BUILDING CONTROL BILL (Hansard, 18 July 1966)

HL Deb 18 July 1966 vol 276 cc291-326 291

§ 2.45 p.m.

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

§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ House in Committee accordingly.

§ [The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]

§ Clause 1:

§ Control of building and constructional work Prohibition of work except under licence.

§ 1.—

§ (11) Where a person contracts to carry out any work to which this Act applies, that person shall not be precluded from recovering payment for the work under the contract by reason only that it was carried out in contravention of this section or of the terms of a licence issued under this Act if he proves that he would have a defence under subsection (6) of this section if he were charged with an offence under this section in respect of that work.

§ LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (11), to leave out all words after "under this Act". The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the case of a 292 person who has carried out work on behalf of the licensee: that is to say, the person to whom a licence has been issued and at whose expense the work is to be done. This other person will have had expenditure in carrying out his contract, and this subsection lays down that if by any chance, or mischance, there should be an offence committed in that the expenditure has been exceeded or the work has not been carried out as it should have been, with the authority of a licence, then the person contracting to do the work should be able to recover his expenses from the person who has employed him, but only if he can prove that he did not know an infraction of the law had taken place.

§ Subsection (6) of this clause says that such a person will have to prove that at the time when the work was carried out he did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that the work was being carried out in contravention of this section or of the terms of a licence issued under this Act. Subsection (7) lays down that a person guilty of an offence such as I have outlined shall, on conviction on indictment, be subject to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both. It may be that the contractor will have been guilty, but I still cannot see any reason why he should be refused payment for the work he has carried out. I am not holding any brief for a man who has carried out work knowing that it should not have been carried out, but the fact is that work has been done, the contract has been complied with, and he should be paid. If he is guilty of an offence he is in any case going to be subject to a fine and a term of two years' imprisonment. Why should he be punished in addition by not receiving payment from the man to whom the licence has been issued and who is responsible for the expenses of the contract? Why should he not receive that payment irrespective of his innocence or guilt?

§ Apart from this, it seems that there is a mixture here between the criminal law, on the one hand, and the civil law, on the other. The criminal law is written into this Bill, but how can it affect the civil contractual law? It seems to me quite irrelevant in this particular case whether or not the man has contravened the Bill. If the work has been carried 293 out, he should be paid for it, and I hope the noble Lord will give us an assurance in this regard and will accept this Amendment.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 3, line 21, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 23.—(Lord Hastings.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
On the point made by my noble friend, I wonder whether I might just expand on the apparent confusion in subsection (11) between the civil and the criminal law, and if the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will explain how this is going to work I shall be very much obliged. In looking at subsection (11), the first thing that occurs to me is that, when the contractor sues for the payment for the work he has carried out and is met by the defence that it was carried out in contravention of Clause 1, he then claims that he would have a defence under subsection (6). Does that mean it is no use for him to claim that he has had a defence under subsection (6); in other words, that he has already been tried and convicted? The wording of subsection (11) does not seem to cover that.
Also, how does the noble Lord suppose the civil courts will deal with the assertion that somebody will have a defence against a criminal offence with which he has not yet been charged? It is already difficult enough to get the results of a criminal trial before the civil courts; for instance, in the case of a negligence claim where there has already been a charge under the Road Traffic Acts, the civil court does not take kindly to those who wish to bring in, in evidence or as part of the pleadings, the fact that a conviction has been obtained or that an acquittal has occurred. This seems to me to have the worst of both worlds, and if the noble Lord could say how he supposes the courts are going to deal with this matter, and could tell us whether there has been any discussion with the Lord Chancellor's Department, I think the Committee would be greatly obliged.

§ LORD HILTON OF UPTON
The effect of this Amendment would be to enable a guilty contractor—and that is the word I hope your Lordships will remember—to bring an action in the courts to recover payment for work done under an illegal contract. I stress the 294 words "illegal contract" and we must not overlook their importance. What is suggested would be contrary to public policy. Subsection (11) enables an innocent contractor to recover payment for work done in contravention of the Act, or of the terms of a licence, provided that, in the terms of subsection (6): at the time when the work was carried out he did not know, and could not reasonably have known that the work was unlawful. If the words which the Amendment proposes to leave out were omitted, a contractor who deliberately or recklessly broke the law would be able to sue for his price.
The provision in subsection (11)is necessary because, under the general law, a contract to do something that is prohibited by Statute is illegal and cannot be enforced by any party to it. This is so whatever the respective degrees of good faith of the different parties. The rule can operate unduly harshly, and undoubtedly did so during building control under the Defence Regulations. Without the provision in subsection (11) a contractor with a good defence under subsection (6) in criminal proceedings could not sue for his money under the building contract unless the developer had a valid defence under subsection (5). This would be unjust, and subsection (11) provides relief for the innocent contractor, who often will be the small or minor contractor. But it would be going too far to provide relief to the guilty contractor from the operation of the general law and thus provide him with an incentive to contravene the Act. I hope that, with this explanation noble Lords will agree there is really not much purpose in pressing this Amendment further.

§ LORD HASTINGS
It seems to me the Government cases rests on one point. At the beginning of his remarks the noble Lord said it was not the purpose of the act to exempt a guilty contractor. But my reasoning was based on the fact that the whole Act puts the final responsibility on the man who has to meet the expense and to whom the licence will be issued; he is responsible for everything, and therefore it seemed to me that he should be responsible for meeting all the bills, whether the work had been carried out legally or illegally.
But the one point the noble Lord made which may explain the whole of this is 295 that he seems to assume that it would be possible for a contractor illegally to carry out certain works on a construction, possibly without the licensee knowing about it. If that is so, I can see some point; because if there were a really disreputable contractor he could, to please himself, to put up his bills, do work which the unfortunate man to whom the licence had been issued would not know about until it had been done. If that is the case I can see the point. My whole case is based on the fact that the licensee would be responsible and would know what is done, and therefore the other man should be paid. That is the only point I have. I do not know whether my noble friend has another point. Perhaps the noble Lord would deal with that first.

§ LORD HILTON OF UPTON
There is a very brief reply to that question and the answer is, Yes; this is the point I am trying to make. I am glad the noble Lord has seen it and is satisfied.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
But the noble Lord has not even attempted to answer the question I asked—it may be because he did not foresee it, and the piece of paper in his hand contains no answer to it. If that is so, I entirely understand: this is a legal matter with which he is not familiar. If, as I think, I am right in saying that there is difficulty about this mixture of civil and criminal law, would it not be better, instead of referring back under subsection (11)to the type of matter in issue in criminal cases under subsection (6), to write out the defence again in subsection (11) in civil terms; in other words, set out what is a defence under subsection (6), set it out separately so that it is valid in civil proceedings and does not have this difficulty of cross-reference between the two? If that were done, it would go some way to meet the difficulty I envisage.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
Certainly my noble friend and I will see that this matter is drawn to the attention of the Department. But I think the noble Lord will agree that under Clause 1, subsections (4) and (5), we lay down quite clearly upon whom the responsibility rests for the carrying out of the principles of this Act. In the first instance, it is the person who is responsible for the building; that is, the purchaser. As the noble Lord, 296 Lord Hastings, and my noble friend agreed together, there is the possibility that a contractor may not always be honest in his relations with the purchaser of the building, and therefore it is necessary to have the responsibility laid upon the two different parties to a construction, although in the end it is the main responsibility of the purchaser.
What we are trying to do under subsection (11) is to ensure that the contractor, particularly the minor contractor who enters into a contract, either with the major contractor for the building or with the ultimate owner, is protected if the minor contractor has undertaken work which he thought was all right and was not in a position to know all the implications in that construction. I understand that under the previous Defence Regulations a number of minor contractors were "hard done by," and my understanding is that where there is something illegal it is not possible for anyone to take action in the civil courts to obtain his rights. For this reason a subsection was so devised which would mean that a sub-contractor—or even the main contractor if he had been misled by the overall purchaser of the building—would be able to recover the monies if he could prove under subsection (6)—

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
It is the bringing in of subsection (6) that causes the difficulty.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
Subsection (6) lays down the limitation of the position of the contractor. It says that he shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he proves that at the time when the work was carried out he did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that the work was being carried out in contravention of this section … As I understand it, under subsection (11) (and if I am wrong I will certainly come to the noble Viscount, after consultation with the Ministry) if there has been a contravention of this section either by the major contractor or by the owner of the building the minor contractor will be able to go to court and sue for the monies that are outstanding to him under that contract. I presume that one of the heads of his case in that civil action will be, that under Clause 1(6) he did not know and could not reasonably have known, that something illegal, was being performed. I should not have thought that would have been too onerous upon the 297 claimant in the civil court—though I have never yet been in court, and hope that I never have to do so. My understanding is that there is no undue difficulty here; but if I am wrong, and if that undue difficulty could be avoided without watering down the provision of the clause, I will certainly see what can be done.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I am obliged to the noble Lord for that answer. I am not asking that the clause should be watered down: all I am saying is that, when the matter is being dealt with in the civil court, it is entirely inapposite that the plaintiff should have to say, "If I had been charged with a criminal offence under subsection (6) I would have had, or I think I would have had, a defence in the terms of that subsection to the criminal charge". But he is not dealing with a criminal matter; he is dealing with a civil case. It is not the question of the wording, or what he has got to prove, to which I am objecting; it is the implications of subsection (11), that he has got to deal with the matter as if it were a criminal case under subsection (6). Perhaps the noble Lord could look at that again. There is no need to water it down, and I have made a suggestion which I hope will be helpful, in regard to how to deal with the difficulty.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
I will certainly look at the point but, as I say, I do not think there will be any great difficulty, because my understanding of subsection (11) is that the claimant will need to prove only that he did not know, or that he could not reasonably have known. If he establishes that, then he will be able to pursue his claim with the court. However, I will certainly see that the comments of the noble Viscount and of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, are studied most carefully tomorrow, and if action is necessary I will get in touch with them and see what can be done. The noble Viscount will appreciate that Parliamentary drafting is one thing, and wishes are another. We may be able to move, but may yet have difficulty in finding the proper drafting. However, I will undertake to look at the matter and will be in touch with the noble Viscount if the noble Lord, Lord Hastings will agree to withdraw his Amendment.

298

§ LORD HASTINGS
In view of the noble Lord's undertaking, I will certainly withdraw the Amendment, and would ask him kindly to get in touch with my noble friend on this legal point before the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

§ LORD HASTINGS
There is a point on Clause 1 about which I should like to ask the noble Lord. Subsection (5) refers to the limit of the amount of the licence being exceeded. I should like to know whether the rises in costs which might occur during the contract and which could last for a long time, one, two or three years maybe, will be taken into account, and to what extent. Of course, contracts can be for a fixed amount. Even then, they will probably be subject to unforeseeable rises in costs and wages during the period of the contract. Equally, it could be a contract on a cost-plus percentage basis. In either case, particularly the latter, the increase would be quite considerable and might take the contract well over the limit which had been granted, or, if a licence was not even necessary in the first place and the contract was made for £90,000, it could come to well over £100,000 before it was finished. Will this subsection take into account this situation?

§ LORD SHEPHERD
The position under this Bill can perhaps be best explained by an example: that if it were a building of £95,000 standing by itself, then that building would be exempt from this Bill. Assuming that the construction proceeded over two or three years and the final cost came out at £107,000 or £110,000, clearly it is beyond the limit in the Bill. It is perfectly true that costs rise. If the building is obviously going to cost over £100,000 because of rising costs, it will then be up to the developer to go to the Ministry to explain the circumstances and apply for a licence. I think I can say that if there is a genuine rise in costs, then, taking other things into consideration, a licence will most likely be granted. But if it is clearly a case where the original contract price has been put at £95,000, and it is well known that that will not be the final price, that would have to be taken into account because it could be evasion of the section. So it 299 would be up to the contractor or the developer to approach the Ministry when he sees that his costs are going beyond the limit. But if at the end of the construction, when all the final bills are in, the figure is slightly over £100,000 it will come within the defence of subsections (5) and (6), that the contractor did not reasonably know.
It is clear that Clause 1 leaves a responsibility upon the developer and contractor to do all possible to see that they keep within the terms of the clause. If, as I say, the building goes beyond the limit because of increasing costs, it is for those concerned to approach the Ministry for a licence. If, however, it is only marginally above, due to circumstances quite beyond their control, and they did not know until the end that the rise was taking place, then I believe they are covered by subsections (5) and (6).

§ Clause 1 agreed to.

§ Clause 2 [Work below cost limit]:

§ 3.8 p.m.

§ LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (6)(b), to leave out all words after "of this Act". The noble Lord said: This is in the nature of a probing Amendment, of which I gave notice to the noble Lords, Lords Shepherd and Lord Hilton of Upton, and they wrote an explanation to me. But I think it is worth while briefly to explain to the Committee the purpose of this phrase which I am moving to exclude. It is: or would be so exempt if this Act had come into force on that date". We are dealing with exemptions in the totalling of the cost, in computing the total cost of the construction or altering the building. One does not include in the total aggregate of costs items exempt from control by virtue of the various clauses of the Bill, to which I need not refer, work carried out before July 28, 1965, or a contract for work made before that date. I understand from the letter that this third part of subsection (b), saying that all would be so exempt if the Bill had come into force on July 28, 1965, refers to work which has been done after that date but before enactment.

§ I still do not fully comprehend that it is necessary to put this into the Bill in order that such work should not be aggre- 300 gated towards the total cost. I do not quite understand why this should be, and I am told that the total effect is to exclude from aggregation any work on a project begun before the Government Statement. If that is the case, I do not see how it can be exempted if begun after July 28, 1965, which seems to be the purpose of putting in this phrase. Perhaps the noble Lord could clear up this matter for the benefit of the Committee.

§ Amendment moved— Page 5, line 8, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 10.—(Lord Hastings.)

§ LORD SHEPHERD
As the noble Lord has mentioned, subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2 require that, where buildings are being constructed and are "contiguous or adjacent to" each other regard should be had to their joint cost. Subsection (6) excludes from this aggregation the cost of any work which is exempt from control under Clauses 3, 4, 5 or 6, or work carried out or started or contracted before July 28, 1965. The control therefore completely ignores this work. There are three limbs in regard to aggregation: work which is completed before July 28, 1965, work which is exempt from control under Clause 7(1) of the Bill, and work which would be exempt under Clause 7(1) of the Bill if the Bill had been enacted on July 28, 1965. It is felt that any work which was subject to aggregation but which had been started before July 28 should be excluded when one takes into account a new construction which is adjacent or contiguous to it. Therefore, the subsection would exempt that type of work.
The noble Lord wanted to know why the third limb had been put in. May I give as an example the case of a building costing £110,000, a building within the limit of Clause 1, to be constructed over three or four years? As I understand it, work started before the Statement will be exempt. Work which will be completed after the enactment of this Bill will now be exempt because of Clause 7(1). Therefore, in relation to continuous work on the building one has a gap between the Statement and the enactment of the Bill. This work is not unlawful and therefore we cannot exempt it. We need to use this third limb, which would mean that that work would not be aggregable, when the Bill comes into 301 force it will be treated in the same way as the work which will be carried out and completed after the Bill has become law. In other words, these three limbs will exempt from aggregation all the work on a building which was contracted before the Chancellor's Statement on July 28. What we are trying to exempt is the whole construction of this one building. We have had to put in this third limb in order to cover that gap between the period of construction before July 28 and the period to completion of the building after enactment. This period between the Statement and the Bill's becoming an Act will be covered by the third limb. I know that this all sounds very involved, but it is quite clear that what we are seeking to do is to cover the whole history, the whole progress of that building which, under subsection (6), will be exempt from aggregation.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
Had that been in the Bill, it may be that we should not have had to put down this Amendment. But I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, if he would have one further look at a single word in paragraph (b) of subsection (6)—the word "so": or would be so exempt if this Act had come into force on that date". The way I read this third limb is that the word "so" refers back to Section 7(1) and not to anything else. If I am right, it seems to me that it is possible that this does not make sense at all. If "so" were intended to refer back to Sections 3, 4, 5 or 6, then I could understand it; but the way this is drafted makes it perfectly clear that it does not. And if "so" refers only to Section 7(1), I do not see what the third limb is doing at all. Had the Act come into force on July 28, 1965, subsection (1) of Clause 7 would not have been necessary at all, because it deals only with what happened before that particular day. There is an interim period which has to be covered, but I do not think it would be covered by importing Clause 7(1) alone.

§ LORD HASTINGS
In spite of the noble Lord's explanation (I do not know whether we shall have to accept it; but I am glad to realise that the Government are here trying to help, rather than hinder, people in the building industry) 302 I should have thought that Clause 7(1) would apply to these cases. The contract would have been made before the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, otherwise the work would not have been going on before his statement. Builders do not start work without a contract. I do not see why this is necessary.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
May I say to the noble Viscount that I will look into the matter to see whether the little word "so" should be there. However, I have great respect for our Parliamentary draftsmen; they do not usually put in words that are unnecessary. I think the noble Viscount has accepted the reasons for the subsections, or at least for what we are trying to do here, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, appreciates that we are trying to be fair. I am glad that he agrees with us, because some of his friends outside, looking at the Amendments which the noble Lord has put down, might well think that he was "agin" them and that we are for them—but I will take that no further. Clause 7(1) does not cover the interim point. It may well be that the major contract for a building would have been completed before the Chancellor's statement, but my experience of big projects is that there is a continuing run of contracts. In fact, it may well be that minor contracts are being made all along the line as the building is being constructed. But I would make it clear that this third limb is necessary. The one doubt I have—and this is only because the noble Viscount has raised it—concernsthe little word "so". As I have said, I will certainly look into the point, and will be in touch with the noble Viscount.

§ LORD HASTINGS
I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 3.20 p.m.

§ LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (6), to leave out all words after paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is concerned with the same subsection. Although certain costs will be excluded from aggregation, we now read that "other such work as is mentioned" in other subsections of the Bill is to be aggregated, whether or not it has been authorised by licence, and whether or not it has been exempted from 303 control under this Bill. It is very difficult to understand the purpose of this. Again, the noble Lord was good enough to write me a letter about this point, and I understand that it has some connection with the possibility of evasion of the law and the splitting up of projects. But I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could just explain this part of the clause to the Committee. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 5, line 11, leave out from the beginning to end of line 15.—(Lord Hastings.)

§ LORD SHEPHERD
This is basically the declaratory part of this subsection. Subsection (6) covers the various exemptions which I have just been talking about, but it is quite clear that we have in mind that major work and contracts started after the Chancellor's statement will be aggregated, whether authorised by the Minister or not. This involves the element of retrospection which was announced by the Chancellor. It is important, in our view, that the developers should know what they have to take into account when reckoning the cost of a project. If these words were taken out, it would not in any way relieve the responsibility under subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2, but it would certainly raise doubts in the minds of some of the contractors and developers. Therefore, we believe that this declaratory part of the subsection should be included.
I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will agree—in fact, I believe he did agree during the Second Reading—that where work has been started after the statement made by the Chancellor, then the individuals concerned should not gain by it. This is what the Government have in mind, and if the noble Lord appreciates what I am getting at, I hope that he will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
This is becoming a bit of a pattern, I am afraid, but again I should be grateful for a little further thought on this. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, no doubt realises that the speeches he is making on these clauses are going to be the only guidance for the contractors whom he is hoping to help, until the courts have decided various questions under this Bill. At first sight, and it may be only at first 304 sight, the way that subsection (6) reads is that, first of all, for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3)—that is, aggregation—you disregard, among other things, work which is exempt from control under Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6; that is, if it is in respect of another building or other works, or any other work in respect of the same building. Then secondly, you have regard to all other such work as is mentioned in subsections (2) and (3), whether or not it is licensed and whether or not it is exempt. Therefore, it seems to me that, first of all you disregard it, and secondly you regard it. This cannot make any sense at all, and there must be something a little wrong with the drafting, or alternatively—and probably this is much more likely—with the way I have read the Bill.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
At this happy stage of the Bill, I should not like to agree with the last remarks of the noble Viscount. It may well be that I have not fully explained the Bill. Subsection (6) provides the exemptions, where an adjacent or contiguous building has been built before the Statement made by the Chancellor. This last paragraph is to make the position perfectly clear. We are now talking about aggregation. Let us suppose that we have two buildings, one of £50,000 and another of £60,000. They are both exempt because of their value. Under Clause 2(2), if they are adjacent or contiguous, the values of both have to be taken into account. Let us suppose that the first building was started after the Statement made by the Chancellor, and the second building was started after the enactment of the Bill. The builders of them went ahead, well knowing that the "adjacent" or "contiguous" provisions would apply, so it is right that both buildings should be taken into account, because together they are beyond the limit of £100,000.
We feel—and this is the advice that I have received—that without these words there might be an element of doubt as to what would be the position of the building started after the Statement of the Chancellor. Therefore, we have put in these words to make it absolutely clear both to the developer and to the contractor that the cost of both buildings must be taken into account. We will not argue about whether this is the right place for these words. I think that the 305 noble Viscount agrees that this should be the position, and that this should be clear. If it can be shown that we can make the position clearer then I will look at the matter again, but at the present moment, on the advice I have received, this is the best place in which to put these words. However, I will certainly look at the point which the noble Viscount has raised.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I think I understood exactly what the noble Lord was saying, and I would have been perfectly clear if it had not been for paragraph (a) of subsection (6). Everything that the noble Lord was saying just now was based upon the date of July 28, which was the date of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement. But, of course, subsection (6) does not concern itself only with that—it is a continuing subsection—because it deals, for instance, with disregards, as the project next door may be exempted because it is housing, industrial, or has an office development permit. This is going to go on all the time, so it has nothing to do with the fixing of the time by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Statement.
I should like to take another example, because this is probably the only way of dealing with this. Let us suppose that there are two housing projects, but let us leave out the question of when they are started because that is not the only point in this subsection. Together they would amount to more than £100,000, as one costs £50,000 and the other costs £60,000. But it is quite clear that you disregard the one when you are looking at the other, and vice versa, because of subsection (6)(a). It is exempt under subsection (3)—

§ LORD SHEPHERD
May I correct the noble Viscount? I do not think the Bill means "subsection", but "section". Clause 3 relates to housing and industrial and research premises, and Clause 4 relates to development districts, and the exemptions under these clauses will be continuous. As I understand the position, they have nothing to do with the paragraph which we are talking about. This really relates to paragraph (b).

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
If that is so, then it is paragraph (a) which ought to be left out, and I think 306 this is what the noble Lord was really saying. Either you disregard it because it is exempt under Clause 3 (and I take the noble Lord's point that to-day we mean Clause 3)—in other words, you disregard it because it is a housing or industrial or research project—or you have to take out paragraph (a) of subsection (6). You must have a continuing disregard if it is exempt under, for instance, Clause 3 of this Bill. If that is so—and that is the way I read it at the moment—you then go on to that part of the subsection with which the Amendment deals. But there you will see that regard shall be had to all other such work …"— and that, presumably, is the same project about which I was just speaking, the £50,000 one or the £60,000 one, depending on which you are talking about—and that you have regard to it whether or not it is exempt from control under this Act … Therefore, you have regard to it although it is exempt under Clause 3 of this Bill. This is precisely contrary to what the first part of this subsection says, and at the present moment I cannot see that the noble Lord has cleared this matter up.

§ LORD HASTINGS
It seems to me that we are making confusion worse confounded.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
I agree with you.

§ LORD HASTINGS
I very much doubt whether the noble Lord opposite will be able to satisfy us now on this point, but if he will kindly talk it over again with his advisers and get it sorted out, I shall be glad to withdraw this Amendment on the understanding that he will make the explanation in writing before the Report stage, or at the Report stage if he wishes.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
Most certainly. If I can satisfy the noble Viscount, then I shall be most happy to do so. I will certainly undertake to carry out an inquiry into the matter.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 3.32 p.m.

§ On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD HAWKE
During the course of the discussion on the interesting points that have been raised, I have been reading the clause, and there is one other 307 point which, it seems to me, requires a little explanation—and I apologise for not having noticed it before and for not having given notice to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. The wording in subsection (2), paragraph (a) is "any work has been done", whereas, when we turn to subsection (6), paragraph (b), we find that it refers to work "carried out". What is the significance of the change in phraseology between work "done" and work "carried out"?
I raise this point because it really leads to a further point. It seems to me that in the system of aggregation one may well be faced quite often with a part aggregation. One may find that what might be called auxiliary work has been started, and that some of it has been carried out outside two years and some within two years of the main work. Now it is going to be extraordinarily difficult, surely, to discover exactly the value of the work falling between those two dates. You can, of course, put a value on the concrete, the bricks, et cetera, that have actually been laid, but what about the various sub-contractors and their preparations? It may be that the flooring sub-contractor has done no work at alt to the building, but that all his "ammunition" has been moved on to the site; therefore, presumably, that amount of work has been done.
That is why I find this phrase, "work has been done" such a mystifying one. If the word were "completed", or something like that, it would be very simple. I know it would then be a totally different meaning. But I cannot see how this extremely wavy and wobbly line, induced by the phrase "has been done", is going to work in the case of part aggregation. I am sorry not to have raised this point with the noble Lord before and not to have given him a chance to prepare his reply.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
I can be brief. I am advised that the words "done" and "carried out" mean the same in this Bill.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
In that case, will the noble Lord change them, so that they are the same? Because on the construction of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, the first point 308 that is going to arise as a practical difficulty is that there are two phrases in the same section which, we are now told, are meant to mean the same thing, but where a, different wording is used. As I understood it, in subsection (6) (a) the words "carried out" meant "completed". That was what I inferred from what the noble Lord said a little while ago. But, whatever this means, I am certain that, for the proper construction of this Bill, if these two expressions are meant to mean the same thing we must have the same words used in both places.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
Here, once again, I shall look at it, but I think I should make it quite clear that the words "carried out" do not mean completed. My understanding is that the words "work done" and the words "work carried out" mean the same thing, and that it is not always necessary (when, perhaps, for easy drafting and easy writing it is better otherwise) that you should have the same words right through the Bill to mean the the same thing. I will again look at this point, but I do not think there is anything in it.

LORD HAWKE
I have been sitting very regularly in your Lordships' House for twenty years, and I have heard numerous Lord Chancellors and many other learned legal people pointing out precisely the opposite to what the noble Lord has just said—in other words, that there is some great legal significance in a change' of phrase in the middle of a Statute. I exhort the noble Lord to set this in order; and I think that, before the next stage, he ought to consider this question about part aggregation, because it is going to give rise to the most appallingly difficult calculations and legal disputes.

§ Clause 2 agreed to.

§ Clause 3 agreed to.

§ Clause 4:

§ Development districts

§ 4.—

§ (4) Nothing in subsection (2) of this section shall be taken as conferring any exemption on work in respect of a building or any works by reason only that the construction of any ancillary works for the building or works in question was begun, or that a contract for work in the construction of such ancillary works was 309 made, before the date mentioned in that subsection; but where work done in the construction or alteration of a building or of any works is exempt from control by virtue of that subsection there shall also be exempt from control by virtue of that subsection any work done in the construction of any ancillary works required for that building or those works.

§ 3.37 p.m.

§ LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: It seems to me that we are making some progress, in that perhaps the extreme confidence of the Government and of the Parliamentary draftsmen has been somewhat shaken—and that perhaps causes one to believe that some of the things we are moving have some right and certainly a good deal of sense behind them. That is particularly so in respect of the Amendment I am going to move now, which is to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 4, and we hope, therefore, that the Government will give particular attention to it. We are here dealing with development districts from the point of view of the possibility that the locality in one such development district would cease to be specified as a development district, whereupon immediately, of course, all building would come under the umbrella control of this Bill, whether it was to be exempted or not—and there would clearly be a great number of buildings which would come under that control.

§ It is laid down in subsection (2) of this clause that a person putting up any form of construction or altering a building at the time when the locality ceases to be a development district shall not suffer by virtue of that fact if the building or alteration has already been begun, or if a contract has already been signed—and this is very much in line with what we have been discussing on recent Amendments in the last half hour or so. But what is so extraordinary is that, having said that nobody should suffer on account of this if they have begun or made a contract for the work, subsection (4) says that, if they shall have started any ancillary works, or even made a contract for any ancillary works, in connection with the main building, then they are going to suffer, and that they will perhaps be refused a licence. But these ancillary works can add up to a very considerable sum of money, and I cannot 310 see rhyme or reason in excluding them in this particular case, especially if the noble Lord will refer back to Clause 2(4) which quite clearly lays down: In computing … the cost of constructing or altering a building or any works, there shall be taken into account not only the cost of preparing the site of the building but also the cost of constructing on that site … any ancillary works". And these have been included in the total cost under Clause 2. But when we get to Clause 4, oh dear, no! It is not allowed to count towards the building at all, if these unfortunate people happen to be in a district which is suddenly taken out of general exemption. It seems to me to be completely senseless and grossly unfair. I hope the noble Lord will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 6, line 38, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Hastings.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
Before the noble Lord rises, I wonder whether I might draw his attention to one other small difficulty. It is that there is a conflict, or a possible conflict, between Clause 4(2)(b) and Clause 4(4). I think it arises like this. There is an exemption in this case where the locality ceased to be a development district—and the same thing applies in different circumstances under another clause later on—for any contract which was made before the date when the locality ceased to be a development district; that is to say, a contract for the work in question or for other works in the construction or alteration. Contracts of this kind are exempt. Then wecome to subsection (4) and there we find that a contract for the construction of ancillary works is not exempted. I wonder whether the Government have thought out the practical distinction between a contract which might be described as being for ancillary works, which is not exempt, and a contract for other work in the constructional alteration which is exempt—because if they have a ready-made distinction or an example they can give to point to this extraordinary dichotomy, I think the Committee, and the contractors, will be glad to hear it. I can see the greatest difficulty 311 in practice in deciding whether the contract is exempt under Clause 4(2)(b) or not exempt under Clause 4(4).

§ LORD HILTON OF UPTON
Since this is similar to Amendment No. 7, I wonder whether it might be convenient to discuss them together and thus save time. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, about giving attention to these Amendments. I can assure him that we on this side have already given attention to the Amendments that have gone before and will do so to those that are to come. We agree that they are important.
The main effect of accepting the Amendment we are now discussing would be to remove an exemption. It would bring under control the construction of ancillary works required for a building exempted under subsection (2). Subsection (2) makes provision for a locality ceasing to be specified as a development district. After that has happened work done on a building or works begun or contracted for before the change remains exempt. But the building itself must have been started or contracted for. Subsection (4) does two things. First, it makes it clear that subsection (2) does not exempt a building if all that has been done or contracted for before the reclassification of the locality was ancillary works. This is the meaning of subsection (2) and the first part of subsection (4) makes it quite clear.
It would not be right to allow a developer to proceed with the construction of buildings simply because ancillary works relating to them had been constructed. For example, if this were to be allowed, it would mean that a developer, by laying one sewer, with a view to serving a dozen buildings on a site in a development district, would later be able to construct all the buildings without a licence, notwithstanding that the locality had ceased to be a development district by the time work started. In these circumstances it is right that the Minister should have the opportunity to consider the priority of the building. In considering the application for a licence he would have regard to what had been done. Secondly, the subsection exempts from control the construction of ancillary works required for a building which is exempt under subsection (2) because it was started or contracted for before the 312 locality was reclassified. It is sensible to extend the exemption in this way, so as to avoid the necessity to apply for a licence for the contruction of services or means of access which may be required to make a building viable. The Amendment would remove this exemption and might raise doubts regarding the interpretation of subsection (2). I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment.

§ LORD HASTINGS
I thank the noble Lord for his very clear explanation; but the fact is that the two parts of subsection (4) are contradictory. I should have said that in my opening remarks, but I forgot to do so. The subsection says, to begin with, that ancillary works are not exempt; but it ends by saying that if they form part of the main contract they are exempt. It seems to me that ancillary works will always form part of the main contract, whether or not they are contracted for separately. They are part of the general construction. The noble Lord gave an example of one sewer being laid for a whole building development project. I see the Minister's point here; but suppose that the contractor had laid all the sewers, and most of the roads. Surely there must be some certainty in the Bill that in such a case the work is part of the main contract, and the contractor must be allowed to go on, get his licence and finish the job. The noble Lord said that the Minister will consider what work has been done. To that extent, I hope that we may take it as a ministerial statement. Perhaps the noble Lord can say if this is a ministerial statement which gives an undertaking as to the Minister's intentions. If that is so, we shall find it easier to accept the noble Lord's explanation. If not, we feel that the clause should be revised in some respect.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
I think the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, understands the reasons why subsection (4) has been placed in the Bill. If I may, I rather disagree with the noble Viscount's suggestion that subsection (2) (b) in any way conflicts with subsection (4). But in regard to the undertaking for which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has asked, may I answer in this way? If the circumstances are such as he postulated, it 313 is clearly unreasonable for the Minister to say that, because an area has suddenly been removed from a development status, all those who have started the ancillary work towards a major scheme should be placed in jeopardy. I believe that in such a case a Minister, or a Department, would look at each of the applications that would arise with the greatest sympathy; and, unless there were very special reasons, such as an acute shortage of materials or labour, I am sure that a licence would be made available. I think that is as far as any Minister at this stage would wish to go, but I think it would be acceptable to the noble Lord.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
Will the noble Lord kindly write and tell me why he disagrees with my reasoning?

§ LORD SHEPHERD
Certainly.

§ LORD HASTINGS
I have great faith in the noble Lord himself. I am not sure, however, whether my faith in his right honourable friend is quite so extensive, and I should be pleased if the noble Lord could obtain from his right honourable friend an undertaking, which he could give us, either in writing or verbally, that it is not the intention to act under this subsection (4) when it would, as he says, be unreasonable to do so by virtue of the amount of ancillary work carried out. I quite see that there is a point of dissent, when one sewer or one road has been made in a very large development, because then there is reason; but I think we should like an undertaking in writing from the noble Lord, if we could have one. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 4 agreed to.

§ Clause 5 agreed to.

§ Clause 6 [Other exemptions]:

§ 3.52 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
moved, in subsection (1)(a), after "consists of" to insert "or includes". The noble Viscount said: Again my noble friend and myself have the advantage of a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in anticipation of his answer to 314 some of these Amendments, but I think that here again in Clause 6(1)(b) there is some verbiage which is extremely far from clear when one tries to interpret it. Clause 6(1) deals with exemptions which arise where a building has been the subject of an office development permit under the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act of last year. As I understand it, the two paragraphs deal with the matter in this way. Paragraph (a) deals with the case where the whole building has been the subject of an O.D.P., and paragraph (b) deals with the case where part of the building has been the subject of an O.D.P.; or where two buildings have been put up together so that they aggregate to more than 3,000 square feet minimum, or whatever it may be reduced to, so that they have been the subject of an O.D.P. But in all the cases covered by paragraph (b) there may be other development which is not of an office nature, but, notwithstanding that, if there has been an O.D.P. granted on any part of that building, or of the two buildings (or however many it is) together no licence will be required under this Bill. This seems to me entirely sensible because the Board of Trade will have dealt with the matter, at any rate for the most part, on much the same lines as I believe that this Bill is to be exercised. Therefore, it seems silly to have two kinds of control.
The Amendment which I have put down—in fact, there are two of them and they go together—triesto avoid a great deal of confusion. As I understand it—and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has been nodding his head—you will not need any licence under this Bill whether a building is entirely covered or only partly covered by the O.D.P. If that is so, surely the only words needed are those which I have suggested in my first Amendment, and the tremendous rigmarole in paragraph (b) only adds to the confusion. Frankly, I do not understand what it means and how it is any improvement—although it may be presumptuous to say so—on the little Amendment which I have put down. I should therefore be glad if the noble Lord would explain this in yet another of his most lucid speeches on this Bill.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 21, after ("of") insert ("or includes").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

315

§ LORD SHEPHERD
I was nodding to the noble Viscount because his understanding of Clause 6(1) is quite right. If I may, I will explain it to the Committee again by an example. In respect of Clause 6(1)(a)—the noble Viscount is quite right—the building that is authorised under the Act of 1965 is an office building of more than 3,000 square feet which will be exempt from the provisions of this Bill. Paragraph (b) deals with what one might call a complex of buildings. Shall we consider a complex of three buildings at a total cost (shall we say?) of £800,000. First, we have a block containing 15,000 square feet of office building costing, say, £200,000; a social centre which includes 5,000 square feet of office building costing, £400,000; and a block including shops and associated storage with only 2,500 square feet of office—

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
The noble Lord—

§ LORD SHEPHERD
Let me finish—

VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS
But could the noble Lord just say again whether all these are associated in one complex, or are they separate?

§ LORD SHEPHERD
I always thought that a complex was a group of associated buildings—

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
They are associated.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
That was always my understanding of the word "complex". Here we have a third group within the complex consisting of shops and associated storage with only 2,500 square feet. The first two cases, because the office accommodation is in excess of 3,000 square feet and therefore comes within the Act I have just mentioned, are exempt from the provisions of this Bill. But the third building, because there is less than 3,000 square feet and therefore it is not governed or controlled by the Act, would be covered and would require a licence because it was in excess of £100,000. The noble Viscount shakes his head, but it will. It will need a licence because it is in excess of £100,000. The noble Viscount shakes his head. Perhaps he will explain the Bill to me.

316

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
The point is this. If the third building with its 2,500 square feet is part of a complex, as I understand Section 2 of the 1965 Act, that 2,500 square feet will be aggregated with the office square footage of the other two buildings; and all three will require the office development permit. So therefore the third building also, as I read the Act, will not require a licence under this particular Bill, because it will be exempt by Clause 6(1).

§ LORD SHEPHERD
No, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is wrong. My understanding is that the buildings that require authority under the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act are buildings of more than 3,000 square feet.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
It is an aggregation.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
I am always subject to correction, but that is my understanding of it. The example that I have given—and this is what I have been advised—is that a licence would not be required for the two buildings in that complex, because one has 15,000 square feet of offices and one 5,000 square feet of offices. But in regard to the third building within that complex, a licence would be required. That is the advice which I have been given and my understanding of the Bill before the Committee.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I think there is a point on what is technically known as the relevant development under the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act, because if these are in a complex I believe that I am right. It may well transpire on the facts that there are exceptions, but I think that if these three buildings are in a complex they will all three be excepted. I am sure that we shall not carry this further this afternoon. But would the noble Lord agree with me that what in fact is being done by paragraph (b) is to ensure that where an O.D.P. is given for part of a building—that is, in all the cases where the O.D.P. is given to part of buildings—a licence under this Bill is not required?

317

§ LORD SHEPHERD
For the whole building.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
For the whole building. Then we have achieved what we want. Where there is a case which might fall within the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act such as the example given by the noble Lord but, for some reason—because it is not relevant to development—does not, we must catch this and require it to need a licence under this Bill. If those are the objects of the exercise, perhaps the noble Lord and I separately, and later together, could have a look at the Control of Offices Act and see whether this is right. Would the noble Lord reconsider this matter?

§ LORD SHEPHERD
Yes.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD HAWKE
May I ask the noble Lord whether before Clause 6 comes back to us he could have a few commas and things sprinkled over subsection (1)(b)? I draw the line at nine lines of gibberish with no punctuation at all.

§ Clause 6 agreed to.

§ Clause 7 [Work begun or contracted for before commencement of Act]:

§ LORD HASTINGS had given notice to move to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I only wish to say that this subject was discussed with Amendment No. 4. It refers to the generality of the Bill, and not merely to development districts. No doubt the noble Lord when he writes will include this Amendment in the statement he may receive from the Minister. I do not propose to move the Amendment.

§ 4.1 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to leave out subsection (4) and insert— (4) There shall be exempt from control under this Act any work which the Minister has indicated in writing, before the commencement of this Act, that he would have authorised if this Act has been in force at the time when he gave such indication.

318

§ The noble Viscount said: I put this Amendment down not out of any pedantry, but because I believe there is a Parliamentary propriety which ought to be observed in this connection. Subsection (4) of Clause 7 at present reads—and of course I agree with its intention: There shall be exempt from control under this Act any work which has been authorised in writing by the Minister before the commencement of this Act. The Committee will recall what in fact occurred. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement on July 28, 1965, and a Bill called the Building Control Bill, which had very much the same provisions as this one, was introduced into the last Parliament. Right at the end of the last Parliament, just before the General Election, the right honourable gentleman the then Minister of Public Buildings and Works came down to another place, rather too late as it turned out, and made a statement about the continuation of the policy he had already adopted of giving informal licence based on the Chancellor's statement, but for which he had no legal authority whatever. Then the next day another Minister came and bailed him out from the difficulty into which he had got himself.

§ One thing is quite clear, and that is that the indications in writing (because that was the word used in another place) that have been issued to would-be builders ever since about the middle of November last year (I think it was) have not had any authority whatever; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, went so far as to agree with this in something he said earlier this afternoon. Therefore the word "authorised" in subsection (4) is, I suggest, wrong, because the Minister cannot say that he has authorised any work under any powers when it is quite clear that he had no powers to do so.

§ This is not simply a matter that concerns this Bill, but is one of general application. I have the feeling that this Government are getting into the habit of governing by edict, and, for all I know, next Wednesday we may find that another announcement will be made that, notwithstanding that this Bill is not yet law and the Minister has now power to do anything about it, he is going to change the threshold for the sort of works that require a licence under this Bill. For all 319 I know, he may say that it will be £50,000, although he has no power to do this. This is the way, apparently, that these matters are conducted under this Administration.

§ I do not wish to do away with the exemptions that subsection (4) provides, because this is the way it has been done. Members in another place, who control these matters, do not seem to have objected, and I do not think that we should object either. But, simply as a matter of Parliamentary propriety, I suggest that the word "authorized" in this subsection is quite wrong, and we should make it clear in the wording of the Bill itself what it is that the Minister has done; that is, to appropriate to himself some sort of pseudo-authority for which he had no Parliamentary sanction and which he has been using in this way ever since. I do not believe there will be any difference to the practical result if my Amendment is adopted, but I think we may have got the wording correct and may have pinpointed the exact position under which the Minister has been acting all this time. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 9, line 37, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

§ LORD ST. HELENS
I should like to support my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross in his protest against the present wording of the Bill. As I see it, this is not legislation by Parliament; it is the most arrogant manifestation of Ministerial power. This I see as the modern version of: "We are the masters now". Personally, I strongly resent it. I think this is a degree of contempt of Parliament; and, furthermore, it is a danger to Parliament, because there are profound reactions if this type of wording in a Bill is allowed to go forward. It is the initiation of legislation long before that legislation comes before and is approved by Parliament—namely, the initiation of legislation on the publication of a Bill. Indeed, as I see it, it could even be a short step to such legislation initiating from the time a proposal appears in the Party's Election Manifesto. This is a matter of supreme importance to Parliament, because it is a two-way weapon: the Party in office at 320 the moment will not always be sitting on that side of the House, and this weapon might be used strongly against them. Therefore I hope that in the interests of Parliament the Minister will accept the wording which has been proposed by my noble friend.

§ LORD SILKIN
Towards the end of this Committee stage we are becoming political. Up to now, we have not introduced politics into this Bill. The question whether the wording of the Amendment or the wording in the Bill should be inserted is really one of fact. In fact, the Minister has already given authorisations. I am aware of a number of cases where a developer has been given an authority or a licence to go ahead. Whether that licence was legal or not does not arise. All that is said in this Bill is that where such an authority has been given it should be regarded as valid. Any authority which was given was not given, as the Amendment says, on the basis that if the Minister had been authorised he would have given it. The Minister has in fact given a straightforward licence to go ahead. Therefore the Amendment would not really be accurate, and I hope that the wording in the Bill will be retained as being an accurate statement of what the position is.

§ 4.9 p.m.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
I agree with my noble friend Lord Silkin that it is rather strange that at the very end of what has been an enjoyable and constructive Committee stage a political element should have arisen. I should have thought that the speech of the noble Lord opposite could well have been made on Second Reading, and we could then have had a bit of cut-and-thrust. If my memory is right, this was not a serious aspect of our Second Reading debate. However, in view of the fact that it has been raised, I think I should deal with it quite briefly.
At the time there was gross overheating of the construction industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, knows, on Second Reading I went into considerable detail of the consequences and causes of that overheating. If we had not made the statement when we did, and if we had not made it clear that we were going to take legislative action which would be retrospective, the noble Lord 321 well knows what would have happened—in fact what may well be happening at this moment in another field: firms and individuals, knowing that action was to be taken, would have rushed in and made the overheating infinitely worse than it was. So it was quite clear that action had to be taken; and action was taken. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, agreed with me that it was right that firms who were responsible and accepted the view of the Chancellor, and then went to the Minister of Public Building and Works and sought advice and authorisation for the various building projects after the statement had been made, should have, as we have put into the Bill, that degree of authority and exemption from the provisions of the Bill.
Whether the words in the Bill or the words of the noble Viscount are right, is surely a matter of opinion. I think we must repeat—and I repeat it—that any firm which acted after the Chancellor had made his statement did nothing illegal—and let us be quite clear about that. They will be acting illegally only if their building is clearly one that comes within Clause 1, and if they continue on the construction of that building after the Bill has become an Act. I think that is right. I have taken advice, and I see nothing to be gained by using the words of the noble Viscount's Amendment. The Minister has, in fact, been giving permission, or acquiescence, to the developers who have applied to him for authority to proceed with their buildings. That permission, or acquiescence, has been given, and we have used in subsection (4) the word "authorized". I think that word is more a Parliamentary and drafting word than the words I have just been using, "permission" or "acquiescence". In view of the fact that the noble Viscount and his friends have been able to let off steam, and that the purpose of their Amendment has been explained, I hope he will now think it right to withdraw it.

§ LORD CONESFORD
I come with quite a fresh mind to this point, but, as I understood it, my noble freind was questioning the accuracy of the expression, "authorized". "Authorised" normally is used, I should have thought, in a case where the Minister had some power to give authority, and where some other consequence would have resulted 322 had he refused his authority. I should have thought there was substance in my noble friend's complaint that the word "authorised" was not happy or accurate. I looked very briefly to see whether I could find a parallel for the use of "authorised" in this sort of circumstance. I did not have time to examine it exhaustively. I think that in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary the only examples which might have been relevant were from Australian cases, to which I did not have the opportunity of referring. But I should have thought this deserved further examination to get the right words.
I am not without sympathy for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the proposed alternative is a little elaborate for the simple thing we wish to achieve. It occurs to me as a possibility—but I should have thought a possibility for the consideration of the learned draftsman—that instead of "authorised", the word "approved" might be less offensive and, possibly, equally effective from the Government's point of view. I do not wish to say any more. I do not wish to disturb the amicable relations that have existed between the two sides on this Committee stage, but I think my noble friend who set down this Amendment had a point of substance. We ought to be careful not to use a word like "authorised" if we do not in fact mean "authorized", unless the Parliamentary draftsman can point to some precedent which gives respectability to the practice.

§ LORD SILKIN
May I ask the noble Lord this question? Supposing the Minister has authorised; supposing he has written to people and said, "I hereby authorise you to carry out this development". Would not these words in the Bill then be correct?

§ LORD CONESFORD
I think not, because, if the Minister uses an inaccurate expression, I do not think that that inaccurate expression has to be adopted by Parliament.

§ LORD HASTINGS
May I say one word, very briefly? I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when they accuse my noble friend of being political in this matter. I think it is of real Parliamentary interest, and Parliamentary interest is important: it affects all Parties 323 and no Parties. Therefore, I would support very strongly what my noble friend Lord Cones ford has just said. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will take this matter seriously and try to find some word (if he does not like the phrase which has been thought of by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, which seems to me to express the position perfectly accurately), such as "approved" or "acquiesced", which puts the legalities of the matter in the right context.

§ LORD ILFORD
I was going to suggest that the word which should be employed is "assented" The advantage of that expression is that it describes fully and completely exactly what the Minister does. He has no power to authorise. All he has power to do is to say, "Later on, if powers are given to me by Parliament to prevent the erection of this building, I shall exercise them". As I understand it that is what he does. If that were described as assenting, it would describe with complete accuracy what the Minister seeks to do. I am not detracting from the Amendment which my noble friend has moved. I think it is much to be preferred to the language in the Bill. But if that is not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, then I would suggest that the word used should be "assented" and not "authorised".

§ LORD SHEPHERD
Right through this Committee stage I kept a wary eye upon the noble Lord, Lord Cones ford. I was expecting him to rise in wrath about various parts of the Bill—the English and phraseology. Ministers of both Parties have known this as a fearsome thing. I thought my worst fears were realised when the noble Lord rose from his seat, and I said to myself, "We are in for it now". However, the noble Lord made a suggestion which I shall look at. I shall also look at the other suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, to see whether we can find another word. But I hope the Committee will understand that it is quite easy for us to pick up words and say, "That should be in", or, "That should be out". In the end, one depends upon the Parliamentary draftsman who have to take into account all the material, past and future, that is involved before finalising a particular word. As the noble 324 Viscount knows, certain words are well recognised in law. If you change the word it is possible that some lawyer may say, "What is the special significance of the fact that the word in this Act of Parliament is different from that used in another?" However, I will look at it, and will see what can be done between now and the next stage of the Bill. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I think the noble Lord has been more than generous in this matter, and I wish to say two things. First of all, I did not wish to query the exemption, and I hope I made that perfectly clear at the beginning. Secondly, what I did in drafting this Amendment was to follow the speech of the then Lord President of the Council, the right honourable gentleman Mr. Bowden, on March 9 of this year, as reported in col. 2105 of the House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT. I think that in the circumstances that was a speech in which every word had been weighed up and drafted with care—

§ LORD SHEPHERD
They always are!

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
Then shall I say that this one was a paragon among paragons. He said that the Minister had, since November 1, 1965, been indicating cases in which building would be permitted; and it was upon what he said then that I drafted my Amendment. Therefore I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will at least allow that I have done some research in this matter and have authority on my side.

§ LORD SILKIN
But so have I. I have seen some of these approvals, and they are not in the form of the noble Viscount's Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
Well, if they are not, they ought to be; and I think that is no reason whatever why we should be slap-happy in our drafting of this Bill.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
The noble Viscount should not say of our Parliamentary draftsmen, in this Government in particular, that we are "slap-happy".

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
Well, I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will look at this again, 325 and I now beg to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 7 agreed to.

§ Clause 8 [Power to extend or restrict control]:

§ On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?

§ LORD HASTINGS
There is one thing I wanted to ask the noble Lord in regard to this clause, which refers to the powers of the Minister to extend or restrict control. Subsection (1)(c), refers to the Minister's power to direct that there shall not be exemption from control …all work, or work of any description, which would otherwise be exempt…by virtue of Section 3(1)(b) or (c), 4 or 5(1)(d) to (i) of this Act". These sections refer to work which is carried out under the powers of a Minister—industrial development certificates, the building of schools and hospitals and laboratories, and so on. So the work by the Minister is, at it were, to be supervised, or possibly duplicated, or even interfered with, by the Minister of Public Building and Works. The other Ministers are those of Health, Education and Technology, and the Board of Trade. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain this anomaly.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
Under this Bill the Minister takes power to control or exempt only buildings which are excluded from the general provisions and controls exercised by other Departments. We have just been debating the question of offices and the office development certificate. The others are, in fact, exempted under Clause 5. Subsection (1) says: There shall be exempt from control under this Act any work carried out at the expense of— certain people. Paragraph (a) refers to a local authority; (d) refers to a harbour authority, and in (e) we have the bodies mentioned in the Schedule. Then in paragraph (f) there are the various statutory water undertakers and in (g) universities or schools or other establishments. 326 Hospitals could also be included under paragraph (i)— any body not mentioned above in this subsection whose income consists wholly or mainly of moneys provided by Parliament. Subsection (2) perhaps covers most of the Minister's responsibilities, exempting work that is undertaken on behalf of the Crown. There will be a consultation between the various Ministers in the circumstances which no doubt will arise and, as is usual in Government, there is a joint responsibility and therefore joint consultation. As I understand it, there is already agreement on the way in which matters could be raised between the more important Departments which are likely to be involved with the construction industry. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Lord. We have in fact fully covered it, particularly in Clause 5.

§ LORD HASTINGS
The noble Lord means, I take it, that the Minister of Public Building and Works is responsible for drawing to the attention of the other Ministries the danger of overheating the industry in general, as a result of which they might have to cut their spending on public works under their surveillance.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
Just as occurred last year. If my memory is right, when the statement was made in regard to the private sector there were certain curbs in the public sector. We have to carry out a joint policy.

§ LORD HASTINGS
I thank the noble Lord for his reply.

§ Clause 8 agreed to.

§ Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.

§ House Resumed: Bill reported without amendment.