TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

HL Deb 18 June 1968 vol 293 cc597-682

6.16 p.m.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

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

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD OAKSHOTT in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Survey of planning areas]:

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: Your Lordships now revert to domestic matters, and, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, I should like to say that I anticipate no constitutional clash arising out of the Committee stage of this Bill, at any rate. My first Amendment is designed primarily to elicit from the Government a statement about the surveys and the way in which they think they will be organised. If I may enlarge for a moment on this general issue of Part I of the Bill, I am entirely with the Government in believing that a reorganisation of the present development plan procedure is desirable, and my noble friends and I would wish primarily to try to join with the Government in making this Part, and indeed the other Parts, of the Bill even better than they are.

The idea of the statutory survey is a new one. In Clause 2 we shall come to the structure plan; and I well appreciate that the boundary of the area to be covered by a structure plan may well cut across the area of a local planning committee. Why, however, is it necessary to have a similar division in regard to the statutory direction of the local planning authority to institute a survey? Would it not be wiser, while the survey is being instituted and carried out, for the local planning committee to cover the whole of its area? I believe I am right in saying that the Government regard this survey in each case not as a kind of new birth but as a continuation of a process which has probably already been going on, and should have been going on, under the auspices of any efficient local planning authority. If that is so, would it not be desirable for the survey, which the local planning authority is by this clause to be instructed to institute and carry through, to cover the whole of its area? Indeed, would it not lead to the construction of a better structure plan under Clause 2 if that were made against the background of a survey which had extended to the whole of the local planning authority's area?

It has been made clear on behalf of the Government that their intention is to use their powers under one of the later clauses in the Bill (I think it is now Clause 89) to get this process of surveys and structure plans started in a limited number of areas, each area covering, or including part of, the territory of several local planning authorities. I presume that this is because these first structure plans will act as pilot schemes; and the Ministry as well as the local planning authorities will be able to gain experience of the working of this new system without risk of a nation-wide collection of structure plans all descending upon the Ministry simultaneously and submerging it, as virtually happened with the development plans under the former Act.

Even if that is so, would it not be wise, whatever the proposed boundary of the structure plan were to be, to encourage each local planning authority to go ahead with a survey covering the whole of this area? I am moving this Amendment, not in any hostile spirit and certainly with no intention of pressing it, but in the hope that it may afford an opportunity for the Government to explain rather more clearly what they have in mind about the surveys and how these surveys are to lead on to structure plans. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

6.25 p.m.

LORD KENNET

I shall find difficulty in improving on the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in the parts of his remarks where he said he supposed the Government reasons would be the following. It is really just that. The purpose of having this power in the Bill for a local planning authority to carry out a survey of part only of its area relates to the transitional period between now, when we pass the Bill, and the time when the new planning system is in operation all over the country. During that time it may be the case, indeed I hope it will be (and there is every intention on the part of the Government and certain local authorities to ensure that it shall be) that two or more local authorities will come together to draw up a plan which may cover the whole area of some of them and only parts of the areas of others.

A typical case would be the conurbations where good planning, as such, would be much better served if there were one coherent plan covering not only the densely built-up parts of the city, as traditionally considered, but also parts of the county or counties surrounding it. The drawing up of such a structure plan would be done together by the county borough or county boroughs and also by the surrounding counties of a predominantly rural nature, and would be done with their agreement. For the purpose of such a structure plan there is need for a survey, and the survey tending towards that structure plan will not need to cover all parts of the counties—that is, in the example that I give; but one can think of other examples. Its purpose is to facilitate the putting into effect gradually of the new system of planning, area by area throughout the country, according to criteria which have been named in the House of Commons and pending the time of local government reform itself.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has explained what are the Government intentions largely by repeating my remarks in words of his own. I am still not wholly in a position to understand why the Government have in mind to confine the statutory survey which some local authorities will have to carry out to a certain part of their area. Would it not be better if the local planning authority, which should know its whole area fairly well by now, were to institute its first statutory survey covering the whole area, in which case much of this subsection (5) would not be needed? I appreciate that the Government may wish the eventual structure plan not to extend over the whole of the area, but why should the authority be discouraged from getting its survey completed over its whole area as quickly as possible?

LORD KENNET

It is not, of course, the intention in this clause, as drafted, to discourage local authorities from doing anything which ought to be done. It is the intention that there shall be machinery and powers available for them to do what ought to be done, even if it is different. It may be that one local authority ought to survey part of its area as part of a joint survey with other local authorities, and ought to survey other parts of its area in an entirely self-sufficient way and not in conjunction with other local authorities. It may be that these two things ought for expediency to happen at different times, and it is simply to allow this to happen that the subsection is there.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I will withdraw my Amendment in a moment, but I wonder whether we are using the word "survey" in two different senses; one as the work of surveying, which I still feel should undoubtedly be continuous, and the other as a report of a survey, which may well be confined to certain areas. However, I do not want to press the noble Lord further on that matter at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Preparation of structure plans]:

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (4)(b), after "proposals of the", to insert "structure". The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment. If your Lordships would be good enough to look at subsection (4) you will see that the local planning authority is required to have regard: (a) to current policies with respect to the economic planning and development of the region as a whole and (b) to the resources likely to be available for the carrying out of the proposals of the plan … As you cannot have economic planning without an economic plan, the natural way to read that is to suppose that (b) raises the question whether there will be sufficient resources available to carry out the economic plan of the region as a whole. I do not think that is what is meant, and that is why I suggest that it would remove ambiguity if in line 27 the word "structure" were inserted before the word "plan". I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 27, after second ("the") insert ("structure").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

LORD KENNET

I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said and would advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.

6.30 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "indicate" and insert "describe". The noble Lord said: Having had 50 per cent. success up to now, I am starting off in really good heart. With Amendment No. 3 perhaps it would be convenient to consider Nos. 9 and 30, which are related. This Amendment concerns subsection (5) of Clause 2, which says A local planning authority's genera proposals under this section with respect to land in their area shall indicate any part of that area (in this Act referred to as an "action area") which they have selected for the commencement during a prescribed period of comprehensive treatment, …". My Amendment is to substitute "describe" for "indicate". In another place an Amendment was moved but was not acceptable to the Government, to replace "indicate" by the word "define". I think that I can appreciate the Government's objection to being as definite as that but I suggest that the word "describe" would be an improvement on both.

The point is that the moment some part of an area in a structure plan is indicated as likely to become an action area, everything around it begins to suffer from blight. As we shall be reverting to the subject of blight under a later clause, I think I should say a word about it now. We have seen it particularly in London recently with the motorway box scheme. I observed it four years ago in what was at that time my constituency. And when I was the responsible Minister, I found it necessary to legislate about blight. Maybe I did not go far enough, and a subsequent clause of this Bill seeks to take the legislation further.

The point at issue is that the instant the idea gets about that a certain part of a town is to be the subject of redevelopment, or the site of a new road, or anything like that, blight falls upon that part, in the sense that prices fall, because people know that if they purchase property in that area they are likely to have the enjoyment of it for only a limited, though usually an uncertain, time. So I am putting it to the Government under this Amendment that it is contrary to everybody's interest to allow blight to spread more widely than is necessary.

I have much sympathy with the Amendment moved in another place to replace "indicate" by "define", because if the structure plan really defined the action area there would be no need for blight to settle outside the defined perimeter. The Government said, with some sense behind them, that at that stage neither the Minister nor the local planning authority could be certain of getting the exact definition of an action area right. Therefore, it would be a mistake to use the word "define". But it really is not good enough to retain the word "indicate".

I understand that it will be the written part which will be the governing part, rather than the map, but unquestionably, if we retain the word "indicate", that will leave the local planning authority free to indicate in a vague way in its description, which will form the main part of the structure plan, that area which is to be an action area, and therefore blight will settle not only on the intended part but on a large area around also. I believe I am right in saying that the indication on the structure plan of a proposed action area would be a diamond-shaped mark superimposed on a large coloured area. The diamond shape will certainly not be the shape of the area. It will simply indicate that somewhere on a coloured piece of the map, which may be quite large, there is an action area; and if there is good property in the area, blight will settle and houses will become difficult to sell at a fair market price.

It seems to me that something more definite than "indicate" is required, even if I allow the Government's case that something less definite than "define" should be used. May I suggest "describe" here and in the corresponding places in later clauses. A description, while it will not be so precise as to cause embarrassment to local planning authorities and need not go precisely along the centre of a particular road as it might have to under a definition, would, I think, be considerably more precise than a mere indication by a coloured diamond on a big map. I do not think that "indicate" is sufficient. I believe that the Statute should contain a suitable word, and I suggest "describe", which will not permit a local planning authority to put forward a structure plan where the indication of the action areas would be so vague as to cause blight quite unnecessarily to a considerable area of surrounding property. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 31, leave out "indicate" and insert "describe".—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment. At the present moment, my county council is dealing with a development plan, about which a great many different maps and indications are being used, and it is exceedingly difficult to see how things are going to work out. When I made inquiries about getting more accurate descriptions I discovered that this was very difficult because things are still under discussion and not actually completed. I think that the word "indicate" is too wide and that if, in addition to whatever symbols are put on the plans, there could also be a description of the areas, this would be of great help to people who are interested in the plan and to those whose houses will be affected by the action taken on the plan.

6.39 p.m.

LORD KENNET

I have the greatest sympathy with the purpose behind this Amendment, because accuracy is good in itself and blight is always bad in itself, but I want to run through the reasons, which I hope will not sound pedantic, for preferring "indicate" to "describe". The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, did not go so far as to ask that action areas should be shown on the map at this stage. That would be the extreme course, to define them in precise lines on the Ordnance Survey maps. I would remind the House that at this stage in the new procedure it will be the description, the written statement, that counts, and not the map.

The description of the area would require the planning authority to have a pretty precise idea of its detailed scheme for the area. This in itself would go rather against the whole concept of the structure plan, because the whole idea of the structure plan is to present to the Minister only those issues with which Central Government must concern itself—the policy and general proposals for the whole area—leaving the detailed planning within the framework of that to be dealt with in local plans, among which the action plans would be.

Experience under the present system has taught us that the involvement of the Minister in every detail of the plan, and the need to set every detail right for purposes of his approval is one of the major causes of the enormous delay which we live with at the present time in dealing with development plans. I think the Committee ought to be very careful about introducing anything which might tend to perpetuate that fault, and I really think this simple shift of words might. The idea is that a structure plan should indicate those action areas on which a start is expected to be made in the next ten years. This is a very long time, and it would be hardly realistic to expect description of the boundaries of all the areas on the structure plan as much as ten years before there may well have been a start upon them, let alone a finish. I think that to attempt to draw boundaries, to describe boundaries—because "describe" must mean being rather precise about boundaries—so far in advance would risk misleading people, and would only increase disturbance both among public bodies and private persons who would be affected by the plan.

Lastly, on the question of blight, this is a very difficult question to settle. I think, if I may say so, that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, put it rather simply in saying that the more precision you have the less blight you have. I feel that the real situation is more difficult than that. The more precision you have, the less widespread will be your blight, but the more severe it will be within the area precisely defined or described. The less precision you have, the more widespread will be your blight, I agree, but the less severe it will be because of the very doubt about the area in which the development in question is to take place. This is a balancing out between precision, giving geographically limited but severe blight, and imprecision, giving geographically more extended but less severe blight. In my view, the word "describe" is the right one to put us at the correct place on the spectrum which I have just described to the Committee.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

The word "describe", or the word "indicate"?

LORD KENNET

I beg your Lordships' pardon. The word "indicate". The noble Lord, as so often, has saved me from adopting his own position. Consider the derivation of the two words, "indicate", meaning to point with the finger, and "describe", meaning to write down or write a line round. The latter is too precise, and I would urge the Committee, for the reasons I have given, to retain the rather better word "indicate".

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: At any rate, the noble Lord has accepted that this is a difficult matter. I, for my part, accept his improvement of my description as between deep blight over a small area and lighter blight over a larger area. I hope that the Government will continue to think about this to see if there is any way in which we can ensure that the structure plans will not create more blight than is necessary. I think the noble Lord, Lord Fiske, who has great experience in these matters, will agree with me that blight is one of the most difficult and complicating factors when one is trying to do long-term planning.

If your Lordships can, through debate here, assist the Government in working out a way in which these structure plans can be arrived at, so as to create the minimum of blight in the years to come, that will be a very great gain. Even if the Government are unwilling to alter this word "indicate", I hope that they will carefully consider, in any circulars they are sending out, or any regulations they are making in regard to a structure plan, whether there are means by which they can alert local planning anthorities to the great danger of so drafting and preparing their structure plan that they may cause unnecessary blight. We have had our debate. I am inclined to think that "describe" is the better word, and the Government think that "indicate" is the better word. Let us all think over it, and meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I should like to say a few words about Clause 2. I wish to pay my tribute to the Planning Advisory Group and to all those, in Government circles and outside them, who have worked together to think out this new idea of the structure plan. I have no doubt at all that it will be an improvement on the former development plan. There is one particular question that I want to ask. It arises out of the emphasis which the Report of the Planning Advisory Group laid, and which this Bill embodies, with regard to taking transport and traffic questions much more fully into account at the stage of drawing up a plan than was done in the main with the original development plans. Indeed, subsection (3)(a) of this clause lays special stress on measures for the improvement of the physical environment and the management of traffic.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet said that the Minister would be contemplating a ten-year period in this clause. Ten years is quite a long time on the traffic side, and a great deal can happen in ten years. Will the structure plan include not only an indication or description of the action areas, but also an indication or description of all those parts or strips of the structure plan area which are likely to be (shall I say?) radically altered on traffic grounds because of the need for new roads or other ways for the traffic? Again, I have blight at the back of my mind, but whereas the clause is fairly specific about the action areas, it is not so specific about the manner in which road changes, in particular, are likely to be marked and made clear. I think that if the noble Lord could say something about the addition which he expects this new emphasis on traffic management will cause for structure plans and those who are compiling them, in comparison with the old development plans, it would be of value; because, as I say, though the action plan has a whole subsection devoted to it, the traffic management aspect is simply mentioned in passing.

LORD KENNET

Yes, I should perhaps have first of all clarified the ten-year period I mentioned. The idea is that this should be the period up to which action areas should be indicated on the structure plan. That is, when a local authority is preparing its structure plan, if it wants to do something in a given local area within ten years it should make it an action area. If it does not, it should not. That is the general guidance on this point. The period of ten years does not have the same significance elsewhere as in action areas. On the general question which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked about, showing traffic proposals and road proposals in the structure plan, the answer is "Yes, of course." That is why it appears in this clause: in order to ensure that that shall be shown and taken properly into account.

I should perhaps say at this stage that we, and I think the local authorities as a whole, are very conscious of the fact that co-ordination between the planning side and the road transport side has not been as good as it should have been over the last twenty years, either at Central Government level or at local government level. For this reason we are bending all our efforts to improve it at both those levels. I believe that this new structure plan procedure will provide a very good vehicle for a final fusion of effort from those two sides of the house, both nationally and locally.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to

Clause 3 [Publicity in connection with preparation of structure plan]:

6.53 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in their opinion". The noble Lord said: Perhaps your Lordships will be willing to consider, along with this Amendment, Amendment No. 10 to Clause 7, which is identical though in another context. Both Clause 3 and Clause 7 were clauses which were moved into the Bill at the Report stage in another place; therefore, we have a special obligation to look at them carefully, as they did not go through the whole long Committee examination that the rest of the Bill did. The particular question I want to ask here is whether the Government are right in including these words "in their opinion". I know the Government to be sincere in wishing that there shall be much better and more effective publicity in connection with plans of all sorts than took place in all cases in the past; and it is for that reason, no doubt, that we have two whole clauses devoted to publicity: one to publicity for structure plans and one to publicity for local plans. But is it right simply to stipulate that the local planning authority shall take such steps as will in their opinion secure"? I think we can take it as axiomatic that there are good, bad and indifferent local planning authorities. One cannot tell what there will be after local government reorganisation has taken place. I cannot help thinking that in the matter of implementing Clauses 3 and 7, different local authorities may hold very different opinions as to the amount and quality of publicity which will be necessary to achieve these objects. If those words, "in their opinion", remain in the Bill members of the public who feel very disturbed about the lack of proper publicity that has been given by their own local planning authority to a proposed structure plan or proposed local plan will have no defence, they will have no weapon, because when they complain to the local authority, the local planning authority will simply say, "We did what was in our opinion enough, and that is all the Bill requires us to do". Surely it would be better to leave out the words "in their opinion" so that the local authority would not be the judge in its own cause as to the quantity and quality of publicity which it should secure for its structure plans and its local plans. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 14, leave out ("in their opinion").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

LORD HOLFORD

I hesitate to intervene in this matter because the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has administered town and country planning; I have only made proposals. But I feel rather strongly about this subject, and the point I want to make is this. Some initiative must be taken in this matter, and I take it that the object of this clause in saying "in their opinion" is that local authorities should take the initiative. At the end of the subsection it is stated that the authorities shall consider any representations made to them within the prescribed period, which means that if other people want to take the initiative and put forward suggestions or make objections they can in fact do so. It seems to me to be abundantly right that the local authority should have placed upon it the job of bringing this matter to people's attention, which is something positive. In other words, I think that it is better to leave in these words "in their opinion", because what we are really discussing is not the ends but the means by which they do it.

LORD KENNET

The point is that if we leave out the words "in their opinion" we bring in the courts. We create a gap which can be closed only by application to the courts, and we could get endless litigation about whether or not the local authority had taken the steps which the Bill will say they ought to take. They are rather vaguely phrased, intentionally so, because I think the local authorities know their own situation in their own areas best. The limits within which the local authority can act in this matter of publicity and public participation in drawing up plans are subject to what the Minister may lay down in regulations. But, subject to broad considerations such as the periods during which any notices must be displayed and the opportunity of inspecting documents, the local planning authorities themselves are, we think, the most competent judge of what publicity will produce adequate results. They know best local conditions and the likely reaction to particular methods of publicity and of inviting people to come along and take a hand.

There are many safeguards in this connection, even if we leave in the words "in their opinion". The actions of the local planning authority have to be reported to the Minister; the authorities have to tell him what they have done. The Minister has power to withhold consideration of the plan and return it to the authority with directions to take further steps about publicity and so on. It would be going rather far if a structure plan should risk invalidation at the very end of the whole procedure following a challenge in the courts on the grounds that the publicity given to proposals was not adequate. If there are inadequacies in publicity they should be corrected at a far earlier stage, even long before the formal public inquiry is held.

As the Bill stands now it provides for the Minister to ensure that such inadequacies are corrected. The point is that as the Bill stands, without amendment, the local planning authority will not be the final arbiter as to what steps are adequate. The effect of the words "in their opinion" is indeed to exclude challenge in the courts, but they do not prevent the Minister from imposing firm obligations by way of regulation and also giving general advice which will be given after the report of the Skeffington Committee, which I need not describe to your Lordships, on the whole question of public participation in planning. A combination of regulations, general advice and the Minister's power in Clause 3(4) to send the whole thing back if he is not satisfied about the publicity, or to direct the authority to do something else about it, ought, in my view, to be enough to secure the effect which I know all sides of the Committee are at one in desiring, namely, that the publicity shall in every case undoubtedly be sufficient.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, and for my part I am solely anxious to be helpful here. I was glad to hear that he seemed to be satisfied that the words which I propose to leave out would not undermine the Minister's power in subsection (4). I think this point needs looking at further, although I will not press him on the matter to-day. Subsection (4) provides what may happen if the Minister is not satisfied that the authority has adequately complied with subsection (1). I do not see how he can fail to be satisfied that the local planning authority has taken such steps as would "in its opinion" secure certain results. The local planning authority would simply say, "This is our opinion, and the law says it is our opinion and not yours that matters; therefore 'buzz off'".

I appreciate that the Minister also has to be satisfied about lines 24 and 25, whether the authority has adequately considered any representations made to it within the prescribed period, but are the Government really wise to leave the Minister so powerless, as he will be if these words are retained, on the question whether a local planning authority has adequately complied with its first duty under subsection (1), namely, the publicity duty? Now that I have raised the point I feel sure the Government will consider it between now and Report stage and will see whether there can be any better wording, because we are all anxious that adequate publicity shall be secured and that the intentions shall not be frustrated by a local planning authority which has antediluvian ideas on publicity. Having said that, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.2 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (2), after "inspection" to insert "and purchase". The noble Lord said: Perhaps your Lordships would consider, along with this Amendment, Nos. 11 and 12, to Clause 7, which are related to the same point. Here we are dealing in the first instance with Clause 3(2), which requires the local planning authority to make copies of the plan, as submitted to the Minister, available for inspection at their offices and at such other places as may be prescribed. This Amendment raises the question whether that goes far enough.

A local planning authority can comply with that statutory requirement simply by having copies of the plan available in certain places during office hours. These plans will be important documents and will be of interest to a large variety of people. Not all of them will be people of such leisure that they can go along to certain buildings within office hours and sit down and read studiously the copies of the plans that are there. If I were professionally concerned in this, or indeed if I were a member of a society which was interested in the growth and development of the town, I should want to be able to get hold of a copy of this plan and take it home with me and study it. That is why I am suggesting that the statute should stipulate that these plans shall be available for inspection and purchase, and not only for inspection. This Amendment is probably too simply worded from the draftsman's point of view, but I think its object is plain. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 28, after ("inspection") insert ("and purchase").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

LORD AIREDALE

I should like to support this Amendment. In these days of copying machines which are fairly widely available, there should be no difficulty for local authorities in getting copies prepared for sale to people who require them in order to study them in their own offices or homes. One cannot possibly expect a person who has studied a complicated plan in some local authority building to be able to remember that plan. He either has to make a copy for himself, which would seem to be a tedious exercise for him, sitting in the office of the local authority, or he must have one provided for him in some way. Surely the answer is to use copying machines and to make these plans available for a reasonable sum to people who want to buy them.

LORD FISKE

I should like to intervene shortly, perhaps partly on the grounds that I have never knowingly in my planning life told anybody to "buzz off". But if I have clone so I am sure it was with the best intentions. I am a little worried about this Amendment, not because I think these plans should not be circulated but because of the stage at which they should be circulated. There is nothing more confusing than to have one plan generally purchased and circulated to all the solicitors and estate agents in a town, on which people take their decisions to buy or not to buy certain properties or land, and then to find, on inquiry at the town hall, that it is not really the right plan, because when it went to the Minister he had excluded a little piece of land on which you thought you could build a house. So, while I think it is perfectly fair that the plans should be available for purchase, in my view it should not be when the plan is published but when it comes back approved by the Minister that it should be put freely on sale.

LORD MITCHISON

I should like to make a small plea for the people who are affected by these plans. It is no doubt right that they should have a copy, but is it absolutely necessary in all cases that they should be made to pay for it? That would seem to be the effect of putting in these words; but I, knowing the warm-hearted generosity of wealthy local authorities, should hope that people would sometimes get one free.

LORD ILFORD

I hope your Lordships are not going to place upon local authorities the responsibility for providing these plans to everyone who likes to walk into the office and ask for them. If a person has an interest in the area he will probably be prepared to pay a shilling or half-a-crown, but it is quite a different matter to say that the local authority ought to undertake to distribute the plans free of charge.

LORD KENNET

We at any moment now shall be affronting the question of selectivity in the social services. As my noble friend Lord Fiske has said, it is important to distinguish between the operative plan which is approved by the Minister and the draft plan. I am sure it is unnecessary, but to be double sure that we are avoiding mistakes the approved plan is treated differently. This comes under Section 10 of the Act of 1962, which states that copies of development plans approved by the Minister are available for sale to the public at a reasonable cost, and this has been done ever since then. That provision is carried over into the Bill now before us. Clause 13 enables a similar provision to be made in regulations about structure and local plans once they are approved by the Minister, and the Minister intends to make a regulation having that effect. So that local authorities will have to offer for sale the approved plans.

We now turn to the draft plans which are the subject of Lord Brooke's Amendment. Here I would point out, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that we are not discussing whether or not the local planning authorities shall be empowered to offer these plans for sale. They will be empowered; they can do so without amendment of the Bill. The effect of the Amendment would be to bind them to do so in all cases. We ought to remember that the local plans will vary very much in scale, detail and importance, and some of them will be really very minor things indeed, not showing much, and will not be of interest to very many people; and it is possible that to impose on the local authority a statutory duty to print off or render publishable copies for sale would be going too far, because photocopying machines do not always produce satisfactory results and a local authority would feel it ought not to offer inferior goods for sale and would have to print the lot. It would be a pure waste of money for something which interests only half a dozen people in any case.

What I suggest is that we do not amend the Bill on this point, simply on the grounds that the question is not important enough for a statutory obligation, but that we let the Bill go through as it stands. And I can give an undertaking to the Committee now that if, after some experience of the new procedure has been gained, the Minister finds that there is complaint about the way it is being operated, he will issue a circular telling local authorities that they ought to make copies available for sale of certain categories of draft plans—at any rate those which are likely to be of interest to more than merely a handful of people. I hope that the Committee may agree this will meet the case.

LORD AIREDALE

I simply cannot believe that any local planning authority which is of county council or equivalent status has not in these days access to a copying machine which can be relied upon to produce legible copies of documents.

LORD KENNET

I do not know about that, but I have not in the Ministry.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

The Ministry seem to have gone downhill since my day. I feared that that was the case, but had not liked to mention it. I can appreciate that there may be a difference as between the structure plans and the local plans. Some local plans may be of interest to only a handful of people, as the noble Lord said. But I cannot believe that there would be any structure plans which would not be sufficiently important to be of interest to a considerable number of people; and, though I am grateful for the offer the noble Lord made on behalf of the Government, I feel concerned particularly for those who will be professionally concerned with these matters.

It seems to me that the moment a draft structure plan is made available for inspection under subsection (2) of Clause 3 a considerable number of people in the professions will find it their professional duty to examine it, in order that they can advise their various prin- cipals whether there are any matters on which those persons should take the opportunity given them under subsection (1)(c) of making representations about the draft plan. If the local authority can say to all the solicitors, valuers and agents of other kinds, as well as to individual property owners who may be interested, "We have no obligation beyond exhibiting copies of this draft plan within office hours at certain places", they will obviously create a great deal of for themselves. What we want to do is to extend good will. That is the whole object of Clause 3 and the publicity provisions.

I hope that the noble Lord will think further about this. I am quite sure that my Amendment is too simple to be properly drafted, and I appreciate that there may be small local plans where one would not wish to put the local authority to the trouble of making a number of copies for sale which might never be bought. But I have no doubt whatever that with all structure plans there will be a genuine demand for copies for people to take back to their homes or offices and study, and I think that that demand ought to be met from the very inception of this procedure.

I feel sure that the Government will consider this and see whether there is a way, without imposing unreasonable obligations, of ensuring that the people who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations to the authority". to use the words of the clause, will have ample opportunity to provide themselves with a copy of the plan about which they wish to make representations. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Approval or rejection of structure plan by Minister]:

On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?

7.17 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I wonder whether the Government could give an assurance that their idea is that the public inquiries will take place in just the same way for these structure plans as for the development plans. One has subsection (3)(b), which says: afford … an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose; and (c) if a local inquiry or other hearing is held, also afford the like opportunity to the local planning authority and such other persons as he thinks fit. Are the Government envisaging that there may be some cases where a private hearing will suffice without the local planning authority being present? Will it not always be the case with a structure plan, unless the unbelievable happens and there is not a single objection or representation from anybody, that it will be necessary to have a public inquiry? If so, should we not say so, either in the Bill or through the words of the noble Lord speaking for the Government?

LORD KENNET

There is no intention of departing from the procedure in this respect which has long prevailed in this field. I agree with the noble Lord that it looks odd to put in "if there is a hearing or a public inquiry", but I imagine the Committee would not wish to make it impossible, in the very unlikely event of there being virtually no objections, to dispense with a hearing or a public inquiry. What do I mean by "virtually no objections"? I agree that it is a very remote, possibly hypothetical case. Supposing a structure plan is submitted to the Minister and there is simply one objection which is based on a misunderstanding of the plan. This can be sorted out in correspondence; this is a written representation. This would not then give rise to a need for a hearing or public inquiry at all. I agree that it is unlikely to happen, and I agree that the procedure otherwise would be the same as under the 1962 Act.

LORD MITCHISON

Before the clause is agreed, I should like to remind the Committee that in subsection (4) there is at present a provision that the Minister shall not be under an obligation … to cause any local inquiry or other hearing to be held". So that if effect were to be given to this suggestion there would have to be an Amendment to the clause, and no doubt the Amendment would indicate in what circumstances a local inquiry is considered to be imperative on the Minister.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Alteration of structure plans]:

7.20 p.m.

LORD KENNET

The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the same obligations in respect of publicity and public participation as apply to the original submission of a structure plan are made to apply also to proposals for alterations to that plan. I do net expect the Committee would wish me to explain in detail how this is done. It is fairly evident that what is sauce for the original plan should also be sauce for the alterations to it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 20, leave out from first ("and") to ("4") and insert ("sections 3 and").—(Lord Kennet.)

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6—[Preparation of local plans]:

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. This deals with the provision that different local plans may be prepared for different purposes for the same part of any area. I am aware that this matter was raised on a probing Amendment in another place, and I appreciate that there may be circumstances in which local plans may overlap one another, but I see considerable dangers in having different local plans for different purposes for the same part of the area, and I move this Amendment principally to enable the Government to explain how they propose to get over those dangers. Hitherto, we have, in general, been accustomed to a plan which is "the plan". We now have provision made for different local plans. I suppose one might be a recreation plan for part of the countryside, and one might be a traffic plan. It may be that in an area there will be a large-scale plan and a small-scale plan. Unless a great deal of trouble is taken to inform everybody concerned, there will be a danger that some-body looking at a plan will think that it is "the plan" and that he need look no further. My point will be met if the Government will give an assurance that by regulations or otherwise they will put local authorities on guard against the possibility of misleading people by not making it sufficiently clear that there may be in existence another local plan in the particular area, in addition to the plan at which the person concerned is looking. I know that this subject has caused some anxiety in professional circles and, without wishing really to leave the subsection out, I should like to be assured that the Government are alive to the possibility that different local plans, if they were not all available at the same time to the same person, might quite easily mislead him. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 1, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

LORD KENNET

I think in the interests of speed the simplest thing I can say is, yes, I do give the assurance for which the noble Lord asks.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I am grateful to the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ILFORD moved, after subsection (4), to insert: ( ) A non-county borough if they so desire may prepare a local plan for their area and the provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply to any such plan as if it had been prepared by the local planning authority, references to the local planning authority being deemed to be references to the non-county borough.

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make it possible for the non-county boroughs to prepare the local plans within their areas. It is recognised that the structure plan must be made by the county council, but within the structure plan there are local plans which deal with particular areas in much greater detail than does the structure plan. It seems right that the non-county boroughs in the area of the structure plan should be given some part in the preparation of their local plans. After all, they are the authority who are, I suppose, in the closest contact with the population and more fully acquainted with the nature of their district than the county council are likely to be. I desire to cast no reflection on the county coun- cils, but it is obvious that the local authority, the non-county borough, is a great deal more in contact with the population and with the district than the county council can be.

These non-county boroughs are not small authorities; some of them are quite large authorities. They are all housing authorities and they are all highway authorities for certain classes of highways; and it seems to be a natural thing that, in addition to discharging the important functions of those two services, they should be entrusted with the preparation of the local plan. Many of the larger non-county boroughs have provided themselves with a planning department and with an adequate planning staff, so they are quite capable of undertaking the preparation of local plans without having to engage additional staff, or a staff which differs from that which is already in their employ.

Not infrequently the Government express a desire to maintain these county districts. They recognise the advantage of an authority which is close to the population. This provides exactly the opportunity which is wanted to extend the services which have been entrusted to these authorities in a direction in which they will do something to make good the loss of powers which these authorities have suffered in recent years from the many different changes in the administration of local government. It may be that the Minister will think that he cannot go as far as the Amendment invites him to go and make it possible for a non-county borough, if it desires to do so, to undertake the preparation of these plans. That seems to be the best and simplest course to take, but it may not be a course that necessarily appeals to the Minister.

I would invite the Minister to consider whether some form of delegation might not be adopted. I would remind him that under the Education Act 1944, delegation was extended in certain directions a great deal further than it had been before. Excepted districts were there set up. There is a similarity between the planning authority and education in this regard, because the excepted districts were given power under the Education Act to prepare within their areas their own school plans. I would invite the Minister to consider whether, if he cannot go as far as the Amendment invites him to go, by some similar form of delegation the non-county boroughs might not be brought into the business of preparing the plans. Delegation under the Education Act has worked well, and I think the excepted district found the position was a very acceptable one. I should, of course, like the Minister to accept the Amendment, but if he feels he cannot do that, then perhaps he will consider whether delegation might not prove an acceptable alternative.

I ought to say that the Bill already contains some provisions for delegation, but they are not very satisfactory provisions because they involve the submission of the decisions of the county district authorities to the county council and their consideration by the county council. They then become effective until they become decisions of the county council. A good deal of time is occupied by all this going backwards and forwards, and the arrangements under the Education Act, in which the county district authority, or the excepted district as it is in education, is given power to prepare the plans in its own area, are much more suitable.

I hope the Minister will consider this matter sympathetically. People often express a good deal of sympathy with these county district authorities without doing very much to give practical effect to their sympathies. This is an occasion where something which is quite properly suitable for administration by the county districts might be entrusted to them.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 2, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Ilford.)

7.33 p.m.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I am sorry to find myself in dispute with my learned friend who speaks for the A.M.C., but though the County Councils Association have not formally considered this Amendment, I cannot believe that it would be very popular with many county councils.

LORD ILFORD

I speak for the County Councils Association, too.

VISCOUNT GAGE

But surely not on this Amendment. I thought that one of the principal criticisms of the present planning set-up was that the areas were too small to permit of the proper de- ployment of trained staff; and trained staff are getting rarer and more difficult to obtain all the time. Certainly in my experience the greatest possible expertise is necessary in the preparation of town maps, as they were called, and areas of comprehensive redevelopment as they were called, now to become action areas and local areas.

Of course, the non-county borough could, and probably would, employ a consultant. I am speaking in the presence of the well-known town planning consultant, and I do not wish to give any wrong impression about this, but in my experience the consultant nearly always has to get a great deal of material from the county, and he then proceeds to make his plan. Unless he works very closely with the county council he may well come to a conclusion, in his efforts to please his clients, which in some ways conflict with county interests, particularly in the matter of roads.

I think it is very right and proper that county districts and non-county boroughs should be given the maximum responsibility, and often it is quite possible for the county authority to delegate certain particular functions to the borough council. I think it would be a mistake, however, to put this into a sort of statutory form. I think it might lead to a good deal of altercation in certain cases, altercation which would be very difficult to resolve except possibly by the Minister himself. I think it would be particularly unwise, too, to make such a substantial change in planning law just at the time when the Report of the Royal Commission on the Structure of Local Government is expected and when we expect considerable changes in planning structure to be proposed. I fully agree that county councils should be encouraged to be on the best possible terms with the county boroughs and districts, but I think this is possibly not the best method to promote those good relations, and I hope that it will be left over for the time being.

LORD SILKIN

I fully agree with the noble Viscount who has just spoken. I think it would be a great mistake to give specific powers to the non-county boroughs at this time, or indeed at any time. When the 1947 Act was introduced we came to the conclusion that there were far too many local planning authorities in the country. At that time I think there were something like 1,100, and the number was reduced to something like 100 or 110. Unfortunately, there became a tendency among county councils to delegate to local authorities, with the result that these delegated authorities, instead of acting as pure delegates, became virtually authorties on their own account, and acquired particular points of view, very strong local points of view, which were not in accordance with the conception of planning as we understood it.

If this Amendment were carried it would in fact create a new type of planning authority whose interests would be located solely in the area itself, and there would be a great tendency not to have regard to the planning of the area as a whole. It would be the very negation of what, as I understand it, we have in mind, under this Bill, which is to widen the scope of town planning, to create larger units and to get a conception of planning an area as a whole. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will not be incorporated in the Bill. It may be that by agreement with the county councils, these boroughs may have some kind of function hereafter. I should not object to that, some kind of voluntary functions, but I think that to create new planning authorities of this kind and to give them powers as local planning authorities would be a tremendous mistake.

LORD KENNET

The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, said that the district councils ought to have this power of drawing up plans because they had greater local knowledge than the county councils, and I think nobody could possibly dispute that. After all, they live there and the area they cover is less wide. Therefore, it would be strange indeed, and they would be failing in their duty, if they did not know every inch of the area a little better than the county council. However, the county councils themselves have built up a pretty formidable knowledge of their areas. After all, they have been planning authorities for twenty years, and during that time, in cooperation with the district councils and with the help of the district councils, they have gathered a knowledge which, I think, is very little indeed behind that in detail available to the district councils. And, of course, it is wider in its incidence and therefore better fits them for the joining up of their plans which must, by their nature, be related closely to each other over the whole area of the planning authority itself.

I think a more important difficulty in the way of this is the question of skilled manpower. I know the noble Lord said that district councils had planning officers who were pretty good, but I expect he would agree this is not true of all of them. The best might be capable of doing almost as good, or indeed as good a job as the county council in its planning field. But it would have to be admitted that in general the county councils, having been the planning authority for many years, have a greater concentration of skilled manpower, and that if one were to delegate this local plan-making function permanently on a statutory basis to the district councils, an inevitable result would be the erosion, if not break-up, of those pools of skilled manpower which at present are available to the existing planning authorities.

There is also the question of whether the non-county boroughs would themselves always have the right boundaries for the drawing up of local plans. One can imagine a district plan, or even an action area, which would cross the boundary of a non-county borough and run into county territory. In that case there would be a clear disadvantage in allowing the non-county borough to draw up a local plan. Another thing the Amendment does not do is to stop the county from drawing up a local plan. There is no machinery for settlement if a dispute develops. The noble Lord mentioned education as an analogy, but education is a field which is different enough in its nature and in the job which has to be carried out to make the analogy not close or relevant to our discussions. He also said that there were classes of decisions delegated by counties to non-county boroughs which then had to be vetted by the counties. He cannot have meant under the Bill, because I do not think that there is anything in the Bill of that nature, so any such troubles which exist at the moment under the Bill will go.

I come to the two greatest objections to doing this. The first is that it never has been done. It could be held to be a step in the wrong direction, since we want in the Bill to make it easier for planning authorities to group together to get plans which cross boundaries. We also want in the Bill to have ready a new planning system which will be able to be operated by the larger units which people expect to come out of the Royal Commission Report, if indeed they recommend that. The tendency will be towards concentrating the skilled staff into larger units rather than dispersing them. One might hold that after 20 years experience of having planning authorities at county and county borough level, now would be the wrong time to delegate plan-making powers themselves lower down. An Amendment to a similar effect was rather fully discussed in the House of Commons and did not find favour there. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD ILFORD

I am a little disappointed that the Minister is so unwilling to consider delegation on the lines I suggest, since I feel that it offers a solution. It is not every non-county borough which could undertake these powers, and I was not suggesting that it should. But having heard what the Minister has said, I must accept it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.44 p.m.

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

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

In Clause 6 we come to the important concept of the local plan. This was another of the new clauses which on the Report Stage in another place was moved into the Bill in substitution for something different and it is reasonable to ask one or two questions about it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be able to say something about the Government's general idea for the local plans. I think that everybody understands the concept of an action plan. This is where what hitherto we have called comprehensive development is required. But that will not be the only kind of local plan, and the local planning authorities will be at liberty to start preparing all kinds of other local plans for different parts of their areas.

How do the Government envisage their going about this? It is at their discretion. Where should they start first? A further question is, how all this will link up with the existing plans? As I see the matter, these local plans will be of special value in that they will give developers a clear idea of what kind of development will or will not be acceptable in particular parts of the town or countryside. That clearly is of importance. But how is a local planning authority to proceed? To which parts of its area, other than action areas, is it to give priority here? In the case of an action area, I understand that if an area has been indicated in a structure plan as an action area the local authority will be required under subsection (6) to go ahead as rapidly as possible and prepare a local plan for it. But what about the rest? In some cases they may have had amendments to their development plan quite recently approved by the Minister. I know that development plans and local plans will not be exactly the same, but the information—the guidance, shall I say?—to potential developers will in such places be up to date.

Is it envisaged that local planning authorities will turn aside from such areas, and after they have dealt with their action areas will they get to work on parts of their area where the existing plan is out of date and seek to bring that up to date by the preparation of local plans? I think I can see vaguely how this will work. It seems to roe that local planning authorities would benefit by considerable guidance as to how they are to use these new powers. I take it that I am right in assuming that all existing plans will remain in force until they are replaced by local plans under this clause.

My final questions on this clause relates to subsection (7). This is the subsection which gives the Minister power to give a direction that they shall prepare a local plan as soon as practicable for a certain part of an area covered by a structure plan. In what sort of circumstances is it envisaged that the Minister will wish to use that power? Is that simply a long-stop power to stimulate a local authority which does not appear to be getting on with the job? Or, alternatively, is it intended to provide a way forward for the Minister when for reasons of Government policy it is thought desirable that a local plan should be prepared by the local authority for that area? I hope I have made my general questions clear. I think it would be of considerable help to your Lordships if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made a short statement about the local plans, other than the action area plans which are self-explanatory.

LORD KENNET

I welcome the opportunity of making a statement, because it is a puzzling matter if one just reads the Bill. There will be a variety of kinds of local plans. One of these, which must follow from the structure plan, is the action area plan. This is typically for comprehensive treatment, whether by development, redevelopment, improvement or a combination of two or more of these, and—this is the detailed plan—the provisions for drawing the boundaries which we discussed on an earlier Amendment. The terms of the Bill, and of the intended regulations under it, will permit a range of treatment in these action areas from the fully detailed to a document in the nature of a brief for the developer, which will lay down the guide lines for what the planning authority wants to be done.

The question of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was directed more specifically to the other local plans, the non-action local plans—what are they for? The primary function of local plans, other than action area plans, will of course be to guide development control. These plans will typically be prepared for neighbourhoods within large existing towns, or for small towns not exceeding 50,000, where there are no conspicuous proposals for concentrated change. If there were such conspicuous proposals, then an action area plan would of course be appropriate. They will be something akin to the town map in the development plans under the 1962 Act. That will be the closest resemblance to any existing animal, though they will not be very like that. Their function will be to display the subsidiary structure of neighbourhoods or small towns and to set out the pattern of land uses expected.

Another sort of local plan will be concerned to present a particular policy of the planning authority—for instance, for rural recreation or for the working of minerals—and to put flesh on the bones of the bare statement which will appear in the structure plan that, "Here be recreational; here be mineral workings." Those are the sort of plans more than one of which may exist in relation to one tract of country, which we discussed at an earlier stage and agreed it would be important to ensure that local authorities saw to it that nobody was confused by the permitted multiplicity.

The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, inquired about the relationship of the new local plans with existing plans. What will local authorities do if they have only just had their old style plan approved by the Minister? One of the criteria governing the going over of the planning authority to the new scheme will be its position in the cycle of the old planning system; that is, if it has just had a jolly good new development plan approved by the Minister, that will be a reason for delaying the coming into effect of the new planning system in that area. If, on the other hand, it has an old development plan which is out of date and which was coming up for review quite shortly, that will be a reason for bringing it into the new system earlier rather than later.

I shall not trouble the Committee with all the other reasons. This is only one of five or six, and may of course be overridden by other criteria. The transitional provisions of the Bill empower the Minister to cancel, delete or utterly annul such planning material left over from the old system as is no longer needed when the new style plans come into effect.

Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, inquired about the Minister's powers of direction under subsection (7). These are really intended just to see that there are no local planning authorities which simply do not react to new Government proposals. If there should be such powers they are default powers of a specific nature, but they are not the general default power which covers the whole Bill. If what I have been able to say is not sufficiently detailed for the noble Lord, I ask him to allow me to come back to it at a later stage in the Bill. But I hope that what I have said is sufficient.

Clause 6 agreed to.

The Sitting was suspended at 7.55 p.m. and resumed at 8.25 p.m

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Inquiries, etc. with respect to local plans]:

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

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

On Clause 8, I should like to ask the same sort of question which I asked on an earlier clause with regard to structure plans, but here we come to something new. These are inquiries on local plans, and they are going to be taken by a person appointed by the Minister or, in certain circumstances, by the authority themselves. We therefore have something new here. May I say that I welcome the Amendments which the Government made in another place to ensure that the inspector (if I may call him that) who takes an inquiry into a local plan shall not be a mere creature of the local authority. I mean that with no disrespect to local Government officials, but I think it is universally accepted that it is important that this should be a well-qualified and independently-minded person.

May I take it that the general practice here will be as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, assured me it would be with regard to structure plans; that is to say, where a local inquiry would in a normal case be held into a plan now, the same kind of public local inquiry will be held in future into a local plan, though the person who holds the inquiry may not be a Minister's inspector and though he will report to the local authority and not to the Minister? I hope I can be assured that, in general, if there are representations or objections of sufficient importance to warrant a local inquiry rather than a private hearing, then a local inquiry will be held. I am not quite certain how the Minister is going to secure that: I am concerned only to ensure that it shall be secured.

Secondly, may I ask a little further about the inspector's report? I understood during our Second Reading debate that the report of an inspector on an inquiry or hearing into a local plan would be both published and sent to the Minister. I am not sure how that is secured. I do not think that the 1958 Act, referred to in subsection (l)(b), is sufficient to secure the publication of the inspector's report; though it does ensure publication of a statement of reasons for the local authority's decision. My general feeling about this is that I am prepared to accept that these local plans should be subjected to a form of inquiry similar to those to which we have been accustomed but not necessarily taken by an inspector appointed by a Minister.

I am anxious for the assurance that everything in respect of these inquiries will be as public and above board, shall I say, as it is at present. I have no reason to suspect that it will not be; but it is not clear on the face of the Bill how it will be ensured, for example, that the person who conducts the inquiry will be required to produce a report that will be published by the local authority so that the public will know not only what the local authority has decided, and why, but what the inspector or person who held the inquiry reported or recommended to the local authority. I had rather expected, for example, that subsection (2) dealing with regulations might extend to these matters. It may be that the Minister can make regulations in other ways. I am not questioning the policy here; I am only asking how the Minister is going to ensure that his intentions are carried out.

LORD KENNET

In a word, by regulations under Clause 13 to which we shall be coming. The main point about all this is that the question whether a given matter shall be settled by hearing or by public inquiry will be regulated in the same manner as it was under the 1962 Act and that the report of an inspector on any inquiry will be required to be published. I hope that that is enough to cover the points made by the noble Lord.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Adoption and approval of local plans]:

LORD KENNET

This Amendment is more than drafting but still on a point of detail. Its effect is to ensure twat the local planning authority shall not adopt a local plan if the Minister has directed, under subsection (3) of the clause, that the plan shall not have effect unless approved by him. The condition which I now invite the Committee to impose was, in fact, included in the Bill as it was introduced in the House of Commons; and the omission of the reference to the relevant subsection was inadvertent. It is, as it were, a drafting Amendment of substance. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 33, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (3)".—(Lord Kennet.)

8.35 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved to add to subsection (1): Provided that if the local planning authority propose modifications to the plan they shall, before adopting the plan as modified, afford an adequate opportunity of making objections to the modifications proposed, and shall consider any such objections made.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14. The requirement in this Amendment may be provided elsewhere in the Bill. I should like to make sure that it is. If not, I may feel it necessary to press this Amendment.

The draft local plan is published. It goes to inquiry. A report is made by the inspector or person holding the inquiry, and that goes back to the local authority. The local authority, under subsection (1) of the clause, can adopt the plan either as originally prepared or as modified so as to take account of objections. Modifications to a local plan may be very extensive. They may also be very expensive, but what I am thinking about here is that they may substantially alter the conditions of life for a number of people. If a road for which a particular line is proposed in the original draft plan gets drastically altered as a result of objections made to the inquiry, the road then has to go somewhere else and that may create a situation in which other people should be entitled to have their objections heard.

What I am anxious to discover is what procedure the local planning authority is required to go through when, as a result of a public local inquiry, it determines that substantial alterations to the draft plan, or modifications as they are officially called, are desirable. If the whole matter has been covered with the discussion of alternative possibilities in the public inquiry, well and good; but if such strong objections have been adduced to a particular line of a road that the local planning authority then wants to put into its modified local plan an entirely different line of which perhaps no one has heard of before, it seems only just that those who may be affected by these modifications—and they may be drastically affected—should have their own opportunity to make representations and objections. My Amendment is designed to discover from the Government what they envisage and how these people who may be so affected by modifications will have an opportunity to have their views heard and considered. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 36, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

8.38 p.m.

LORD KENNET

The idea is that this matter should be covered by regulations under Clause 13, and I welcome the opportunity of saying what is the intention about these regulations. The Minister intends they shall provide for the following. Modifications which the authority think necessary will have to be published in a manner laid down. With the modifications there will be deposited for public inspection a copy of the original plan and a copy of the report of the inquiry or hearing, together with the authority's resolutions on the recommendations. A copy of the report and the proposed modifications will then have to be sent to the Minister at this stage. Not less than 21 days will be allowed for objections to the proposed modifications. The planning authority must consider these objections. They will not be under an obligation to afford a hearing to objectors; though they may hear them if they wish and the Minister intends to advise by circular that they should do so if the modification has caused the objector to raise new issues on which he had no opportunity of being heard at an earlier stage. In general, unless modifications are of a particularly radical nature it should be possible for objections to modifications to be dealt with by written representations or made the subject of a hearing rather than a public inquiry; but any hearing will have to be conducted by someone other than a member or officer of the planning authority or district council concerned. Having considered any objections to their proposed modifications, the authority must resolve provisionally whether to adopt the plan as originally deposited, to adopt it with specified modifications, or to withdraw it. I hope that this statement of the Minister's intentions with regard to what will go into the regulations meets the point made by the noble Lord.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. I should like to examine carefully in Hansard the detailed particulars he has given, but on first hearing they sound to me very satisfactory. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD KENNET

The purpose of this Amendment is to make explicit a procedural step which has so far only been implicit in the Bill. It relates to the Minister's power to call in a local plan so that, instead of its going forward for adoption in the standard fashion by the local planning authority, it shall become subject to procedures leading to the Minister's approval. So far the Bill has merely said that the Minister may direct that the plan shall not have effect unless approved by him. The Bill has said nothing about an obligation thereby resting upon the local planning authority to submit the plan to him for approval. This Amendment therefore states categorically that as a consequence of the Minister's direction that a local plan is not to have effect unless approved by him the authority must submit the plan to him for his approval. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 9, line 43, after ("him") insert— ("(4) Where the Minister gives a direction under subsection (3) above, the local planning authority shall submit the plan accordingly to him for his approval").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD MERRIVALE

I rise purely to seek an assurance from the Minister that the procedure laid down in this clause for the adoption and approval of local plans will be revised in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Gov- ernment. It seems to me that as the Bill stands there is the objection that local planning authorities will be in a position to pronounce upon objections to a local plan which they themselves had prepared—in other words, they will be judge in their own cause.

I do not wish to cast any aspersions on the integrity of local planning authorities, but as a principle I should have thought it wrong that they should have this opportunity. I feel that this is borne out by experience. It is difficult for the originator of a plan to view it dispassionately when he receives objections. Moreover, does not the noble Lord feel that objectors who are not successful in getting their views accepted may feel that this was due to vested interests? If such a feeling became prevalent with objectors, the system could become discredited.

I should like to call your Lordships' attention to two points which were made in the Maud Committee Report on the management of local government. They say: There is often too wide a gulf in local government between the governors and the governed. They say at another point: Whatever changes in the structure of local government may result from the report of the Royal Commission, the value we shall get from time and money spent on local government will still depend … on the degree of mutual understanding established between them and the people of the local communities they serve. I am not sure whether there has been a complete change. Would not the system of local plans be defeated if they had to be referred to the Minister? Would not the ideal solution be that the right of approval should rest with the next higher planning authority? The reason why I am asking for this assurance is that it may well be that the Royal Commission will recommend a two-tier structure for local government, with a grouping of local authorities into larger regional authorities. Earlier on the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to larger units. I do not know whether he meant larger regional units, but if he did, we are thinking on the same lines. Would the noble Lord not agree that it is reasonable to seek an assurance that such a review would be undertaken, or that the provisions in this Clause would not be implemented until any recommendation such as I am suggesting may be put forward by the Royal Commission had been put into effect?

LORD KENNET

When legislation arising out of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government is being prepared it will be necessary to see whether the new system which is to be taken into operation conflicts with anything in the existing law—and the Bill now before the Committee will by then be existing law. It will be necessary to reconcile any new proposals with anything that is in this Bill, and it may be that the Government at that time will have to repeal or modify clauses of this Bill, along with many others. I do not think there would be any case for singling out Clause 9 of this Bill for special review in that context, although Clause 9, along with other clauses, and this Bill, along with other Acts, will need to be reviewed for that purpose.

On the point of local authorities' being judge and advocate in their own cause. I might remind the Committee at this point that in certain categories of cases objections to local plans will be heard by inspectors appointed by the Minister, and not by the local authority which made the plan, and the right of appeal to the Minister against a decision on a given planning application, which of course will be affected by the contents of the plan, remains unaltered. Appeal to the Minister will be the same, except in so far as certain categories of appeal will be settled by the Minister's inspectors in their own right not by the Minister—a point to which we shall come later. Lastly, of course, as always, if any local planning authority conducts itself in such a way as to make itself unpopular with its own electorate, it will be chucked out.

Clause 9, as amended agreed to.

Clause 10 [Alteration to local plans]:

8.44 p.m.

LORD KENNET moved after subsection (1) to insert— ( ) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, a local planning authority shall, if the Minister gives them a direction in that behalf with respect to local plan adopted by them or approved by him, as soon as practicable prepare proposals of a kind specified in the direction, being proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of the plan".

The noble Lord said: Clause 10(1) provides that a local planning authority may at any time make proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan they have adopted or, with the consent of the Minister, make proposals for similar action with respect to a local' plan approved by him. It it one stage further forward. The Bill confers no powers for the Minister to direct the local planning authority to prepare and submit proposals for the addition, repeal or replacement of a local plan, such as he has by virtue of Clause 5(1), which we have already passed, in relation to a structure plan. The effect of this Amendment is to bring these two things into parallel and to provide that without prejudice to the local planning authority's power to prepare plans at their own discretion the Minister shall have a power, exercisable in relation to local plans whether adopted by the authority themselves or approved by the Minister, to direct the local planning authority to prepare as soon as practicable proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan as may be specified in the direction. That is a precise account of the situation, which can be summed up more succinctly by saying that the Minister can direct a local authority to submit proposals to him for a change in the structure plan, but as the Bill is drafted he cannot for a local plan, and the Amendment would give him authority to do so. I be to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 16, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Kennet.)

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

This seems to be an improvement in the Bill and I welcome it. Perhaps I may raise on it one point which otherwise I should have raised on the subsequent Motion, That the clause stand part. This new subsection refers, as does subsection (1), to the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan. I understand "alteration", and I understand "replacement", but I am not clear in what circumstances one would wish to repeal a local plan. If one repeals a local plan one leaves a blank. If one wants a better local plan, then one replaces it, and provision is made for replacement. But it seems to me strange that in any circumstances one should wish to repeal a plan; stranger still that in any circumstances the Minister should wish to direct a local planning authority to repeal a local plan. I did not give the noble Lord any notice of this question. If he is not in a position to answer straight away, perhaps he will think about it.

LORD KENNET

I think that that is what I had better do. Prima facie, I take the noble Lord's point: what would one do by repealing a plan and not replacing it? If the noble Lord agrees, I will think about it and consult, and we can revert to it at a later stage.

LORD KENNET

This is entirely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 23, leave out ("9(2)(a)") and insert ("9(4)(a)").—(Lord Kennet.)

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 [Disregarding of representations with respect to development authorised by or under other enactments]:

LORD KENNET

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 38, leave out second ("of"). —(Lord Kennel.)

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Supplementary provisions as to structure and local plans]:

8.53 p.m.

LORD KENNET

In the interests of swift progress, I should like to say simply that this Amendment is designed to eliminate a duplication between subsection (1)(b) and subsection (1)(d). I think that noble Lords who have their eye on the text will see at once what I mean. Possibly it will not be necessary to discuss it further, and in that spirit I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 12, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("have") in line 18 and insert:— ("(d) without prejudice to paragraph (b) above, provide for notice to be given to particular persons of the approval, adoption or alteration of any plan, if they") —(Lord Kennet.)

LORD KENNET

Let me try again, in the interests of speed, to give my explanation to the Committee in capsule form. The purpose of this Amendment is to make clear that Clause 13(1)(f) covers local plans as well as structure plans in all respects. I realise that I am rather trying the Committee in presenting it in this form, but perhaps that is sufficient explanation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 27, leave out from beginning to first ("or") in line 28 and insert ("structure plan or local plan which has been approved, adopted or made, or any document approved, adopted").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Whether Clause 13, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I have two points to raise on this clause. The first relates to the second line of subsection (1), which says that the Minister "may make regulations" with respect to a great many things. From m hat the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has already said, I understand that the Minister is intending to make regulations and this, I guess, is one of the places where common sense would provide that the word "shall" should be used—"the Minister shall make regulations"—but the draftsman, for reasons which are no doubt good but are sometimes incomprehensible, feels that it is more appropriate to say "may". I have argued this both ways, in Government and in Opposition, but I do not want to do that now. I want an assurance from the Minister that he really does intend to make regulations about all these various matters on which he is empowered to make them. If he does not, I think a great many people will be left in considerable difficulties.

The second point is one which I should like to raise because this seems to be the most appropriate place to do so. We are going into an era when there will be a great many plans. There will be existing development plans, there will be existing non-statutory plans, there will be structure plans, there will be local plans and there may be different local plans for the same area. It will be of great convenience to all concerned if it is possible somehow, somewhere, to find out with certainty what plans are in existence, what is their authority, status, state of progress, and so forth, and what other plans are in preparation though they have not yet seen the light. I have in mind that not only owners of property but surveyors, and, particularly, solicitors, would find it of great convenience if they could establish these matters with certainty. Will the Minister, among the many regulations that he has power to make, include a regulation that will require the planning authority to publish and keep up to date a list of that sort?

LORD KENNET

On the question of "shall" or "may", the common sense thing here is that the Minister is going to make regulations. But one cannot put that in a Statute and so it came out as "may", no doubt for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord. I could not here and now give an undertaking that he will make regulations about every single matter on which he is empowered to make regulations, but I agree that most of those matters will have to be regulated, and this corpus of regulations will be one of the main ways in which the planning system goes forward.

On the question of Ministerial regulation to require each planning authority to keep a register of plans in force, I should like to have time to consider that point, and perhaps we can return to it at the next stage. It is of course necessary that one should be able to go to the office of any planning authority and say: "Will you show me all the plans which are in force, whether for the whole of your area or a certain part of it, and may I be assured that what you have shown me is the totality of plans in force?", and that one can be quite sure that it is the totality. But as for a specific undertaking, I should like to be able to consider this point.

LORD MITCHISON

Before anything happens about this may I make two comments? The first is that the Minister is given various powers to deal with a whole mass of subjects—"maze" is really the better word—because otherwise he might feel himself compelled to make plans about the non-existent; and not even the wisest man has ever been able to do that. The second is this. I have read and tried to understand this Bill—and indeed a good many of the debates on it; but if ever there was a case for a few "child's guides" I should have thought that this was one, and I hope my noble friend will consider the publication of one or two "child's guides" as useful. They do them very well in the Ministry of Housing.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [New provision as to enforcement notices]:

9.2 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (4), to leave out paragraph (b) and insert on any other person having an interest in that land".

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment about which I feel somewhat strongly. We are dealing here with enforcement notices. We have reached now Part II of the Bill. Subsection (4) says: An enforcement notice

1. (a) shall be served on the owner and on the occupier of the land to which it relates; and
2. (b) may, if the authority think fit, also be served on any other person having an interest in that land, being an interest which in their opinion is materially affected by the notice."

I cannot, for the life of me, see why there should not be a statutory requirement to serve an enforcement notice on all other persons having an interest in the land, instead of its being left to the opinion of the local authority as to whether some other person's interest is materially affected by the notice. My Amendment, which may not be particularly skilfully drafted, is designed to ensure that object, so that it will read: An enforcement notice—

1. (a) shall be served on the owner and on the occupier of the land to which it relates, and on any other person having an interest in that land."

I should have thought that it was impossible to resist an Amendment of that character. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 39, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the said new words.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

BARONESS SEROTA

It is perhaps unfortunate that I should be in this particular position just at the point when the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, begins to feel strongly, but the Amendment he has just moved with considerable conviction would oblige a local planning authority to serve an enforcement notice not merely on the owner and occupier of the land, as he has indicated, but also on any other person with an interest in the land. The requirements for the service of an enforcement notice under the clause we are discussing do not differ from those which already apply by virtue of Section 45(3) of the 1962 Act. The mandatory requirement for service on the owner and the occupier dates from the 1947 Act, and the discretionary power in paragraph (b) dates from the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, but at no time has the service of an enforcement notice on persons other than the owner and occupier been obligatory.

The noble Lord indicated that possibly the Amendment might have certain other repercussions, and I must advise the House that it would in fact have a far more drastic effect than the one that he has foreseen and sought to introduce. Indeed, this could really be a wrecking Amendment in certain senses, in that it would oblige local planning authorities to serve enforcement notices on all persons with an interest in the land; and in that sense the Amendment covers mortgagees, people such as ground landlords with only a remote reversionary interest, mere licensees, and persons bound by contract to acquire an interest in the land. It would mean that the local planning authority would virtually always be driven to go through the time-consuming procedure of a formal request under Section 215 of the 1962 Act for the names and addresses of persons with an interest in this sense. What is more, the risk of technical failure in service would inevitably be greatly increased, and it is one of the more important aims of these new enforcement provisions to seek a reduction in the number of such failures.

I hope with that explanation the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, are a little less strong than they were when he first moved this particular Amendment. I hope that in the light of the explanation he will at this stage withdraw it. He may, of course, and one fully understands this, on second thoughts wish to discuss the matter further, but, as at present drafted, I fear that the Amendment would cause difficulties which perhaps he himself had not envisaged at the stage when he put it down.

LORD MITCHISON

I hesitate to intervene when strong feelings are involved, but I think that the Amendment would carry matters far too widely. I think I can best put it by dividing the sort of cases I have in mind into geographical cases and others. In geographical cases the planning permission may relate to land and to something to be done on some part of the land, and yet the notice may have to be served on someone who had an interest in the land, which might indeed be a geographical one, in another part of it. The Amendment is not really clear in that respect. But what is even more serious is the breadth of the phrase of "having an interest in that land". It would cover, for instance, people who had an interest by way of a charge or mortgage but who might not in the least be concerned in the enforcement notice in question, which could relate to a small thing as well as to a large one.

A similar instance seems to me to be the case of an easement over the land, which I suppose would constitute, an interest in it. Sometimes these people are extremely hard to find. I remember a case in my former constituency where there were a number of proprietors of a few rights in a village and nobody could ever find out who they were. There was a solicitor who claimed to act for them, but I do not believe he knew who they were; at any rate, he never let out who his clients were. One gets over interests in land and small matters. I think it is something which we must leave to the discretion of some authority, in this case the local authority. I hope I am not sounding unreasonable, but it seems to me that this Amendment might create difficulties that would hold up for some trivial reason something which ought obviously to be done by way of an enforcement notice. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will accept that I say this, believing that it would be workable in most cases—I will go that far with him on his Amendment—but there might be a number of cases where it would not be workable. One of the main difficulties with a provision of this kind, when you make it obligatory to do something in regard to it, is to find the people concerned.

LORD SILKIN

While I think that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, goes too far, I am not satisfied that the clause as it stands is entirely satisfactory. It is hedged by too many provisos. Subsection (4) says that an enforcement notice (b) may, if the authority think fit also be served on any other person having an interest in that land, being an interest which in their opinion is materially affected … Why are you giving a discretion to the local authority? Why are you saying they may serve this notice only if they think fit? I think this provision needs to be looked at again. This is an abundance of caution.

Furthermore, the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Mitchison have both suggested that a mortgagee is not necessarily a person who would be affected. I should think that in most cases where there is an enforcement notice he will be very much affected. After all, his security may well be involved. I think that there ought to be some kind of an obligation to give notice on such a person, and it should not be left entirely to the discretion of the local authority. Therefore I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, might withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the whole matter is looked at again.

LORD AIREDALE

I agree very strongly with the first part of Lord Silkin's speech. There are surely far too many qualifications to this paragraph (b) as it now stands. I could not help thinking that the Government's reply really amounted to the fact that it would be much less trouble for bureaucracy if this Amendment were not accepted. How often does a local planning authority serve an enforcement notice? I do not suppose they serve them every day. Of course it is possible to think up cases such as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, advanced, an exceptional case where it is difficult to find somebody who has some tenuous interest in the land. But how many of these cases are there going to be? If the person cannot be found, well he cannot be found, and it is just too bad. But surely the general rule should be that any person having an interest in the land about which an enforcement notice is to be served shall, under the Statute, be served with a copy of the notice. That would seem to be the best and proper thing to do, and if it sometimes puts some local authorities to some trouble—well, life is like that.

LORD NUNBURNHOLME

There is one point that I should like to bring up. Neighbours in neighbouring land may be affected by an enforcement order, and they ought to have a say or be notified. Could the noble Baroness give an assurance that all people affected will be notified?

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNNOR

The most persuasive thing the noble Baroness said in her reply to me was that improvement of the law had been brought about by the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, because that must mean that I was responsible for that improvement. It also reveals that I am, in a sense, seeking to amend my own Act. However, most of us can do that, and we need not be ashamed of trying to do so; and I am encouraged by the degree of support I have received from various noble Lords for my proposition that this subsection requires further attention.

Of course I do not want to press any Amendment that might be a wrecking Amendment. We all want to arrive at something which is practicable. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I cannot really see any justification for the insertion of the words "if the authority think fit", even though eight years ago I may have been convinced that they were necessary. Having heard the noble Baroness's reply, I believe that we all have one aim, which is to ensure that the people who may be affected are notified while avoiding the immense and unnecessary proliferation of paper. I feel sure that, in the light of this short debate, the Government will give further consideration to this matter; otherwise, I may have to put down a further Amendment at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.18 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

This is an important Clause, and it was substantially and valuably amended during its passage through another place. I need not go into all the history of what has hitherto been the length of time after which an enforcement notice cannot be served. But in the Bill as originally presented to Parliament there was no time limit in respect to any kind of development. I think I am right in saying that in another place, as a result of criticism, the Government went so far as to insert subsection (3), which says that where the breach of planning control is, broadly speaking, a breach in respect of material development rather than in respect of user of land or premises, then there shall be a limit of four years. That is a great improvement. With that limitation I, for my part, am prepared to accept the clause.

But it would not be right for your Lordships to allow it to go through this Committee without my mentioning that there is considerable anxiety about the lack of any time limit in the other cases. As the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, indicated on the last Amendment, these matters may have considerable effect on value. All the time people have to make valuations for various purposes, including death duties, and hitherto it has been known that a breach of planning control which had continued for a certain time could not be challenged by way of an enforcement notice. Now it will be challengeable at any time if it is a breach in respect of user, rather than a breach in respect of material development.

Undoubtedly there is anxiety among people who are professionally concerned with valuations and the like that this will make their job more difficult, in that valuations may be upset through an enforcement notice coming along at any time in respect of a breach of planning control which has existed for many years. I for my part am prepared to accept the Government's compromise solution here and to see how it works. It was only right to put on record that there are people, particularly in the professional world, who are by no means happy about the absence of any time limit for an enforcement notice in user cases.

LORD SILKIN

I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I am very unhappy indeed about the lack of any provision of a time limit, for the reasons that he has given, apart from the question or valuation. There is the simple case of a person who has been using part of his own home as an office. I may want to use part of my house in a year or two as an office, to save my going out. I shall do it for a time, but I am always at the mercy of the local authority coming along and saying that I am using it without planning permission and that it is a change of user. After a certain period one ought to be at ease and able to feel that the change of user is one which has now been sanctified by time.

It may be that exactly the same provisions are not applicable for a change of user as for development, but if the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, had felt disposed to put down an Amendment I think I should have been very happy to have given him support. I certainly hope that further consideration will be given to this matter, even though I recognise that the Government have compromised. But why do the Government feel it necessary to compromise? What was the evil that they had been trying to meet? I have never had a difficult case which has arisen simply because after four years it was not possible to serve an enforcement notice. Why the Government should want to draw this distinction between a change of user and development, I do not know. I agree that there has been a compromise, but why is it always necessary to compromise? Why could not the practice have been permitted to go on? However, there is no Amendment on the Marshalled List, and all we can do is to ventilate our views about the matter in the hope that the Government may look again, or that some Amendment may go down at a later stage.

LORD MITCHISON

With great respect to my noble and distinguished friend, I hope we are not going to encourage him to use odd corners of the Palais Wilson as offices without getting planning permission. I should have thought the simpler remedy was to provide a suitable prize for people who, after having evaded the law successfully for three years, could perhaps be given a spoon of some sort—I am not sure whether it should be wooden or silver—as a prize for their success in their effort, and then encouraged to apply for planing permission. Planning permission means something, and if you are going to let people be naughty simply because they have been naughty long enough, it makes the law a bit silly.

LORD AIREDALE

In that case, I wonder how the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, defends the four-year period for enforcement notices under subsection (3).

LORD MITCHISON

As a compromise.

LORD KENNET

May I say a word about this matter? I think the justification for the distinction between something which is already built—development control—and change of user is the following. If I erect a large or even a tiny building and the planning authority does not get around to challenging me within four years, then it is not worth its salt, because it ought to. If, on the other hand, I have a field or a plot of land of an indeterminate nature in one corner of which I break up and sell for scrap two cars a year, and then at the end of the limitation period I suddenly go into big business as a scrap metal dealer, perhaps burning off painted panels and rubber-covered wiring and making myself a general nuisance all round, it is a very different matter. That is the justification for making the distinction.

LORD SILKIN

Is my noble friend saying that the local planning officer would not discover this general nuisance in four years?

LORD KENNET

It would not be a nuisance beforehand. Who shall say that breaking up two cars and selling the bits on a given plot of land is a nuisance? I would not say it was. But breaking up twenty cars a day on the same plot of land may very well be a nuisance. This is one of those cases where if all citizens in this country were like your Lordships one would not have to bother; but they are not. Some of them know very well there is a limitation and they establish a use in a minimal way which is imperceptible to everybody and gives no trouble, for the sole purpose of getting an uncovenanted and unpermitted profit thereafter. It is to prevent this abuse that the Government arrive at a compromise.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I am grateful for that short debate. I feel it would be difficult for me to put down an Amendment on Report stage, in view of my having said that I should be prepared to accept the clause, but we may have to return to it. I have one other small question to which I certainly would not expect an immediate answer, and that relates to subsection (8)—the provision for withdrawal of an enforcement notice. I am not quite sure in what circumstances this would arise, but if a local planning authority serves an enforcement notice the owner or occupier on whom it is served may be put to some immediate expense, whether in resisting the notice or in seeking to comply with it, and then, suddenly, under subsection (8) the local planning authority could withdraw the notice and give notice of that to everybody.

If I remember rightly, under the principal Act, should an enforcement notice be quashed the Minister has power to award costs against the local planning authority. I should like to know whether a smiliar power will exist here if in fact it appeared that the local planning authority had been acting unreasonably in first of all calling upon the owner or occupier to do something by this enforcement notice and then changing its mind and withdrawing the notice. I do not ask for an immediate answer to that question, but perhaps the point could be noted.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 [Appeal against enforcement notice]:

9.27 p.m.

BARONESS SEROTA

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennet I beg to move Amendment No. 22. This is a drafting Amendment to improve an Amendment which was moved into the Bill by the Opposition on the Report stage in another place. As Clause 16(4)(b) now stands as a consequence of that Amendment, the Minister is empowered to disregard a failure of service if either the appellant or the person who ought to have been served has not been substantially prejudiced. What is intended, of course, is that the Minister should disregard the failure of service only where no one has been prejudiced. This Amendment ensures that this is made the effect of the paragraph. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 29, leave out from ("if") to ("been") in line 30 and insert ("neither the appellant nor that person has").—(Baroness Serota.)

BARONESS SEROTA moved to leave out from the beginning of subsection (7) to end of paragraph (a) and to insert instead: (7) Where an appeal against an enforcement notice is brought under this section the appellant shall be deemed to have made an application for planning permisson for the development to which the notice relates and, in relation to any exercise by the Minister of his powers under subsection (5) above, the following provisions shall have effect:—

1. (a) any planning permission granted there-under shall be treated as granted on the said application;".

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 23 I would draw the Committee's attention to the fact that Amendments Nos. 105, 109, 110, 115 and 116 to the Schedules also relate to this particular Amendment. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I make mention of their relevance at this stage although we shall, of course, come to them later. The first of these Amendments, Amendment No. 23, restores to the Bill the concept of a deemed application for planning permission for the development to which an enforcement notice relates accompanying any appeal against that notice. It is a concept which stands in the Act of 1962 by virtue of Section 64(2) and (3), but it was not included in the course of recasting the enforcement provisions in the Bill when the power of the Minister to grant a planning permission when determining an appeal against an enforcement notice was expressly stated in what is now Clause 16(5). The effect of paragraph (a) of the Amendment is that a permission granted under Clause 16(5) takes its place along with all other permissions, and is capable of being revoked or modified like any other planning permission. Apart from that general point, the restoration of the concept is specifically necessary in order conveniently to secure that three limitations on the grant of planning permission shall apply in the case of the grant of permissions under Clause 16(5). These points are dealt with in the Amendments which I mentioned earlier. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, leave out lines 16 to 22 and insert the said new words.—(Baroness Scrota.)

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 [Power to stop further development pending proceedings on enforcement notice.]:

BARONESS SEROTA

The purpose of the new subsection which this Amendment proposes should be inserted into Clause 17 is to ensure that tipping of refuse or waste materials can be halted by means of a stop notice pending the final determination of proceedings on an enforcement notice served by the local planning authority. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the difficulties associated with tipping waste material—particularly those who live in cities like London. The justification for the Amendment is that tipping is just as irreversible in practice as building and other kinds of operations. The stop notice procedure is intended as a means of "holding the ring" so as to avoid prejudicing the outcome of enforcement proceedings while they are in progress. It is just as necessary that this procedure should be capable of being applied to the deposit of refuse or waste as to the construction of a building or any other works. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 16, line 41, at end insert— ("The operations which may be the subject of a stop notice shall include the deposit of refuse or waste materials on land where that is a breach of planning control alleged in the enforcement notice.").—(Baroness Serota.)

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 [Determination of planning and similar appeals by persons appointed by the Minister]:

9.34 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "prescribed class", and insert: class prescribed by the Minister by an order which shall not have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament".

The noble Lord said: We have now reached Part III of the Bill. I hope that the Government are pleased with the rate at which the Opposition is enabling them to make progress with this Bill. But we must pause a little, I think, on Clause 19, because it provides for an extremely important change in procedure. I sympathise with the desire of the Government to try to relieve the excessive load of work falling, nominally on the Minister but in fact on his officials, who it is well known need to get ministerial decisions on only a relatively small percentage of the cases and problems that pass through their hands in this field. But something needs to be done about the tremendous load of appeals which, at any rate nominally, have to be decided by the Minister. Hence we have this far-reaching proposal in Clause 19, that the actual decision on a planning appeal can be taken by the inspector, instead of it merely being the duty of the inspector to hold an inquiry and report to the Minister, when his report has to be processed in the Ministry and the Minister himself has to take the decision, or it is taken in his name.

I accept that there is an overwhelming case for some alteration. I must say that in principle I dislike the idea of important decisions being handed to people in official positions. I think it is more desirable always that elected persons should take decisions which may be of a controversial character, and should then have to answer for them. But I accept that it is quite impossible to continue with the present arrangement. I understand that something like 97½ per cent. of all the planning appeals are decided by the Minister in accordance with the recommendation of his inspectors. Therefore if we can create a new system under which some section of that 97½ per cent. can be actually decided by the inspector without the necessity for his report being examined in the Department, that will be a great gain.

I understand that it is the intention of the Government to transfer only certain categories of appeal away from the Minister to a person appointed by the Minister under this clause, and that is well and good. I am sure it is right. But which categories are transferred will be extremely important, and while I accept that after the transference of one class has been made the transference of other classes may be thought desirable, nevertheless I feel that Parliament should keep a watch on all this. That is the reason for my Amendment.

At present, under the Bill as it stands, the Minister may prescribe a class of planning appeals which shall be determined not by him but by the inspector. My Amendment would ensure that this prescribing of classes would be subject to Parliamentary control, and I think that that is very desirable. I do not want to multiply the number of matters which are subject to Affirmative Resolution—this is not a day when I should specifically seek to multiply that—but here one is transferring from the full Parliamentary control which attaches to ministerial decisions classes of cases away from ministerial control; and I think that the Minister will not be answerable for planning appeal decisions taken, not by him but by somebody appointed by him. If I am wrong about that, I shall be very interested to know.

In other words, I do not want to seek to impair the general purpose which the Government are following here, but I suggest that there should be closer Parliamentary control. I think that is very desirable in this transitional stage when people will hardly have got accustomed to the new system. People do not like the idea of matters which may be very important to them individually—not necessarily important in terms of money but important in terms of amenity—being decided by an official and not by an elected Minister. That is why I hope the Government will take seriously this suggestion that when the Minister wishes to prescribe a class of cases that can be transferred away from him to a person appointed by him he should seek the affirmative approval of both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 26, leave out "prescribed class" and insert the said new words.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

BARONESS SEROTA

In introducing this Amendment, the noble Lord rightly drew the attention of the Committee to the objects of Clause 19 and of the remaining clauses in Part III of the Bill and their great significance in terms of the changes in the way in which we deal with appeals under the arrangements outlined in this Bill. He has also indicated that the object of the exercise is to expedite the determination of appeals to the Minister against decisions of local planning authorities. This is a cause which I think we all have at heart, and it was given general welcome at Second Reading stage. Nevertheless, I appreciate that the transfer of responsibilities of this kind from Minister to inspector causes certain qualms, and if the hour were not so late I should be tempted to engage in debate on the relative roles of the elected member and the permanent official at either Central Government or local level. This is very much in the public mind to-day.

But while the arrangements that we seek to introduce as a result of the changes in the Bill will be brought about as early as is properly possible, early introduction of the arrangements at the cost of causing inconvenience to persons who have already lodged appeals, or of delay in the discharge of business due to an unsuitably phased changeover, would clearly be extremely unfortunate. Further, the Committee can be assured that the Minister will see that the regulations setting out the classes of appeal to be delegated will be made in good time for people to take account of them before their effect is felt in practice.

On the specific point that the noble Lord is seeking to achieve by this Amendment—that the regulations prescribing the classes of appeals which will be for determination by inspectors under the new system introduced by this part of the Bill shall be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure—as the Bill is drafted the regulations will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. This is because Clause 85(3) of the Bill has the effect of applying Section 217(2) of the 1962 Act to the definition "prescribed" in Clause 85(1).

I am very conscious at this moment of time that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and other noble Lords present have far greater experience than I have in this House and in another place, but I understand that, broadly speaking, the distinction is between regulations which settle matters that are fundamental to the operation of the Statute and those which provide merely for the filling in of details which do not have to be settled once and for all by the Act but are deliberately left for later consideration by the Minister. By this standard there is no case for making the regulations under Clause 19(1) subject to Affirmative Resolution.

If the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, were carried, the effect would almost certainly be to postpone the making of the first regulations under Clause 19. As I indicated a few moments ago, it is the intention of the Minister, subject to the proper consultations and safeguards, to implement the procedure as early as is reasonably possible, having given due weight to all the considerations involved. As the clause now stands, it is hoped —subject, of course, to Royal Assent being given this side of the Summer Recess—to be able to apply the new system to appeals in the subscribed cases on or after October 1. I should not like your Lordships to take this as a firm date, but this is the target to which the Minister intends to work. The regulations made under Clause 19 will, in the usual way, be subject to consultation with the local authority associations and the usual professional representative bodies.

I hope that with that explanation, and possibly with further thought, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will withdraw his Amendment to-night. I think we are all anxious, following the policy of this Bill, to implement the new procedures as soon as we can, and it is the view of the Government that this particular class of regulation, subject to the negative as opposed to affirmative procedure, is the right way to achieve this.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

If I had had any thought of pressing this Amendment to-night, I think the noble Baroness would have persuaded me not to do so. However, it does not seem to me to be a matter on which I should seek to divide the Committee. We have had the clarification from the Government that these regulations under which classes will be prescribed will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. That does not appear on the face of the Bill except to anybody who knows his way thoroughly about this Bill and the principal Act. So it is helpful to have it on record with the authority of the Government.

I agree with the noble Baroness that if we are going to have this change the sooner we start to get experience of the new working the better. She said that some class or classes might be prescribed in time for the new system to apply to them by October 1. May I ask if she is in a position to say whether it is the Minister's intention to include anything other than single houses in the first class of cases to be transferred to the new procedure? It has been made clear, both on Second Reading and in another place, that the Government are anxious to draw a distinction between the type of planning appeal which, though it may be of immense interest and importance to an individual, can hardly be said to have widespread repercussions, and those which are of wider interest.

I would agree that probably the planning appeal relating to the single house represents the class that could most easily be transferred for experimental purposes to the new system. I must say that I should be sorry if the Minister were to proceed too fast and were to transfer cases which might be of a more widely controversial character to be settled by permanent officials, and not by him, until we had had a great deal more experience of the working. Perhaps the noble Baroness can give us some indication of the Minister's intentions before I withdraw my Amendment.

BARONESS SEROTA

As I understand the position, the classes of appeal that the Minister is at present minded to prescribe are single houses, which amount to 33 per cent. of all appeals; housing estates comprising ten dwellings or under, amounting to some 10 per cent. of appeals; outlying residential applications of 2 acres or under, which at present amount to 4 per cent.; flats and maisonettes, 10 or under, 2 per cent.; residential conversions, 3 per cent. If it helps the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I will add that up for him. I have it in front of me, and he has not unless he has been quick at writing it down. It is a total of 52 per cent. These are likely to amount, allowing for some cases that serve special reasons, to well over 40 per cent. of all appeals decided, and about 60 per cent. of the full range of appeals under Section 23, which are at present foreseen as coming within the general system. I hope that is information which the noble Lord will find helpful, and I can only assure him that if there are further details in this matter that will assist him in consideration of the clauses concerned, we shall be only too happy to let him have them.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for both of her replies. Now that we are satisfied that the transfer will be subject to Parliamentary control by the Negative procedure, and also that the Minister is quite clearly going step by step in this matter, I do not think we should press this Amendment further and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 [Determination of appeals by the Minister]:

9.52 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

Clause 20 provides that the Minister may, as it were, withdraw an individual appeal which is in a class prescribed for transfer and decide to determine it himself. It would be of interest to the Committee, I think, to know in what circumstances it may be the Minister's intention to use this power. Personally, I hope he will not hesitate to use it where there is evidence that the planning appeal, though it may be concerned with a small site or a small issue, nevertheless is giving rise already to strong local controversy. If we are to save administrative time and difficulty by this change, I am anxious to avoid bringing permanent officials, whoever they may be, into the field of strong local controversy. Indeed, it would be wholly unfair to do so. The great difference is that Ministers can speak for themselves and defend themselves, or try to, whereas permanent officials are necessarily silent. If you are paid to do the job, you do the job and make your recommendation, or in this case you issue your decision, and there it is. The storm may break upon your head and you cannot defend yourself.

I greatly hope I shall hear that it will be the intention of the Minister, where he has reason to believe that there is likely to be considerable local controversy over the outcome of a planning appeal, whichever way it may go, to withdraw it. I know from my experience that there are planning appeals where, so to speak, you cannot win. If you decide one way you please one set of people and you make permanent enemies of the other; if you decide the issue the other way the result is simply the reverse of that. Anger seems to be much more prevalent than gratitude in these matters. I submit that the anger should fall on the elected person rather than on the permanent official.

BARONESS SEROTA

I am very happy to give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks.

LORD SOMERS

Before we pass this clause, I should like some assurance from the Government that if a private individual makes an appeal against a local government and gets no satisfaction it will be possible to apply to the Minister. I remember a case a few years ago where a cousin of mine made such an appeal and it was refused. It was for a very small matter inside his own house, and when the appeal was refused he had good reason to believe that in fact it had never appeared before the planning authority. So I arranged for him to come with me to have an interview with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who at that time was none other than my noble friend Lord Brooke, who may possibly remember the occasion. Eventually we were able to find out that it was definitely the case that this appeal had been merely rubber stamped by an official and had never appeared before the planning committee at all. That kind of thing is difficult for the ordinary private individual to find out, and it seems to me that the Minister is the only person who can do it.

BARONESS SEROTA

I am not quite sure whether I have followed the argument of the noble Lord or whether the point he made is relevant to this particular clause. Clause 20, which we are now discussing, relates to the power of the Minister to recover jurisdiction in any appeal that would otherwise be decided by an inspector. But we have taken a note of the noble Lord's point and perhaps we can discuss it with him in another way.

LORD SOMERS

I must apologise to the Committee if I have raised it at the wrong time. It is a little difficult for a layman to understand which clause is relevant and which is not.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 [Local inquiries and hearings]:

9.59 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (1), after "if" to "the applicant or appellant desires or". The noble Lord said: We come now to local inquiries and hearings in relation to this new procedure. There are well established arrangements for local inquiries and hearings under the existing procedure, where an inspector takes the public inquiry and reports to the Minister, and, generally speaking, there is no difficulty in its being decided whether a public inquiry is necessary or a private hearing is sufficient. However it seemed to me desirable, as we were coming into a new field, to ask whether the same rules would apply. I am seeking to raise the subject by means of this Amendment. At present the subsection says that a person appointed to determine an appeal shall hold such an inquiry if the Minister directs him to do so, and my Amendment would make it read that he shall hold such an inquiry if the applicant or appellant desires, or the Minister directs him to do so. I am extremely anxious to ensure that the applicant or appellant, as the case may be, shall not lose any of his rights to the holding of a public inquiry simply through the transfer of the determination from the Minister to the inspector. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 28, at beginning insert ("the applicant or appellant desires or".—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

LORD AIREDALE

I should like to support this Amendment, on the, well-known ground that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. If an appellant desires that justice in his case should be seen to be done by a public inquiry he should be entitled to it. It is not only very good for the public to take an interest in these things, and for the Press to attend local inquiries and to report the proceedings in local newspapers, so that people in the neighbourhood shall take an interest in the matter, but it is also very good for officials to have to conduct inquiries under the public gaze. It is very good for your Lordships to have to conduct your deliberations under the public gaze. We are doing so at 10 o'clock at night under quite a strong public gaze. It is very good for us. It is good for everybody deciding matters to do so under the public gaze, and that is why I strongly support the idea that if an appellant feels he would like his appeal to be heard in public, that wish should be respected and it should be granted.

BARONESS SEROTA

As I read it, this Amendment would mean that an inspector dealing with a transferred appeal would have to hold a local inquiry if the appellant so desired, and I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, are concerned about the form of the inquiry. As I understand the situation, in practice an inquiry at which the public could be present would never be refused if that were what the applicant or appellant wanted, and I think this meets the point the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has just made. But it seems wrong that a matter which ought to be settled in the light of the weight and circumstances of the case should not be in the control of the Minister, who can override his inspector by virtue of the directing power in Clause 22(1) in order to insist on a local inquiry.

In the view of the Government the Amendment is open to objection on a number of grounds. First, it enables the appellant to insist on a local inquiry but gives no corresponding right to the local planning authority. This, I submit, is wrong. Secondly, it applies only to appeals transferred to inspectors and does not affect appeals to be determined by the Minister. In principle, the procedure for dealing with the two kinds of determination ought to be the same. Thirdly, the purpose of Clause 22(1) is to empower an inspector determining an appeal to hold a local inquiry even if neither party asks for one, and to compel him to hold such an inquiry if the Minister directs that it should be done. A more appropriate place in the Bill to make provision about the rights of the parties to an appeal, as opposed to the powers and duties of the inspector, would probably be in Clause 19. I wonder whether, in the light of these comments, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would like to withdraw his Amendment so that we can have further discussions, perhaps at another stage, about it.

LORD AIREDALE

I certainly accept the point the noble Baroness makes, that perhaps it is unfair that the local authority should not also have a right to demand a local inquiry. I think perhaps that is a good point. By all means let us have a further Amendment from the Government at the next stage to say that not only the appellant but also the local authority shall have the right to demand a local inquiry. Let that argument be used not to defeat this Amendment but as a springboard from which a further Amendment might be introduced at the next stage.

LORD MITCHISON

With respect, I do not think, that a local inquiry is on quite the same footing as an appeal. There are very many instances in the Statute Books of local inquiries being allowed, and they are sometimes allowed on the direction of the Minister alone, sometimes at the direction of the Minister or of some other person in a peculiarly responsible position; or, I think I am right in saying, speaking from memory, at the instigation of quite a number of people concerned in a case. But that an individual should be allowed to insist on a local inquiry I think, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, is pressing things too far.

The trouble about this planning machinery is that in this Bill as in others, it is most complicated and it takes time, and the public feeling about it I think is a certain indignation at the delay and inconvenience rather than a feeling that a local inquiry ought to be held. There certainly would be cases for a local inquiry, but whatever one's personal opinion may be, one is not entitled to assume that all Ministers are necessarily idiots; and in a case like this I should have thought that the Minister was the right person to entrust with the duty of deciding whether or not there was a case for a local inquiry.

I am not pretending for a moment that Ministers are infallible; they certainly are not. I am sure that they make mistakes over a matter of this sort. In fact, I expect that the noble Lord and I have made a number of mistakes. But apart from that, one has surely to strike a balance between expense, inconvenience and delay on the one hand, and an excess of formality and rights of the individual citizen on the other. The right to a local inquiry does not seem to be quite on the same footing as the right to have visible and apparent justice. I should have thought it is a different kind of thing. Therefore, for myself, I feel doubtful whether this Amendment would really inure to the public benefit. I hope Lord Brooke will not mind my saying that I am utterly convinced by his sincerity in wishing to simplify the procedure of planning so far as possible, to cut out time and, incidentally, to reduce the number of people engaged in the machinery of planning.

10.8 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

This Amendment may well appear in the wrong place, but let me excuse myself by saying that this is a most difficult Bill, and I can find my way about it only through the exercise of common sense. As my Amendment concerns local inquiries and these are mentioned in Clause 22, and, so far as I can ascertain, are not mentioned at all in Clause 19, it appeared to me desirable that I should table my Amendment, not to Clause 19 but to Clause 22. I had read Clause 19 and it was from that clause that I took the phrase "applicant or appellant". For my part, I cannot see how the person concerned with an appeal is not also the appellant; but if your Lordships will subject yourselves to reading subsection (6) of Clause 19, you will see there that before the determination of any such appeal "the Minister shall ask the applicant or the appellant" certain questions. In order not to be caught out on that, I put the words "applicant or appellant" in my Amendment.

I take the point that there should be equal rights for the local planning authorities as for the applicant or appellant, to demand a local inquiry. My concern really is to ensure that justice is seen to be done to fully the same extent under this new procedure as has been the case under the existing procedure, where the inspector reports to the Minister. I am not going to press this Amendment, but I should be grateful if the Government would consider what I have said and what has been said by other noble Lords, and see whether the point can be made any clearer, because it would be an undesirable result of this desirable change if people started to say that whereas under the old procedure a local public inquiry would always be held when it was desirable, under the new procedure one was not equally sure of getting it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 [Repeal of existing provisions for compulsory acquisition of land]:

On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I am not sure whether it is best for me to ask for a statement from the Government here or on Clause 27. Clause 25 repeals Section 67 of the principal Act and Section 47 of the Post Office Act 1953, and, as I understand it, makes way for the apparently sweeping powers granted in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 27. If the Government say that it would be better for me to wait until we reach Clause 27, well and good; but either now or then I am anxious to ask the Government to explain precisely why these changes are being made and what will be their effect.

LORD KENNET

If the noble Lord agrees, I would sooner do it on Clause 27.

Clause 25 agreed to.

10.13 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (1)(a), to leave out "or assist".

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of substance, although it is a very short one. Subsection (1) of Clause 26 indicates the matters on which the Minister must be satisfied before he will authorise a local authority to acquire land compulsorily. From the point of view of the individual citizen, subsection (1) with its paragraphs, (a), (b) (c) and (d), is pretty formidable. When I read it my first instinct was to put down a number of Amendments to limit these very wide categories. I then found that they were taken almost word for word from the principal Act which has been in force for a number of years, and therefore it seemed to me that it would be perhaps a waste of the Committee's time if I were to do that.

But there is one substantial alteration here and that is that the words "or assist" have not, so far as I am aware, hitherto been part of the law in this context. Subsection 1(a) says: The Minister … may authorise a local authority … to acquire compulsorily any land within their area if he is satisfied—(a) that the land is required in order to secure or assist the treatment as a whole, by development, redevelopment or improvement et cetera. I would not for one moment question that where the land is required to secure the treatment as a whole by redevelopment or improvement of the land or any area in which the land is situated, there exists a clear case for the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order. But I am more doubtful whether we should extend this category by inserting the words "or assist". To secure something is quite definite and plain; but one may give the most minor assistance and yet be categorised as assisting.

If we were to pass the Bill in this unamended form it could be argued by a local authority which had made a compulsory purchase order that although it was not necessary to acquire the land to secure these various results, nevertheless it would assist those results if land was compulsorily purchased. That is not a strong enough ground on which a public authority should be entitled to take away compulsorily the citizens' property. As I said on many occasions during the proceedings on the Country-side Bill, there must be compulsory purchase powers and, equally, Parliament must examine scrupulously any extension of those powers. This is an extension and appears to me to be undesirable. I trust that the Government will accept this Amendment, or propose some Amendment of their own which will guarantee the owner of the property against the risk that the Minister may confirm a compulsory order against him simply because a local authority says it will be of help to them in bringing about a certain result if they are enabled to acquire the land compulsorily. That is not sufficient justification for compulsory purchase and that is why I am moving this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Age 23, line 8, leave out ("or assist").— (Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

LORD MITCHISON

I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that this kind of case needs watching very carefully. But it needs watching from both sides. This is a case where one has to consider carefully the effect of leaving out the words. They have been put in here because the Government— in this case the Ministry of Housing, no doubt after consultation with local authorities—are of the opinion that they are required. One must assume that Ministers are on the whole reasonable people and have regard to the public advantage. In some cases there may be questions of policy; in others the policy may be self-evident. The person who has to be satisfied here is the Minister, no doubt at the instigation of the local authority. The Minister could be asked questions in Parliament about how he had managed to be satisfied in this case.

Let us think for a moment about what is involved. We are asked, and it is agreed, that powers should be given to secure the treatment as a whole for the development, redevelopment or improvement of land—if I may shorten it. No one doubts that those powers are necessary, and no one doubts that there will be proper cases in which they are not absolutely necessary and cannot in that sense be said to secure the object we are considering, but are none the less of material assistance to it. It might reasonably be the case in a very large number of instances that there were things which assisted to a considerable degree but which could be dispensed with, and where compulsory purchase could be avoided if this Amendment were accepted, at the cost of putting the public or the municipal purse to some extra expense.

I entirely agree at once that compensation for compulsory purchase ought to be fair, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is not the only ex-Minister in this place who has done his best to achieve that object one way or another, but I do not think we can proceed on the assumption that there is something fundamentally wrong with compulsory purchase because it always results in unfair compensation. The remedy for that is to try to deal with the compensation. What it does do is to take away the land of some person who might not otherwise be willing to dispose of it. We know that is the position, and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that that is a very serious matter which must be closely looked at.

We therefore get to this balance. On the one hand, there is the man whose land is being taken away from him although he does not want to part with it. On the other hand, there is the possibility of achieving the desired result by way of development, redevelopment or improvement by some much more expensive or otherwise objectionable method, so that it cannot be said strictly to secure the land. This kind of case is a matter of judgment and opinion, and I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and I could have agreed, if we had had an opportunity of discussing the matter fully, that a balance of convenience of that kind must be decided by and on the responsibility of the Minister of the day; and that to try to do it by omitting words from a Statute which seem to be necessary in, at any rate, a large group of cases is the wrong way of tackling the problem.

I suggest that you really cannot find words that will cover the cases of assistance which are proper cases, as distinct from the cases of assistance which are really quite slight cases, such as the noble Lord had in mind, where the local authority is being a bit unreasonable and saying," It is convenient to do this, and therefore we shall say that it assists us and will use compulsory powers". What you must do when there is that balance to judge is to leave it to the responsible Minister to weigh up the two considerations, as I know well the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has often had to do himself, and decide which he thinks is right. Different Ministers and different Governments will come to different conclusions. There will be different conclusions in one part of the country from those in another, and there will be any number of factors involved which cannot be dealt with by appropriate wording in a Statute.

I hope that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will agree—I think that is always a nasty phrase and perhaps I should say that I hope I have succeeded in persuading the noble Lord—that there really is a case for leaving the words in, and that it is sometimes inevitable to have to leave questions of balance of this sort to Ministerial judgment. That is what Ministers ale for, and the poor devils—I hope that is not too un-Parliamentary a way to describe them—sometimes get far too many kicks because they have to do it. But somebody has to do it and it cannot be done by putting the whole matter into statutory language. Therefore, I would leave the power, relying on the fact that it depends not only on a local authority application —I should not pay nearly so much attention to that—but also on the decision of a responsible Minister, for which he is answerable to Parliament.

VISCOUNT GAGE

With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, surely there is another authority which occasionally has to be satisfied as to the meaning of words, and that is the courts. I remember certain decisions—Ministerial decisions, too—being challenged in the courts and being found ultra vires, with very great effect on planning legislation. I know, from what we are told, that judges ought to be able to interpret anything, but surely we ought to try to make the intentions of Parliament clear enough for them to be enabled to make a decision; and if you employ words as vague as this I should have thought that they would have had some difficulty in doing so. I quite agree that you cannot tie everything up completely, and I merely wish to put forward that particular consideration.

LORD MITCHISON

If I may reply for one moment to the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, may I say that I agree with a great deal of what he said. But the trouble in this kind of case is that you cannot find a form of words which will cover the good cases and not cover the bad ones.

LORD HOLFORD

I hope your Lordship will forgive me for ventilating a different kind of anxiety which I have on this word "assist". I have been putting myself in the position of someone advising a local authority, after preparing a scheme, that they ought in fact compulsorily to acquire a certain interest in land. If the word "assist" means assisting the convenience of the makers of the plan, although one would often welcome it I do not think that is a worthy object. If it means assisting by way of convenience and making a thing more tidy, or anything of that kind, I beg leave to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that this is not the right use.

But much more important is the question, what the word "assist" adds to the word "secure". Because here we are talking about securing "the treatment as a whole "; and I must say that I should be very much relieved if an example could be quoted of what I think the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has already implied in what he has said—that something is essential to assist a plan which cannot in fact be got by securing the treatment as a whole.

LORD KENNET

First of all, let me clarify that we are not of course talking about assisting the convenience of a local authority. Let me read this part of the clause as unamended. The Minister is to be satisfied, that the land is required in order to secure or assist the treatment as a whole, by development, redevelopment or improvement or partly by one and partly by another method, of the land or of any area in which the land is situated;… So it is perfectly clear what "assist" applies to: it applies to the treatment as a whole of the land or of any area in which the land is situated". The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said first of all that the word "assist" introduced a new power, and, secondly, that it introduced a power which ought not to be there. I believe that in both these assertions he is mistaken. It does not introduce any power—and let me ask him whether he would not agree with me that it does not when he has heard the parallel power in the 1962 Act. This Bill abolishes the requirement of designation—that is, designation of land on the plan as subject to compulsory acquisition—which has failed to serve the purpose expected of it, and replaces the "comprehensive development area" with the "action area" concept. Now these changes force a change of language in this regard, but they do not, I submit, entail any change of substance, and there is not, I submit, any change of substance in the wording now before the Committee when compared with that in the 1962 Act.

Under the 1962 Act, land which could be brought under the relevant section, the compulsory purchase section, had to be either comprised in a comprehensive development area defined in the development plan or contiguous or adjacent to such an area; … and the Minister had to be satisfied that either it was required to secure the development or redevelopment of the area; or"— and here we come to the point— that it was expedient in the public interest that it should be held together with land so required". If the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, can tell me in what way that concept differs from the concept of assisting in the development as a whole, I think he will have established his point that a new power is being conferred here. Otherwise, I take leave to insist that no new power is conferred. There remains the question of whether the power conferred is one that it would be right to continue. If we agree that it is already there, is it right to continue it? I think it is; for the same reason that it was right to have it in the 1962 Act; and that is primarily because of the one owner, the owner of one house or building in the middle of what is a comprehensive area, or what may now be an action area, who will not sell.

You may imagine that the local authority wishes to purchase by agreement; that the whole of the area is to be purchased for development or redevelopment; and that there is one person in the middle holding out against an arm's length purchase, the ordinary purchase by agreement; and that the local authority wishes to purchase his property compulsorily. If we delete the words "or assist" he can then take the local authority, not by way of appeal to the Minister, but beyond to the courts. He can say, "If you do not buy my one house you will not have been prevented from securing development of the area. You may have 500 or 1,000 houses all round. How can you say you are not able to secure it?"

This is where the word "assist" comes in. The local authority can then say, "Ah, but it would assist in the development; the whole development, which we admit would be secured without the purchase of your house, would be assisted if we could also purchase your house". My contention is that the power in question is neither new nor unjustified; and the latter contention depends on the former. If it was justified in 1962, it is justified now. I hope the noble Lord may agree to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

First may I say what a privilege it is to us that we should have the noble Lord, Lord Holford, present in this Committee. There is an immense advantage to this House in having somebody who is willing to put his vast experience at our disposal during these complicated matters. I think perhaps that he may grant to us, as he has come fairly fresh to legislation, that the business of getting the law right is just as difficult as the business of getting the plans right.

We shall have to return to this again on Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that there was nothing really new in the words "or assist". He asked me whether I was aware of the existence in the 1962 Act, the principal Act, of the reference to its being expedient in the public interest that the land should be held together with land so required. That is what he said implied the word "assisting". But those precise words appear in paragraph (b) of this subsection. We have had those words on the Statute Book, I know, and we have had the word "secure" on the Statute Book for years. My case is that we are add- ing to the various powers in this Bill the additional concept of assisting the treatment as a whole.

I must say that I could not follow from the noble Lord's argument how he, managed to claim that the word "assist" was not an addition to the existing law, or how it would not be possible to acquire that obstinate individual's house in the middle of a re-development area if the word "assist" was not there. We have surely been able to overcome those difficulties in the past, and it certainly appears to me that the case for adding this new concept contained in the words, "or assist" has not been made out.

I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, and I was grateful for his general approach, but he seemed to think that I was seeking to take away an existing power. I am not; I am challenging the addition of a new power, and I hope that between now and Report stage further thought may be given to this point. I should be very willing to discuss it further with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, if that would be helpful, but I must make clear to the Committee that the onus is on the Government to show why the existing words have not been operating sufficiently well and that it is desirable for Parliament to add this new power comprised in the words, "or assist".

I will leave my argument there, because I do not think it is any good pursuing it indefinitely at 25 minutes to 11 at night, but I must give notice that if I have not obtained some satisfaction meanwhile, it will be essential to ask the House to revert to this matter on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.38 p.m.

LORD ILFORD moved, after subsection (1) to insert: ( ) The Minister may authorise any local authority as aforesaid to acquire an easement or other right over land by the grant of a new right: Provided that this subsection shall not apply to an easement or other right over any land which would for the purposes of the Act of 1946 form part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment.

The noble Lord said: Clause 26 and the following clause, Clause 27, which is relevant to this point, deal with the powers of compulsory acquisition. Clause 26 authorises the Minister to grant to certain local authorities the right to acquire compulsorily any land within their area on certain conditions. Then if your Lordships look at Clause 27, you will find that it gives the Minister of Public Building and Works powers to acquire compulsorily any land necessary for the public service.". Subsection (3) states: The power of acquiring land compulsorily under this section shall include power to acquire an easement or other right over land by the grant of a new right.

Your Lordships will see that the powers which are given, and the powers which may be given, to a local authority are different from the powers given to the Minister of Public Building and Works. The Minister may acquire an easement or right over the land without having to acquire the land itself, whereas the local authority is given power only to acquire the land. This Amendment seeks to extend to local authorities authorised to acquire compulsorily the right to acquire an easement or right over the land in the same way as the Minister of Public Building and Works. It is very much to the advantage both of the local authority and of the citizen that if the local authority's purpose can be met by the acquisition of a right over the land, or an easement as it is called, without having to acquire the land itself. It is a great advantage to the landowner, who does not lose his land, and to the local authority which will not have to take on more land than it requires for its purposes.

It is always dangerous to give illustrations in a case of this sort and wiser to deal in generalities, but I wonder whether I can illustrate the point the Amendment aims at by a simple illustration. Suppose that a local authority possesses a site for house building, or some purpose of that sort, but the access to the site is across the land of an adjoining landowner. As the Bill stands, the local authority would be compelled to acquire the adjoining land, not because it wants it, but because it wants the right to pass across it to its own site. The Amendment would make it possible, if the local authority arrange to give the owner a corresponding right in another part of the area, for it to acquire the right to cross his land without having to acquire the land itself. If it is good for the Minister of Public Building and Works to have this power, I should have thought that it was equally good for the local authorities. I am sure that it is very much to the advantage both of the local authority and of the citizen, and I hope that your Lordships will be able to take the same view of it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 24, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ilford.)

LORD KENNET

The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has justified his Amendment mainly by reference to Clause 27, which re-equips the Minister of Building and Works and the Postmaster General with certain compulsory purchasing powers. This is in the Bill because it repeals the designation provisions of the 1962 Act, and it is necessary to give these Departments the power to require the grant of easements and certain other rights. These rights are of obvious use to the Post Office for the purpose of laying cables and to the Ministry of Building and Works for access, for instance, to remote defence sites.

I understand that parallel powers are already in the hands of local authorities. I do not seek to convince the Committee and the noble Lord that they ought not to have parallel powers, but I seek to convince them that they already have these powers. A parallel case would be when a local authority is acting as a water undertaker or sewerage authority, in which cases it already has compulsory powers. There remains one category of case—that is, when a local authority would be content to take an easement instead of making an outright purchase of a piece of land. I assume that in such a case the owner would prefer to grant an easement rather than sell the land outright, and agrees with the local authority on normal purchase without the use of compulsory powers.

In conclusion, I would inform the Committee that this matter was discussed in another place, and it was left by my right honourable friend the Minister of State to the honourable Member of the Committee who had introduced the Amendment corresponding to this one to let him have any information in his possession which indicated the need for an extension of the acquisition powers proposed by the Amendment. No information has been received, and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, that if he could let me have any concrete information which suggests that the existing powers of local authorities as sewerage authorities or water undertakers does not suffice for this sort of purpose, then I would be grateful to have a look at it. Pending that, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD MITCHISON

I am inclined to think that my noble friend ought to look at this independently, too. I have in mind one or two types of case. I imagine that where the easement or other right is attached in some way to a piece of property that is being compulsorily bought there ought to be no difficulty. But I am sure that it ought to he checked.

I think one has to remember that what we are trying to do in the whole of this Bill involves a good deal of redevelopment, and the sort of case that I have in mind is a right of way. It may not exist at all; there may be nothing that can be handed over in exchange for it —no question of an old right exchanged for a new—but it may be for the convenience and advantage of everybody that a right of way should exist in some cases. One thinks of all kinds of things —children getting to school, and so on. If that is so, then we ought not to allow a local authority to be put to a large amount of additional cost in buying things it does not want, or to be held to ransom by someone who perhaps has the strongest physical revulsion to a number of small children crossing the bottom of his garden, or land. I know that people have rights, but in a case of this sort one must provide reasonably.

LORD ILFORD

I will certainly see what information I can obtain on this matter and send it to the Minister. I hope it appears that this right to acquire an easement is desirable in cases other than the cases he mentioned, where the local authority is a water undertaker or is laying sewers. My recollection is that both those two powers are express statutory powers. As I say, I will see if I can find the information the noble Lord wants and send it to him, and I hope that he will then look more favourably on my Amendment than he does now. In the meantime, I ask leave to withdrawn the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 [Compulsory acquisition of land by certain Ministers]:

On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?

10.48 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

May I now press the Minister to answer the questions which I asked, perhaps prematurely, on Clause 25? Subsection (1) of Clause 27 has the appearance of meaning that all land required for the public service by any Minister except the Postmaster General shall in future, if it is necessary to use compulsory powers, be acquired by the Minister of Public Building and Works. It would be helpful to know whether that is really what it means, and whether, by the combination of Clauses 25 and 27, all other Ministers except the Postmaster General are losing their powers of compulsory purchase. The phrase, "any land necessary for the public service" is extraordinarily wide, and it would seem at first sight that it would be almost impossible to challenge it. Perhaps the Minister will explain why those words have been chosen.

Now I come to the Postmaster General. I believe I am right in my recollection that the Postmaster General's existing powers of compulsory purchase are so complex that they are never used, and that the Postmaster General must have recourse to roundabout methods if he requires any land that he cannot obtain by agreement. That, at any rate, was the position before the designation procedure existed. I am not absolutely sure whether the designation procedure was open to him. What it amounts to is this. On the face of it, the combination of these two clauses appears to make the most drastic changes in the powers of Ministers to acquire land compulsorily; and Clause 27 appears to empower the Minister of Public Building and Works to acquire compulsorily virtually anything simply by saying that it is necessary for the public service—not necessary for the public service within his Department, but necessary for the public service anywhere.

What is the explanation of all this? It may not have any sinister implications; I do not know. But I confess that by reading the proceedings in another place I was not able to get my ideas wholly clarified. Maybe that was my fault. I have no desire to hold up the proceedings here if in fact these changes are not fundamental ones. But I think that the Committee would wish the Minister to give a clear explanation and not to feel limited by the lateness of the hour or restricted thereby into keeping his explanation very brief.

LORD AIREDALE

The words "the public service" are indeed wide. I imagine that they would include, for instance, the building of a new post office, and thus would have the position that, under subsection (1), the Minister of Public Building and Works may compulsorily acquire any land necessary for the building of a new post office because it is for "the public service". Could that be really intended? Surely these words are far, far too wide and we must have an explanation of what is really meant.

10.53 p.m.

LORD KENNET

They may be wide, but they are not new. Let me first stand for a moment in sackcloth for having contributed my proportion, and probably more than my due proportion, to the confusion which has surrounded the discussion of this clause in both Houses. I think the best thing I can do about the question of the powers of the Minister of Public Building and Works is to run through, in capsule form, the history so far. In 1852 the Minister of Works was given power to acquire land by agreement for the public service—that was by agreement. That was the first appearance of the phrase "for the public service". Under the 1947 Planning Act he was given power to acquire land by compulsion for the public service and for the exercise of any of his functions. This power was at that time limited to places designated in plans for this kind of development, and also to areas in which no development plan was in operation. I do not need to remind the Committee that at the beginning of the operation of the 1947 Act, and for a few years after, the second class of areas—that is, those where there was no development plan—covered the entire country.

The third stage is 1968 and the Bill now before this Committee. The whole concept of designation is going, and so something has to be put in to say what the Minister of Public Building and Works may or may not do. The proposal in the Bill is that he should have compulsory purchase powers for the public service and that this shall not be limited to any particular part of the country, as indeed it was not for a few years after 1947. I would draw the Committee's attention to the fact that, far from giving him increased powers, we are giving him rather reduced powers in this respect. In 1947 he had powers to purchase compulsorily for the public service and for the exercise of any of his functions. The present Bill will give him powers to purchase compulsorily only for the public service.

I hope and believe that covers most of the points that the noble Lord had in mind. If there is anything further he would like to say about it—and I admit that this is the latest attempt to clear up the confusion that has existed in both Houses so far—if the noble Lord is against this in any respect (I say this in all sincerity and helpfulness) we can carry the matter forward better if he will tell me in what respect he does not agree.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I do not think I heard him explain the position with regard to the Postmaster General, and I asked about that in connection with subsection (2). The further question with which he did not deal, and I am sorry if I did not make it explicit, is whether, if we agree to these clauses, it will leave no Ministers with compulsory purchase powers other than the Postmaster General and the Minister of Public Building and Works. Those two will have the powers under subsections (1) and (2). What about all the other Ministers? What about the Defence services and everything else that is needed for the public service? Is it the case that whenever a Government Department requires something for the public service and cannot acquire it by agreement it will rely upon the Minister of Public Building and Works acting under subsection (1) of this clause? The one other case, as I have made clear, is that of the Postmaster General, and perhaps the noble Lord will complete his reply by telling us exactly how the Postmaster General has stood and will now stand.

LORD MITCHISON

I hesitate to intervene in this Front Bench "battle" but I think what was said in Committee in another place might be of assistance to your Lordships. May I be allowed to remind the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, if he has a bound volume of the Committee Proceedings in another place, that he will find it beginning in column 643 on March 26. The Minister, Mr. MacDermot, agreed that at first sight these words "for the public service" looked a little confusing and might appear to be immensely wide. The difficulty arises as soon as we try to put some other phrase in their place. Then he commented on an Amendment which might at first sight have appeared to restrict the powers, because the Amendment was "for the purposes of any of his functions", and he said that if he were feeling very Machiavellian he would accept that Amendment because it would widen the present powers.

The reason is that apparently over a long period of years a precedent has been established that this term "the public service" is construed rather narrowly and is usually taken to mean the administration of the central Government. I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is quite right in supposing that the Minister of Public Building and Works would exercise this power for Departments other than his own.

Again, in column 646, the Minister said: The matter has been looked at again to see whether there is any other wording which would achieve the object better and with more modern phraseology, but I am told that when looking into it the advice was that any attempt to do so would be likely to result in a widening of the power or in our having to itemise a list of detailed purposes which would then require amending legislation on reconstruction of Government Departments, and so on. It is for this reason that the power has not been found to be excessive in relation to the powers of acquisition by agreement. I hope the Committee will feel able to accept my assurance about this". Then he went on to assure the Committee that the provision will continue to be administered in the rather restrictive way in which the term has been used up to date. There was a division on the matter—this was on substantially the same sort of point—and a conclusion was reached in another place, not of course necessarily to be accepted here, but hope that this House, in the passion it has acquired to-day for innovation, will not feel compelled to practise modernity in the form which the Minister had found would result only in widening the actual powers. I agree with noble Lords opposite, if I may say so respectfully and seriously, who said that these powers sound amazingly wide. I am afraid the short answer is that they are not in practice amazingly wide, but if you try to effect the result in language instead of practice, which might still occasionally commend itself to this House, you would only either widen the powers or produce an enormously long list which would have to be changed from time to time. I put this forward hoping to help the House in the matter, really believing there is no mischief here but also that it looks highly mischievous.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I think the noble Lord is very likely right. There may be nothing sinister here but it is extraordinarily difficult to be satisfied that that is so. I was following the noble Lord when he was reading out passages from column 646 of the Committee proceedings in another place, but he stopped just before he came to the sentence which had been puzzling me. Mr. MacDermot, the Minister, said I assure the Committee that the provision … that is, I think, subsection (1)— will continue to be administered in the rather restrictive way in which the term has been used up to date. It certainly would not include powers which other Ministers have for carrying out some service which they are responsible for administering, social services or planning services, whatever it may be. I do not know whether Mr. MacDermot was wrong there; I think he may have been speaking off the cuff and may have made a mistake, and in fact it may be that these Ministers would always, at any rate in future, apply to the Minister of Public Building and Works if it was sought to acquire land compulsorily for the public service. But this is one of the matters I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be able to clear up for us.

11.5 p.m.

LORD KENNET

Let me have a shot. First of all, if I may concentrate for a moment on the Postmaster General, his powers under the Bill—and I will say why they are there in a moment—are to acquire compulsorily any land required for the purposes of the Post Office as defined in Section 87 of the Post Office Act 1953, and that definition is 'The purposes of the Post Office' includes any purpose relating to or in connection with the execution of any duties for the time being undertaken by the Postmaster General or any of his officers. In other words, it is the job he is there for.

If I may retreat for a moment to speak slightly more in general about this whole situation, it arose like this. Under the 1962 Planning Act land could be designated for the purposes of the functions of any Minister and that Minister could himself then acquire that land compulsorily under Section 67. Now we are getting rid of designation and all its works something has to be done. All Ministers except the Minister of Works and the Postmaster General now fall back on their functional powers contained in other legislation—for instance, the Minister of Transport through the Highways Act, and the Minister of Defence through the Land Powers (Defence) Act. The Minister of Works and the Postmaster General do not. Because of the necessity to put a number of Bills together in such a way as to make sense, they figure in the present Bill. The Minister of Works has the powers which I have just outlined, and the Postmaster General also has the powers which I have just outlined.

To revert to the Minister of Works for a moment, what is "the public service"? The public service is primarily Government Departments, the provision of buildings for the work of central Government. That is the public service in this context. The Minister of Works has other functions which are not so assumed under that category of public service—for instance, responsibility for ancient monu- ments. He might wish to acquire a theatre, some place of entertainment, any building on behalf of some Government body, or some Government-subsidised body. This would not be the public service, but it would be a function of the Minister of Works to do so. The Bill gives him compulsory purchase powers only for the public service. It is the provision of offices for Central Government and all its works, and not for the exercise of other functions which may be his. I hope that I have succeeded in throwing some light on what is, I admit, a confused scene, but confused only by the necessity of fitting together separate Acts of Parliament.

LORD AIREDALE

I am thinking of the Ministry of Social Security. They need buildings, do they not, in all large centres of population just as the Post Office do? It is rather curious, is it not, therefore, that the Ministry of Social Security do not figure in Clause 27. This clause seems most odd. No wonder we are uneasy about it

LORD KENNET

I do not think it is at all curious. The Ministry of Social Security require offices. The Minister of Works has a great deal of experience in providing offices: it is perhaps his main job. The Post Office requires a great many other things, such as pylons, aerials, masts and wires and radio stations, and this is a highly specialised service in which the Minister of Works has not had so much experience.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

Whether the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has clarified this to the point of transparency I am not absolutely sure, but I should like to congratulate him on having given a much clearer and more coherent account of what this clause means than anybody managed to extract from the Government during prolonged proceedings in another place.

LORD KENNET

It is earlier in the evening.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

It all happened, I quite agree, as the noble Lord says, earlier in the evening. Having listened to his explanation, I do not myself believe that there is anything sinister here. There still remains a good deal that is mysterious; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, agrees with me in that. But this phrase "necessary for the public service" has tradition behind it, and I appreciate that those who matter understand what it means. I appreciate that the Postmaster General needs to have separate powers, and it has now been made clear to me that the other Ministers who may wish to acquire land compulsorily have various Statutes relevant to their own work on which they can fall back. Consequently, subsection (1) of this clause is much less far-reaching and frightening than it would appear to be to the casual reader.

I should like to go over again in Hansard what has been said, so as to make sure that it really is compre- hensible now. Perhaps at an earlier time of the day it may become more comprehensible. But I do not wish to press the matter further now; indeed, I rather hope that the Government will agree that, with the assistance of the Opposition, they have made good progress with the Bill tonight. We have managed to complete 28 Amendments and 27 clauses by ten past eleven and I think that is good going.

Clause 27 agreed to.

House resumed.

House adjourned at eleven minutes past eleven o'clock.