling vehicular and other traffic (including foot passengers) on roads in Greater London, being—

  1. (a) roads other than trunk roads; or
  2. (b) trunk roads with respect to which the Minister of Transport has consented to the making of the order …"
transferring responsibility to the Greater London Council. Right through the procedure of the Bill the Government have made it one of their main planks that we should have a local authority of a size and importance, and with such facilities, as would enable it to undertake the strategic traffic planning of the main highways in and around London. We on this side of the House have always recognised that something special had to be done in London. Obviously there must be an authority with the power to act, but it should be an authority that is subject to some form of democratic control.

In the case of the Greater London Council it is clear (though it has been deleted from the Bill) that the Minister has in mind—and I do not think we should disagree—that there should be some senior executive within the Council responsible for traffic—and whether he is to be a director of traffic, or otherwise, we will not quibble. He would be a person upon whom the main responsibility would lie. He would be required from time to time to make orders, perhaps, in the first case, temporary, and perhaps in many cases of a permanent nature. That executive would have to obtain the approval of the Greater London Council, with its 100 members, who will have to seek every three years the support and authority of an electorate from what is a Parliamentary constituency. Therefore, we have what can be recognised as a highly democratic local government: we have an executive answerable to an elected local authority, and control over the executive.

If your Lordships look at Clause 10(2) you will find that the Minister of Transport will have power, first of all, in respect of trunk roads in Greater London —and I would not question that, because this is a responsibility that the Minister wishes to retain in the first instance. But under paragraph (b) he takes power for the revocation or variation, after giving notice to the Council and, if he thinks fit, after holding a public inquiry, of any order by the Council under subsection (1) of this section". In other words, when this executive of the Greater London Council has made an order, and it has been approved by the 100 elected members of the Council which the Government are setting up, the Minister, according to the Bill, can revoke and vary without in any way being answerable to either House of Parliament. I suggest that this is wrong, and it is not our conception of democratic government.

What I propose is to delete the words referred to in my Amendment No. 70, and to insert in the appropriate place the new subsection in my Amendment No. 70B. This would mean that any order or direction made by the Ministry of Transport under subsections (2) to (7) would be made or given by statutory instrument, and would be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I should like to stress again this important fact. You have perhaps two executives—the director of traffic in the Greater London Council and the Minister of Transport. In the case of the director of traffic, he requires the support, approval and authority of the Greater London Council; but in the case of the Minister, he can revoke and vary the orders that have been made by this new elected authority without having to come to the Houses of Parliament for approval. I suggest that that is not right and it is not the basis of good local government. If the Minister is to use his powers (I do not believe that he would use them a great deal; hut, whether he does or not, the principle is there), and if he is to instruct in a way that is at variance with the decision of the elected democratic local government of London, then I maintain that he should require the authority of both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 29, leave out from ("order") to ("and") in line 30.—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, again the noble Lord will understand if I do not devote any time to what I am advised is a drafting defect in the Amendment, because it is the principle of the Amendment to which we should devote ourselves. The way I think one has to look at it is that it is now accepted that traffic regulation is essentially a matter for local government. That, to a certain extent, was the gist of the noble Lord's speech. That has certainly been the case outside London, and under this Bill there will be what amounts to a local authority responsible in London, subject to the retention of certain reserve powers by the Minister.

I suppose it must be true to say, regarding anything for which the Minister is directly responsible, for which he is to an extent answerable to Parliament, that the Government take the view that on the whole Parliament should not be troubled with the detail of specialised technical matters connected with what is really a minor Ministerial power, especially when the Bill lays down, as it does in the clause quoted by the noble Lord, criteria for the exercise of the power. I am talking about Clause 9(2). It is true that regulations at present made by the Minister are laid before Parliament and are subject to Negative Resolution. I cannot trace that anyone has ever prayed against them. I cannot prove that, but they certainly have not in recent years.

If the noble Lord will forgive me for being a little long, I think it is rather important to deal in some detail with the important matter that he has raised. To start with, I think it must be implicit that, if you hand over functions from a Minister of the Crown to a local authority, Parliament loses a measure of control which it had before. By the handing over of functions from the Minister to the G.L.C., that control will in fact be lost on many roads in London. I think everyone is quite happy about that. In addition, I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he accepted the position so far as it exists in respect of trunk roads, because that is not a very big problem. As we discussed last time, it is not expected that there will be a large mileage in the area.

Could we look, then, rather specifically at what is left, and take the points one by one? First of all, may I take that to which the noble Lord called our attention in subsection (2)(b)? That is the power to revoke or vary orders which the G.L.C. may make. The power the Minister has to vary or revoke those orders is the same under this Bill as he has always had to revoke or vary orders made by traffic authorities outside London. The reason why he has that power results mainly from the need to protect third parties against some of the effects of traffic schemes that might crop up. The kind of thing I mean is the effect of loading restrictions on trade; one-way schemes on bus routes; of heavy traffic on amenity; of busy traffic on safety, and of waiting restrictions on frontagers. The Minister has seldom had to use his power outside London, and when he has he has done it by means of making an order which is not laid before Parliament. I do not see that there are strong grounds for a difference between the situation inside and outside London. It is in no way to be interpreted as being derogatory to the authority that he should be able to do it himself, and nobody wishes in any shape or form to use a power which is, in the words of my noble friend Lord Conesford, "insulting the authority". Far from it. What we are trying to do is to get the situation right.

Now we come to the next power, which is to be found in subsection (7)(b); that is, the power to direct the G.L.C. not to make an order or kind of order. In principle that goes no wider than the power to revoke or vary. But it seems sensible that the Minister should be able beforehand to prevent an order from being made, rather than have to mess about trying to undo it afterwards, and should be able to prescribe in advance the types or features of orders which would be objectionable. I have in mind such things as orders which did not give the police adequate discretion, or an order that gave privileges too widely, perhaps not only to disabled persons and some doctors, but extended to residents, or even councillors. It seems more sensible that the nature of the order should be laid down in advance, rather than the Minister's having to revoke or vary a series of orders individually. I do not see that the grounds for direct Parliamentary control in that respect are any stronger than in the case of revoking or varying orders.

I come next to the power in subsection (7)(a), the power to direct the G.L.C. to make a particular order. That is a somewhat different power, but the Minister will require it when he needs to be able to intervene, perhaps on the representations of a London borough or of the police; when he needs to see that something is done in the national interest if it happens to conflict with the regional interest—I have in mind such things as lorry routes, which are of considerable importance—or perhaps when he needs to carry out an experiment in connection with his national responsibility for road safety. Those, again, seem to me to be questions of detail which the Minister ought to be able to handle without having to go to Parliament for them. I think it is even possible that, if there were to be provision for the Negative Resolution procedure, it might be a source of considerable delay and some uncertainty, because a statutory instrument under that procedure is not positively secure until 40 days after it has been laid. If the Minister found it necessary to act during a Recess, the 40 days would not begin until after Parliament resumed. In the meantime, the matter would probably be left in abeyance, which would not be desirable.

There is in subsection (2)(c) the power to make an order in the event of the default of the G.L.C. and their failure to comply with a direction to make an order. This is a purely ancillary power, intended to make sure that the G.L.C., simply by refusing to comply with a direction, do not bring the Minister to a halt. This is very much a "last ditch" power. Finally, in subsection (7) there is the power to direct the G.L.C. as to procedure. This again is similar to the Minister's power to direct local authorities outside London as to the procedure they shall follow when they make their traffic orders. It would be used if necessary in London, as it has been used outside, in such matters as

requiring adequate public notice to be given of the introduction of schemes and to consult people before the order is made.

I feel that this is not a range of activities which need necesarily be brought directly under Parliamentary control. I am afraid that I have been a little long on this Amendment, but it is difficult to be shorter and to cover the ground. Perhaps, in view of what I have said, the noble Lord may agree that his Amendment is, as I think, unnecessary.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, I thought my noble friend Lord Shepherd made a strong case for the Amendment that he has moved, and the Parliamentary Secretary has gone in some direction, rather to the point of principle, of making a case for the repeal of the Statutory Instruments Act, because some of these things are really of some importance. Moreover, the Minister has power to undo what the Greater London Council have done, to direct them to undo it, and, if they do not, to make a regulation to compel them to do so. He may be right, but it is a serious thing, and the Greater London Council and the people of London have a right, I should have thought, in that case to go to Parliament and ask their Members of Parliament—I should say, Members of the other place because we do not interfere in these things, although we could—whereby the House of Commons would pray to Her Majesty to annul the order or regulation, as the case may be. Therefore, although the Parliamentary Secretary has put his case persuasively, as he usually does, I do not think he has made a case against this Amendment, and I am inclined to think that we ought to have a record of the views and therefore to divide the House.

3.44 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 70) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 76.

CONTENTS
Addison, V. Darwen, L. Macpherson of Drumochter, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Douglas of Barloch, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L.
Amwell, L. Greenhill, L. Samuel, V.
Archibald, L. Henderson, L. Shepherd, L.
Attlee, E. Latham, L. Stonham, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.] Lawson, L. Summerskill, B.
Burton of Coventry, B. Listowel, E. Walston, L.
Champion, L. Longford, E. Williams, L.
Chorley, L. Lucan, E. [Teller.] Wise, L.
Crook, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L. Ferrers, E. Meston, L.
Albemarle, E. Forster of Harraby, L. Mills, V.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Fortescue, E. Milverton, L.
Allerton, L. Gage, V. Molson, L.
Ampthill, L. Goschen, V. [Teller.] Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Atholl, D. Grenfell, L. Munster, E.
Beauchamp, E. Hamilton of Dalzell, L. Newton, L.
Bossom, L. Hastings, L. Ormonde, M.
Boston, L. Hawke, L. Raglan, L.
Carrington, L. Hayter, L. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Chelmsford, V. Hemphill, L. St. Just, L.
Chesham, L. Hereford, V. St. Oswald, L.
Cholmondeley, M. Home, E. Salisbury, M.
Clwyd, L. Horsbrugh, B. Saltoun, L.
Coleraine, L. Howe, E. Sandford, L.
Colyton, L. Ironside, L. Sandwich, E.
Crathorne, L. Jellicoe, E. Sinclair of Cleeve, L.
Denham, L. Jessel, L. Soulbury, V.
Derwent, L. Lansdowne, M. Spens, L.
Devonshire, D. Long, V. Stonehaven, V.
Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) Lothian, M. Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Dudley, L. Mansfield, E. Swinton, E.
Dundee, E. Mar and Kellie, E. Twining, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Margesson, V. Ward of Witley, V.
Exeter, M. Massereene and Ferrard, V. Westwood, L.
Fairfax of Cameron, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.50 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM moved to add to subsection (4) and with any other council, being a London borough council or the Common Council, within whose area any road affected by the proposed order lies or whose area appears to the Greater London Council likely to be affected by that order.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Amendments will oblige the Greater London Council, before they make a traffic order under Clause 10, to consult with the borough in whose area is the road affected by the order and the council of any other borough likely to be affected by that order. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, in Committee moved an Amendment which had this object in mind, but it went further than that, and I argued at the time that it went too far. We had considerable discussion and the noble Lord withdrew his Amendment after I had promised to consider a suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that the G.L.C. should be free to make experimental orders, or words to that effect, but the Council should be obliged to consult before making such orders permanent; and this Amendment I have put down as a result of considering Lord Walston's suggestion. I dealt at some length on Committee, with the necessity to preserve a very flexible position so far as experimental orders are concerned and I do not think I need worry your Lordships again with all that explanation, but it seems reasonable that before the G.L.C. introduce a scheme permanently they should, as the Minister does now, ascertain formally the views of the boroughs directly concerned in it. A permanent order could have a good deal of local effect, and these things, I think on reflection, should be fully taken into account by the G.L.C. in deciding whether to make a traffic scheme permanent or not. Although my right honourable friend feels that there would in fact be adequate consultation and that the G.L.C. would not have much difficulty in complying with this obligation, it perhaps is better to suggest handling the matter this way. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 3, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, this appears to meet the points we discussed on Committee, and certainly on this side we are most happy to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord.

Clause 14 [Other road traffic functions in Greater London]:

LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "and section 136(6)" and insert— (3A) The consent of the Greater London Council for the purposes of section 138(2) of the said Act of 1959 shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any question whether the withholding of such consent is unreasonable shall be determined in like manner as any question arising under section 136(4) of that Act; and section 136(6) and (7).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the three Amendments, Nos. 71, 72 and 79, hang together, and I will accordingly, if your Lordships will allow, speak to the three together. I am sorry to say that these Amendments do something which is only very minor but has the other characteristic of being extremely complicated. I apologise for the fact that I must take a little time in order to explain this minor but complicated issue.

The purpose of the Amendments is to provide public utility undertakers, such as gas boards, with a right of appeal jointly to the Minister of Transport and the Minister in charge of the department concerned with the purpose of the work, against a decision of the G.L.C. not to allow them to break open a highway. Secondly, they provide that a person who has no interest in the performance of the obligation on an undertaker not to break open a highway within twelve months of work having been done on it must have the consent of the Attorney General before he can take proceedings against an undertaker. This relates only to certain roads in Greater London which will be prescribed by the G.L.C. under Section 137 of the Highways Act—that is the section which deals with the schedule of work to be carried out in the future to avoid traffic congestion. On these roads the G.L.C. will have drawn up their six-monthly schedule of what is to be done during the next six months.

Under Section 138 of the Act the public utility undertakers must carry out any works they have to do at the same time as the highway authority are doing their work on the roads. They are forbidden to break open a road again for twelve months. This is perfectly reasonable, to make sure they do not keep breaking open repeatedly to do different jobs. But if they do want to do it within twelve months they must have G.L.C. consent. Under the Bill the G.L.C. have the final word so far as these particular roads are concerned. There are other provisions in another section which relate to all other roads in London and, in fact, all the rest of the roads in England and Wales, and under these provisions the undertaker must get the consent of the highway authority to break open the roads inside twelve months after works. In the other cases, however, if the highway authority unreasonably refuse consent, the undertaker may appeal to the Minister of Transport and the Minister, jointly with the Minister in charge of the department concerned, will hear the appeal. Therefore, the first thing that happens is that these Amendments provide this final appeal in respect of roads prescribed by the G.L.C. under Section 137.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, is that appeal heard by an inquiry or not?

LORD CHESHAM

There is no machinery for setting up an inquiry. The appeal is in the normal way to the Ministers acting jointly. In fact all the Amendments do is extend this machinery of appeal to the prescribed roads in the same way as to the rest of the roads in the country. The second purpose is this. There is an Amendment to Schedule 6 of the Bill which imposes a penalty on any undertakers who open one of the prescribed roads within twelve months without consent, and it is the same penalty that they have always been subject to for doing the same thing on other roads. In the case of other roads undertakers are protected from frivolous and mischievous charges by the provision that action can be taken against them only by someone concerned with the maintenance of the roads, such as the highway authority, or someone who has the written consent of the Attorney General. This again, extends that same protection to them in the case of prescribed roads. It is very complicated. I apologise for making heavy weather of it, but I could not see how to explain it otherwise. It is minor; but it is necessary. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 13, leave out ("and section 136(6)") and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, the Parliamentary Secretary said that this is a complicated matter, and it is, but I think he has succeeded in making it very plain and easy for the House to follow, upon which he is to be congratulated. It is a matter of some importance that there are a number of public utility undertakings who exercise power to open up the highway to deal with their mains and pipes. There is the Post Office, though what power the Council will have over the Crown I do not know, and, in any case, their jobs do not last too long as a rule. The more important people are the water, electricity and gas undertakers and there could be local drains and so on. It is profoundly important that there should be some friendly supervision and friendly arrangement between the local authority concerned and the undertakers in order to programme this disturbance of the highway, otherwise you will get the water people having the road up in one month and the electricity or gas people doing so possibly one, two or three months afterwards. Therefore, if it can be arranged that they do it together so as to avoid a series of openings, or at any rate that they are so spaced that there is an intermittent disturbance of traffic, it is all to the good.

I admit that if you have these programmes, and if the local authority has a power to order somebody about, it is common usage that there should be an appeal from the local authority to somebody. I agree that in this case the appropriate Ministers should be the Minister of Transport, as the Minister concerned with highways, the Minister of Power would be the Minister concerned in the case of gas and electricity, and in the case of water, I suppose, the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I agree that they jointly should settle the appeal. In all the circumstances, I think this Amendment is reasonable, and we propose to acquiesce in its incorporation in the Bill.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 15, leave out ("it applies") and insert ("they apply").—(Lord Chesham.)

Clause 16 [Highway authorities]:

4.2 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION moved, after subsection (2), to insert: () Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 64 to 101 and Part VI of the Highways Act 1959, before any London Borough or the Common Council carry out any works in pursuance of the powers granted by the said sections and Part which might affect the flow of traffic, they shall first obtain the consent in writing of the Greater London Council.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wonder whether we might discuss Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 together. The Minister acquiesces; therefore, I propose to do this. Amendment No. 74 appears to have been put down following an undertaking given on the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, when we discussed a similar Amendment to that which I am now proposing, Amendment No. 73. So far as it goes, the Government Amendment is a good one, but we say that it does not go quite far enough. It is restricted to the new highways to be constructed by the borough council and the Common Council which will communicate with a metropolitan road. In such a case, under Amendment No. 74 the approval of the Greater London Council will be required before the borough or the Common Council will in fact make such an improvement.

Our Amendment is much wider than the Government Amendment, No. 74. Clause 16(2) would enable the borough councils or the Common Council to carry out improvements to roads or to stop up or to divert roads for which this Bill makes them highway authorities. Clause 9 of the Bill places firmly on the shoulders of the Greater London Council the duty of traffic management. If that Council is to function efficiently in that capacity, we say that it is absolutely essential that the Greater London Council should have to give consent before the borough council or Common Council stop up roads, or even divert roads which might affect the traffic flow. That is what we are concerned with in this connection—the function of the Greater London Council in relation to the flow of traffic in London. If this is not done, if the Greater London Council do not give such consent, even although the road is not one which communicates with the metropolitan road, it might have the effect of making it difficult for the Greater London Council to carry out their function as a traffic regulating authority. It might affect their whole job of traffic management in their area.

We say that only an authority with the overall picture in mind could foresee the effects of local works on Greater London as a whole. For example a borough council might stop up a street which the Greater London Council might feel it would require, perhaps not immediately but at some time later, for a one-way traffic scheme. That may well have an effect on such a scheme covering the area of any other boroughs adjoining file one in which the stopping up or the improvement is to take place. In an extreme case it might have an effect on London traffic as a whole.

As I understand it, the present position is that no metropolitan borough council can in fact carry out such works, stop up streets and so on, without the consent of the London County Council. So far as I am aware, this has never occasioned any great difficulty as between the London County Council and the boroughs. There has been reasonable discussion and this has worked, fairly well. But it means that the late London County Council has had a considerable control over this matter, and therefore has been able to ensure that nothing was done which would affect the traffic situation in Greater London. I admit that the borough councils and the Common Council will have to prepare half-yearly schemes of road improvement—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, made reference to this on moving the last Amendment or the last but one. But these schemes are not regarded as being sufficient to enable the Greater London Council adequately to safeguard their position as the traffic managing authority.

We are aware of the fact that many of the works to be carried out by the borough councils and the Common Council would not affect the flow of traffic; but there will be only one body capable of judging whether that would be so or not—namely, the body which has the overall picture in mind. That body will be the Greater London Council, and we feel that in the circumstances the Government should go a step further than they propose in Amendment No. 74 and accept our Amendment No. 73. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 47, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Champion.)

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, the trouble is that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has such a beguiling method of moving his Amendments that it is extremely difficult not to jump up and accept them at once. However, I have to make certain remarks that are slightly contrary to those that he has put forward. He said that the matter works all right at present. What we are engaged in doing is, in effect, transferring from the Minister to the Greater London Council the responsibilities that the Minister has previously enjoyed as traffic authority. There is at the present time no obligation for the boroughs to consult with the Minister in this matter.

I agree that there is a good deal of force in what the noble Lord has put forward. In his argument he has quite definitely the germ of an idea, but, on the other hand, I think it would give rise, as he himself at any rate partly admitted, to a great deal of unnecessary work. I am not going to base much argument on the fact that I think the addition of the words "which might affect the flow of traffic" could possibly give rise to some dispute or argument as to whether a certain scheme did or did not affect the flow of traffic. But I think that it still leaves the matter in a pretty all-embracing sort of way.

I referred, as the noble Lord kindly acknowledged, to two powers which the Greater London Council would have. One was to cause certain works to be carried out; the other was the preparation of the six-monthly list. The noble Lord, in his worry that a borough might close a road which the Greater London Council needed for some reason or other in regard to their traffic responsibilities, ought to think of the procedure which they would have to go through to stop up a road. This is set out in Section 108 of the Highways Act, 1959. They have to go to a magistrates' court, and a copy of the application would have to be sent to the G.L.C. as the local planning authority.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, does Section 108 of the Highways Act refer to a temporary stopping-up for road repair purposes, or to the permanent stopping-up of a road?

LORD CHESHAM

I took it that the noble Lord was referring to a permanent stopping-up. If it is a question of a temporary stopping-up, that would be catered for under Section 137. I have taken this part of my remarks as referring to a permanent stopping-up. They would go to the G.L.C. as planning authority, and if the G.L.C. opposed it, that would carry great weight. It certainly could not happen without their knowing about it. In brief, I feel that the noble Lord's proposed Amendment on the whole goes too far. There would be so much work of no interest to the Greater London Council that a great deal of unnecessary work would be created by the Amendment. I agree I undertook to look at the other matter of new roads coming into metropolitan roads, and, as a result of that examination and in response to that undertaking, I put down Amendment No. 74. I do not know that there is anything more I can say about it, except that I think we are on the right wicket. However, I consider Amendment No. 73 would be carrying matters too far.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I apologise for not being here during the earlier part of the debate on this Amendment. What I had in mind, as I am sure had my noble friend Lord Champion in Committee stage, was not only the question of the blocking up and the resultant dislocation, but, as am sure the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will appreciate, that a marginal increase in, or redirection of, traffic can well upset, the smooth flow of traffic on the main metropolitan or trunk road. The noble Lord has rather admitted that point by putting in his Amendment No. 74, in the sense that any new road would in itself change the balance and flow of traffic into such a road. Would the noble Lord between now and the Third Reading consider putting down an Amendment to No. 74 which would apply to an existing highway which is so materially altered that it affects the flow of traffic into the main road? I am sure that he will appreciate that the widening or realignment of a particular road which may increase the flow of traffic in the road itself, as well as that in others meeting at a junction of a main road, could seriously affect the smoothness of the traffic? Will he therefore consider alteration to Amendment 74 to cover not only a new road, but an existing road where it is materially altered?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, if I may be allowed a brief word, by leave of the House (which I am not sure I am right in seeking), I will certainly consider that point. I will, of course, consider seriously all the points put forward by the noble Lord. I could not at the present time give him any undertaking about it, but, without obligation, I will consider it.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for, to some extent, accepting the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Shepherd. In the course of my remarks I referred to the possibility of road improvements having the effects I feared upon traffic flow. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said that Amendment No. 73 contained a germ of an idea. If that germ will expand in his mind between now and Third Reading I shall be most happy. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I think sufficient has been said about this Amendment for me merely to move it.

Page 22, line 10, at end insert— ("(3A) Where a new highway to be constructed by virtue of the said section 26(2) by a London borough council or the Common Council will communicate with a metropolitan road, the communication shall not be made unless the manner in which it is to be made has been approved by the Greater London Council.").—(Lord Chesham.)

Clause 17 [Metropolitan roads]:

4.17 p.m.

LORD CROOK moved, in subsection (1)(a), to leave out, "the highways specified in Schedule 7 to this Act" and insert:

  1. "(i) any highway in Greater London classified by the Minister of Transport under the Ministry of Transport Act 1919 in Class I or any class declared by him to be not inferior to that class for the purposes of the Highways Act 1959;
  2. (ii) route number B.304 from the junction with A.3212 at Chelsea Embankment to the junction with A.3220 at Battersea Bridge Road;
but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, none of the following bridges, that is to say, Blackfriars Bridge, London Bridge, Southwark Bridge and Tower Bridge, and no highway carried by any of those bridges, shall be, or become, such a road."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall try not to repeat the arguments deployed on the last occasion. This matter has been considered twice in the other place. When it was first considered there a discussion took place on the idea that all trunk roads and Class I roads should become metropolitan roads, but in Committee stage here we took a less strong line in the hope of attracting the support of the Minister, and I am wondering whether he has had second thoughts.

Last time the only point on which we were in agreement was as to the facts in regard to the Albert Bridge, and that the Albert Bridge had to be left out. We asked the Government to look at the roads left to the boroughs, and they had stated in another place—and it was repeated by Lord Chesham in Committee here—that these were the roads principally used for domestic and local traffic. We feel that in balancing the two kinds of traffic the Ministry have not been very smart. We wonder whether the Minister will not agree that there is more through-traffic than the selection which they appear to have made would indicate.

My noble friend Lord Champion in Committee referred to three examples where no metropolitan road was provided. I will not repeat them, but I would only remind the House that one was from Camberwell, one of the routes up to the South Bank area; another was the rather curious way in which the Finchley Road ceases to be a metropolitan road immediately it meets Marylebone Road. To add one other, the Strand takes a substantial amount of through-traffic. The traffic survey shows that 28 per cent. of the traffic from Piccadilly and Pall Mall goes through to the Strand; 21 per cent. goes down Northumberland Avenue to the Embankment. It is a little difficult to see why the metropolitan road is apparently to stop at Trafalgar Square. We remain where we were in Committee stage; that is to say, unable to see why we cannot rely on what we thought was the simple formula: that we should have the present Class I roads definition, that they should be reclassified from time to time, and that we shall await the results of the grand survey to which the noble Lord addressed himself in another debate on the same day during Committee stage. For those reasons, I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 22, leave out from ("section") to the end of line 23 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Crook.)

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Crook, but I might as well be suite plain and honest, and tell him that we have had no change of mind or feeling on this matter since the last stage. I am not going to bore him and the House by repeating all the arguments that I put forward, any more than he did himself. I am afraid that, one way or another, there is a cleavage of opinion between noble Lords opposite and ourselves over this point of how this should be done, and I do not think the House would wish that we should revive every detail of that again.

We feel that our proposals are as consistent as they can be with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Furthermore, the procedure we wish to adopt leaves the matter flexible for adjustment in the future in the light of experience—perhaps of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Crook, has mentioned—and, if it is seen that some alteration should be made, it could be made. I think that is the sensible way to do it. Incidentally, again it is in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Obviously, on a selective matter like this, where the selection has endeavoured to be based on considerations of quality rather than quantity, there is going to be room for shades of opinion.

I suppose we could argue all night as to the relative through-route merits of the Strand and of the Embankment.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Where does Fleet Street come? Is that to be a metropolitan road or a borough road, as well as the Strand?

LORD CHESHAM

Without looking up the Schedule, I could not say. The noble Lord mentioned the Strand, and I thought he was interested in that; but the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, brings in Fleet Street. But I was referring to the Strand at the time, and I said that there was room for consideration and possible divergence of views about its precise standing in terms of through-traffic, as compared with the Embankment—that is apart from the fact that I understand the L.C.C. have recently taken some planning decisions which would obviate any further development of the Strand as a through-route. The Strand, as the noble Lord pointed out, is not a metropolitan road, any more than Fleet Street is. On the other hand, I think I am right in saying that the Embankment is. That has been assessed as a through-route, for reasons similar to those which I mentioned.

I should just like to touch, as the noble Lord, Lord Crook, did, on the question of the survey, because I do not think the argument he put forward is strictly relevant to the selection of metropolitan roads. The object of the survey has to be borne in mind; and that, of course, is that it is concerned with the origin and destination of traffic, by which I mean people. What it is endeavouring to find out is the kind of traffic travelling between any two particular zones or places, but it will not necessarily show on which actual routes that traffic is travelling.

There are all kinds of interesting things that crop up out of the world of surveys, and one of them is called "desire lines", which is something you take into consideration when you first find out who wants to go where. It is then up to the sponsors of the survey—in this case the Government and the L.C.C., and in due course the G.L.C.—to work out what facilities are provided for getting the people there. I make that point, because I do not think it can be very strongly argued that we should wait for the survey, in order to work out how the metropolitan roads will be selected. Without going through the whole argument again, I think that I must stand on the fact that we firmly believe that our method of selection is the right and proper one, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to reconsider that.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

We firmly believe that the noble Lord is wrong. When the classification of Class I roads takes place, it presumably has a relationship to the nature of the roads, the amount of traffic and so on. That is the whole point of the classification. Clearly, a Class I road is more important than a Class II road, and a Class II road is more important than an unclassified road. As to elasticity, the Government would have just as much elasticity if they started on the basis of the Class I roads, because the Minister has perfect freedom to promote a road to Class I, or to demote a road from Class I to Class II. I do not know why the Government go through all this paraphernalia of printing this long list of roads in the Schedule—where, by the way, it is exceptionally difficult to find any particular road you are looking for, because there is no alphabet about it whatever. It is a waste of print and an unnecessarily clumsy way of doing it.

Take the case of the Strand. Now we find, as I anticipated would be the case, that Fleet Street, which is a continuation of the Strand, is treated in the same way. Perhaps out of my regard for Fleet Street, I had better say that the Strand is a continuation of Fleet Street—none of us wants to upset the newspapers just now. But here is a road, and if ever there was a through-road, leading from Ludgate Circus, and beyond, to the City of London, or right through to Trafalgar Square and all the places beyond that, I should have thought Fleet Street and the Strand were it. But it is proposed that that should remain as a local road or a borough road under the City of London and the Westminster City Council, or whatever it is going to be called. That seems to us to be absurd. All these roads have been examined—anyone would think the Ministry of Transport had so much staff that they had to find something for them to do. Perhaps that is true. They said: "Examine all those roads, make a list of them in the Schedule, and then re-examine them from time to time to see what we want to put in and what we want to take out."

The Class I road is classified for a purpose: it is a well-known, established form of highway classification. Surely our proposal, whereby all the Class I roads would be metropolitan roads, plus Battersea Bridge, but excluding the City bridges, because they are City bridges, is the most sensible method. In all the circumstances, unless we are given more satisfaction, I hope that my noble friend will persist in the Amendment. It is perfectly true that the Minister has had to raise the same argument in principle as he raised before, but the fact that he has put the argument twice to the House does not make it any more right. We think the argument is wrong and that we should divide upon the matter.

Clause 20 [Functions as to motor vehicles and driving licences]:

4.38 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment purely for clarification. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 24, at end insert ("for Greater London").—(Lord Chesham.)

Schedule 6 [Amendments as from 1st April 1965 in Highways Act 1959]:

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this Amendment follows from the powers

4.30 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 75) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 82.

CONTENTS
Addison, V. Douglas of Barloch, L. Rea, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Greenhill, L. Rusholme, L.
Archibald, L. Latham, L. Samuel, V.
Attlee, E. Lawson, L. Shackleton, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.] Listowel, E. Shepherd, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. Longford, E. Stonham, L.
Champion, L. Lucan, E. [Teller.] Summerskill, B.
Chorley, L. Macpherson of Drumochter, L. Walston, L.
Crook, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L. Williams, L.
Darwen, L. Ogmore, L. Wise, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L. Exeter, M. Mar and Kellie, E.
Albemarle, E. Ferrers, E. Margesson, V.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Forster of Harraby, L. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Allerton, L. Fortescue, E. Meston, L.
Ampthill, L. Fraser of North Cape, L. Mills, V.
Auckland, L. Gage, V. Molson, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Goschen, V. [Teller.] Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Beauchamp, E. Grenfell, L. Munster, E.
Bossom, L. Hailsham, V. (L. President.) Newton, L.
Boston, L. Hamilton of Dalzell, L. Ormonde, M.
Bradford, E. Harris, L. Raglan, L.
Brentford, V. Harvey of Tasburgh, L. Remnant, L.
Bridgeman, V. Hastings, L. St. Just, L.
Broughshane, L. Hawke, L. St. Oswald, L.
Chelmsford, V. Hayter, L. Salisbury, M.
Chesham, L. Hemphill, L. Salter, L.
Clitheroe, L. Hereford, V. Sandford, L.
Coleraine, L. Home, E. Sandwich, E.
Colyton, L. Horsbrugh, B. Sinclair of Cleeve, L.
Conesford, L. Howe, E. Soulbury, V.
Crathorne, L. Jellicoe, E. Spens, L.
De La Warr, E. Jessel, L. Stonehaven, V.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Lansdowne, M. Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Derwent, L. Lothian, M. Swinton, E.
Devonshire, D. Luke, L. Twining, L.
Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) McCorquodale of Newton, L. Waleran, L.
Ebbisham, L. Mansfield, E. Ward of Witley, V.
Elliot of Harwood, B.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

given to the London borough councils under Clause 60 in connection with the survey of footpaths under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, and I moved in that clause during Committee stage. The survey responsibility, as a result of that clause, is being given to the London borough councils, and, therefore, reference to the consent of the Greater London Council is no longer needed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 148 leave out lines 39 to 46.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This Amendment relates to the previous one and is exactly the same point except that it deals with rights of way partly in the London boroughs. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 151 leave out lines 5 to 11 and insert— ("31. In section 112(2), at the end there shall be added—

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, this is related to Amendments Nos. 71 and 72, which your Lordships have accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 152, leave out lines 21 to 24 and insert— ("(c) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 7 [Metropolitan roads]:

LORD CROOK

My Lords, I was to move an Amendment to leave out Schedule 7 which is related to the Amendment on which your Lordships recently divided. I should be wasting the time of the House, therefore, to make any attempt to move it or to divide the House. It is therefore not moved.

Part III.

Clause 21:

Housing powers in Greater London

21.—

(10) Arrangements may be made by any of the London borough councils or the Common Council for the rehousing of any person by another of those councils; and any such arrangements may include provision for the payment of contributions by that council to that other council.

4.40 p.m.

LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (4), after "1899" to insert: Part III of the Housing Act 1957". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. Associated with Amendment No. 81 are Amendments Nos. 82 and 83, and I shall address my remarks to the subject matter of all the Amendments.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, might I ask whether it would not be to the convenience of noble Lords opposite and also to the House in general if the noble Lord could deal with Amendments 81 to 88 inclusive? They are all with slight variations along the same argument.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, if it pleases the House then I will deal with them in that way. This is a proposal dealing with housing. Housing, we all admit, is probably the "number one" social problem of this country; and one of the resistant and persistent elements of housing is, of course, slum clearance. The proposal set out in the Amendments which are under discussion deals with the powers of the Greater London Council in connection with land which has been acquired for purposes other than housing. It seeks to secure for the Greater London Council the power which the London County Council at the present time has; namely, the power rapidly to deal with land acquired for a variety of purposes. The Government proposal would seem to disarm the Greater London Council with regard to dealing with slum clearance and other elements of housing; and to disarm the Greater London Council in advance.

When the London County Council finds unfit houses on land which it has acquired for other purposes and is developing it, it is able to deal with those houses by the use of slum clearance powers which it possesses under Part III of the Housing Act of 1957. But the Government propose that the Greater London Council should not be given those powers permanently; and when the temporary powers which are granted by and with Clause 21 (5) are taken away from it the Greater London Council will no longer be able to deal with unfit houses in the way the London County Council now deals with them.

Why should the powers which are regarded as being essential temporarily not be permanent? After all, slums will exist for a long time, and they will not be exorcised into oblivion simply by the latest White Paper on housing published by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. We are against these powers being regarded as simply temporary, and we submit there is every case for their being made permanent. The powers would make it possible for the Greater London Council to deal with unfit houses in the same way as county councils or in the same way as development corporations; but neither of these authorities has the powers of Part III of the Housing Act, 1957. The procedure under Clause 7 of the Bill has the following disadvantages: it is much slower than action under Part III of the Housing Act; it makes it necessary for two authorities, the Greater London Council and the borough council, to operate in a matter which is much more efficiently and quickly handled by one authority; and, in addition, the procedure is incomplete because the Bill refers only to unfit houses found on land acquired by the Greater London Council under Part V of the Housing Act, 1957.

But the London County Council does, and the Greater London Council will, acquire land under a variety of other enabling Acts. How is the Greater London Council to deal with unfit houses found on that land? As the Bill is at present drafted there appears to be no satisfactory way in which the Greater London Council could act. It would probably be necessary at the same site for action to be taken by two local authorities; it might be necessary to have two public inquiries and for the decision to be taken by two different Ministers. That is a fine kettle of fish! What is the objection to giving the Greater London Council the power to use Part III of the Housing Act, 1957, for this specific purpose? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. I think that noble Lords are entitled to know why this power is to be withheld from the Greater London Council. Slums will still exist in London and, despite all action on improvement, maintenance and repair of existing dwellings, more slums are likely to be created. Indeed, there is every reason to be disturbed at the possibility that more houses are becoming unfit than unfit houses are being replaced. Of course, one of the chief factors making for the turning of otherwise decent houses into slums is the overcrowding and multi-occupation, due largely to the very high rents which have to be paid or to the very heavy mortgage charges which have to be met.

The problem for London is to clear the slums as quickly as possible and to prevent other houses from becoming unfit and turning into slums. The way to do that is to give the Greater London Council powers similar to those possessed by the London County Council. I think it can be said, without being invidious and without being excessively wedded to any particular local authority, that the London County Council's record in slum clearance is unequalled—and for a variety of reasons not unrelated to the quality of its members. But one of the principal elements of the machinery and administration has been this power under Part III which is to be given temporarily to the Greater London Council. But it is not to be a permanent power. We submit that there is every reason why the G.L.C. should be armed with every possible proper weapon in order to remove slums and promote the provision of housing for the people of Greater London. Therefore, we press most strongly for these Amendments, which would improve the Bill by enacting that the G.L.C. shall have these powers permanently. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 17, after ("1899") insert ("Part III of the Housing Act, 1957").—(Lord Latham.)

LORD CROOK

My Lords, I should like to pick up the point about slum clearance which my noble friend Lord Latham has used and to express my complete surprise that powers are not to be granted permanently to the Council. I would refer to the recent White Paper on Housing and quote again what the Minister said: It is in the great slum concentrations in the congested towns of the Midlands and the North that the real difficulty still remains. He was able to leave out the Capital City, no doubt because in the course of years the L.C.C., under the leadership of my noble friends Lord Latham and Lord Morrison of Lambeth, have gone ahead jointly with the metropolitan borough councils and fought in every way against the slums. It did not matter what complex difficulties they had in their housing problems, they always put their main effort into slum clearance. But whatever the Minister may have said about slums being worse in the North and Midlands, there are still slums to be dealt with in London. There is also the chance that the failure to maintain and repair buildings, which we know is going on at the moment, will cause slums to grow and multiply.

The Minister has said that in the next three years the clearance programme for Greater London will need to deal with 35,000 houses and that these are concentrated relatively heavily in the areas of a few local authorities. From the statements the Minister made, it is probable that during the period in which the G.L.C. will have temporary slum clearance powers, they will have to meet a problem of that size. When the powers are gone, what is the position going to be? The estimate which the L.C.C. have given to us is that unfit houses will continue to be created at the rate of 2,000 a year within the existing county boundary alone; and that it is likely that the total number, taking the whole of the Greater London area, will be at least 2,500 a year. It is not necessary for me to tell your Lordships that in this London of ours many houses have more than two families in them, and, taking the conservative estimate that there is only a second family, that will mean that 3,000 houses a year will be required indefinitely, if we are going to deal with slums as they arise. Unless we can do that, it will take only a few years for slums in London to grow until they are on the same level as the slums in the North and Midlands, to which the Minister referred in his White Paper.

It seems to me that the Government think that they can just finish and forget all about this. The task which will face the London borough councils, when they come to tackle this problem, is so complex and difficult that every time they take one pace forward they will find that they have already lost two paces backwards. The White Paper outlines the shortage of housing in Greater London and future demand, and refers to the need for improving tenement blocks and other houses and to the problem of urban renewal. All of these problems have to be faced, but no powers are being given to the G.L.C. to deal with any of them. I would join my voice with the others from these Benches who support the string of Amendments which my noble friends have put down on this subject.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I also support the Amendment. We are dealing with a tragic problem. In spite of what has been done in London by the L.C.C. and the borough councils, and by other authorities throughout the country, we do not seem to be keeping abreast in our slum clearance. As we clear one area of slums, old premises in another area take their place. One can see this deterioration of property not many yards away from this Palace of Westminster. I do not want to make this a Party issue. If I may compare government with industry, efficiency is the prime motive of industry. In industry, the small companies, manufacturing or selling, are disappearing and large groups are taking their place. In the aircraft industry, individual companies have been brought into three groups for efficiency; and this has been done on the initiative of Her Majesty's Government. We see the same thing in textiles, insurance and banking. This is being brought about by the sheer necessity to have efficiency in order to meet competition.

In London, up to the present, we have had the overriding authority of the L.C.C. in regard to slum clearance. The Council have worked with the Minister and the Minister has worked with the L.C.C. to effect a fairly considerable result in replacing houses that were damaged by war and in slum clearance. Under the Bill, the Government propose that these powers of the L.C.C. should be retained by the G.L.C. only on a temporary basis and that at a given time they should disappear. Whereas industry is gathering together in large units for efficiency, the Government propose, with regard to slum clearance in London, to fragment the central management over 32 boroughs. I well recognise that these boroughs are a good deal larger than those that have been in the London County Council area. But in the inner part of London where slums exist you will be creating new boroughs where three, or perhaps two, of the boroughs that share the same problem of existing slums and shortage of land are being joined together. Can the Government really say that bringing boroughs together will make the task any easier than if those boroughs act individually?

The weight of the evidence here is that time and time again since the war the London County Council have been called upon to give these services which we wish to see provided by the G.L.C. The L.C.C. have been able to do this because they have had a pool of housing in which the people displaced by slum clearance could be housed. But if a borough is left on its own, as it will be if these powers in Part III disappear, it will mean that the borough has to find alternative land for slum clearance—because I think your Lordships will recognise that when you clear a slum area you do not rehouse the same number of people in that area, but possibly only 50 or 60 per cent. of the existing tenants. Therefore, the borough will have this problem of where it is to put the people who will be removed from the slum areas. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on Committee stage in regard to the inner boroughs if he could tell me one that has not a waiting list of ten years, and I think he gave me a figure which agreed with my assessment. These inner boroughs have the problem of finding accommodation for their own inhabitants, and, therefore, only a bigger authority, such as the G.L.C., will be able to provide assistance towards slum clearance.

When we moved this set of Amendments on Committee stage we sought to give the G.L.C. concurrent powers. There is a significant difference in the Amendment that we are moving to-day. Under Amendment No. 83, the Greater London Council would be able, after the Part III powers had disappeared, to exercise them on the request of the council of the borough. As the Bill stands, as I see it, once the Part III powers disappear, the G.L.C. will be the one local authority in the United Kingdom that will not have these powers. If a borough asks for assistance in slum clearance and the alternative development, the G.L.C. will be the one senior authority in the country that will not be able to give assistance to a lower authority. This is quite wrong.

It is wrong in principle that the G.L.C. should be singled out to be different from any other county council with these powers; and it is wrong also for the boroughs, who will have a continuing task. This slum clearance will be a continuing task. I wish that we could see a possible end of slum clearance; but we cannot. I think that, as time goes on, the task of the inner boroughs—and perhaps, later on, of what we regard as the outer boroughs—of finding space and providing alternative housing before they can tackle the buildings that are becoming slums will become more difficult; and, as the years go by, I think they will have to look to another authority to help them.

The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, suggested that a borough, if it reached that stage, could consult with another borough. I wonder whether the noble Lord believes that any of the inner London boroughs, with the best will in the world, could provide, without detriment to their own inhabitants, the space and service that their fellow borough would require. The Minister may suggest that the inner boroughs could look to the outer boroughs. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that there is a considerable difference in the (I hesitate to use the words) sort of social dignity of some of these boroughs. I believe some of the outer boroughs would be extremely loth to accept inhabitants from the slums of inner London. It is un-Christian, but I think it is true that this attitude exists to-day. In these circumstances, I do not believe that the noble Lord can say to the House with any conviction that the boroughs will be able to get together and help the one in particular need.

If that is accepted as the position—and I believe it is the position—obviously these boroughs, in their difficulties—as I have said, their increasing difficulties—must look to a bigger authority that has a broader horizon, great opportunities and a greater area in which to operate. I say that this is a permissive Amendment. It merely permits that, once the Part III powers have disappeared, if the council of a London borough reached a stage when they could no longer continue on their own, but needed further assistance, they could then go to the Greater London Council, who would have the authority, and I believe the duty, to give that assistance. I support this Amendment.

5.19 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Latham, moved this Amendment he said that he was doing so on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I should like to say how sorry we on this side of the House are to know the reason for his absence; I should like to assure noble Lords opposite of our great sympathy, and we look forward to seeing him when he feels able to participate again in our deliberations.

At the Committee stage, we had a long discussion—almost a debate on its own—on this subject, and I think our arguments resolved themselves into two questions on that occasion. The one was the physical clearance of the slums, and the other was the supply of housing available to accommodate the people from slum clearance. On that occasion I tried to emphasise to the Committee the importance of the Greater London Council's obligations to deal with the housing needs of Londoners.

I should like once again to return to that subject, because it has come out very clearly in the speeches this afternoon, and particularly in that of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that we are dealing here with the availability of housing. Noble Lords have referred again to the supply of London County Council houses available for the people who are without houses as a result of slum clearance. It seems to me that noble Lords opposite do not even yet seem quite to appreciate the very strong and explicit obligations laid upon the Greater London Council to provide for the housing needs of Londoners. Alternatively, they seem apprehensive of the energy or willingness of the Greater London Council to exercise their powers so as to help the authorities sufficiently with slum clearance problems.

In the course of our Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that this is really a matter of machinery—and it is. Both sides of the House, I think, want to make sure that the machinery laid down in the Bill is effective, and it is my contention on behalf of the Government that the proposals in the Bill are perfectly effective for bringing about the results that noble Lords opposite want to see. We have once again reconsidered this problem very carefully to make sure that the machinery will indeed be effective. The London boroughs, with clear responsibilities and with the help of the Greater London Council on rehousing, should be able to tackle their difficult problems, including slum clearance, perfectly effectively. The position set out in the Bill is that in inner London, during the transitional period, the Greater London Council will have concurrent powers with the London boroughs to clear slums.

That, so far as it goes, satisfies noble Lords opposite. But they ask, why not make these powers permanent? First of all, I would say why we make them concurrent; why the Greater London Council should in fact continue the existing powers of the London County Council. The answer is that for many years the metropolitan boroughs have been working in co-operation with the London County Council; that the London County Council have been clearing twice as many slums as the boroughs themselves in inner London, and that the machinery is there. The habit is there. If we were suddenly to cut off the metropolitan boroughs from that sort of procedure, then I think they would be in real trouble. It is for that reason, because the London County Council are planning ahead on a five-year period with their slum clearance plans, and have those plans on the drawingboard already, that it will, I am sure, be much better and more effective that the Greater London Council should continue these plans and see them through. That is why we wish to give them concurrent powers in respect of the London County Council area.

When we come to the outer London boroughs, noble Lords will remember that the existing boroughs are already the sole authorities for slum clearance. They will be amalgamated into new boroughs, but the parts of the new boroughs which are now the existing outer London boroughs already have slum clearance powers, and are well accustomed to operating them. They already have their plans for slum clearance, and therefore we claim that there is quite a distinct difference between the problems facing the metropolitan boroughs and the outer boroughs in respect of slum clearance.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, is it not a fact that these outer boroughs can go to their particular county council for assistance, and that these particular county councils can themselves assist and carry out a form of slum clearance and development in the boroughs?

LORD HASTINGS

I do not think that is so, but I should like to confirm it.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, could the noble Lord say how long these concurrent powers last? Is the date fixed when they cease?

LORD HASTINGS

I will be coming to that later in my speech. It is certainly an important point. I was saying that the outer London boroughs already have their own slum clearance powers, and are well accustomed to operating them. The argument was put forward in the Committee stage that the outer boroughs had not made quite such good progress with their slum clearance as the metropolitan boroughs had with the aid of the London County Council. I would point out that, under the new arrangements, the outer boroughs will have an additional advantage, in that they will have the assistance of the Greater London Council for meeting their housing needs in the future. At the moment of course, not only do they carry out their own slum clearance, but they also have to find the land and build the houses to take care of the people affected by the clearance of unfit houses. In the future, of course, they will have the help of the Greater London Council in a way they have not had before with the London County Council. From that point of view they should be perfectly capable of carrying on with their slum clearance programme and be able to rely on the Greater London Council.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, how do the outer London boroughs receive help from the Greater London Council?

LORD HASTINGS

In the provision of housing. I am just coming to draw noble Lords' attention to the very definite duty of the Greater London Council under Section 91 of the Housing Act, 1957. It is to consider housing conditions in their district and the needs of the district with respect to the provision of further housing accommodation and for that purpose to review the infor- mation which has to be brought to their notice either as a result of inspections and surveys carried out under Part I of the Act"— which refers to slum clearance— or otherwise. There is a lot more, which I do not think I need read.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Does that give them power to build in the outer London area?

LORD HASTINGS

Certainly. I am coming to that now. Clause 21(6) of the Bill firmly lays the duty on the Greater London Council to consult the London boroughs in connection with the review required under Section 91 of the Housing Act, 1957. It also firmly lays on the London boroughs the duty of providing the Greater London Council with information about their needs. If these powers and obligations are borne in mind in considering the needs of slum clearance in Greater London, it must be clear that the Greater London Council's responsibilities include assisting London boroughs with rehousing families displaced by their slum clearance action. And, of course, the Greater London Council is enjoined to provide housing, not merely for the inner London area, but for the whole of London, and they have powers in the transitional period to acquire land compulsorily in order to do that, whatever London borough may be concerned, and to build in any borough. After the transitional powers cease in that respect so far as the outer London boroughs are concerned, then the process has to be carried out of the acquisition of land by consent, but during the transitional period the Greater London Council can acquire London land wherever it wishes in order to help with the housing problem; and this is referring not only to slum clearance from inner London but to outer London as well.

During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, referred to some figures published in the slum clearance Blue Book, and drew conclusions based on those figures which in fact I do not think were really quite right. He thought that the record of some outer London boroughs like Tottenham, East and West Ham, and Croydon, showed that they were clearing a much lower percentage of slums than the inner London boroughs with the help of the L.C.C. were doing. In fact, those figures were compiled from returns sent in by the local authorities, who did not all use exactly the same basis.

Whereas some local authorities—and this refers to the metropolitan boroughs and the L.C.C.—put in figures referring merely to the slums they wished to clear in the five-year period (the estimated number of unfit houses referred to the number they wished to clear, and then the number they intended to clear was put in column 6), other boroughs—as it so happened the reference was to the boroughs in Middlesex and Surrey—tried to estimate the total number of unfit houses in their area for future clearance and then, in column 6, merely put in the numbers they proposed to tackle in the next five years. So these figures were really a little misleading, and I thought it only reasonable to point that out to the noble Lord. They were provided in the book of 1955; there is a discrepancy and there was not a note explaining that slight difference.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

There are probably still a lot more discrepancies.

LORD HASTINGS

Therefore, the figure is not as bad as the noble Lord thought it might be.

As to the up-to-date figures—and this is what really matters—I think that the London County Council now estimate that after 1965 they will need to clear slums in the County of London at the rate of 2,000 a year; and figures independently arrived at by the Department for which I speak, agree with that estimate pretty well, and we think it is slightly under 2,000 a year in that five-year period. In outer London, only six of the new boroughs will have a considerable backlog of slums left after the end of the present slum clearance programme, amounting to just over 6,000 slums. Most of these will be cleared in the five years from 1965. Thus, in Greater London as a whole there will be roughly 16,000 slums to be cleared in the five-year period after 1965.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, those figures are for houses now classified as slums, but the noble Lord will agree that buildings continue to become slums.

LORD HASTINGS

I am coming to that immediately. We can accept that there will be a continuing slum clearance programme, but the main London problem (and this, I think, was not said in so many words though it was implied by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, when he referred to the Housing White Paper and the fact that slum clearance problems were worse in the North and Midlands) is, or will be after 1970, a problem of obsolescence rather than of houses which will fall within the present definition of unfitness under the Housing Acts; and obsolescence is rather a different problem. Many of the obsolescent houses, of course, are the tenement blocks to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred during the Committee stage, and blocks in multi-occupation. The problem here is the heavy density of occupation of these houses, which may be obsolescent but none the less are structurally fit.

The Greater London Council will inevitably have to help these congested inner London boroughs obtain the land on which to build the additional houses, so as to solve the housing problems arising from these conditions, whether these are straightforward slum clearance, obsolescence or multi-occupation, and their functions as a housing authority is to help London boroughs with re-housing from slum clearance, from redevelopment areas and from these houses in multi-occupation where the boroughs are unable to solve the problems themselves. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that it is the duty of the Greater London Council to provide the land and the houses, for the boroughs in the central area of London who have not got the land; and the G.L.C. will obtain from the boroughs the information needed to enable them to make their plans.

With regard to the outer London authorities—and I am thinking particularly of Tottenham, Leyton, East and West Ham, who have a fairly heavy burden of slum property—they will be able to clear their unfit houses faster now they can look to the Greater London Council to help them replace the displaced families. That is a point which I made earlier in my speech, and I wanted just to emphasise it again. When the Greater London Council can offer a share of their stock of some 217,000 houses which they will take over from the London County Council—occupied mostly, of course, by people displaced from inner London at the moment; but gradually vacancies arise—the houses will become available for the displaced people from the outer London boroughs; and, of course, the Greater London Council will go ahead as fast as it can with new building as well.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

How can it if these boroughs are limited in time? What is going to happen after the expiry of that time?

LORD HASTINGS

I have spent some time on facts and figures so that noble Lords may have the real background of the problem; on the one hand, the physical fact of slums and the necessity for clearance, and, on the other, the provision of housing. And I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that the real problem is the availability of housing; and the Greater London Council have not only the full power but also the absolute duty to provide it.

I will now come—and I am not forgetting the noble Lord's point about time and transitional powers—to the specific point of the first Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, and spoken to, particularly at the end of his speech, by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd; that is, the suggestion that, after the transitional powers under Part III of the Housing Act lapse, the Greater London Council should be enabled to help the whole of Greater London, whether boroughs of outer or inner London, at the request of the boroughs concerned. To that extent the noble Lord was, I realise, trying to meet the point I made previously: that we did not wish to continue these powers on a permanent basis.

The first reason why we did not wish to continue them on a permanent basis is, as I tried to prove to noble Lords, that it will not be necessary physically to do so, since the Greater London Council already have sufficient powers to provide the housing. Why should that not therefore be provided on a temporary basis, with consent? That is the next question. The first answer is that so far as the outer boroughs are concerned they are already their own slum clearance authorities. They will have additional help in respect of the provision of housing from the Greater London Council permanently, and I do not think they would take advantage of any possibility of asking for additional help in respect of slum clearance. It has been made pretty clear by many of them to us that they regard themselves as the primary housing authorities, including slum clearance authorities, and that they do not wish to have, as they would say, interference in this respect from a superior authority.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, has the noble Lord had this from the existing metropolitan boroughs or is he talking about outer London?

LORD HASTINGS

I am talking about the outer London boroughs, who have their own powers. We believe it is a good thing to stand, if we can, on the principle that the London boroughs are all primary authorities and are fully capable of carrying out their duties effectively. I must just point out to noble Lords that we have an Amendment down in the middle of this series: it is 83A. The point of that is this: we are at least trying to go a little way to meet the points made by noble Lords during the Committee stage.

Now we come to the question of the transitional powers and the transitional period. As the Bill is at present drafted, the Minister may continue these transitional powers so long as they are necessary. And it is not only a question of slum clearance powers; there are other powers which the L.C.C. possess, particularly in respect of improvement grants and so on; they are the other main powers. It would be the Minister's intention to continue these powers, especially in the inner London area, so long as they are necessary in order to enable the slum clearance programme as envisaged by the L.C.C. to be completed. In the Bill as at present drafted the Minister is taking powers to declare an end of the transitional period for different purposes on different days. It might be that he would say it is no longer necessary that the G.L.C. should have powers to give improvement grants, but they would still have powers to continue their slum clearance activities.

In addition, we are suggesting in this Amendment that we should extend the power to terminate transitional powers by making them not only on different days for different purposes but also in different areas, so that if there were, by chance, any particular area, particularly in inner London, which was behind with its slum clearance programme—in fact had not completed it as we envisage it at the present day—it would be possible to continue those powers in respect of such a borough, whereas in other boroughs who had made really good progress and had pretty well completed their programme the transitional powers would be able to be terminated.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, has the Minister yet settled a limit of the time?

LORD HASTINGS

I was going to say, therefore, there is in fact no date for termination. It is entirely at the discretion of the Minister, obviously after consultation with the boroughs concerned and with the Greater London Council and after a review of the situation. And we are now taking additional powers for the Minister to terminate the transitional slum clearance powers to be accorded to the G.L.C. in different areas at different times as well.

I hope very much, therefore, in the first place that I have explained sufficiently clearly to noble Lords that the Greater London Council has all the necessary powers to provide the housing for all London, wherever they are, and it is their duty to do so; secondly, that the transitional powers will be continued in respect of slum clearance so long as necessary, and in some cases longer in some areas than in others Therefore, apart from that, it is not really necessary to accept Amendments of the sort that have been put down by noble Lords opposite. We have objections to giving these powers and interfering with the powers of primary local building authorities in respect of the outer boroughs. I hope, with this explanation (which I am afraid has been a lengthy one, but we are dealing with about eight rather important Amendments at one and the same time), I have managed to convince noble Lords that the proposals of the Bill are perfectly effective, and that we wish to see the same results as noble Lords opposite. We believe that the way we have chosen is an effective way and the right way.

5.36 p.m.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, I do not think the Government are living in a real world about this matter. The Minister has, for example, said that the Greater London Council, having taken over the L.C.C. housing estates, can use the vacancies to rehouse people from the boroughs; he has also indicated that the present L.C.C. estates will in due course be distributed among the boroughs and that therefore the rehousing of the slum clearance people can easily be solved. But what is going to happen about the existing very big waiting list of the London County Council, and indeed of the metropolitan boroughs, and presumably of the county districts outside the present County of London?

LORD HASTINGS

New building.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

New building; but you are not going to discontinue one system and think that the other system is going to evolve. Moreover, it is contemplated by the Government that the concurrent powers of the Greater London Council are to be temporary. It is no good the Minister hedging that; that is the intention of the Government—that the Minister can bring it to an end. Therefore this does not face the realities of the situation. The Minister of Housing and Local Government, of course, is a bit of a child in these matters; he is a new boy and an amateur; he has written or authorised the publication of a reckless White Paper in which he has made all sorts of promises while admitting that the Government have failed in one important promise that they made early on, the nature of which escapes my mind at the moment but it is in the White Paper.

LORD HASTINGS

It escapes my mind, too.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

He is making in that White Paper a number of reckless promises. He will not be able to keep them. That does not matter; he will not be the Minister of Housing and Local Government any more. In fact, this Government will not be in office. Then he will get up and attack his successor for not keeping the promises he himself has made. He is a great man for promises, the present Minister of Housing and Local Government. By inference, he has to admit that London, the L.C.C. and the metropolitan boroughs between them, have been more successful in slum clearance than the other great cities of the country.

But having made these promises, which in particular apply to London as well as to other parts of the country, what does he do? He comes along with this dogma, which he has inherited from the London Municipal Society as the true authors of the Bill. His predecessor in office, the present Home Secretary, when the Labour Party obtained a majority in the L.C.C. in 1934, said: "I shall not be happy until this Socialist Council is destroyed"; and this is how he keeps his promise—by legislation, because he cannot win an election democratically. The Government, having done that, then come along with this dogma that everything possible must go to the boroughs. I am no enemy of the boroughs. I have been good friends with the metropolitan boroughs all my life. I started in public life as the mayor of a metropolitan borough. But there is a limit to what they can do, whereas the happy partnership between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs has really made an impression on the slum clearance problem of London. It has not ended it, but it has made a better impression on the slum clearance problem of London than has been shown elsewhere in the great cities of the provinces.

Now this curious Minister with his curious Department, backed by the London Municipal Society and the Association of Municipal Corporations, which do not know much about London anyway, comes along and says, "All possible powers to the boroughs! Make them as near county boroughs as you can, although they are functioning in almost continuous built-up areas in Greater London. Therefore, let the boroughs be the housing authorities. Let the Greater London Council have concurrent housing powers for a limited period, after which it is the intention of the Minister, confirmed by the Parliamentary Secretary, to terminate these powers of the Greater London Council." When he does that he is going to diminish the housing output; he is going to diminish the effectiveness of slum clearance, and he is going to diminish the whole housing effect, because he will have one engine with which to work, whereas he could have two if it were not for this wanton dogmatism from which this Department suffers.

And it all arises out of hatred of the London County Council—unreasoning hatred of the London County Council. So they say, "We have got to have a Greater London Council, because we want to abolish London altogether"—that is what they want to do. They say, "We will have a Greater London Council. But give it no more powers than you can possibly help." That is what they are doing. The consequence of all this is that the housing output of the London local authorities will in due time be diminished. Instead of the Minister keeping his promise, the powers will be diminished to make impracticable the keeping of such promises. He will leave each of these boroughs standing in isolation to solve its problems, except in regard to certain powers relating to overspill, and so on. Is it not much better—

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I do not accept that it is just in regard to overspill. There are powers in the Greater London Council to provide housing for Londoners, and these powers are permanent. They refer not to overspill outside London; they refer to finding houses for Londoners in London. They are permanent powers and they will never be abrogated.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, the powers under Part III of the Housing Act are not permanent.

LORD HASTINGS

I agree. That concerns slum clearance, not housing. I have said that the housing powers are permanent.

LORD LATHAM

Is slum clearance not housing?

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, so we get to another point, that it can provide permanently for building new houses anywhere in Greater London or presumably outside. That is right?

LORD HASTINGS

That is right.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

That is under the new provisions? That is what I thought. But the Part III powers of slum clearance are for a limited period. If there is a case for permanent building powers, which there certainly is, there is no less a case for permanent slum clearance powers, and they should be enjoyed both by the Greater London Council and by the London boroughs. It is only by this partnership that London has made the material progress that it has in slum clearance, because some of these slums comprise considerable areas.

In regard to slum clearance, I was surprised to find that sometimes two-storey slum houses are so congested that, when you come to rehouse the occupiers in flats going up to great heights, it is not possible to do so because there are too many of them; therefore, you may have to rehouse them in another borough. Thus, the Greater London Council or the local council have a clearance problem. There may be slum property on the site, or a highway or school is being built, or perhaps an open space is being provided. If this is to be done by the borough, in due course, when the Minister "puts on the brakes", in many cases the borough will find itself in great difficulties in re-housing the people out of its own borough resources inside its own borough. In some cases it may be able to come to an arrangement with a neighbouring borough. But nearly all boroughs have their waiting lists, and they will not be too anxious to house people from another borough.

So that this pool of effort—the considerable body of professional technicians, the architects, the valuers, the engineers, and even the lawyers who are involved in this business—is of great importance. That is not to say that the boroughs cannot make a real contribution. They have done it; they could go on doing it. But the speed of slum clearance will be slowed down directly the Greater London Council is put out of business on the matter. The Government are living in cloud-cuckoo land in saying that somehow it will all work out all right in the end. I am not attacking the Parliamentary Secretary. He, poor chap, has to say what he is told to say to your Lordships; his brief is made up for him. This is the unhappy life of a Parliamentary Secretary in this House; it is worse than being a Parliamentary Secretary in the other place. He has his orders and instructions, either from his Minister or from those brilliant civil servants of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and he has got to do the best he can with them.

Then, he has to meet those of us who are really pretty well informed and expert about this [...]rt of thing. I do not attack the Parliamentary Secretary personally. In fact, I send him out my vote of sympathy; I am sorry for him, left with this ugly baby that has been put on his doorstep, or in his lap. It is a great pity. But you will fail in your slum clearance if you go on with this line. It all arises not so much as a matter of common sense or as a matter of careful and calm judgment on the part of the Ministry; it arises out of the violent prejudice against any all-London authority. They hate an all-London authority because they hate London. They hate London—and I love it. Just as the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, loves Epsom, I love London. And I say that, despite the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the London Municipal Society, there will be a London. The Government are doing their best to destroy it. They are even doing their best to hold up slum clearance in the Greater London area. They are doing it deliberately. They know what they are doing, because it is another trend towards stopping London—

LORD HASTINGS

We are certainly not trying to hold up slum clearance. I cannot allow the noble Lord to say that. It is certainly quite the opposite.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, the noble Lord will have to allow me to say it. I have said it, and I will repeat it.

Then in the last debate I quoted figures from an official publication of the Government about slum clearance in some of the boroughs in Middlesex and Essex. I quoted them all in good faith. They came from the Government's own publication. Now the poor Parliamentary Secretary is sent along with an explanation that these figures were wrong, or that they were presented in a way that was rather misleading. That is it! This is a fine Ministry which presents figures in an official publication in a misleading way. What reliance can one put upon this department or upon the Minister? Therefore, I think my noble friend Lord Latham was perfectly entitled to move this Amendment, and of course we can debate the others as they are put and if we want to.

This is a wicked business. It will have evil social results, and it all arises out of the Government's prejudices, passions and hatreds. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords, including those on the other side of the House, many of whom are genuinely interested in slum clearance, will vote with us on this Amendment, because it will teach the Government a lesson. If the permanent building powers are to be permanent for the Greater London Council, why cannot the slum-clearance concurrent powers—not the exclusive powers—be permanent? Why should noble Lords opposite go into the Lobby and say, "There shall be no more Greater London Council slum clearance after the Minister has decided there shall not be"? Why should they support the Government's dogmas and prejudices? We went into the Lobby with noble Lords opposite last night on the question of Epsom and Ewell. We did it out of the goodness of our hearts; we did it because we thought they had a case, and for no other reason. I ask noble Lords, out of the goodness of their hearts, in sympathy with the plight of the slum-dwellers, those who live in darkness, in bad housing conditions, to vote with us against a proposition which is designed to slow down slum clearance in Greater London when this temporary period ends.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, may I, first of all, express to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, the appreciation of myself and my noble friends on this side of the Chamber for the sympathetic words which he was good enough to utter on the sad bereavement of our colleague, Lord Silkin?

This is really a very short point, even though it is expressed in Amendments of some complexity. The short point is: why is it proposed to terminate the slum clearance provisions in Part III of the Housing Act, 1957? The noble Lord made a long speech. I am not complaining of that, but no one who listened to it could agree that it confuted the submissions and arguments which have been put from this side on this matter both in the Committee stage and now. The noble Lord's long statement was justified in some respect in that he was anxious for us to have the background.

Some of us on this side know something about slum clearance and about housing. It is all very well for the noble Lord to say that this is a matter of machinery; of course it is; but behind the machine are human beings. Dependent upon the machine are people whose health, comfort and happiness are being impaired and, in some cases, destroyed because they have to live in unhealthy slums and unhealthy housing accommodation. It is all very well for the noble Lord to point out that the Greater London Council will have obligations in the whole field of housing. Our complaint is not that the obligations are based upon the Greater London Council, but that the powers to carry out those obligations are to be taken away from them.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I am sorry but the noble Lord is wrong. The housing powers refer to housing, that is, all Londoners in need of housing; the slum clearance powers are confined to knocking down the slums. The re-housing of people who live in those slums will continue to be a duty of the Greater London Council.

LORD LATHAM

Yes, but they are entitled to be considered only from the point of view of housing when their present accommodation is about to be demolished because it is unfit. It is idle to pretend that one can segregate slum clearance from housing generally. It is true that was the case in respect of certain subsidies, but it was a notional distinction. The point is that housing of the people is one job—whether it be providing houses for those who have recently married, or whether it be providing decent housing for those who are living in slums.

What is the situation? The London County Council, who have had powers which are to be denied to the Greater London Council, in the exercise of their powers over the last 50 years have done a magnificent job in clearing the slums of London. And there were some pretty bad slums—in fact there still are, but there were some extensive areas of bad slums in certain parts of London between the wars. The L.C.C. have been doing these things, as I say, for about 50 years. They have gained all that experience and knowledge which is to be denied to their successors because they will not have any powers to employ; the powers will just go—the noble Lord has said—either solely or partially; either selectively or as regards particular districts.

The Government are proposing to take the gamble that the machinery, denuded of these powers under Part III, will do the job better than if the powers remained to the Greater London Council and were exercised by them. In short, they intend to gamble with the health, comfort and happiness of the people of London. That is what they are proposing to do, and it is idle to talk about general housing as a kind of camouflage for what is intended in the provisions of the Bill. If the powers are considered useful—and experience has shown that they are—why should there

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally. I have already spoken to it.

be any thought of terminating them until the last slum has been demolished in Greater London? What are to be the considerations which will guide the Minister in determining that the powers shall be terminated as regards this or that particular borough, but shall remain in force as regards the remainder? What are to be the standards? What are the tokens which will decide whether the powers are to be continued or discontinued? In these circumstances, I invite your Lordships to support this Amendment, otherwise you will be doing a serious injustice to those persons whom you will condemn for longer periods to live in the slums of London.

6.0 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 81) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 73.

CONTENTS
Addison, V. Crook, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Greenhill, L. Nathan, L.
Amwell, L. Henderson, L. Peddie, L.
Archibald, L. Latham, L. Rusholme, L.
Attlee, E. Lawson, L. Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.] Listowel, E. Stonham, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. Longford, E. Summerskill, B.
Champion, L. Lucan, E. [Teller.] Walston, L.
Williams, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L. Forster of Harraby, L. Margesson, V.
Albemarle, E. Fortescue, E. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Aldington, L. Fraser of North Cape, L. Merrivale, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Furness, V. Mills, V.
Allerton, L. Gage, V. Molson, L.
Ampthill, L. Goschen, V. [Teller.] Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Beauchamp, E. Grantchester, L. Napier and Ettrick, L.
Boston, L. Grenfell, L. Newton, L.
Bradford, E. Guest, L. Ormonde, M.
Bridgeman, V. Hailsham, V. (L. President.) Raglan, L.
Clitheroe, L. Harris, L. Remnant, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Hastings, L. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Conesford, L. Hawke, L. St. Just, L.
Crathorne, L. Home, E. St. Oswald, L.
De La Warr, E. Horsbrugh, B. Salter, L.
Denham, L. Howard of Glossop, L. Sandford, L.
Derwent, L. Howe, E. Sinclair of Cleeve, L.
Devonshire, D. Jellicoe, E. Soulbury, V.
Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) Lansdowne, M. Spens, L.
Ebbisham, L. Long, V. Stonehaven, V.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Lothian, M. Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Exeter, M. MacAndrew, L. Swansea, L.
Falmouth, V. McCorquodale of Newton, L. Swinton, E.
Ferrers, E. Mar and Kellie, E. Waleran, L.
Ward of Witley, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 7, at end insert ("or for different areas").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23 [Transfer of land held for housing purposes]:

LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 35, leave out from beginning of line 35 to ("the") in line 37.—(Lord Auckland.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24 [Local planning authorities]:

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 go together: they are the result of an undertaking which I gave in Committee to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, who had an Amendment down dealing with the same subject. Section 43 of the Planning Act provides machinery by which anyone can find out whether development is involved and whether an application for planning permission is required in respect of something they wish to do. Application is made to the local planning authority. As the Bill is drafted the Greater London Council would receive an application for planning permission, where a borough council had decided that development requiring planning permission was involved, if that development was of a class for which, by virtue of the regulations made under Clause 24(4), the Greater London Council would be the local planning authority. However, a borough council could determine an application under Section 43 if they decided that development was not involved.

The point of Lord Latham's Amendment was, of course, that they might be wrong in supposing that. Therefore the new sub-paragraph (a) repeats what is already in lines 7 and 8 on page 33 of the Bill for ordinary planning applications. But sub-paragraph (b) refers to the Section 43 type of case, and makes it clear that a borough council should send on to the Greater London Council any application relating to a proposal which, in the borough council's view, would constitute or involve development of a type referable to the Greater London Council if it constituted or involved development at all. I hope that that now meets the point that noble Lords opposite brought out on a previous occasion, and that they will be able to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 5, after first ("for") insert ("or with respect to the need for").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 7, leave out from ("whom") to ("to") in line 8 and insert ("there is received—

  1. (a) any application for planning permission for such development; or
  2. (b) any application under section 43 of the Planning Act in the case of which it appears to that council that the proposed action to which the application relates would constitute or involve such development if it constituted or involved development at all, shall forward the application").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.12 p.m.

LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (4), to omit all words from and including "and such development" down to "but". The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Latham I beg to move Amendment No. 93, and perhaps I may at the same time refer to Amendment No. 94, as the two are linked. The purpose of these Amendments is to provide that the Greater London Council should be treated as a local planning authority for the purpose of all their own development. Under the provisions now in the Bill, the Greater London Council would have to apply to the London borough concerned for planning permission to carry out any development necessary for its statutory functions, other than developments included in the classes or areas prescribed by regulations to be made by the Minister under Clause 24(4), even if this development were entirely in conformity with the development plan. A London borough council, on the other hand, would not need to seek planning permission provided a proposed development did not involve a substantial departure for the development plan and was not in a class or area covered by the regulations, to which I have already referred, made under Clause 24(4).

It can be fairly assumed, I think, that any development required by the Greater London Council would necessarily be of wider than borough significance. The Greater London Council, as a local planning authority, may be expected to treat their own development in accordance with proper planning principles, and should therefore surely be placed in the same position as local planning authorities generally.

The first one of these Amendments was moved on Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Champion. My noble friend withdrew the Amendment, stating that it was proposed to consider the matter further before the Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, seemed to be concerned to ensure that the Greater London Council should not be placed in the position of a superior body in relation to a London borough council. In matters of its own development, the London County Council does not proceed in the face of a sustained objection from a metropolitan council but refers the matter to the Minister. The relationship between the Greater London Council and a London borough in this matter should not, and obviously need not, be different from that which obtains to-day so far as developments of the L.C.C. are concerned, in consultation and co-operation with a metropolitan borough.

Again, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, compared the Greater London Council, with a nationalised board, stating that the latter has to go through the ordinary planning authorities in order to get planning permission. As a matter of fact, in practice much of the operational work of the statutory undertakers is classified by development order as development not requiring planning permission. In any event, the comparison between a local authority and a nationalised commercial undertaking is really not valid. Moreover, as my noble friend Lord Champion pointed out, these boards are not planning authorities such as the Greater London Council will be.

May I sum up? The Amendments do not seek to detract in any way from the status of the London boroughs. What they seek is to provide for a less formal procedure whereby the Minister can be consulted on any difference between the Greater London Council and a London borough over proposed development by the Greater London Council, without the need for the delay which would arise from use of the formal appeals machinery. The Royal Commission, as was emphasised in the previous debate, laid it down that, primarily, housing should be the concern of the London boroughs; but, at the same time, it recognised that there would be cases where the Greater London Council would have to assume responsibility for development because of, say, lack of land or the necessary bringing of two or more London boroughs into the scheme of development.

I think everyone will agree that the London County Council has done a splendid job so far as housing is concerned, but this has been achieved by amicable co-operation between the metropolitan boroughs and the London County Council, in which they have met as equal partners. Why, in this Bill, place the Greater London Council in an inferior position to a London borough? Surely they ought to be able, under the provisions of this Bill, to meet as partners in the great enterprise of providing housing accommodation for the people of London. I submit that my Amendment will enable the great work to be continued with a minimum of friction and a minimum of delay. Therefore, my Lords, on those and other grounds I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 10, leave out from ("them") to ("but") in line 14.—(Lord Burden.)

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Burden, explained, this Amendment affects those sections of the Planning Act which relate to a local planning authority's own development. On the last occasion I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has told the House some of the things I said. I am afraid that on this occasion—and I think I made it pretty plain, even during the Committee stage, that we should not change our minds on this matter—I really have nothing new to say to the noble Lord opposite.

His object is to ensure that for all development the Greater London Council itself would be the planning authority. Under the Bill the Greater London Council would be its own planning authority only in respect of development done under Clause 24(4), which refers to the Minister's making prescribed regulations. We maintain that it is unnecessary in all other cases that the Greater London Council should be its own planning authority. We maintain there will be no difficulty about the Council's making the ordinary application to the local borough who will be the local planning authority for development in all other cases when it is dealing with general development matters not specified in Clause 24(4).

The noble Lord, Lord Burden, referred to the friendly relations between councils. There is no reason to expect that there will be any difficulties about this matter.

LORD BURDEN

The noble Lord is missing my point. They met as equal partners. Under the Bill the Greater London Council are placed in an inferior and subservient position.

LORD HASTINGS

I was coming precisely to that point; I was going to refer to the noble Lord's remarks. He said that he did not wish to reduce in any way the status of London boroughs. It

LORD CHAMPION moved, after subsection (4), to insert: () In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing subsection, regulations shall be made by the Minister under that subsection relating to development in that

is precisely because we take the same view that we do not want the Greater London Council to have these powers in the territories of the local boroughs except under Clause 24(4). Because, if we did so, it would reduce the boroughs' powers. The noble Lord went further and said that we were putting the Greater London Council in an inferior position. But we shall not be doing that. It will have its own power under the housing part of the Act, and it will have its own power under the development part in respect of Clause 24(4). We think that it is a position not of superiority nor of inferiority, but of equality. We wish to maintain that position. I cannot say any more except to ask the House to resist this Amendment.

6.23 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 93) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 58.

CONTENTS
Addison, V. Crook, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Henderson, L. Peddie, L.
Archibald, L. Huntingdon, E. Shepherd, L.
Attlee, E. Latham, L. Stonham, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.] Lawson, L. Summerskill, B.
Burton of Coventry, B. Longford, E. Walston, L.
Champion, L. Lucan, E. [Teller.] Williams, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L. Ferrers, E. McCorquodale of Newton, L.
Aldington, L. Forster of Harraby, L. Margesson, V.
Allerton, L. Fortescue, E. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Auckland, L. Fraser of North Cape, L. Merrivale, L.
Beauchamp, E. Furness, V. Molson, L.
Boston, L. Gage, V. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Bradford, E. Goschen, V. [Teller.] Newton, L.
Bridgeman, V. Grenfell, L. Raglan, L.
Carrington, L. Hailsham, V. (L. President.) Remnant, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Harris, L. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Conesford, L. Hastings, L. St. Just, L.
Craigmyle, L. Home, E. St. Oswald, L.
Denham, L. Howard of Glossop, L. Salter, L.
Derwent, L. Howe, E. Sandford, L.
Devonshire, D. Jellicoe, E. Sandwich, E.
Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) Lansdowne, M. Stonehaven, V.
Ebbisham, L. Long, V. Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Lothian, M. Swansea, L.
Falmouth, V. MacAndrew, L. Waleran, L.
Ward of Witley, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

central area of Greater London bounded generally by a line connecting the main line railway termini."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (4) of this clause provides that the G.L.C. shall be the local planning authority in relation to the development of such areas as the Minister may by regulation prescribe. Under the terms of the clause, the Minister is given no instruction by Parliament on the area or areas for which such regulations shall provide. For many years past, Parliament has rightly taken special interest in the central area of London and has been careful about developments that might lead to its unbalanced development. My noble friend Lord Silkin and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, have taken a deep interest in this aspect of London's development and, as a result of their watchfulness, any legislation touching on this central area has been closely examined and instructions have been given by Parliament to the Minister responsible for this area on how it should be dealt with in any planning permissions given.

We have had a fairly recent example of this in the Transport Act, which went through your Lordships' House not very long ago, in which the Railways Board were circumscribed in the uses to which they might put their unwanted land round about the London termini which they propose to sell or use for development. The whole purpose of the Amendment that was moved to the Transport Bill was to prevent the Railways Board from making the most profitable use of that land by erecting upon it huge office blocks which would add to the congestion of Central London. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, was very interested in this aspect of it and made a powerful speech upon it.

This Amendment requires that the Minister shall make regulations in respect of the central area. On the Committee stage the Government did not accept an Amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, which would have defined the central area and made the G.L.C. the local planning authority for the area, which in his Amendment he attempted to define. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, rejecting that Amendment, said that the Government felt that this matter had better be left to regulations to be made by the Minister under Clause 24. This Amendment is designed to meet the Minister's point to some extent, but recognises the serious concern expressed from all parts of the House on Committee stage.

The Amendment does not attempt to define precisely the central area, but would leave it to the Minister when he comes to make his regulations. We consider that the development to be dealt with by the G.L.C. in this area should be broadly defined by Parliament in such a way as to ensure that everything of regional significance would go to the G.L.C.—and I would here stress the words "regional significance". If, as a result of such recognition, some applications of a purely local significance were caught up by the G.L.C., of course it would be possible for the Council to hand them on to the boroughs, and, provided they were of only local significance, the boroughs could deal with them in the ordinary way, for such delegation is made possible by subsection (5) of this clause.

The method we envisage would be more satisfactory than attempting to draw the definition so tightly that some of the applications of more than local significance in this vital area might not reach the G.L.C. I think that this comment is worth making, for it must be remembered that the Minister does not envisage that these regulations would make the G.L.C. the local planning authority—for example, so far as concern developments affecting a metropolitan road or those with much traffic control implication. The noble Earl told us that the Minister has in mind the boroughs being the local planning authority for such developments. They would be required to refer applications to the G.L.C. for directions only under subsection (6) of this clause.

Later Amendments, Nos. 107 and 108, seek to ensure that the G.L.C. will be the development plan authority for the central area, as was strongly advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. This would make it all the more important that the G.L.C. should have ultimate authority for planning applications in this central area, for the two functions are surely complementary the one to the other. I think that I can find no better way of recommending this Amendment to the House than using the words used by the noble Earl himself on Committee stage when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 250 (No. 86), col. 92]: I am saying that the possibility of unified control over a central area is certainly one of the things which my right honourable friend will wish to consider". I hope that the Minister in this House has consulted with his right honourable friend and that, as a result of this consideration, this Amendment which I am now moving will be accepted for, after all, what we are seeking to do here is giving statutory recognition to the words used by the noble Earl on Committee stage. I beg to move what I regard as an extremely important Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 19, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Champion.)

6.40 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE)

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said, we discussed a somewhat similar Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Conesford on Committee stage. His Amendment was rejected. I am afraid that I have to ask your Lordships similarly to reject this Amendment, and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that I am doing so only after close consultation, not only with my right honourable friend, but also with his Ministry. I am doing so—to compress my argument as much as possible—for three main reasons. In the first place, there is, I believe, a point of principle involved here. In our concept, as the noble Lord knows, the Greater London Council is not the superior and the London borough the inferior authority. We regard them as co-existing as equals in their different spheres.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, may I say that there has been no question about this in the existing set-up of the County of London, anyway since the Labour Party have been in power? We never regarded ourselves as superior to the boroughs. I always took the view that they were equal statutory, independent authorities. They do not come to us as a deputation, but to confer. I hope the noble Earl will not go on with this, because it is not talking about reality in the County of London government.

EARL JELLICOE

I am not talking about the County of London government; I am talking about the future setup. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Champion, say that the ultimate control should vest with the Greater London Council. Because of our concept, we have felt it wrong to cut the London boroughs out from two highly important functions of any major local government authority—that is, development planning and development control. Here, of course, we are dealing with the second function, development control, and on later Amendments we will come to development planning.

The noble Lord's Amendment is drafted in very wide terms. He will correct me if I am wrong, but it would certainly appear to require that regulations should be made by my right honourable friend which would bring all development control within the central area, a vastly important and large area of London, within the purview of the Greater London Council. That is what I am advised the noble Lord's Amendment, as drafted, does. Given our general concept of the new structure of London government, we think it would be wrong to divest these large, important, experienced and responsible local authorities of their responsibility for development control—

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

They are not experienced.

EARL JELLICOE

They will inherit a great deal of experience.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

That is another matter.

EARL JELLICOE

—unless the reasons for so doing are quite compelling. I would remind your Lordships that these central boroughs will have large resources. They will be able to employ, and we shall expect them to recruit and employ, architectural and planning teams of really high quality. They will be at least as jealous as some rather more remote body of what goes on in their areas—above all, of the physical transformation taking place in them—the very stuff of which development control is made.

My second reason for asking your Lordships to reject the Amendment—and I agree with the noble Lord that it is an important Amendment—is more practical and humdrum. As I have said, under this Amendment all development control within this large central area could, under the Minister's regulations, fall to be dealt with by the Greater London Council. This would bring a mass of detail, sometimes quite trivial detail, to the Council. The inevitable result, as I see it, would be a feeling of frustration at the borough level and the clogging of the machine at Greater London Council level. I must again remind noble Lords that the Greater London Council will have important responsibilities of regional and strategic importance. Every proposal like this, which would involve them in a mass of purely technical detail, would prevent the Council and its officers from getting on with their major task.

My third reason for asking your Lordships to reject this Amendment is that I really do not think it is necessary. Under the clause as it stands, it will be possible, as I explained at Committee stage, for the Minister to prescribe, not only areas, but also the specific classes of development where the Greater London Council should exercise development control. In this way he will be able to pick out the kinds of development which have regional significance and also the areas to which this special control should apply. For example, his regulations would almost certainly embrace high buildings, and his requirements might very well be stricter in a central area than elsewhere. Similarly, the Minister could deal with large buildings, and again he could vary his bowling, as it were, making his requirements stricter towards the centre. Then, again, it would be quite possible—and I heard the noble Lord mention the words I used on the Committee stage—for the Minister, under the clause as it stands, to give the Greater London Council control of development in certain defined or historic areas at the centre or elsewhere, for that matter, and this could, of course, cover all development and not only special kinds of development. That might well be thought desirable in certain possibly rather narrowly defined areas.

I know that at our Committee stage a number of noble Lords were anxious that I should graft more flesh and blood on the Minister's intentions. But I am afraid that I must disappoint them. We feel that the particular types of development to be prescribed in the new regulations and the areas which the regulations should cover should wait on the election of the new authorities. That is for the simple reason that the Minister feels it right to consult both the Greater London Council and the new London boroughs before he promulgates these regulations, and he certainly does not wish to prejudge the issues at this early stage.

In particular, he feels it wrong—and here I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that I have been in touch with him over this—to try at this moment to lay down, even as broadly as the noble Lord's Amendment would lay it down (and I admit he does not prescribe an area in precise detail, but it is an extremely large area), in advance of consultation with the local authorities, both the G.L.C. and the boroughs, the precise area such regulations should cover. The area of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, may be the right one; it may be too large; or it may be too small. We feel that before it is more precisely defined it is highly desirable that there should be that consultation with the authorities to be elected.

As we discussed this at some length in Committee, I should like to summarise my argument. First, we question whether it is right in principle to take these important boroughs at the heart of London right out of the whole business of development control, as this Amendment, as at least I read it, would do. Secondly, we think it would be a mistake in practice, since the result would be to clutter up the Greater London Council with a mass of detail. Thirdly, there are already adequate provisions in the Bill which ensure that the Greater London Council will be able to exercise effective control over significant developments at the centre of London, or indeed elsewhere, which impinge on the Greater London Plan or the Greater London Council's strategic planning function.

Fourthly, if we are going to define a central area—and that possibility is provided for in the Bill as drafted—we feel that this is best done after the consultations which it is certainly my right honourable friend's intention to hold with these important new authorities, including, of course, the Greater London Council. It is for those reasons that, in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I find myself in much the same position as I did when replying to my noble friend Lord Conesford, and must advise your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I would say, very briefly, that I believe as emphatically as I did on May 20 in the validity of the case for the Amendment which I then proposed. On that occasion I found myself in agreement with a certain number of my noble friends and with noble Lords on the other side of the Committee, as it then was, and we voted in a very important Division. Although the Amendment now moved by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has some of the same intentions as the Amendment which I then moved, I honestly do not believe that it would have the same effect. What I was then most concerned with was not so much development control as ensuring the planning of the centre of London by a single authority. I do not believe that that result would be brought about by this Amendment, however well-intentioned it is. While I wished to explain why I do not think I could support the present Amendment, that does not mean that I do not believe entirely in the case which I made on May 20 and on which the Committee then voted.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I am sorry that we cannot have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, on this Amendment. What we have argued in connection with it is that the applications and the development plan are really inseparable in this matter of planning the central London area. Here we are dealing only with the applications and that aspect of planning. In later Amendments, which I think will be much nearer the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, judging by what he has now said, we shall be returning to something which I think will have his support.

I am grateful to the noble Earl for the consideration which he has given to this matter between Committee and Report. My only regret is that that consideration did not lead him to accept the point of view that was so widely expressed on the Committee stage. I rather hoped that it would. I do not think that we can accept completely the three reasons that he has given for rejecting it. In the first place, he said that he did not want the G.L.C. to be a superior body and the boroughs inferior. I would only say that, clearly, for such an area as we are here considering somebody must be able to say how the whole area is to be planned. Somebody must be able to control that development, and we say that it ought to be controlled by a body such as the G.L.C. So I cannot accept the first of these reasons. I certainly could not accept the supporting reason he gave: that these borough councils will be experienced bodies. As my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth pointed out, they are not yet in existence, so it would be a bit of a job for them to be experienced in this regard.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would permit me to make a correction. I think I used the words, "large, important and responsible". I certainly added the word "experienced", to which I plead guilty. But I was thinking, as I wanted to make clear in reply to the interjection by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, of the transmitted experience which they would be inheriting.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will forgive me if I do what most debaters do and seize on the weakest point in my enemy's argument. The use of the word "experience" was the weakest point in the argument adduced by the noble Earl.

The second point he made was that this would bring in a mass of detail to the Greater London Council level. As I understand it, these applications would come into the Greater London Council, and it would be possible for that Council, under delegation (for which provision is made in the Bill), to sort out these applications and to send on to the boroughs those applications which had nothing more than purely local significance. This we think could be done administratively, without any great difficulty, by the Greater London Council. I certainly do not want to see that body snowed under by applications and weight of paper, but their function would be to sort out applications in order to ensure that the Greater London Council dealt only with those matters which had central area significance as a whole.

The third reason the noble Earl gave us was that, as the clause stands, the Minister, under regulations, would be able to pick out the matters which necessitated the active concern of the Greater London Council in granting or refusing applications. In this matter of the central area, I tried to point out in my speech that Parliament has always been deeply interested in this area. Parliament itself has from time to time ensured that in Bills which have gone through this House and another place, instructions are given to the Minister about this area. The Minister talked about more flesh and blood being given by Parliament to legislation going through this House on this matter. We believe precisely that. We believe that more flesh and blood should be given to this particular aspect of the Bill, in order to ensure that the Minister makes regulations covering this area, and that vie Greater London Council should be the body responsible for all aspects of its development.

I am fairly sure that the noble Earl is not now going to get up and say that, having regard to everything I have said, he will accept the Amendment. All I suggest to him is that he gives this matter further consideration between now and Third Reading, when we in this House have the advantage of being able to move Amendments. Despite my plea to him on this, I do not feel able to withdraw this Amendment, and I feel that we ought to divide upon it.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, I did not intend to say anything, but I am prompted by the observation of the noble Earl to the effect that the London boroughs would be experienced (among other adjectives he used) in this matter. It has now been interpreted that this experience would be transmitted from the present London County Council. But it is impossible to legislate for transmission in that sense. There is no guarantee, no certainty, that the architectural staff of the London County Council will be distributed among the boroughs. Therefore, the argument that there will be an automatic transmission is ill-founded. It is not accurate. I think that, on reflection, the noble Earl will himself agree on that. They will have to start de novo; they will have to learn as they go. It is true that under the Bill the major plan (I never understand the distinction between the strategical and the tactical as applied to public administration, and I think we ought to leave off using those terms and find something that is more readily understood) for London will be made by the Greater London Council, and that the borough plans, subject to certain consultations, and so on, will be made by the boroughs themselves. The noble Earl used the language of "superior" and "inferior". I do not think my noble friend talked about the "inferior". It is a question of providing, in certain circumstances, which is the more appropriate authority to do a certain job.

We were very much impressed at the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who has now retired from the fray. He does not like our Amendment, but is not moving one of his own, so far as I can tell. So I suppose the Whips have got hold of him and persuaded him to be a good lad, which he is now proceeding to be—not for the first time in our island story. I am sorry that we have lost the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford; he was a valuable ally. Indeed, we supported him on one Amendment; and now we find this base ingratitude when my noble friend Lord Champion has been so careful and constructive.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

He is a lost leader.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Yes; we had that quote in another place about "the lost leader"; and here is another one.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, may I interrupt? I assure the noble Lord that, if I thought this Amendment had the same effect as the Amendment which I moved on the last occasion, I should certainly support it. But I do not think that, as a matter of law, it has the same effect at all.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

I do not know. I thought that in principle it was much the same, and that it was a brilliant stroke of genius on the part of my noble friend that determined the area by the London railway terminals. This is a very good idea and about fits it. It may be that the Minister should have power to modify it if necessary; but it does about fit it. And I thought myself, directly I read it, that this would get the support of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford; but now he has left us and he is going into the Government Lobby.

LORD CONESFORD

No.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

The noble Lord is not coming into our Lobby either, and I do not know where he is going. He is lost altogether. That is a sad finish to a great life. He is going to be nowhere on this great issue.

The method that my noble friend has recommended is a better method than the Minister of State for the Home Office suggests that the Minister will follow. If the Minister is faced with the problem of picking out certain historical buildings and other places, such as Piccadilly Circus, but nothing else, he is going to run the risk of some development taking place with planning permission of the local borough council which may impede the view of the picked-out "highlights" of the area and therefore may endanger the whole thing; whereas the recommendation of my noble friend is that we define this area whore the Greater London Council shall have the power conferred upon them, subject to the understanding that all ordinary applications can be delegated to the London borough.

That seems to be much more sensible, because you can have two or three ordinary places near to one of the "highlight" places, and it may be equally important that you control development of those ordinary places in order to protect the "highlight"

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

7.12 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE moved in subsection (6)(b), after "Common Council", to insert "(i)". The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to move this Amendment together with Amendments 97 and

place. I am using language which I think is better than "strategic" and "tactical"; and I am sorry, therefore, that the Government will not accept this Amendment to which my noble friend has given a great deal of thought. Let us hope that things will work out all right; but I am not sure they will, because the Minister will give everything conceivable he can to the borough, irrespective of the public interest. That is the bias from which he starts, and I would rather have had it our way. So we propose to divide, and we still hope against hope that that great planner and enthusiast for reasonable planning, and particularly protection for central London, will come into our Lobby and vote with us, instead of running the risk of being dragged into the other Lobby and voting against the speeches which he made on Committee stage.

7.5 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 95) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS
Addison, V. Burton of Coventry, B. Lucan, E. [Teller.]
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Champion, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L.
Amulree, L. Crook, L. Peddie, L.
Archibald, L. Latham, L. Shepherd, L.
Attlee, E. Lawson, L. Stonham, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.] Longford, E. Summerskill, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L. Fraser of North Cape, L. Molson, L.
Aldington, L. Furness, V. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Allerton, L. Gage, V. Newton, L.
Auckland, L. Goschen, V. [Teller.] Ormonde, M.
Beauchamp, E. Grenfell, L. Raglan, L.
Boston, L. Hailsham, V. (L. President.) Remnant, L.
Craigmyle, L. Harris, L. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
De La Warr, E. Hastings, L. St. Oswald, L.
Derwent, L. Howard of Glossop, L. Sandford, L.
Devonshire, D. Jellicoe, E. Sinclair of Cleeve, L.
Dundee, E. Lansdowne, M. Stonehaven, V.
Ebbisham, L. Long, V. Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Lothian, M. Swinton, E.
Ferrers, E. Mabane, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
Forster of Harraby, L. Margesson, V. Waleran, L.
Fortescue, E. Massereene and Ferrard, V.

99. During the Committee stage I confessed, rather rashly, that I found some little difficulty in understanding the precise meaning of this particular subsection. I think I had even more difficulty in explaining its beauties and mysteries to your Lordships at that time. In any event, I said during our discussion that I should be glad to have a close look at the drafting of this part of the clause. I have had it, and as a result I am now moving these three linked Amendments. One reason why I think the sense of this particular subsection is not altogether easy to grasp at first sight is that it provides for a number of distinct actions in one formula.

LORD LATHAM

That is not unique, is it?

EARL JELLICOE

No; but it does it in very compressed language in this case. When one breaks down the individual items I think the purpose can more clearly be seen. I should now like to do so, not least because I think it may help us a little in our discussion of some of the Amendments following these Amendments. It may take a minute or two, for which I apologise in advance, and I should like to couple my apology with a warning that what I am going to say will be incredibly dull.

The subsection opens with a reference to Sections 19 to 22 of the Planning Act. These give the Minister power to require certain steps to be taken by a planning authority in dealing with applications for planning permission, and they give the Ministers concerned power to make directions at the same time. Subsection (6), while preserving this for the new, Greater London set-up, in addition makes further provision for the special situation arising from the establishment of the two sets of authorities, the Greater London Council and the boroughs. I have said the subsection is a little complicated because it deals with a number of different situations. There are three main situations; first, the applications dealt with by the G.L.C. in the first instance, which may need to be referred to the Minister—the paragraph (a) situation. Then there are the applications dealt with by a borough council, which may need to be referred to the G.L.C.—paragraph (b)(i); and other such applications which may need to be referred to the Minister—paragraph (b)(ii) as re-drafted. There are, lastly, applications referred by the borough council to the G.L.C. which, in some circumstances, may also need to be referred to the Minister—that is, paragraph (c). I should like to say a word or two about each of these three different situations.

Let me recall that the Greater London Council will be dealing with all development of real importance, from the regional point of view—what I have learned to call strategic developments, but, in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I will endeavour to find another term for them. That is as laid down in subsection (4) of Clause 24. Paragraph (a) of subsection (6) deals with such development. It enables the Minister to define particular classes of development within this field which need to be referred to him. This will, of course, not transfer the application to him, because "reference" in the context used here is intended to mean consultation. The intention is that the Minister should have the same opportunity to see any particular type of application with which the G.L.C. may be dealing as he has elsewhere for applications dealt with by other planning authorities throughout the country. The sort of case we have in mind, though there might be others, is a development which amounts to a substantial departure from the development plan, the Greater London Plan or the local development plan, or which, if not a substantial departure, is nevertheless likely to have a damaging effect on amenities.

Now I come to paragraph (b). Here we are dealing with applications on which the decisions will be given by the borough councils; that is, development other than that specified in Clause 24(4) of the Bill. Paragraph (b) machinery will operate in two ways, and my Amendments are intended to make their operation clearer. I think it was obscure in the subsection as originally drafted. In the first place, we propose to ensure that the G.L.C. should be consulted before a borough consents to development which may have a bearing on other planning at G.L.C. level. There is a variety of possible developments which might fall into this category. There is, for example, development along a metropolitan road—a petrol filling station, for example—perhaps not very important in itself but significant to the G.L.C. as the highway and traffic authority.

Then, again, this paragraph might well cover development of a kind similar to, but not as important as, development covered in the class prescribed in Clause 24(4). An example could be a big building creating employment. In the central area of London this might well be caught by the 24(4) regulations. But in the outer or peripheral areas the Minister, after consultation, might well decide that the 24(6) machinery would suffice. In any event, paragraph (b) will enable the Minister to provide by regulations that for such classes of development as is thought right the G.L.C. should be consulted before the decision is given if the borough council wish to approve permission. Those regulations will, of course, have to cover any development inconsistent with the Greater London Plan. This is spelled out in terms of the words at the top of page 34, which was added on an undertaking by my right honourable friend in another place so that the G.L.C. should know of any proposed departure, small or big, from the Greater London Plan. That also is provided for in terms.

Here I should like to make one small digression. Your Lordships may recall that on our Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, moved an Amendment to Clause 28. What he was doing was to suggest that not only what are termed buildings on Class 1 and Class 2 of the Statutory List of Historic Buildings, and not only applications affecting buildings on those classes, but also applications affecting buildings on the so-called supplementary list, should be referred to the G.L.C. if an application comes into a borough. I said that I would undertake to reconsider that point and, on my undertaking, he withdrew his Amendment. In looking into this we have realised that there is no need to amend the Bill here. It was agreed during the Committee stage in another place that the regulations to be made under these powers in Clause 24(6) will provide for planning applications affecting buildings on the Statutory List to go to the G.L.C. if the borough intend to allow the application. The G.L.C. would then have an opportunity to discuss the matter with the borough and, if necessary, to direct a refusal of permission or issue a direction that permission should be given only subject to certain conditions.

We have decided that the simplest and most logical course would be to extend the scope of these regulations to cover applications affecting buildings included in the supplementary list as well. It is the Government's intention that this should be done. I wanted, as it were, to read our intentions here into Hansard, because I gave a clear undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, that I would reconsider this point.

I now come to the second limb of paragraph (b)—the reference to the Minister. The object of this is to provide for the borough councils the same Ministerial control as applies to planning authorities generally and, in fact, as is provided for in paragraph (a) for the development with which the G.L.C. will deal. The purpose is to see that the Minister is informed of any substantial departure, or departures, which are damaging to amenities, which a borough council may wish to approve but which do not need to be referred to the G.L.C. As I explained in Committee, the object of this separate line, as it were, to the Minister is not to cut out the G.L.C. from matters which concern them, but simply to bring into the right channel matters which are not of regional concern but which, being substantial departures, ought to be looked at by the Minister to see whether the public should have an opportunity to voice an opinion, for example, at a public inquiry.

Lastly, there is paragraph (c). This will enable the Minister to see particular types of case referred by a borough council to the G.L.C. under the paragraph (b) machinery. Take the case of a substantial departure from the local or borough development plan which is of wider than borough application. The first stage would be for the borough council to refer it to the G.L.C. under paragraph (b)(i) because it is of regional interest. If the G.L.C. in their turn think that the application should be approved, the Minister, by reason of this provision, could require them first to refer it to him because it is a substantial departure. This, I think, is absolutely right and squares with paragraph (a).

Finally, in the words following on after paragraph (c), teeth are put into all this by the provision that either the G.L.C. or the Minister, on having an application referred to them, may give directions as to the manner in which the application is to be dealt with. This provision in fact gives them considerable say as to how the development should be handled. They could direct that it should be refused or that it should be allowed only subject to specific and defined conditions. If this were an application originating with a borough council, sent on to the G.L.C. and then sent on to the Minister, the Minister would give any directions to the G.L.C., who would then pass them on to the borough council—so that the G.L.C. would be fully informed.

I should like to claim that the machinery embodied in Clause 24(6) is logical and sensible. It will permit regulations to be made to ensure that before permissions are given, either at the borough or G.L.C. level, the G.L.C. or the Minister is brought in at the appropriate stage. Of course a lot will depend on how all this is spelled out in the regulations to be made. I would add here that these regulations will be made only after the fullest possible consultation with those concerned—the G.L.C., the boroughs or any association which the boroughs may establish. Meanwhile, I am satisfied now that the enabling provisions, as now set out in this subsction as amended, are adequate. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me. I again apologise for having taken a certain amount of time, but I have tried to throw some light upon what, to me at least, has been a rather dark place in the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 40, at beginning insert ("(i)").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, there was no need at all for the noble Earl to apologise. I think his further elucidation of what he called "the beauties and mysteries of subsection (6)" has been most helpful, and indeed the Amendment he is now moving goes some way towards meeting the point in the Amendments which I hope to move later on. Therefore, we welcome the Amendments. But I am bound to say that we feel that they go only some way. He has made it clear that the Minister will make it possible, by regulations which it is proposed to introduce, to define certain classes of case where the Greater London Council will be consulted on matters which are presumably a substantial departure from the plan.

EARL JELLICOE

Or of regional significance.

LORD STONHAM

Yes. I did make a note that the object is not to cut out the G.L.C., but to see that they are consulted on matters of regional significance. I am glad that at least this has been conceded. I am also grateful for his explanation of the examples of the kind of cases where the G.L.C. will be consulted; I am sure that they will repay careful consideration and will prove helpful. But I think that the difference between the noble Earl and myself in this matter was made clear when he was dealing with the point which was raised in Committee by my noble friend Lord Faringdon on Clause 28. The noble Earl then said that he wanted to read the Government's intention into Hansard. I am quite sure that we are grateful for that; but our general view is that it is much better and much safer in such circumstances, not merely to read the intentions into Hansard but to put them into the Statute. But I do not want to niggle at this. I think it is a step in the right direction, but only half a step. However, even as such, we welcome the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 33, line 40, after ("or") insert— ("(ii) in such cases as the regulations may prescribe").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE)

My Lords, in view of the time, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until half past eight.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended at half past seven and resumed at half past eight o'clock.]

LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (6)(b), to leave out "or to the Minister". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, and I hope that it will meet the convenience of your Lordships if I discuss with it Amendments Nos. 100 and 101. I should like to mention to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that it is not by inadvertence that I have refrained from mentioning 99A, because, even if he accepts Amendment 98, I shall not move 99A, since the point is already covered in an explanation he gave on Committee stage. But the other three Amendments are linked.

They can be summed up in one word: consultation—the importance of according to the Greater London Council on these planning matters essential consultation. These three Amendments particularly emphasise the fact that the Greater London Council should not be by-passed, where proposed departures from a local development plan do not happen also to be departures from the Greater London development plan.

We feel, of course, that the local plan must not depart from the Greater London development plan. The Greater London Council is allowed, or invited, to give observations to the Minister on the proposed contents of the local plans, and in our submission the Council should therefore be allowed to give observations on any proposals to grant planning permission contrary to the provisions of the local plans. I am well aware that to a limited extent—and the noble Earl may well feel to the necessary extent—the point has been conceded in the Amendment he himself moved before the dinner adjournment, but, as I then forecast, we do not share that view.

During the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Silkin withdrew a similar Amendment to No. 98, on receiving an assurance from the noble Earl that he would look at this particular subsection again; indeed, it is obvious from his earlier remarks that it worried him to some extent. I would not go so far as to say that the noble Earl admitted that he did not quite understand it, but its full beauty was not apparent to him until he made it the subject of further study. In the same way, the essence of Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 was discussed at the same time in Committee, but they were not moved, pending consideration by the Government of the general principle involved.

The noble Lord made the point during Committee stage that the Minister would in any case have approved the local development plan after a local inquiry; that if the borough wished to approve something which departed substantially from it the Minister would be told of the proposed procedure, so that if he thought an inquiry should first be held, he could call in an application and arrange for it. He also pointed out that the purpose of direct reference from the boroughs to the Minister was not to bring the Minister, as opposed to the Greater London Council, into the decision-making process, but to enable him to initiate the inquiry machinery—something which obviously the Greater London Council could not do; and that to introduce the Council as a step on the way to the Minister would have, in the noble Earl's submission, the inevitable result of slowing up the whole planning machine. We do not accept that reasoning, and that is why I am moving these Amendments.

Of course the Minister will have approved the local development plan not only after a local inquiry, but also after taking into account the views of the Greater London Council, as provided for in the Bill. But if the Minister needs to consider whether the public should be given a chance to make their views known on a departure from the plan which has bean proposed by a borough council, then obviously these must be matters of sufficient importance to ask for the views of the Greater London Council to be made known also. I would emphasise to the noble Earl this point of difference between us: that it is not in particular circumstances, as decided by the Minister in accordance with the regulations which he has now explained it is proposed to make, but it is indeed a matter of right, and I would have submitted of necessity, that the views of the G.L.C. should be made known. Because, after all, we are talking about substantial departures from the plan. The noble Earl had some diffidence about accepting the description "strategic" plan. It is a word I am going to use, because I have not thought of a better one. It could perhaps be called a master plan.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but it was his noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth who was worried about "strategic". I think it is an admirable adjective to describe this.

LORD STONHAM

That possibly accounts for the difficulty which I myself have found in finding a better word. But if I use the word "strategic" the noble Earl will forgive me. We are talking about substantial departures from the plan and, if the Minister should feel it necessary under the present arrangements to ask the Greater London Council for their views on any particular proposed substantial departure from the plan sent to him by a borough, this is where delay would come in. There is every reason, therefore, as we suggest in these Amendments, for a borough to refer a proposed substantial departure at the same time to the Greater London Council and to the Minister. I submit that, obviously, if that were done it would involve no delay whatsoever. I must point out to the noble Earl that the Minister's part in the case of a proposed substantial departure from the plan is not just confined to deciding whether a public inquiry should be held. Without holding an inquiry, even he can—and he does—come in to the decision-making process, by directing a planning authority not to grant permission for development where he considers that it would be wrong in the public interest to allow a proposed substantial departure from the plan.

Unless there is something wrong with the local development plan, the boroughs should not be coming up with very many proposed substantial departures from the strategic plan. If they do, then the Greater London Council, the major partner with the Minister in the framing of the strategic plan, should obviously not be by-passed. In our submission, this is an important point of principle, and we think it is an important point of actual practical application. So far as I can understand it, the Government's view is that departures from detailed zoning should be no concern of the authority for preparing the master plan. I confess that I find such a view most extraordinary. It might be arguable if we were dealing with a situation in a scattered county, but it cannot possibly be so in a continuous built-up area such as Greater London. Indeed, I submit that the Bill recognises this by providing that the detailed zoning proposals themselves, or any proposed changes in them, should go to the Minister via the Greater London Council, and by giving the Council a statutory right to make observations on them to the Minister. In my submission, it is quite illogical to provide different methods in the case of a proposed infringement of this zoning.

As my noble friend Lord Faringdon pointed out during the Committee stage, a number of what he described as "little nibblings" into local plans would, added together, cumulatively have a very adverse effect on the main strategic plan. Obviously, the Greater London Council would not wish to concern itself further with any proposed substantial departures from a local plan which would not affect it as the body charged with the responsibility for preparing and keeping under review the whole strategic plan, but it should know of them—and that is the whole point of these Amendments. It should know of them as of right and as of common sense, so that it can be a judge of the matter, a judge of the importance of the variations and a judge of the effect on the main strategic plan, of which the local plan is an important part. Indeed, in the speech which the noble Earl made on the Amendment he moved prior to the adjournment, it seemed to me that in a considerable degree he was conceding that point.

My noble friend Lord Silkin said during the discussions on a similar Amendment at Committee stage that consideration should be given to whether or not it would save a great deal of trouble in the long run if the Greater London Council were informed of all these applications which in any case involve a departure from the plan. He said that if they are trivial, then obviously no further action will be taken by the Council; if they are important, then they—that is, the Greater London Council—can make representations to the Minister. That seems to me to put the whole thing in a nutshell. This is not, so far as I am concerned, a matter of passion; it is a matter of common sense and administrative convenience. It would seem to me that the major authority, in many respects the partner of the Minister in these matters, should be automatically consulted or informed at the same time as the Minister is informed, and that they should have the automatic right of making representations to the Minister in any matters where they think it appropriate to do so. That seems to me to be a wholly reasonable suggestion to make, and I hope it will be acceptable to the Government. My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 40, leave out ("or to the Minister").—(Lord Stonham.)

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I am grateful to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that noble Lords opposite accept the view which I rather hesitantly expressed on Committee stage, that the requirement which they had written into their Amendment No. 99A was, in fact, already covered in the Bill as drafted. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will be entirely surprised to hear that, notwithstanding the fact that in my previous Amendment I went some way to meet the views expressed by noble Lords opposite on our Committee stage, I am reluctant to accept—in fact, I cannot advise your Lordships to accept—the three Amendments which the noble Lord is now discussing.

I will seek to explain why. I think for simplicity's sake it might be easiest if I take the three Amendments in two groups—first, Amendment 98, and then Amendments 100 and 101—although I know they are intimately linked and the noble Lord has been quite right to move them together. So far as Amendment No. 98 is concerned I would remind the noble Lord of what I said in moving my previous Amendments to Clause 24(6): that in the sort of case envisaged here the Minister would already have approved development plans after a local inquiry. If a planning authority wished to approve something substantially departing from that local development plan, the Minister is told, mainly so that if he thinks it necessary an inquiry can be initiated. In such a case—assuming there is nothing of regional significance in the application, for if there were the application would go straight away to the Greater London Council under the regulations which are provided for in the Bill—there is, I would submit, no point in referring such an application to the Greater London Council.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, forgive me for interrupting. The noble Earl mentioned that if the particular matter had regional significance it would go automatically to the Greater London Council. Could he point out to me the authority for that in the Bill?

EARL JELLICOE

The authority is provided for in the regulations which will be promulgated under Clause 24(4) and 24(6) and, more specifically, under paragraph (b)(i) of the new Clause 24(6). In the event, the Greater London Council themselves could not hold an inquiry; as another planning authority with responsibilities over much the same territory, they could not take the place of the Minister in resolving public doubt. I would say here what I said in Committee stage: to introduce them, as the Amendment would do, would be merely adding another step on the way up to the Minister. It would import—and I would argue that it would import quite gratuitously—one additional factor of delay into the planning machinery.

The noble Lord said that this would not involve further delay, but it would be bound to do so if an extra stage is to mean anything. The Greater London Council would have to consider the application, formulate their views on it and submit their views on it to the Minister; and naturally the Minister could not take his decision until those views had been submitted. It would, therefore, be bound to add another considerable factor of delay. We all know that unnecessary delay is one of the accusations laid at the door of planners and planning, and where we can avoid it I do suggest we should try to do so.

I would feel quite differently about this Amendment if the Bill did not already provide ample machinery for bringing to the Greater London Council all the things which really concern them in their regional planning capacity. There is the Clause 24(4) and the Clause 24(6) machinery, and there is paragraph (b)(i). I would suggest in all seriousness—and I know that one cannot be passionate about this, although it is a passionate matter—that it is right for us to seek to maintain this separate channel between the borough and the Minister for cases which have no Greater London Council significance at all. It would be a mistake to close it, as would acceptance of this Amendment No. 98.

If I may now turn to the linked twin Amendments 100 and 101, I should like to remind your Lordships here that the concluding words of Clause 24(6), on which these Amendments would bite, were added as a result of an undertaking given by my right honourable friend in another place on the Committee stage. It had been said that the G.L.C. should automatically know of applications which ran counter to the Greater London Development Plan, and my right honourable friend then said that he always had it in mind to make regulations to ensure that the G.L.C. knew of all departures—I emphasise "all"—from the plan they themselves had made. To make this matter quite clear, the clause now requires in terms that the Minister shall make regulations to deal with such departures. So there is absolutely no doubt that any departures from the Greater London Plan will come automatically to the G.L.C.

The effect of these two Amendments would be to require the Minister to make regulations for all departures—and again I emphasise "all"—from the local development plan as well as the Greater London Plan. It is also clear, from what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said, that it is the view of noble Lords opposite that those regulations should specify that applications covered by them should go simultaneously to the Minister and the G.L.C.

I would reiterate our view that the local development plan is primarily the responsibility of the borough council, although we are now providing, in an Amendment by my noble friend Lord Hastings, that there shall be consultation in its preparation with the G.L.C. I can see no point at all in involving the G.L.C. in these minor cases, if all that is involved is a purely local departure from the local development plan, it may be of matters as small as a change of use of one room in one house.

I would emphasise that the effect of this Amendment is to require the Minister to make regulations not only about certain local development plan departures, but also about all such departures. I would remind your Lordships that planning authorities throughout the country at the moment are perfectly free to clear departures which are not substantial and not injuriously affecting amenities (to use the hallowed phrase), and our intention is to import similar arrangements into the new London machinery. I am sure that this is perfectly right and that it would be a retrograde step to require, as this Amendment would require, the borough council to refer even a minor departure to the G.L.C. or to the Minister, or to anyone else. This would really be clogging up the planning machinery.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, is it not the case that the Minister at present has the right and power to call in any application, whether it is small or large, minor or otherwise?

EARL JELLICOE

That is undoubtedly true, but that is quite a different matter from making it obligatory for all departures, whether small or large, to go automatically to him. Of course he has the right to call for anything, but it would be a great mistake to make it automatic. This would be jamming up the works.

I emphasise that the case is quite different for departures from the Greater London Plan. The G.L.C. should know about all such departures before planning permission is given for any new application which would entail such departure. I need hardly remind your Lordships that where minor departures from the local development plan are of significance to the G.L.C., and they could be of significance even though they are quite minor, they will be dealt with under the Clause 24(6) regulations and will go to the G.L.C., as I explained in moving my three previous Amendments. For these reasons, I feel that it would be a mistake for your Lordships to accept these Amendments.

There were two further points made by the noble Lord on which, in conclusion, I might briefly touch. If I remember his words correctly, he said that he thought it was only right that, since the local development plan had gone to the Minister through the Greater London Council, any departures from that, however minor, should also go through them, or that the Greater London Council should be made aware of them. But there is a distinction here, because the local development plan in itself contains both big and small matters. Here we are dealing with matters which are by definition small, because the matters which are of regional concern will already go to the G.L.C. Secondly, he referred to the fear of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, that unless the G.L.C. are informed of these matters an erosion of the Greater London Plan could take place by stealth and without their knowing it had occurred. I do not think this would be so. A glance at the last words of Clause 24(3) will show that they will be informed now of the result of all applications, and will be given full details of the applications as a result of an Amendment which I accepted on the Committee stage. Therefore, if they feel that the Greater London Plan is being eroded by a succession of Amendments, small in themselves but large in their general effect, then they can get on to the boroughs concerned or, in the last resort, represent to the Minister. They would be perfectly free to do so.

I think the noble Lord was quite correct in saying that I was perhaps not perfectly acquainted on the Committee stage with the full beauties of this particular subsection. They have now become unveiled to my eyes, especially as the result of the clarifying Amendments that I moved a short time ago. I must candidly confess that I prefer the beauties of this subsection, unveiled as they are now, as amended by my Amendments, but not as amended by the noble Lord's Amendments.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I have already said to the noble Earl that Amendments Nos. 96 and 97, which he moved prior to the adjournment, have conceded the greater part of the case which I put on the Amendments I have now moved. The noble Earl has made it clear that, because of his Amendments, any matter which is reasonable—which I interpret as meaning in the case of London every matter which is imperative to be considered by the Greater London Council—will automatically go to them. Obviously, major matters go to them, in any case; and the noble Earl has made it clear that under the regulations, even items which are of comparatively minor importance will, nevertheless, be referred to the Greater London Council if they have an effect on the overall plan, and other matters are covered by Clause 24(3) with an automatic reference.

There is one point I should like to put to the noble Earl on the question of delay. He said it would add another step on the way up to the Minister. He quite clearly made the point which I made, that it would go simultaneously to the G.L.C. and to the Minister. I would submit to him that experience would go to show that the G.L.C. would not take longer in considering this matter than the appropriate section or department of the Department. I put it no higher than that. Therefore the only possible additional delay would be in the time that is taken by the Minister to consider the representations of the Greater London Council. I should have thought that that was time well spent, and if it involved any delay at all, and the delay avoided the making of a serious error, then it would be well worth while.

I admit that the noble Earl in his answer went a substantial way towards what we wanted—I do not mean in regard to this automatic reference, because I appreciate that some of the references, if all of them were automatic, might clutter up the machine a little, though they could be rejected by the G.L.C. Indeed, everything would depend on the regulations. Who is going to decide whether it is a major, regional or minor matter which must, or need not, be referred to the G.L.C.? Therefore, the regulations will be very difficult to frame, and when they are made we shall submit them to careful scrutiny in the light of what the noble Earl has now said. I think the position has been fairly explained and debated, and I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 42, after ("(b)") insert ("(i)").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

9.2 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved, after subsection (6) to insert: () Where by virtue of regulations made by the Minister under section 42 of the Planning Act an application for permission is required to be made to the Minister by the Council of a London borough or the Common Council, as the case may be, a copy of the application shall be sent to the Greater London Council at the same time as the application is made to the Minister and the Minister shall consider any representations made by the Greater London Council as to the manner in which the application is to be dealt with.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is on almost the same general point, but there is a difference. The main point is that where an application for permission is made to the Minister by the council of a London borough or the Common Council a copy of the application should be sent to the Greater London Council at the same time as the application is made to the Minister. Again, I should have thought that as a matter of general principle this would not only seem sensible but ought, in the long run, to save time; because, as the noble Earl has said, in a considerable number of cases the Minister will have to consult the Greater London Council as to their view. If the application goes to the G.L.C. at the same time as it is sent to the Minister, surely, in the long run it will mean a saving of time. Where a local planning authority proposes to carry out development which involves a substantial departure from the development plan, it must of course submit an application to the Minister who, after consideration, refuses or grants the permission. That, of course, is by virtue of regulations made under Section 42 of the Planning Act. It is considered that departures from the development plan, whether it is the Greater London development plan, or the local development plan, are obviously a matter of first importance to the Greater London Council in its rôle as the wider development authority.

This Amendment is on all fours with those to Clause 24(6), which I have just withdrawn and which sought to provide that any application for private development for which a London borough considered permission should be granted should be referred to the Greater London Council, as well as to the Minister, and at the same time. Indeed, all the Amendment does is to ensure that the Greater London Council shall be aware of the London borough council's proposals and have an opportunity of giving its observations to the Minister. Again, a similar Amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Silkin during the Committee stage and was also withdrawn on the assurance of the noble Earl that he would think about it again.

One point I should like particularly to stress is that the Bill as it stands would not appear to provide any machinery by which the Greater London Council would be brought in, even in the case of a proposed development by a borough council involving a substantial departure from the major strategic plan for the Greater London area. In such a case, the borough must make application to the Minister for permission, but, as I see it, there is no provision in sub-paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this beautiful subsection (6) for regulations covering an application made to the Minister. It may well be (although I did not hear it) that the noble Earl may intend regulations which are going to be made in accordance with the Amendment which he moved, No. 96, which will cover cases where applications must be made to the Minister.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, perhaps I might interrupt the noble Lord straight away on this point? It is certainly my understanding that the clause from line 2 to line 5 on the top of page 34 of this subsection will bite on the point which he is making. Specifically it will cover any development, whether by a private developer or by a borough, which is inconsistent with the Greater London plan.

LORD STONHAM

Therefore matters must be referred to the Minister covering these applications?

EARL JELLICOE

Referred to the G.L.C. and then, if necessary, to the Minister.

LORD STONHAM

That assurance of the Minister that the clause will bite on that point goes a long way to dealing with the points that I have in mind. But I mentioned the regulations, and subsection (2) of paragraph 4 of the 1951 regulations provides that the application for planning permission shall be made in the form of an application to the local planning authority, and that it shall be deemed to have been referred to the Minister under Section 15 (which is now Section 22) of the Planning Act; and such an application would, as I am advised, appear to be outside the definition of an application falling to be dealt with by the Greater London Council or a London borough council: it falls to be dealt with by the Minister. It is to remedy what has appeared to us to be this apparent omission that this Amendment has now been moved. Our view is that the same procedure should apply, whether the proposed departure is from the Greater London development plan or from the local development plan.

I appreciate that the noble Earl is with me all the way, and I think I was with him until the last point that I brought up; and it may well be that he would like further time to consider it. But it certainly seems to us a point of some substance which needs to be cleared up, and I hope that he will think about it. I feel that it is one point about this Amendment which is still outstanding and has not been answered by the noble Earl's interjection. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 9, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, the noble Lord has put the case for this Amendment very reasonably, and, as he said, when we discussed this matter on Committee I undertook to have another look at it. Having done so, I came to the conclusion that the Amendment was not necessary. I will briefly run over the reasons why I felt that. I had assumed that the object of the Amendment was to make quite certain that the G.L.C. knew of any development by a borough which had a wider-than-borough significance. If that is the object, the Amendment strikes me as unnecessary, as I think it is already provided for fully in the Bill as a result of the Clause 24(4) machinery. Where development is of a sort that will be caught by the Clause 24(4) machinery, then the Greater London Council will be dealing with all stages of the development control, and the application will therefore go to the G.L.C. from the outset, whether it is development by a private developer or by a borough. That is the first case.

The second is borough development which will not come within the purview of Clause 24(4) but which nevertheless has certain regional implications and will be caught by the Clause 24(6) machinery. There the G.L.C. will be informed straight away before the borough can go ahead, and will if they so desire be in a position to give directions to the borough as to how the matter should be carried out. Then there are the regulations which the Minister himself can make under the Section 42 machinery. The Minister, in making such regulations, would refer for consultation with the G.L.C. any such kinds of development as would be referable to them under Clause 24(6). I can give the noble Lord an assurance in that respect.

I think the result of accepting the Amendment as it stands would be to bring in the G.L.C. on all borough council development, whether or not it was of regional significance or local significance. I do not mind their being brought in if it is of regional significance, but I feel there are disadvantages in bringing them in if it is of purely local significance. I see no reason why the G.L.C. should be automatically involved in a borough housing scheme which was arousing a certain amount of purely local controversy but had no wider significance. To accept that view would be to argue that the G.L.C. should have a voice in borough developments just because they are borough developments. I would remind your Lordships that under the Bill as it stands development by a private developer involving perhaps quite a substantial departure from the local development plan, but which nevertheless did not have wider regional significance, would not have the same sort of treatment, and I find it difficult to see why we should discriminate in this way between development by a borough and development by a private developer.

On the specific point which the noble Lord said was troubling him, I am informed that paragraph 5(2) of the 1951 Regulations to which he referred requires the developing authority to consult any body—in this case the G.L.C.—which they would have to consult if the development were not theirs.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether that is Regulation 5(2) or Regulation 4(2)?

EARL JELLICOE

It is Regulation 5(2). I think that that meets the point which the noble Lord had in mind. I should be perfectly willing to check up on that particular point, and I undertake to write to the noble Lord about it. But I think the point which he raised is covered. On the general issue, I must advise your Lordships that I do not think the Amendment is either necessary or, indeed, desirable.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. The only point in doubt, as he has indicated, is the one, that he has promised to write to me about. On that assurance, I would ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.16 p.m.

LORD LATHAM moved, after subsection (6), to insert: () The Greater London Council may deal with any particular application falling within paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection, and in relation to any such application that Council shall be deemed to be the local planning authority for all purposes of the Planning Act other than the reception of the application.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple Amendment of vast importance. It seeks to include within the Bill the right of calling in any applications that may be made for planning permission, the right to call in being vested in the Greater London Council. The right to call in was first introduced into planning legislation in 1947. Up to that time, only if an application for planning had been refused was the procedure of appeal and inquiry available, and as a consequence some monstrous things were done in the name of development and of planning, and legislators were compelled to introduce the provision for calling in and for the Ministry to deal with any particular application so called in.

The Amendment that I am proposing is that these powers should be given to the Greater London Council. At present it is contemplated that the rights of the Greater London Council shall be limited to giving directions to the London boroughs as to the manner in which the application is to be dealt with. The scope of this direction will presumably be limited by the terms of the regulations which under the Bill are to be made by the Minister; and it would seem not unlikely that they will be confined to negative requirement, and that planning permission in respect of the particular application would not be granted or would be granted upon conditions or unconditionally.

We do not regard this requirement of regulation as being adequate as an alternative to the right to call in the application. At present, that right being exercised by the London County Council, the Council has been able to arrange and to approve, by negotiation and the like, certain important planning provisions. This kind of positive planning rests upon the power which the Minister at present has and of which we suggest the London County Council should be possessed. It will enable positive planning to be carried through. Examples of this are to be found in London at Victoria, Euston Road, Hampstead Road, Red Lion Square, Holborn; and in Knightsbridge at Knightsbridge Green. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, referred to the project at Knightsbridge Green as an example of a negotiated scheme.

We hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will accept this Amendment on behalf of the Government. It is the vital essence of planning, and will enable the Greater London Council to step in, if necessary, and stop such unjustifiable developments as that in St. James's Square, which was done before the London County Council had adequate powers to deal with it. The whole essence of planning will be vitiated, and not only will be impaired but may well be destroyed, unless this power is given to the Greater London Council. If obligations are to be placed upon the Greater London Council, then it must be enabled to exercise those powers. This is the way to do it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 9, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Latham.)

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I rise only to point out that the noble Lord who has just addressed the House made one important error, I think, when he said that the power to call in an application was given for the first time in 1947. It was given for the first time under the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act, 1943, in Section 6, and has existed ever since. I remember this because it was my duty to carry that provision through the House of Commons.

LORD LATHAM

I stand corrected. I made inquiries, and I was told it was 1947. I was doubtful about it. I think the noble Lord and I met in connection with that Bill.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I feel some trepidation in entering these very expert lists, but this is again another matter which I undertook to look into without commitment at the Committee stage. I am inclined to feel that I may have offered to look at too many points in connection with Clause 24(6). There were aspects of this clause which puzzled me and I did not wish to close the door on possible improvements we could make to the clause.

Having looked at this matter again, I must nevertheless advise your Lordships against accepting this Amendment. My main reasons for doing so are threefold. In the first place, I would again remind your Lordships, if you need reminding, that applications covering development of regional significance will already fall to be considered de novo by the Greater London Council under Clause 24(4). For such applications the Greater London Council will be the local planning authority in the positive sense suggested in this Amendment—in the positive way in which Lord Latham was speaking. Perhaps it is dangerous to take an example, but it seems to me that the type of development about which he spoke, Knightsbridge Green, both as to the height of buildings and by their location near the Royal Park, and also because of the employment potential created, would probably be covered by the regulations to be promulgated under Clause 24(4). Nevertheless, we feel it right to make a distinction in the procedure for handling such applications which are of regional importance and the procedure for handling applications which cover development of lesser significance to the G.L.C. But I should like to reiterate that, for the applications which will fall under the Clause 24(4) umbrella, the G.L.C. will be the planning authority in the full positive sense desired by the noble Lord.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, would the noble Earl permit me to intervene? It is surely the case that the borough council of Knightsbridge—I do not mean the existing City Council, but the borough council intended to be brought into existence—could have destroyed or (one hesitates to use the word) "bitched" the whole of that development by giving a consent which had not been approved by anyone else.

EARL JELLICOE

If it made a grave departure in its interpretation of what was a matter of regional significance.

LORD LATHAM

But the departure, if I may say so with great respect, is only from the development plan. They could have done it within approval of the development plan and yet have ruined the scheme.

EARL JELLICOE

With respect, I think the noble Lord is wrong there, because under Clause 24(4) matters of regional significance—and this would be a matter of regional significance according to all the criteria which I think are likely to govern the regulations—

LORD LATHAM

A limited area in Knightsbridge?

EARL JELLICOE

Yes, because as the noble Lord would have heard if he had listened closely to my closely reasoned argument in speaking to Clause 24(4), these criteria are questions of height, location, whether it is near the Royal Parks, and the creation of employment potential at the heart of London. I would think it is a fair bet that that particular building would have been caught under all three heads. It is not only questions of departures from the Greater London Plan which go to the G.L.C. They will be brought in in the full sense de novo as a planning authority, when applications of regional or real significance to the development plan come up. That is the first case.

Secondly, we believe that if we write this alternative procedure for call in into Clause 24(6) this is bound to lead to complication and delay. It is our intention that, under the Clause 24(6) regulations, only the development which a borough council wish to approve will need to be referred to the G.L.C. This is for the simple practical reason that we wish to avoid the G.L.C.'s being swamped by a mass of proposals which the borough are likely to turn down in any event. This means that any proposal referred by the borough to the G.L.C. will already have been very fully considered by that borough. I would suggest that at this comparatively late stage it would be wrong to allow the G.L.C., or to encourage the G.L.C., to take the proposal from the borough council and consider it afresh. We should remember here that the call in procedure adds a completely new stage to the whole process which could be made to run as a fresh period of waiting for the potential developer. Once again I suggest that we should really be very "choosey" about gratuitously importing factors which lead to delay into the planning machinery.

My third objection to this Amendment is that I think it underestimates the effectiveness of the power of direction already conferred upon the G.L.C. As I have already explained, the G.L.C. will be able under that power to direct a council to refuse an application, or to agree it subject to defined conditions, and those conditions could be positive as well as negative. Surely this will give the G.L.C. all the control it needs for that particular type of application. I know that the noble Lord feels that perhaps, even with these matters of lesser concern—the ones which will not be caught by the Clause 24(4) or Clause 24(6) machinery—it may be a good thing to bring the G.L.C. in at the formative stage when a particular project may not have fully crystallised. But surely a wise borough, knowing that the G.L.C. has this reserve power of direction, will automatically, if it has any sense, bring in the G.L.C. at an early stage, when they are discussing projects with potential developers, where they think the G.L.C. may be of assistance. Those are my three main objections to the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, could the noble Earl elucidate one point? He has just mentioned the power of direction possessed by the G.L.C. Do the G.L.C. have, in addition to a power of direction, the power of refusal?

EARL JELLICOE

Yes; they can direct the borough to refuse an application. My Lords, those are my three main objections, and the first is really the most important. For the developments which I think the noble Lord had mainly in mind, I think the G.L.C. will be in there in any case, de novo. But, looking at his Amendment, I think there is a fourth objection. Paragraph (b), to which it refers, will now be split into two subparagraphs as a result of the Amendments which I moved quite recently and which your Lordships accepted. Under the second sub-paragraph, some applications will go direct from the borough to the Minister. I have explained why we believe this to be right. But, if I was right about this, it would surely be wrong for the G.L.C. to be able to call in such applications with which, by definition, they are not concerned. For those reasons, although I am not unsympathetic at all to much that the noble Lord has said, I must advise your Lordships against accepting this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 104 and 104A should be taken together. Their purpose is to ensure that where any agreement is made under Clause 24(7) which involves a transfer of staff, then the officers affected shall be entitled to exactly the same safeguards as are ensured by Clause 84 in respect of officers affected by orders made under the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 17, leave out ("and compensation")—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 18, at end insert ("and any such agreement shall include provisions in accordance with section 84(3) of this Act for the protection of the interests of such officers.").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

9.33 p.m.

LORD CROOK moved, after subsection (7) to insert: () The Greater London Council, after consultation with the London borough councils and the Common Council, shall prescribe standards of plot ratio, density, car parking, daylighting and such other matters of a like planning nature in relation to applications for planning permission under the Planning Act as the Greater London Council shall think fit. () Before a London borough council or the Common Council grant permission on an application involving a substantial departure from the standards to be prescribed under the last foregoing subsection, the application shall be referred to the Greater London Council, who may give to the referring council directions as to the manner in which the application is to be dealt with.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I rise to move this Amendment, the purpose of which is to ensure the provision in regulations to be made by the Greater London Council of common planning standards for use in considering applications for planning permission. In the existing development plan for London, standards relating to matters such as car parking, plot ratio, daylighting, et cetera, are referred to only in general terms. The standards are, in fact, not defined; nor do they form part of a plan. I understand, however, that they are kept under constant review, and that they are amended by the L.C.C. from time to time. Your Lordships will note that since plot ratio standards were adopted by the Council in 1951, there have been four major adjustments. First came the major step taken in 1957, to combat congestion in the central area of London. Later modifications, which followed in 1960, 1961 and 1963, were concerned primarily with further controlling the continuing increase in office development. Interim car-parking standards for various types of use were introduced by the Council in 1954. Those, in turn, were reviewed and adjusted in 1957. Recently there has been a further tightening-up in car-parking requirements, and the Council is now reviewing car-parking standards both for residential, further education and hospital uses.

It was, I think, quite clear in Committee stage that both sides of the Committee were fully in agreement that the Greater London Council should prescribe planning standards which London boroughs must take into account. The only point at issue, as I understood it, was how this could be done. The Minister, it seemed to me, thought that it should be done in the written statement of the Greater London development plan; and he pointed out that amendments to this plan could be proposed at any time and not just once in five years. Indeed, as I recall it, he said that amendments of one sort or another were likely to be, as he put it, "in the pipe-line" all the time.

The London County Council does not put detailed standards in the written statement. This is because any proposed modification of the standards would bring into operation the involved and lengthy statutory procedure entailed in any proposed amendment to a development plan. Changes in standards tend to be to the advantage of the public interest and to the disadvantage of developers; and it can be expected that if modifications of the standards are proposed by means of amendments to the development plan they might possibly be the subject of objection. That would then be the subject of public inquiry or hearing before a decision on the proposed amendment could be taken by the Minister. Before this, there would have been all the formal statutory consultations which your Lordships know have to be undertaken beforehand. That makes a written statement for the development plan far too inflexible an instrument for maintaining planning standards and, of vital importance, for keeping them up-to-date.

On this subject of making an amendment to the development plan, my noble friend Lord Silkin pointed this out in Committee stage, even if this were going on frequently—and here I quote: It is not simply a matter of going to the Minister and getting a reply by return of post. It takes a very long time before you get a decision from the Ministry on any review of the plan. My noble friend thought that the Minister was underestimating what was involved and the difficulties there would be. Here I again quote my noble friend. Wherever in the light of experience he thinks it necessary to change its standards it has to go through the process of putting the change through the pipe-line. So the first paragraph of the Amendment seeks to achieve a flexible means of securing consistent planning standards in Greater London; while the second paragraph is aimed at ensuring that planning standards are adhered to reasonably. That is secured by providing that a substantial departure from the standards shall be referred to the Greater London Council; and the Greater London Council may give direction as to how the application should be dealt with.

The London County Council has found it necessary on occasion to vary planning standards at relatively short notice. No objection has been made so far to the procedure used by the Council. The standards are administered flexibly and the applicant is safeguarded by his right of appeal to the Minister if the application is rejected. We think the Greater London Council should be enabled to adopt the procedure for the benefit of Greater London which the London County Council has so far adopted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 18, at end insert the said subsections.— (Lord Crook.)

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this is a question of the best way of handling the problem of standards. We believe that these are matters which directly affect development and if they are to be formalised at all, then they should be included in the development plan written statement. The main reason for that is that, if they are included, the machinery of publication and the right to objection enables those affected to express their view, as can be done for any other development plan, and a public inquiry can be held.

In this Amendment noble Lords opposite still concede that departure from the proper standards would be equivalent to a departure from the plan. But, on the other hand, the standards themselves would not be subject to the publication and inquiry procedure of the development plan. We have been charged with inflexibility, and I have gone into this matter carefully with my Department. I do not think that the charge is justified. It was originally made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and has now been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Crook. We are told that this is altogether too rigid, because it would take too long to make any changes.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was speaking in terms of the review of development plans. These are made every five years and include a wide range of changes and, of course, would take a substantial time to get through. Nevertheless, individual amendments can be made at any time. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, referred to what I said about the pipe-line on Committee stage. In fact, 70 such amendments have been made to the London County Development Plan during the time when there has been only one review, and some twenty amendments are actually in the pipe-line at this moment. The time taken to deal with them is no more than the substance of the matter and the extent of public objection justified.

If, as we propose, the standards are included in the Greater London Development Plan by way of written statement, then, by virtue of the regulations which will be made under Clause 24(6), which we have just been discussing, the borough councils would have to consult the G.L.C. before granting permission for any development which constituted a departure from these standards; but—and this is an important point—the G.L.C. could give permission, if they wanted to do so, without undue delay and without reference to the Minister, provided the development constituted no substantial departure from the Greater London Development Plan. So there should not necessarily be any more delay than if the system were of a more informal character, as suggested by noble Lords opposite.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, am I right in assuming that the G.L.C. cannot direct the London borough?

LORD HASTINGS

I am not quite sure what information the noble Lord is after here.

LORD LATHAM

The noble Lord said that the London borough would consult the G.L.C. I am now asking whether it went beyond consultation and amounted to the Council being able to give the borough directions.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, they would have to consult the G.L.C. because it would be part of the Greater London Plan by the written statement. They would not be able to depart from those standards without permission of the G.L.C., but the G.L.C. could give that permission without having to apply to the Minister or hold a public inquiry, if the Council considered that the alteration was reasonable. That is the point.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, surely the noble Lord will agree that there could be an objectionable proposal for development within an area which is not necessarily against the development plan. What happens then?

LORD HASTINGS

I am afraid I do not follow the logic of the noble Lord's argument. However, I should like to go on to a matter which was discussed on Committee stage and which is why I said then that I would take this matter back and look at it again. I remember clearly the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, stating that, even when the standards were agreed informally between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs, there was the right of appeal to the Minister, and that anybody could, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, "express their dissatisfaction". I have made inquiries about this, and the matter is not quite as I understood it on that occasion. It appears that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would have been referring, not to the formulation of standards, but to the right of appeal when a particular standard agreed informally is applied to a particular development only, and when in respect of that development planning permission is actually refused. That is not at all the same thing as a right of appeal when the standards are laid down, but it brings out one practical point of interest. The standards prescribed in the informal way now used by the L.C.C. can be challenged on every planning appeal. This would not, however, be the case if the standards were formally settled in the development plan.

Another possibility was that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, might have been referring to the lodging of objections with the Minister when proposals to make or amend standards have been published; but, there again, publication is entirely at the discretion of the London County Council. That would mean no more than that somebody could write to the Minister and he would have no power to hold an inquiry or amend standards. So I do not think the possibility of appeal, as I understood from the noble Lords, Lord Faringdon, and Lord Silkin, is at all the same thing as the full public inquiry procedure which would have to be followed out, and would be a far greater safeguard for the public, under the proposals in this Bill.

We feel that these standards are so important that if any major changes are to be brought about that procedure should be adopted. At the same time, I reject the argument that the system is now too rigid, because, although it was formalised, the Greater London Council has power to agree with the boroughs to allow any departure from those standards where it would be reasonable and where there is no question of major departure from the development plan as a whole. For these reasons I hope that noble Lords will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, at the end of the first five years the development plan will be a Joseph's coat.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, I must say that I thought my noble friend Lord Crook made a clear and convincing case for his Amendment. It is a simple point, though it is right that it should have been elaborated at fair length and in some detail. There are to be two planning authorities, the Greater London Council, who will be responsible for the wider London development plan, and the London boroughs, who will be responsible for the plan within the boroughs. It is desirable that the plan within the boroughs should conform to certain standards which are required in the public interest. That is why this Amendment provides that there should be prescribed by the Greater London Council, after (not before) consultation with the boroughs and with the Common Council, details of plot ratio, density, car parking and such other matters of a like nature. That seems to me to be reasonable. Within those stipulated standards the boroughs could exercise their judgment. But the broad London interest must be protected, and therefore I think my noble friend is right.

The Amendment goes on to say that if a borough proposes to depart substantially or materially from these standards which have been set out by the Greater London Council, there must be reference to the Greater London Council. I must say that I think that reasonable, and that my noble friend made a case. The Parliamentary Secretary has now stated the Government's view, but I do not find it convincing to the extent that it persuades me that my noble friend Lord Crook is wrong. Therefore, at this late hour, as we used to say at seven o'clock, I do not think we ought to delay your Lordships more. The Government apparently have firmly made up their minds, and we have firmly made up ours. The only way to settle it is by dividing, to see who has a majority; and we must hope for the best.

9.53 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 105) shall be agreed to?

CONTENTS
Addison, V. Latham, L. Rusholme, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.] Lucan, E. [Teller.] Shepherd, L.
Champion, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L. Stonham, L.
Crook, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L. Dundonald, E. Mabane, L.
Ailwyn, L. Ebbisham, L. McCorquodale of Newton, L.
Allerton, L. Elliot of Harwood, B. Margesson, V.
Atholl, D. Falmouth, V. Mersey, V.
Auckland, L. Ferrers, E. Monsell, V.
Boston, L. Fortescue, E. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Fraser of North Cape, L. Newton, L.
Bradford, E. Furness, V. Ormonde, M.
Carrington, L. Goschen, V. [Teller.] Raglan, L.
Chesham, L. Hailsham, V. (L. President.) Remnant, L.
Cholmondeley, M. Hastings, L. Rochdale, V.
Clitheroe, L. Howard of Glossop, L. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Conesford, L. Ingleby, V. St. Oswald, L.
Cranbrook, E. Jellicoe, E. Sandford, L.
Crathorne, L. Lansdowne, M. Stonehaven, V.
Denham, L. Lothian, M. Tenby, V.
Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) Luke, L. Waleran, L.

Resolved in negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

10.0 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this Amendment is essentially a tidying up process. Clause 24 determines which authorities in Greater London shall be the local planning authority for the purposes of the Planning Act. But Acts other than Planning Acts also contain references to local planning authorities, and in some instances these references need modification in their application to Greater London. It seems desirable to pick up at least the main references and cover them in the Bill, leaving any others to be dealt with as necessary by order under Clause 83. If noble Lords wish, I can give a longer explanation, but if not, I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 34, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("as") in line 21 and insert— ("(8) In relation to land in a London borough or the City—

  1. (a) references to local planning authorities in any of the following enactments, that is to say—
    1. (i) sections 33 and 34 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Electricity Act, 1957;
    2. (ii) section 108 of, and Schedule 12 to, the Highways Act, 1959;
    3. (iii) Schedule 1 to the Pipe-lines Act, 1962,

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, the 10; Not-Contents, 51.

shall be construed as including references to the Greater London Council but not to the borough council or the Common Council;

(b) the reference in section 86(4) of the Transport Act, 1962, to the local planning authority to whom application is made for permission for the development in question shall be construed as a reference to the local planning authority by whom that application falls to be dealt with;

(c) references in section 3(2) of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, to the local planning authority shall be construed as including references both to the Greater London Council and to the borough council or, as the case may be, the Common Council;

(d) any reference in section 17 or 20 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, to the local planning authority shall be construed as a reference to the borough council or, as the case may be, the Common Council;

(e) any reference in Part III of the Land Compensation Act, 1961, to the local planning authority shall be construed").—(Lord Hastings.)

Clause 27 [Supplementary provisions as to development plans]:

LORD HASTINGS moved, after subsection (3), to insert: (3A) A London borough council or the Common Council—

  1. (a) when preparing their local development plan under section 25(4) or any proposal 243 under section 26(3) of this Act shall give to the Greater London Council any information which that Council may require with respect to the matters to be included in that plan or proposal; and
  2. (b) before submitting that plan or proposal to the Greater London Council shall give that Council an opportunity to make representations in the light of that information and shall consider any representations so made."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 108Z and 108A go together, and I hope they will satisfy noble Lords on the following Amendment, No. 109. Noble Lords moved a similar sort of Amendment during the Committee stage, when I undertook to reconsider the matter. The Amendment now put down by noble Lords opposite would, we feel, make rather heavy weather and too long a procedure of the business under discussion.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, would the noble Lord clear up one point? Amendment No. 108Z refers to page 29, line 12, whereas clearly it ought to be page 39, line 12, and it should come later in the Marshalled List.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, that was fairly clear to me, because I did not call 108Z; I called 108A.

LORD HASTINGS

Amendment 108Z comes first on my Paper and it is simply consequential on 108A. I am sorry if I confused noble Lords. It simply enumerates the subsection (3A), which I am now referring to under Amendment 108A.

The formal statutory consultation which was suggested in the noble Lord's Amendment at Committee stage and again, I think, now, implies that further action should wait on it and it would be likely to hold matters up. I think that point was very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, during our Committee stage. Nevertheless, we feel that to leave the matter to entirely informal consultation without any obligation under the Bill is perhaps a little unwise, and I think that was the main point made previously by noble Lords opposite. Therefore, we feel there is something to be said for enabling the Greater London Council to know what is being prepared before they are faced with plans and amendments which they have to pass on to the Minister, even though they can add their own comments before doing so.

This Amendment seeks to reduce the formality by leaving it open to the Greater London Council to say what information they need as regards any proposed local plan or amendment, and that is our paragraph (a). Paragraph (b) then deals with representations by the Greater London Council and consideration of these by the borough councils, in the same way as in the Amendment of noble Lords opposite. I think this form will fulfil the purpose of the Amendment of the noble Lords opposite, and will prove the most effective way of ensuring that the borough councils co-operate with the Greater London Council in forming their own plans. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 45, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, whilst we should prefer Amendment No. 109 to the Amendment now moved by the noble Lord, the differences are not such that we would ask the House to reject Amendment No. 108A in favour of Amendment 109. But I am a little concerned about the practical application of the Government's Amendment. Under it, the Greater London Council will first of all have to receive a preliminary draft plan or particulars of proposals from the London borough before the G.L.C. will be in a position to require information. The subsection makes no requirement that the G.L.C. is to be provided with any documents, but one must, presumably, take that for granted. The G.L.C. will be able to ask for information only with respect to the matters to be included (and I would underline the word "included") in the draft plan or proposal. It seems to us that a strict interpretation of those words would preclude the Greater London Council from making constructive suggestions about, for example, the zoning of specific areas for open spaces, matters pertaining to housing and other uses of land in this connection, or from asking the borough why that provision has not been made. To make the subsection more flexible I would suggest that an improvement would result from the omission from paragraph (a) of the words, "the matters to be included in". If the Minister could look at those words again between now and Third Reading I think that might be helpful.

My suggestion in this connection would assist in the operation of paragraph (b), since the G.L.C. could make representations only "in the light of" information requested under paragraph (a) which, I think, is unnecessarily restrictive. I should like the Minister to reply on that point, and, if he cannot consider it between now and the Third Reading, perhaps he would write to me on it, if he feels that that would be worth while. I merely seek a little further interpretation of the meaning of the words in the noble Lord's Amendment.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, could the noble Lord answer a question of another kind—namely, why is this new subsection labelled (3A)? I thought the usual practice in putting in a new subsection was to leave it blank and then, when the Bill was reprinted, the subsections would be renumbered in their proper order. If it is going to be referred to now as subsection (3A) and subsequently as (4) I see the possibility of endless confusion.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, if I may, by leave of the House, reply, I should imagine that the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, is a purely drafting one and will be looked after by the draftsman in the final copy of the Bill. As to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I think we have it right. But I have no objection to studying his remarks, and considering the possible improvement of the words, and I will write and let him know the result.

LORD CHAMPION

I thank the noble Lord.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 12, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(3A)").—(Lord Hastings.)

Clause 29 [Miscellaneous modifications of Planning Act]:

LORD CROOK moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the reference to sections "68(1), 71,". The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this late hour I am sorry to keep your Lordships on a rather difficult and technical Amendment. Your Lordships will see that Amendment No. 110 is merely to leave out 68(1) and 71, and Amendment No. 111 makes a considerable insertion dealing with the sections of the Planning Act. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I propose in order to save time, to speak to No. 111 rather more than No. 110. Section 68(1) and 71 of the Planning Act relate to the acquisition of lands under two heads. The first concerns lands in a comprehensive development area. Such acquisition may either be for the purpose of securing development or redevelopment of that area, or because it is expedient in the public interest that the land should be held together with land so required. The second head is to secure its use in the manner proposed by the plan.

These two Amendments seek to give to the Greater London Council the same unfettered power to acquire land, compulsorily or by agreement, as is already conferred by the Bill on the London boroughs. The present power of the G.L.C. in this respect is restricted by the provisions of Clauses 29(2) and (3) of the Bill. Clause 29(2) relates to compulsory acquisition under Section 68(1) of the Planning Act. It provides that the Greater London Council can exercise that power only if the Minister, after consultation with the Greater London Council and also with the London borough concerned, thinks it expedient that the G.L.C. should do so.

Clause 29(3) relates to the acquisition of land by agreement under Section 71 of the Planning Act. This provides that with the exception of acquisition of an industrial or commercial undertaking incidental to its removal from Greater London, the Greater London Council must, before exercising the power, seek the consent of the London borough concerned, of the Common Council of the City, if they happen to be concerned, or of the Treasurers of the Temples, if they are concerned. It also provides that if the consent is withheld—and no time limit is imposed in the subsection within which consent may be granted or withheld—then the Minister's consent must be sought.

In the highly competitive market for land with which we are at this moment dealing the delays of procedure must inevitably militate against acquisition by agreement. The exception mentioned of moving an industrial or commercial undertaking from Greater London was introduced into this clause by the Minister himself during the Committee stage in this House in May. If a general development plan for the area as a whole is to be properly implemented, the G.L.C. will have to play an important part in the re-location of industry within Greater London, as well as in the new and expanded towns. The present distribution of industry within the administrative County is very uneven. For that reason some boroughs will find themselves faced with a heavy burden in that respect. Some will find that they will not have enough land zoned for industry within their boundaries to enable them to re-locate industry, which ought to be moved. But, as always, the overriding trouble and difficulty will be finance. Those are problems on which the G.L.C. will, in our view, be in the best position to help.

I imagine that a number of your Lordships know of the work of the industrial centre of the London County Council, an effective instrument as I am sure you will agree. It can offer guidance and tackle planning and movement problems of industrial concerns in the London area in regard to those who want to expand and who cannot do so, because of their present site for one reason or another, but who are tied in some way to London. Its effectiveness will be greatly diminished if it comes to be regarded as concerned only with moving firms out of London. We think that the restriction which must be imposed on acquisition by agreement by the Greater London Council should be removed generally and not only as regards concerns moving out of Greater London.

In our debates we were largely concerned with the use of provisions in acquiring non-conforming industry, although my noble friend Lord Shepherd did make reference in the course of the Committee stage to their use in connection with comprehensive development areas. My Lords, I think that the case for the adoption of the proposal which I have tried to put to you, which is complex and which has involved my speaking a little too long at this time of night, is such as to commend the Amendment to your Lordships with no more words from me. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 20, leave out ("68(1), 71,").—(Lord Crook.)

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, Section 68(1) and Section 71 of the Planning Act give powers of purchase of land, as the noble Lord said: the first compulsorily, and the second by agreement. The Bill is framed so that these powers shall normally be exercised by borough councils, but they will be exercisable by the Greater London Council after consultation with a borough council. If the borough council should disagree, then the Minister could settle the matter. This principle is really fundamental to the Bill, and I do not think the noble Lord opposite will expect me to agree to his Amendment.

At the Committee stage we put forward an Amendment which made a very important exception, and that was in respect of industrial or commercial land which would be allowed to be bought by the Greater London Council with a view to moving that industrial or commercial undertaking from Greater London altogether. That argument relating to a form of overspill was in fact, so far as I remember, one of the reasons put forward for this Amendment when it was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, during the Committee stage, and he agreed that we had gone quite a way to meeting at any rate one of the arguments.

As for general redevelopment, of course the day-to-day run of development will be the responsibility of the borough councils. The Greater London Council, on the other hand, will be able to undertake major schemes but these will probably be the exception rather than the rule. In any such case there should be no difficulty in sorting out which authority needs to buy the land. With the exception provided for in the Government's Committee Amendment, it seems sensible to secure, as the Bill does, that one authority only in the planning field shall be responsible for land purchase; but the Greater London Council may purchase subject to consultation. Among other things, this would avoid unnecessary competition and overlapping which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, when he referred to the difficulty of getting land, and to its price; and I think that it would be advisable to avoid unnecessary competition between the Greater London Council and the borough councils. This is really a fundamental part of the Bill so far as the Government are concerned, and I am afraid I cannot agree to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

10.19 p.m.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH moved, after Clause 29, to insert the following new clause:

Industrial and commercial lands

".—(1) On 1st April 1965 there shall vest in the Greater London Council any land which immediately before that date was held by the London county council or the Middlesex county council in an area zoned in any development plan for industry and commerce, being land so held and used for the purposes of industry or commerce, or held for redevelopment for those purposes, in pursuance of any of their functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1962; but, not later than 31st March 1970 or such later date before 1st April 1975 as the Minister may direct, the Greater London Council shall, after consultation with the London borough councils, prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme with respect to that land—

  1. (a) containing proposals as to what part, if any, of that land it is, in the opinion of the Greater London Council, necessary or desirable to transfer to the councils of specified London boroughs for use for or in connection with the exercise of the functions of those councils, and giving their grounds for that opinion;
  2. (b) in the case of any of that land proposed to be transferred indicating any necessary modifications of any local Act or other instrument with respect to the land in question;
and the Minister, after consultation with the Greater London Council and any London borough council concerned, may by order give effect to the scheme either without modification or with such modifications as the Minister thinks fit.

(2) The Minister shall not make any order under section 81 of this Act in relation to any land to which this section applies except for the purpose of giving effect (either with or without modifications) to a scheme submitted to him under this section."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple point which we discussed on the Committee stage. The London County Council and the Middlesex County Council have what one may call certain surplus lands, which they have acquired in the course of their development or redevelopment schemes, and industrial schemes, too. The question is: what is going to happen to these lands if and when this Act comes into effective force?

Now there are two ways of doing it. The first is proposed in the Bill, under which the Minister himself draws up a scheme, presumably after consultation, whereby the lands are divided between the Greater London Council and the new London boroughs. This Amendment proposes that the land should pass to the Greater London Council; that they should consult with the boroughs and the City Corporation; then that the Greater London Council, after that consultation, which one hopes might result in agreement—as it might—should produce a scheme that would go to the Minister, and then that the Minister should approve and/or modify the scheme. I think that what I have said is an accurate description of the proposals in the Amendment. We think it is the most sensible way round—and it is important that this should be done sensibly, because some of this land may affect future industrial development and provide facilities for industrialists who want sites. I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the Government, and that the House will approve it. It is an Amendment of some real importance, as we see it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 29, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has said, we had a lengthy discussion on this matter, which is, of course, important, on the Committee stage, and at that time the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, rather held the view, I think, that I had said that, whatever the advantages might be of retention by the Greater London Council, these areas must eventually go to the borough councils. But that, of course, was rather an exaggeration of what I implied. It is simply a question of the most effective way of using the available sites for factories. We think this can be done much better under the order-making procedure of Clause 81, and much more quickly, and that the Greater London Council do not necessarily have to own the properties in order to have that benefit of their use, which can be arranged by allowing them to have a voice in letting.

But, of course, under the order-making procedure of Clause 81, the Greater London Council can perfectly well be allocated the ownership of these prospective factory sites, and it is not the case that property will be transferred to a borough if there are clear advantages in handing it to the Greater London Council. A very good example, I think, is in the case of a factory site outside London which would be essentially part of an overspill housing scheme. Obviously, such a site would go to the Greater London Council. So the purposes of the Amendment set down by the noble Lords can be looked after adequately and much more quickly under the order-making procedure of Clause 81. My Lords, I do not think I need say any more at this hour. I invite noble Lords to believe that we are going to tackle this matter in a businesslike and fair manner so as to achieve the best use of these sites. I would ask the noble Lords if they can see their way clear to withdrawing their Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move that the Report stage be now adjourned.