HL Deb 01 June 1965 vol 266 cc1053-83

4.10 p.m.

Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

Clause 9 [Enforcement notices relating to land in Greater London]:

LORD DRUMALBYNmoved to leave out subsection (4) and insert: (4) In so far as an enforcement notice to which this section applies requires any operations to be discontinued forthwith—

  1. (a) the notice, notwithstanding anything in section 45(5) of the Act of 1962 (which provides that an enforcement notice shall take effect at the end of a period not less than 28 days after it is served), shall take effect immediately on its being served, and
  2. (b) section 46(3) of that Act (whereby, on appeal, an enforcement notice is of no effect while the appeal is pending) shall not apply to the notice;
but nothing in this subsection shall affect the operation of section 45(5) or section 46(3) of that Act in relation to such a notice in so far as the notice requires any other steps to be taken.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to leave out subsection (4) and insert the new subsection. This is a matter which I raised at the Committee stage, because, as the Bill was drafted, it would appear to make it possible for an enforcement notice to be enforced against somebody before he had the chance to appeal. That would mean in effect that if an enforcement notice provided, as it often does, that the work which had been done would have to be demolished, that work would have to go on before the appeal. It seemed to me that this was nonsense and, therefore, I took it, unintentional, and I suggested words that would put this right. The noble Lord has very kindly let me have words in place of those I suggested which are, I take it, foolproof and I was very glad to put them down in place of my own Amendment. In view of what T have said, T shall certainly not expect the noble Lord to oppose the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 30, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD RHODES

My Lords, we always had intended to distinguish in practice between an enforcement notice which requires building operations to be stopped and an enforcement notice which requires other steps to be taken. We see advantage in spelling this out in subsection (4) and we welcome this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, after Clause 12, to insert the following new clause:

Quarterly Returns of permits issued

As soon as may be after the end of September 1965 and of each quarter thereafter the Board of Trade shall lay a return before Parliament giving such statistical and other information as to applications for office development permits and office space related thereto and as to reception and disposal by the Board of such applications as the Board may from time to time determine.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I moved a somewhat similar Amendment at the Committee stage providing for quarterly returns of permits issued, the noble Lord expressed the view that the Amendment was rather too complicated and that it was not possible to foresee at the present time exactly what returns could or should be made available. With that in mind I have greatly simplified the Amendment and left it open to the noble Lord to … lay a return before Parliament giving such statistical and other information as to applications for office development permits and office space related thereto and as to reception and disposal by the Board of such applications as the Board may from time to time determine. It is therefore open to the noble Lord and his Department to decide what the best form of information is to be given. We on this side feel that, for the reasons which I gave at the Committee stage, which I do not want to repeat, it is desirable in the interests of local planning authorities, in the interests of builders, and in the interests of those with offices in London who may be thinking of moving out of London, to have this information with as little delay as possible. Possibly monthly returns would be the ideal, but we thought that was putting too great a burden on the Board of Trade and therefore probably quarterly returns would be the best solution, bearing in mind that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Scottish Office do put out similar quarterly returns so far as housing is concerned. We did not think it was impossible for the Board of Trade to be able to provide such quarterly returns so far as office building permits were concerned, and this Amendment leaves it open to the Board of Trade to decide both the information to be given and the form in which it shall be made. It gives them complete latitude. All it says in effect is that there should be a quarterly return. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 12, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD RHODES

My Lords, we were very accommodating on the last days when we discussed this Bill here, but I am afraid I cannot be as accommodating now. In Committee stage we welcomed an Amendment to the Bill, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, which obliges the Board of Trade to lay before Parliament an annual report on the performance of their functions under Part I of the Bill. We also undertook to provide any reasonable information about the operation of the control in reply to Parliamentary Questions and to publish regular figures, as in the case of industrial development statistics, as soon as the best form could be worked out in the light of experience. We did not undertake to lay quarterly figures before Parliament nor, may I say, is it reasonable to expect us to do so.

In the case of the I.D.C. control, in addition to the information given in the annual report on the working of the Local Employment Acts, we publish quarterly in the Board of Trade Journal, for each of the Regions and for Great Britain as a whole, the number of schemes for which I.D.C.'s have been granted during the quarter and the area of industrial floor space covered by those I.D.C.'s. We are very willing to publish, as soon as possible after the end of each quarter, comparable figures for offices. These will not necessarily be in the same form as the I.D.C. figures, and we might hope, depending on how rapidly it proves possible to classify our information, to give slightly more detail for the few Regions which will be subject to the offices control. This, however, is something which we must work out after some experience of operating the control.

Our job, after all, is to arrive at decisions on applications as quickly as we can, and we do not want to take up too much time of the staff in preparing returns of greater frequency and com- plexity than would be normal for a Department administering legislation. We must ask for the Amendment to be withdrawn in view of our assurances concerning regular publication of information, and of our obligation under the Bill to present an annual report to Parliament.

4.19 p.m.

LORD ERROLL OF HALE

My Lords, while listening to the noble Lord's interesting explanation as to why he cannot accept the Amendment, I could not understand why he was so timid. After all, he said that he would undertake to make periodical reports available. He even said that his Department would answer Parliamentary Questions. It would be a very strange new doctrine if they were not prepared to answer Parliamentary Questions. He talked about the fact that quarterly reports would be available. In that case let us have it stated in the Bill. Ministers come and go. We have every respect for the noble Lord's assurances, but other Ministers may come along and say that they are not prepared to be bound by an oral assurance given in this House, as it is not in the Bill. We should like to see this in the Bill and, as the noble Lord has been prepared to go so far, surely he can take just that one further step and write into the Bill that his Department will undertake to produce quarterly reports. It will save a great deal of trouble in the long run, otherwise we shall have to put down plenty of Parliamentary Questions, both here and in another place, to get the information which we want, and in the form that we want. I do urge the noble Lord to look at this point again.

LORD RHODES

My Lords, in spite of the noble Lord's blandishments, I cannot come any further than I have done already. Having given way on the other matters, I do not think he can reasonably expect me to go any further this afternoon, and I ask him to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am bound to say that I see nothing whatever unreasonable in asking for this quarterly return. As I said, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government do it. Not only do they issue a return, but they issue an appendix which covers every single county borough, borough, urban district council and rural district council in the country. Here, all we are asking for is a much smaller return which would cover only the local planning authorities throughout the country. That does not seem to be an excessive request. It seems a curious doctrine to expect all this kind of information to be elicited by way of Question and Answer in Parliament. We do not have many Questions in this House, but there have recently been many complaints in another place that there are far too many Questions; and one is led to the view that it may be that the noble Lord is not anxious to give this information at all; that he wants to conceal it until, say, eighteen months after the thing has happened—because even with an Annual Report it is quite natural for some time to elapse before it is published: it may well be six months after the end of the year before it is published.

The noble Lord claims that he has men most generous in saying that these figures can be published quarterly in summary form, I think he said for the regions, in the Board of Trade Journal. This will give some economic indication of the amount of office building permits that are being given. It may even he informative as to the speed with which the Board of Trade are dealing with the permits, to show what the backlog is, and so forth. But it will not show in any way where these permits are going. And this, it seems to me, is the vital information that people will want to know.

Any firm that is in London and is thinking of moving out, will want to know where office building permits are being given at the present time; where it is worth while looking for offices; where they should start to make their plans to move to, so that they can exercise some choice in the matter and not just be pushed into some place by the Board of Trade without having a proper opportunity of choice in the matter. I am sure that this is not what the Board of Trade want. If intelligent choice is to be exercised by the offices, so that they go to the places that will suit them best, and where they can be most efficient, then they must know what is happening; and it will clearly be a great advantage to know where these permits are being given.

It will also be a great advantage to other local planning authorities to know where office building permits are being given, so that they will not waste a great deal of time on preparing plans themselves for the building of offices which may subsequently be turned down at an inquiry, or, at any rate, for which office building permits will not be forthcoming. A lot of work may have been done before that happens. It seems to me that the public at large are also entitled to this type of information, to know how the Board of Trade are exercising their functions, if not from month to month, at least at reasonable intervals. I fail to see that there is anything unreasonable in asking the Board of Trade to do something in regard to office development and permits which the Ministry of Housing and Local Government are perfectly able and willing to do in regard to the building of houses throughout the country, which is a much more onerous task.

LORD RHODES

Oh, no; they like it.

LORD DRUMALBYN

They may like it; but, all the same, it is a more onerous and a more burdensome task.

It may be that the Board of Trade feel it burdensome to give information of this kind under the administration of the noble Lord. But I think it reasonable to make this point. The public are entitled to know at reasonable intervals—and I stress "at reasonable intervals"—what is going on. They should not have to ask for this information; it should be prepared. If the Board of Trade are doing their job properly, they will have these figures in tabular form, and there will be no more difficulty in getting them issued at reasonable intervals and in satisfactory form.

The Minister has said that it is unreasonable to ask for this. I fail to see why. We are always grateful for small mercies, and it is satisfactory to know that a summary will be given every quarter or so in the Board of Trade Journal, and in something like the way in which a summary of what is done with regional development certificates is published at the present time. But I feel that this is not enough. I think that the noble Lord would be helping the efficiency of his own Department, and the efficiency of the whole operation which he is now undertaking (which everyone knows is going to be a difficult one), if he were to concede this Amendment. I am sorry that he does not see his way to do so. I would ask him to think about this again. It is not an unreasonable thing to ask, and I believe that it would be to the benefit of the Department and of the country as well.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, if the Government are adamant against this Amendment, I wonder whether they could possibly explain what will be their policy for informing planning authorities in regard to what they want to see done in the planning authorities' development plans? This has always been a difficult question and although I am glad to hear my noble friend saying how important it is for planning authorities to work hand in hand with the Board of Trade, I am bound to say that in the past, under his Administration, it was not always so easy. But is it proposed that these new economic councils will be the machines through which local authorities will be informed? It clearly will not be sufficient for our purposes, the purposes of local planning authorities, to have one annual statement of what the Ministry's past policy has been. We must have some further guidance for the future.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON)

My Lords, if I may venture to intrude for a moment on the discussion, I have listened to what has been said, and to what has been offered, and it seems to me that what has been offered gives, in substance, all that could reasonably be required. It is said that it is not unreasonable to ask for more. It seems to me that probably the best judge of what is reasonable in a matter of this sort—that is to say, the frequency of returns on a particular subject—is, to begin with, the Department itself. If it proves later that what is provided is insufficient, then more can be given; and there arc ways of calling attention to any deficiency in the matter and of asking for the information to be supplemented. But what noble Lords opposite are trying to do here is to tie the hands of the Department itself in a field where, as yet, there is naturally no experience of quarterly returns, I agree in rather general form; but it seems to me, if I may say so, picking up the language of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to be rather unreasonable to do that. The noble Lord is, in effect, trying to tell the Board of Trade exactly when to render returns in a field where there is as yet no experience. I do not believe that this is a case for putting things into the Bill.

In reply to what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, I am not quite clear that what is asked for in this Amendment is going to meet the more general considerations that he had in mind. We finally got on to another Department, the Department of Economic Affairs, and what it was going to do. This is a rather narrow request. It is simply asking for quarterly statistical returns on one subject, and they are not matters of policy at all, so far as I can see. I feel that on a matter of this sort it is wise to let experience show us what more may be needed. I do not think that noble Lords would for one moment suggest that the Board of Trade are one of those Departments that are backward in supplying information. I dare say that there are such Departments, but I would not number the Board of Trade among them—and I noticed that noble Lords, in speaking to this Amendment, were careful not to suggest that. I do not know what my noble friend will want to add, but, speaking for myself, I should have thought that this comparatively small point had been finally disposed of by his own answer, which was, in effect: let us see what is required. This is a matter which should be left to the Department concerned.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 15:

Meaning of "office premises"

15.— (5) In this section "office purposes" includes the purposes of administration, clerical work, handling money, telephone and telegraph operating and the operation of computers, and "clerical work" includes writing, bookkeeping, sorting papers, filing, typing, duplicating, punching cards or tapes, machine calculating, drawing and the editorial preparation of matter for publication.

4.32 p.m.

LORD ERROLL OF HALE moved to add to subsection (4): ; but in this section 'office premises' shall not include rooms used principally by supervisers, foremen, charge-hands, and other persons, together with their clerical and other assistants, whose sole or principal function is the direct supervision of production or the use, repair and maintenance of plant, machinery or vehicles. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is somewhat similar to an Amendment which noble Lords may remember discussing on Committee stage. I have slightly widened it so as to cover industrial premises engaged in the maintenance, use or repair of plant, machinery or vehicles, thus taking in such establishments as large commercial garages or places where contractors' plant and machinery is overhauled, serviced and issued to hirers from time to time.

I will not burden your Lordships with a full exposition of the content of this Amendment. I would remind noble Lords that increasingly in modern industry we are witnessing a transfer of personnel from the shop floor to neighbouring production offices where they are usefully engaged in organising the details of production—arranging for the flow of components, sub-assemblies, and so on,—to a more highly automated and mechanised factory floor where a considerably greater volume of production is achieved with a correspondingly fewer number of directly productive manual workers. They are all in the production process, whether they arc wearing overalls or are sitting at desks pushing paper around in order to arrive at the right flow of components and materials.

This changing of our industrial scene is going on all the time. The odd foreman's desk and progress clerks' desks which were formerly scattered around the factory floor are being brought together into single glass cubicles, or perhaps put into premises adjacent to the main factory. I submit that this type of movement should not be controlled by means of office development certificates, since it is quite outside the scope and intention of the legislation and bears no relation to the control originally announced by the Government towards the end of last year. Furthermore, there will be many cases where a change of use is involved. Perhaps a small, old warehouse is going to be converted into offices for supervisors and production clerks, perhaps ten or twenty of them. It seems a quite unnecessary bureaucratic interference to require such a small change to be vetted by Whitehall and argued over, before the office development permit can be granted. I cannot believe that it was ever the intention of the Government to carry the control as wide as this. I am glad, therefore, by means of this Amendment, to give them an opportunity to narrow the range of their control and thus enable British industry to get on with their job with a little less interference. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 30, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Erroll of Hale.)

LORD MITCHISON

I owe the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, an apology for not understanding his Amendment properly in Committee. I see from Hansard that he made his point quite clear, and the fault lay in my failure to pick it up. It is rather bad not to understand one's own Bill; it is not quite so bad to fail to understand somebody else's Amendment. The effect of thinking the matter over again has been that we have given it very careful consideration indeed. I know that those words are often used, but the noble Lord can take it from me that in this case they are literally correct. What underlies this Amendment is, as he himself indicated just now, the scope of the Bill itself. It is perfectly true that when the announcements were first made this side of the matter was not mentioned or dealt with. It has been stated quite clearly since. On November 20, 1964, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, in answer to a question in another place, said: An office development permit will be needed for building or re-building, which involves the provision of office space, whether or not it is in an office building, for example, office space in a warehouse, shop or factory building, as well as for the change of use of existing premises to office space "— not, of course, from one kind of office space to another, but from some other use. That is quite clear and therefore has been known at least since November, 1964.

The point that is involved is this. We are agreed, since there was no Division on the Second Reading of the Bill either in another place or in this House, that control of offices is needed. The particular cases are where one has office space which is really ancillary to factory space, or perhaps to some other kind of I.D.C. use—indeed, it need not really be I.D.C. use, if I understand the Amendment correctly—but in every case it is office space attached to something. To take the simplest case of a factory and the instance which the noble Lord gave on Second Reading of a foreman's tubby hole and the like, it is said that it is an unnecessary interference and an extension of the real objects of the Bill if an office development permit is required in such a matter. One recognises at once that in a case of that sort there will be two permits for a new construction. There will be an I.D.C. for the factory itself and, if we are going to insist on it—and we are going to insist on it—there will also be an office development permit for the office. That will not necessarily mean two separate considerations. There will be two applications, two permits, but obviously the matter will be looked at as a whole, both by the applicant and by those who have to deal with them in the Board of Trade.

The difficulty may be put in two ways. In the first place, there would be very considerable opportunities for evasion. There is an exemption allowance in the Bill, of course, and there will be people who apply for and get an industrial certificate for a factory, and if they do not need a permit for an office ancillary to it then that ancillary office may be extended very considerably. An instance was given of an existing industrial undertaking in the Metropolitan Region, which already has a large amount of office space and which has applied for an additional 25,000 square feet. I am not saying that it is necessarily an unreasonable application in this particular case; it need not be. But it obviously opens the door, particularly so when as in this case there is an ample supply of new vacant offices in the area. What one is going to get, if this Amendment is accepted, is movement into occupation of office space ancillary to a factory, and then the use of new vacant offices for additional office accommodation when, in fact, with a sensible policy that vacant office accommodation should have been used for the offices which are in fact ancillary to the factory. I hope that I have made myself clear.

May I put the same point in another way? What we are obviously trying to do in this Bill is to deal with employment generally, and particularly, of course, with office employment, as part of the general employment picture. It is being restricted in the Metropolitan Region and it may be restricted elsewhere, with the object of preventing excessive development in one area and of encouraging full development elsewhere. I can think—as I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, with his experience at the Board of Trade can, too—of many places where it is highly desirable that there should be office development, and of other places where on the general principles of this Bill such development clearly ought not to be extended. There can be no doubt about that. If, in fact, that is the object of the Bill, what about the case of moving offices away from a factory?

People are not being ordered to do these things. This is a process of pressure which is already applied to industrial location, and which we are now applying to office location. There may be a case for moving out—hiving off, as it where—some office activities such as accounts, pay and records. It is done quite considerably already by large concerns, and there may be a very strong case for doing that. But if, in fact, offices are allowed to be attached to an existing factory without any requirement for a permit, then one is giving up a very considerable factor in control, a factor which is really essential for the common purpose which we have in mind. I am assuming a common purpose, and I am of course assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, in moving this Amendment would not wish to press it if he accepted, as I personally have been compelled to accept, the assurance of those who would have to operate the control that to give this concession would mean opening a pretty wide door and would make it very much more difficult to operate in the broad public interest.

I do not think we are asking anything excessive of people. So far as I can see, in the great majority of cases we shall get to the position which I mentioned at the beginning, that a person who desires to put up a factory with more than the minimum space of office room allowed, whether it be in foremen's "cubbyholes" or whether it be in office units, will apply for the requisite office space when he applies for the factory. Though he will sign two documents, and though there will be two applications and two decisions—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, will not take that too hardly; it sometimes is necessary for administration to have two documents instead of one—the applications are bound to, and of course will, go forward together as a single project. I have been given various instances, but I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with them.

I feel, again, that one must assume in a matter of this kind that the controlling authority, whatever else it does, acts sensibly. One cannot try to provide in a Bill of this sort for a Department which never exercises any reasonable common sense. Though I, personally, have little connection with the Board of Trade, I feel that it is one of the Departments which stands well for the exercise of common sense. If the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, likes to say that that is because he was there, then let him do so. I dare say that he had something to do with it, but it goes back perhaps a good deal further than that, and really derives from the nature of the job it has to do.

A job of this sort cannot be done properly if one leaves what may be excessive loopholes. May I make it quite clear that I am not suggesting that the average industralist is a crook? I do not think so. What I am suggesting is that, if a control of this sort is left open, it is extended a little and is then extended further. In the last resort, one must make up one's mind at the beginning of the day, as we are doing now, how much control is really needed. One must steer clear of being oppressive by extending something beyond the main purpose which one has in mind. On the other hand, one must not leave what appear to be small holes, which may also prevent the proper operation of the control.

I suggest to your Lordships that a fair view is to make one's control a tight one, as it is in general made in this Bill, and to accept that in practice people will behave reasonably—a reasonable control does not excite general resentment—and in fact this control has been accepted both in another place and here as necessary at the moment. Therefore, to enable that control to be exercised I am afraid that I must reject this Amendment. But I should like quite sincerely to thank the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, for having raised this important point and for having put it so clearly. I shall not go into the question of whether the wording here is quite right, and things of that sort, as it is the main substance of the matter which I have in mind.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I would agree that if you are going to have controls, and if you are going to associate those with planning consents, then those controls should be enforced. I would also agree that if there are complications there may be some loopholes for evasions, and so forth. But what I am slightly bothered about is how this whole system is going to be enforced. Under town planning, even when things are visible to the naked eye, it is never very easy to see that there are not evasions. Here. one would suppose that, if there is any evasion, it would take place within an existing building and, unless you inspected that building, with all the appliances that would be necessary to measure the extent of the office content, I do not quite see how any form of enforcement is really going to work.

I do not know whether the noble Lord contemplates that the planning authorities should have an annual inspection of all the factory offices in their area, but, if he does, I think it will be putting quite a burden on to local authorities. Whether we should get any compensation by way of extra grant, I do not know but I put it to the noble Lord that I think it would be a mistake to imagine that you could just lay down certain controls and be quite certain that they are going to be effective. I do not know whether he has any ideas about how that enforcement inspection should be carried out.

4.52 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for the way in which he has dealt with this matter, which is plainly a very difficult one. The fact is that the kind of staff referred to in my noble friend's Amendment are clearly regarded as factory staff and not office staff, and I think this may be a source of considerable difficulty in the application as well as in the administration of this Bill. It is very difficult to draw the line in a matter of this kind. For example, within a factory compound you have stores from which equipment is issued: they are not, strictly speaking, part of the manufacture. Indeed, I would say that they play a rather less part in the manufacture than do chargehands, foremen, supervisors and so forth, who often are in an office only in the sense that they have been put behind a glass partition, sometimes with a roof on it to prevent the dust from settling on them or to keep out a bit of the noise. I doubt very much whether stores of the kind I have referred to are normally considered as warehouse space—in fact, I am sure they are not: they are normally considered as factory space.

I am sure that nobody would want to put any obstacle in the way of the proper administration here, but I am bound to say that it puts a rather different complexion on the amount of space that is allowed for offices in connection with factories. If only 3,000 square feet extension is to be allowed without a permit, one gets a rather different picture of the amount of office work that you can have and the type of I.D.C., which must be accompanied by an office development permit. The noble Lord says that it is not very difficult; that you have only to get an extra signature on an application. But, my Lords, it does not follow that that application will go through easily. As the noble Lord says, there may be considerable argument as to whether the office proper (if I may put it that way) ought to be situated there at all, or should be somewhere else. At the least, this is not going to be much of an encouragement to industry, and I think that it is likely to cause some difficulty.

As I say, we understand the difficulties of the Government in this case, but we should not have thought they were insoluble. I would also say that it is quite plain that the noble Lord has been into this point very carefully, and has taken a personal interest in it. Whether he has reached the right decision is still a matter for doubt. It may be that the only course to adopt is to let this go through at the present time, and then see how the thing works out in practice. It may be possible to make some relaxation, rather than have a further tightening, at a later stage. All I can say is that my noble friend and I have strong reservations about this; and, for my part, I should have been very glad if the noble Lord had found A possible to accept this Amendment.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, rather hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that in a case of this sort there might be an application for an office development permit in connection with a factory which would itself raise difficult questions. That is the whole point, if I may say so; and that may very well happen. You may get, for instance, room which is originally allowed on an industrial development certificate, not for office use at all; you may then get an allowance of office space afterwards; and the whole thing may be turned into office space if there is no need for an office development permit.

The real substance of the matter here is: are we or are we not going to control this particular kind of office development? Of course, this Amendment might be extended to take in something else; but, taking it as it is, one says, "Why can you not leave this to industry? Why must you try to interfere?"—and that, of course, is the whole point. You must interfere because you have got to try to control office development generally, and this is office development. I agree it is on the borderline, but you have got to draw the borderline somewhere, of course, and I think it is necessary.

If I might put it another way, I think this is something which must vary enormously in different factories. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, pointed out, you will have the foreman's cubby-hole in the strictest sense of the word; you may then have something which goes a good deal further; and you may finally have (as I had in mind during the rather unsatisfactory discussion, I thought, in Committee) cases like these boot and shoe manufacturers who often have all the office work of their business inside the factory building. Now, all those comprise office development; and in the latter case they are employing people on office work who are not doing industrial work at all; and they are also employing people who are doing industrial work and using the office as part of their tools, their occupation, their place of work or however you like to put it. I cannot see how one can draw a line.

May I tell the House, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, how I looked at this? I said to myself, "Surely, in cases where an industrial development certificate is required it would be possible to tack the office development permit on to it." That was my approach in the hope of getting a single application. On reconsideration, however, I do not think you can achieve this. I think it is the changes that might take place that very largely cause the difficulty. I tried rather hard, because I share the feeling that if you can possibly do a thing on a single application you should not have two; but, on the other hand, if you can do it unsatisfactorily in one way and satisfactorily in another, take the satisfactory way—and that, I think, is the position here.

As to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, curiously enough, I asked this question myself. I think the simplest answer is to look at what is already happening about I.D.C.'s. Industrial development certificates are necessary already, and they present, so far as I can see, all the difficulties that will arise over office development permits. They also pose additional difficulties; they pose, for example, the question, "What is industry?", which is, in some ways, much harder to answer than any question one may have in connection with offices. This control exists; but it does not require a separate set of inspectors. What we are concerned with at the moment is what happens at the planning permission stage. I am sure that no one would wish to put into a Bill something which sounded all right on paper but could not be enforced. That has not proved to be the case over industrial development; I do not see why it should be the case over offices.

There is one other point, although I am not sure which noble Lord mentioned it. The 3,000 square feet exemption allowance is not intended to be a special figure for offices in connection with factories; it is merely the figure of office room for which you do not need a permit. Although one would apply it here, it does not by any means follow that it is the right figure if you were trying to hit on a figure for an amount of free office space. It would depend not only on the size of the building to which the office was ancillary but also on the kind of trade carried on. The object of the 3,000 square feet is to deal with the smaller cases, whether they be factories or offices; to give people a certain small amount, the importance of which, from the public point of view, does not justify insistence upon a permit. One understands that. You cannot get out of difficulty by attempting to lay down a minimum or a percentage which would apply to all factories; you would have to leave it to be dealt with in connection with the factory application itself, and to be dealt with on a reasonable footing by reasonable men trying, in this instance, to serve a broad public purpose with a rather complicated Bill and necessarily complicated machinery to administer it. I wish this were a simpler Bill. I should have liked it better if it were streamlined—I am sure everybody else would too—but I do not think it has any more complication (and this goes for the machinery as well as the Bill) than is necessary for the carrying out of a common intention in the Bill.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, may I put a question? The noble Lord has said that it has no more complications; but the fact that you now have two controls operating simultaneously in the same field does make a complication. Is it not the case that where you have, for example, only 1,000 square feet as a maximum for an I.D.C. you get further complication by the fact that in that same building you could have an exempt 3,000 square feet for offices? This adds to the complication. I should have thought it was a complication that it would have been better for the Board of Trade to avoid.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, I hope I did not use the wrong language; although I could have done so. I meant to say that one does not want to have complication for complication's sake. Of course, control of offices adds to the complication of control of industry. For many years past, ever since the 1947 Act, if not earlier, we have controlled industry through I.D.Cs. We have all recognised the necessity for that. Such complaints as there have been have usually been that the control was not strict enough—and this, sometimes, from people who had in some way been hit by it. But it has worked. You are now adding complication because you are controlling offices also. All I am saying is that we all accept the need for that additional complication, that additional control, and that this particular, rather marginal, question, if it were answered in the sense of the Amendment, would reduce the efficacy of the control.

This is a matter where I think one must consider carefully how the procedure is going to work out in practice. On those lines, my advice to the House would be that it really is necessary. I give that advice after having hunted for a way out, partly out of sympathy for Lord Gage's point, and, partly, because one wants to find in some way a link with the I.D.C. But the answer in both cases, I think, is "Nothing doing"; because, as regards Lord Gage's difficulties, in practice they have not been so bad (I think what he has in mind is something rather different and wider); and, in the second case, for the reasons that I have tried to give earlier. I hope that noble Lords, since we are all concerned in a common object here, will feel able to accept that view of the matter and withdraw the Amendment.

LORD ERROLL OF HALE

My Lords, may I, by leave of the House, speak again? I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he said when he spoke on the first occasion in regard to my speech in Committee on the subject of this Amendment, and also to express my appreciation that he has studied the matter so fully subsequent to the Committee stage. I am only sorry that he still seems to have missed out the essential point of this Amendment. We are not here dealing with offices full of pay clerks or accounting staff to which he has been referring, but to those rooms clearly defined as ."…used principally by supervisors, foremen, charge-hands, and other persons, together with their clerical and other assistants, whose sole or principal function is the direct supervision of production… These are not really office workers; these are factory workers. They work by sitting at desks and directing the flow of production. In my submission, that has nothing to do with the main purpose of the Bill.

I would not subscribe to the noble Lord's views that we are all in general agreement on this Bill. I think it is a deplorable Bill and I said so on Second Reading. But we will let that pass. In connection with this particular matter, it fails altogether to eliminate what can be a serious restraint on managers and men rearranging processes inside their own factory. It is not only a matter of putting up a new factory with offices attached, to which the noble Lord gave such great attention; it concerns also the rearrangement of all that is inside the existing shell. The noble Lord is seriously telling us that a man will no longer be able to put in a few glass partitions in his factory without going to the Board of Trade first to ask permission. It is not going to happen like that. People are not going to do it. They will go ahead and put up the glass. As my noble friend Lord Gage said, there is no policing of I.D.C., O.D.P. or planning permission, once it is given; so that, in fact, there will not be the close control which the noble Lord said was essential to the efficient administration of this Bill. Furthermore it will not be a uniform policy throughout the country. An I.D.C. must be obtained throughout Great Britain but an O.D.P. is necessary only in certain localities; so that Factory "A" does not need an O.D.P. to put up a few glass partitions, while Factory "B" does. I cannot seriously see that the control of a few glass partitions in a factory in Croydon is going to have the slightest relationship to the problem of office space in the centre of London.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. He goes on talking about, "a few glass partitions". The area is 3,000 square feet.

LORD ERROLL OF HALE

If the noble Lord would visit factories, he woud see that an area of 3,000 square feet entails the use of a very small amount of glass. He instanced the case of shoe factories. In that part of the country where there are shoe factories an office development permit would not be required for the office space to which he is referring. It is the very nature of the Bill that control goes down into quite absurdly small amounts of office space and industrial floor space. We have talked about the effect of factory space on office space. What about when it goes the other way round? Often the industrialist finds that he does not need so much office space and would like to set up plant and machinery on the floor instead. Will he then have to get a new I.D.C. to cancel out the O.D.P. which has been granted, or is that just one more matter which the Ministers have not worked out or on which they have not sought the advice of their officials?

On Question, Amendment negatived.

5.12 p.m.

LORD ERROLL OF HALE moved to add to subsection (5): Provided that the proposal to carry out any of the foregoing purposes in any premises shall not be conclusive as to whether or not those premises are office premises.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage of the Bill there was an interesting discussion on whether computers should be included in the definition of office space. The definition went very wide and included many different purposes for which offices might be used, such as drawing office work, clerical work and the like. We had a particularly full discussion on whether or not the use of computers turned premises into an office. We were lead to believe by the Minister who replied that, wherever a computer was, the space which enclosed it became an office. So any laboratory in which a computer might he placed would cease to be a laboratory and become an office. In order to avoid such a situation, my noble friend and I tabled this short Amendment which would ensure that the mere provision of computers would not necessarily turn premises into offices. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 37. at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Erroll of Hale.)

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, may I first deal with the computer? It seems to me that if we put a typewriter down in an office, the ground upon which that typewriter is standing does not cease to be part of the office because the typewriter is there. If the typewriter, like Alice in Wonderland with the famous bottle, drinks something which increases its size, the same proposition will apply; and the place where the typewriter is standing, I should 'have thought, still remains part of the office. For this purpose I cannot really distinguish between a typewriter and a computer. I should have thought that if a man standing beside a computer, and working out some formula for what I believe is known as "feeding" the computer, were undoubtedly, as is intended, in an office, then that which he fed, the computer itself, would also be in an office. Therefore I personally never thought there was very much difficulty about a computer. Such as there is, I think, arises from its size. If one thinks of it in smaller terms, the matter is fairly clear.

As I see it, the test here is the sole or principal use of places, and in Clause 15(1)(a) there is a reference to premises whose sole or principal use is to be use as an office or for office purposes That is the test that has to be carried out, and I am afraid that I do not follow the object of this Amendment which states: Provided that the proposal to carry out any of the foregoing purposes in any premises shall not he conclusive as to whether or not those premies arc office premises. Does not the effect of carrying out the foregoing purposes depend on whether the carrying out of them is, or is not, the sole or particular use? If it is, it determines the question. If it is not, then it does not.

I am afraid that an Amendment of this kind might exclude rather more than the noble Lord intends. Suppose any of the office purposes are carried out in some premises; there may be a question of how much they are going to affect. I cannot follow the Amendment, which says, "shall not be conclusive ". What does that mean? Does it mean that whether or not the offices are office premises is disregarded, or what exactly is the intention?

Generally speaking, my answer, I am afraid, on this part of the Amendment is that the right and proper test is whether the sole or principal use is as an office or for office purposes. To introduce references in this subsection can, in my feeling, only confuse what is tolerably clear in the main part of the clause. I feel therefore that, for lack of understanding once more—having failed to understand the noble Lord once, and having re-read it and come to the conclusion that it was my own fault, I am a little hesitant this time—I cannot at present see what purpose this Amendment would serve. I feel that it might be to confuse the relevant part of the Bill, the reference to sole and principal use in Clause 15(1)(a). For these reasons. at any rate as at present advised, I do not feel that this Amendment should be accepted, and I cannot accept it.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, my reason for putting down this Amendment was something which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, himself said at an earlier stage. He will recall that we were arguing whether all computers were to be deemed to be in offices, and whether the mere fact that there was a computer there at all meant that there had to be an office around it for the purposes of the Bill. The noble Lord pointed out at that time that not everywhere where money was handled was an office. We put down this Amendment lust to make certain that the mere fact that there was the operation of a computer in a certain place did not make the place an office.

The answer of the noble Lord may be that that is already sufficiently clear without the Amendment, but I would remind him that a lot of people have thought that, because the operation of computers is included as one of the office purposes, therefore everywhere that a computer is operated is an office. I do not believe that that is what the clause is intended to mean. I believe the noble Lord was right in saying that a premises is only an office if it is an office, and not otherwise. If, for example, we have a computer in factory premises not part of an office, or premises being used for factory purposes and not office purposes, that space would rank as factory space and not office space, in the same way as a fish shop in which money was handled would not become an office because of what is said in this clause. That is all there is to it—to make clear that the mere fact that any of these purposes is carried on does not make that an office purpose unless it is an office purpose apart from what the clause says.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, I do not think that there is very much between us, except the Amendment. I cannot accept it. I agree that if you count money in a fish shop, it remains a fish shop and is not a bank. But handling money in a bank is rather different. It is one of the tools of the trade, if I may use a rather inaccurate phrase. I should have thought that in most cases the use of computers would be dominant and therefore the space in which they were used would be an office. That would be the sole or principal use of the premises. But I agree with the noble Lord that if there was a computer—a little computer, perhaps—on a factory floor, helping out with some industrial process, the factory would not thereby become an office, and there is nothing in the Bill which says it would. The test is sole or principal use. The sole or principle use of a fish shop is selling fish. The sole or principal use of a bank is, I suppose, to deal in currency and credit, though I hesitate to define something which has baffled many people. The sole or principal use of a factory may be to make footwear, and the fact that a computer is used as an accessory to that production would not conclude the matter.

The clause says that office purposes include the use of computers. Then one has to look to see what is the sole or principal use of the computer space in the premises which we are considering, with a view to deciding whether they require an office development permit. I confess that I see no inconsistency in this. This is why I did not understand, and still do not understand, what the effect of the Amendment would be. This is a complicated Bill, but I suggest that this part is clear and that this Amendment would be another complication. As on the recent Amendment noble Lords opposite were so much against additional complication, perhaps they would so regard this Amendment and withdraw it.

LORD ERROLL OF HALE

My Lords, we on this side are sorry that an Amendment which was intended to be helpful seems only to raise fresh complications in the mind of the noble Lord. He has posed, perhaps unintentionally, the fascinating problem of whether a bank is a shop or an office. This is just one of the many complications this Bill is producing. If Barclays Bank wish to set up a branch in the High Street, will they now need an O.D.P.? Is the noble Lord not prepared to answer such a simple question as that "off the cuff"?

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, "off the cuff", I should say that it would be an office and that the prudent thing for anybody who is in any doubt about the matter would be to go to the Board of Trade and ask them.

LORD ERROLL OF HALE

More work for everybody, and unproductive work at that.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, may I pick up the noble Lord? Twice he has said that he does not approve of this Bill and twice he has talked of unproductive work. If I may put it to him bluntly, his own Party and he himself chose not to divide against this Bill, and they know just as well as we know that office development has to be controlled in some parts of the country. It does not help the country as a whole to go on saying that it is unnecessary to control offices

LORD ERROLL OF HALE

My Lords. I asked this question because I thought it might clarify the noble Lord's mind. Any new development of shops in the High Street is liable to be treated as offices and require O.D.Ps. before it can be proceeded with. If Barclays Bank take over a fish shop for a new branch it must have an O.D.P. before it can proceed. This is going much wider, I am sure, than my noble friends thought on Second Reading. Furthermore, if a computer is to be used in the head office, that office is clearly an office, although a small computer can be used on the factory floor without turning the factory into an office. The noble Lord referred to the office with a typewriter which, if the typewriter is the only instrument in the office, is still an office. But what about the typewriters used on desks scattered about factory premises? And what about the miscellaneous office developments which occur in factory premises and are clearly referred to in the items set out in Clause 5? For instance, drawing boards are frequently drawn together at one end of an engineering shop. Is an engineering shop to be regarded as an office because drawing boards are there? I assure the noble Lord that the purpose of our Amendment was to make things clear and to be helpful. I know that I drew the wrath of the noble Lord; but I assure him that that was our purpose. I hope, in view of my explanation, that he will see his way to accept the Amendment.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, if I may have leave to answer the noble Lord, I do not think that I have ever been angry with him and I am miles from being angry with him now. Handling money happens to be one of the things that is given as an instance of office purposes—that is why, when the noble Lord inquired whether a bank was an office or shop, I did not find much difficulty in saying that it was an office. But then one has to look at the premises and see whether the sole or principal use is as an office or for office purposes. I do not think that one can say that the sole or principal use of a fish shop, whether run by a bank or not, is handling money. In the ordinary world, it is for selling fish. That answers a whole lot of questions. This is a complicated Bill, and by all means let us have fun, but I think that the present wording is as clear as one can make a matter of this sort, and I do not think that the Amendment makes it any clearer. I am not certain that it helps the noble Lord to see it any clearer; I should not like to say anything about that. I would simply say myself that it does not add to the existing clarity of the Bill and introduces an element of possible confusion. On these grounds, may I repeat the hope that it will be withdrawn?

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 20 [Amendment of section 39 ref Act of 1962]:

5.29 p.m.

LORD MITCHISON moved, after subsection (1), to insert; () In accordance with the preceding subsection, but subject to the next following subsection, section 39 of the Act of 1962 shall have effect as set out in Schedule (Section 39 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, as amended) to this Act.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, and another to which we shall come in a minute, has been put in for a simple purpose and in compliance with a suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. When we came to the Question, "That the clause stand part," he suggested, at the last moment, if I may say so (better late than never!) that these clauses were complicated and it would be a help to those who had to deal with them, whether lawyers or other people, to have the complete clause set out in some form in the Bill. I am not sure that the rope with which he tied it on to the Bill was satisfactory, but that does not matter.

What we have done now is to put the clause I am speaking to, and another one that we shall come to in a minute, in Schedules, so that here, at any rate, people will not have to turn the clause up by an elaborate process of cross-reference. I am told by the experts that this is called the "Keeling Clause", and I think it may refer to an honourable Member in another place whom the two noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite and I certainly remember. It is the sort of sensible suggestion that he might have made. There it is. We are only meeting this point, and we are grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for pointing out that this really was a case for simplifying things a little. I am told, as a matter of interest (I do not know whether I ought to say this) that the Scottish Office are prone to have Keeling Clauses; they like them. Whether, as I think, it indicates complications in Scottish law, or not, it is certainly a good thing. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22. line 6, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Mitchison.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having acceded to the request that was made. If I may say so with a note of mild protest in my voice, I think it is hardly right to say that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross raised this at the last moment. He raised it in the appropriate place, and he responded to a request which the noble Lord, I think a little reluctantly, made. What the noble Lord said was: If either noble Lord likes to put down a redraft in clear language, and will communicate it to us, we will then treat it with the respect and attention it will no doubt deserve. Until that is done I prefer this version."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 266 (No. 76), col. 443, May 18, 1965.] My noble friend sat down and redrafted the Amendments, and when the noble Lord put down his Amendment we with- drew ours. I think this is right and proper. I have every sympathy with the Scottish Office in liking the "Keeling Clause". In effect, what it does is to enable Scots lawyers to read the clause in its entirety, as applicable to Scotland, without having a lot of application from the English clauses. That is very often why it is done. It enables them to have something of their own. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having done this, and I feel that it should improve the Bill.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, I should like to say that when I said "at the last moment", all I meant was that if the noble Viscount had told me beforehand I should have tried to get something done. It is perhaps fair comment to say that this clause remarkably resembles one that the Board of Trade were circulating at one point. But "great minds think alike" is the only conclusion to be drawn from that, and we are sincerely grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for having made the suggestion which we have, in substance, adopted.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 7, leave out from ("by") to ("was") in line 9 and insert ("subsection (1) of this section shall have effect, and section 39 of the Act of 1962 shall accordingly have effect as set out in the said Schedule, whether the relevant application (as defined by subsection (4) of that section as so set out)").—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21 [Amendment of section 19 of Local Employment Act 1960]:

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, this is the second clause to which I referred. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 35, at end insert— ("() In accordance with the preceding subsection, but subject to the next following subsection, the said section 19 shall have effect as set out in Schedule (Section 19 of the Local Employment Act 1960 (in its application to Scotland) as amended) to this Act").—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 36, leave out from ("by") to ("was") in line 38 and insert ("subsection (1) of this section shall have effect, and the said section 19 shall accordingly have effect as set out in the said Schedule, whether the relevant application (as defined by subsection (2A) of that section as so set out)").—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MITCHISON

My lords this is the Schedule which operates the transaction I have been discussing I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

After Schedule 2, insert the following new Schedule:

(" SECTION 39 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1962, AS AMENDED

Exemption of certain classes of development

39.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in the last preceding section, an industrial development certificate shall not be required if the industrial floor space to be created by the development in question (in this section referred to as 'the proposed development'), together with any other industrial floor space created or to be created by any related development, does not exceed five thousand square feet, excluding, where an industrial development certificate has been issued in respect of any related development any floor space created or to be created by that development or by development carried out, or for which planning permission has been granted, before the issue of that certificate.

(2) Regulations made for the purposes of the last preceding section by the Board of Trade may direct that no industrial development certificate shall be required in respect of the erection. in any area prescribed by or under the regulations, of industrial buildings of any such class as may be so prescribed, or in respect of a change of use whereby premises in any such area, not being an industrial building of a class so prescribed, will become an industrial building of such a class.

(3) In this section 'industrial floor space' means floor space comprised in an industrial building or industrial buildings of any of the prescribed classes.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section development shall, in relation to an application for planning permission (in this section referred to as 'the relevant application'), be taken to be 'related development' if—

  1. (a) it related, or is to relate, to the same building as that to which the proposed development is to relate (in this subsection referred to as the 'relevant building'), or
  2. (b) it related, or is to relate, to a building which is. or is to be, contiguous or adjacent to the relevant building, and it was, or is to be, development comprised in, or for the purposes of, the same scheme or project or for the purposes of the same undertaking as the proposed development,
and (in either case) it fulfils one or other of the conditions mentioned in the next following subsection

(5) The said conditions are—

  1. (a) that it is development for which, before the date of the relevant application, planning permission has been granted by a planning decision made on or after 1st April 1960;
  2. (b) that it is development which has been initiated on or after 1st April 1960 but before the date of the relevant application and is not development for which planning permission has been granted by a planning decision made on or after 1st April 1960
  3. (c) that it is development in respect of which an application to the local planning authority for planning permission either is pending on the date of the relevant application or is made on that date.

(6) For the purposes of paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection, an application is pending on a particular date if—

  1. (a) it is made before that date and not withdrawn, and
  2. (b) no planning decision on that application has been made before that date.

(7) In subsection (4) of this section and in this subsection 'building' does not include a part of a building; and any reference in subsection (4) of this section to development relating to a building is a reference to the erection, extension, alteration or re-erection of the building or a change of use of the whole or part of the building.")—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, this is the Schedule which sets out the effect of the Scots Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

After Schedule 2 insert the following new Schedule:

("SECTION 19 OF THE LOCAL EMPLOYMENT ACT 1960 (IN ITS APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND) AS AMENDED

Minor amendments as to industrial development certificates

19.—(1) An industrial development certificate shall not be required for the extension of an industrial building if the extension, taken by itself, would not be an industrial building of one of the prescribed classes, but (subject to the provisions of this section) shall be required for the extension of any building if the extension, taken by itself, would be such an industrial building.

(2) Paragraph (a) of the proviso to the principal enactment (under which an industrial development certificate is not required for a building or extension not exceeding a specified size) shall cease to have effect, but such a certificate shall not be required if the industrial floor space to be created by the development in question (in this section referred to as 'the proposed development') together with any other industrial floor space created or to be created by any related development does not exceed five thousand square feet, excluding, where an industrial development certificate has been issued in respect of any related development, any floor space created or to be created by that development or by development carried out, or for which planning permission under Part II of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947* has been granted, before the issue of the certificate.

(2A) For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection development shall, in relation to an application for planning permission (in this section referred to as 'the relevant application'), be taken to be 'related development' if—

  1. (a) it related, or is to relate, to the same building as that to which the proposed development is to relate (in this subsection referred to as the 'relevant building'), or
  2. (b) it related. or is to relate, to a building which is, or is to be, contiguous or adjacent to the relevant building, and it was, or is to be, development comprised in, or for the purposes of, the same scheme or project or for the purposes of the same undertaking as the proposed development, and (in either case) it fulfils one or other of the conditions mentioned in the next following subsection.

(2B) The said conditions are—

  1. (a) that it is development for which, before the date of the relevant application. planning permission has been granted by a planning decision made on or after 1st April 1960;
  2. (b) that it is development which has been initiated on or after 1st April 1960 but before the date of the relevant application and is not development for which planning permission has been granted by a planning decision made on or after 1st April 1960;
  3. (c) that it is development in respect of which an application to the local planning authority for planning permission either is pending on the date of the relevant application or is made on that date.

(2C) For the purposes of paragraph (c) of the last foregoing subsection, an application is pending on a particular date if—

  1. (a) it is made before that date and not withdrawn, and
  2. (b) no planning decision on that application has been made before that date.

(2D) In subsection (2A) of this section and in this subsection 'building' does not include a part of a building, and any reference in subsection (2A) of this section to development relating to a building is a reference to the erection. extension, alteration, or re-erection of the building or a change of use of the whole or part of the building.

(3) In this section 'industrial floor space' means floor space comprised in an industrial building or industrial buildings of any of the prescribed classes.

(4) Nothing in subsection (1) of section 16 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947 shall be construed as requiring an industrial development certificate on an application for permission for the retention on land of an industrial building or the continuance of any use of land."—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

* 1947 c. 53.