Lords Sitting of 28 November 1968

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

BAN ON ARMS TO SOUTH AFRICA
3.6 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what their intentions are with regard to the maintenance of the ban on the export of arms to South Africa having regard—

(1) to the importance to Britain of the defence of the Cape shipping route;

(2) to the vital necessity of doing everything possible to help the export drive.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, when Her Majesty's Government considered their policy on the supply of arms to South Africa they took into account all the economic, defence and political issues involved, and the two points detailed in the Question formed part of those considerations.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, may I take it from the Answer that it is not the intention of the Government to give any consideration to the lifting of the ban on the export of arms for the external defence of the Cape shipping route? Is that the position?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware—and I hope he will refresh his memory on the Question and Answer in February—the Government have imposed this embargo following the resolution of the United
1298
Nations. Their position is to-day what it was in February.
THE EARL, OF SELKIRK: My Lords, does the noble Lord not find it useful in maintaining the Beira patrol to use Simonstown?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, Simonstown is a very important naval facility which we very much appreciate—and so too, I believe, does South Africa.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, may I ask whether it is Government policy to refute or refuse all responsibility now for the defence of the Cape route, so far as the Royal Navy is concerned?
LORD SHEPHERD: No, my Lords, we have a responsibility, and certainly the Cape route is of prime importance to us. But our policy in regard to South Africa remains as has been stated in the past.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, reverting to the United Nations resolution, may I ask whether the noble Lord remembers that when that resolution was passed through the United Nations it was made quite clear by Her Majesty's Government that it would not be interpreted as applying to the exports of arms for the external defence of South Africa? Therefore that resolution is no excuse for maintaining this disastrous ban.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lord, the noble Lord has put his point very cleverly in the form of a question. If the noble Lord will look at the United Nations resolution he will see that it calls for an embargo on a whole series of weapons and ammunition; and with this we comply.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, apropos this unrequited benefit from the Cape of Good Hope route, will the noble Lord take note of a lesson to be learned from a couplet in an old soldiers' song which I shall quote? The song is about naughty daughter and the lines are:
"But her poor misguided parents in the village where they live,
Though they drink the wine she sends them, yet they never will forgive."
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord might later give me the reference to that poem. I am sure

1299
that there may be other words that I might usefully quote.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I will sing it to the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may we hope that this decision about the coastal defence of South Africa is not a permanent one? There are two quite different problems here, as I know the noble Lord realises. One is whether the arms could be used within the borders of South Africa and the other is the coastal defence. I appreciate that the United Nations' resolution applied to both; but for all of us here they are two different problems, and I hope they are so for Her Majesty's Government also. Could we have an assurance that the door is not utterly closed over coastal defence?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Marquess has been long enough in politics, and I perhaps sufficiently long, to know that the door is never closed.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government are aware of the feelings of disquiet felt by masters of ships trading to the Far East and the Cape at the future lack of protection in these waters?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I well understand the views of ship masters, particularly in the lightly of comments made by political leaders in this country; but the risks that shipping is likely to face would not, I believe, be eased in any way by a change of our policy.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, can the noble Lords tell me how a guided missile or a frigate can be used to put down a hypothetical African riot?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount will look at the answers that I have given this afternoon and also at the answers that my noble friend Lord Chalfont gave last February. What we are seeking to do is to implement the United Nations' resolution which many other countries have complied with.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask to what extent the French Government have gained from the point of view
1300
of prestige and influence, and economically, in view of the supply of technicians and advisory personnel in Simonstown and the supply of military equipment? What have they gained arising out of the Government's policy?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will be quite honest. I sought to prepare myself for this House's normally wide-ranging supplementary questions but I am afraid that I have not got those facts. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Question I will seek to answer it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord said just now that a great many other countries had complied with the United Nations resolution. Would he not care to add that all those who have complied with it had been those who did not want to send arms to South Africa, anyway; whereas those who did have cut us out?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I refresh the noble Earl's memory? The United States complies with the resolution.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, having made the Simonstown Agreement with Field Marshal Lord Alexander, may I ask the noble Lord what is the total amount that we have lost in orders by carrying out this so-called resolution?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, here again it is difficult to give an assessment. Clearly, the question of arms supplies is one of the most competitive fields of industry and commerce. It must depend very much on what the South Africans wish to be supplied with, those countries who are willing to tender and, in the end, what South Africa herself decides to buy.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the defence of shipping forced to use the Cape route in the event of war?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, here again we have a hypothetical question. Where is there going to be a war around the South African coast that would threaten our shipping? If it were a war on a much larger scale, then it would not be the British or even the South Africans standing alone—at least I hope not—but some security organisation with the United States.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that the United Nations could provide the necessary protection for this?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, may I suggest, as we have another Question following this which is likely to give rise to at least as many supplementary questions, that we might move on to that one? I do not like to come between two ex-Leaders of this House, but we have really had our quota; we have had eight minutes on this Question.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, it is all very well to ride roughshod over us like that, but may I put this supplementary question? Is it not a fact that the South African Government put on record and delivered a list of exactly what were the arms and equipment which they desired to buy from us?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand that there was no specific shopping list. There was a rough indication some many months ago, but since then, and in view of our attitude, we have had no approaches by the South African Government.

NIGERIA: TRANSPORT OF RELIEF SUPPLIES
3.15 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the forthcoming cessation of supplies to Nigeria and Biafra by the Red Cross, due to transport difficulties, they will now make available a suitable number of R.A.F. Andover aircraft to fill the gap.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Churches Committee have been sending supplies into Biafra from Fernando Po and Sao Tome respectively at a rate of 2,000 tons or more a month each. The International Red Cross has not asked us for additional aircraft for the airlift into Biafra. In general I understand that the International Committee
1302
have enough supplies: their need is for funds to finance the heavy cost of transport and distribution, and this was one reason why we wished to see the opening of land corridors of mercy, which would be a more efficient and a cheaper way of getting supplies into the rebel area. But, my Lords, as you know, Colonel Ojukwu has consistently refused this method of relief supplies.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Would not one method of financing the transport of the supplies, which is apparently presenting a difficulty to the mercy organisations, be the supply by Her Majesty's Government of the aircraft mentioned in the Question?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, even if you use Service aircraft there is still a cost account in it and this clearly has to be borne in mind.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I accept that point, but may I ask whether it is not the case that the cost to Her Majesty's Government of supplying Andover aircraft is largely made up of fixed costs which the Government have to meet anyway? Can they not therefore merely contribute the variable costs, or ask for a contribution to the variable costs only from these mercy organisations?
LORD SHEPHERD: No, my Lords; I would not accept that. Clearly, Service aircraft have a standing cost, but there are also the running charges if the aircraft are being used. The essence of this problem in Biafra is opening these land corridors so that vehicles can be used efficiently and cheaply. I think it must be a matter of concern to all those who are most willingly giving contributions to the relief organisation that so much is being spent in the cost of operation by air and perhaps relatively so little in terms of food.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what is going to happen in two or three weeks' time when the relief organisations tell us that they can no longer afford any more transport?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as my noble friend knows—or at least I hope she knows—a big campaign has been launched by the National Disasters Emergency Committee in this country and

1303
other organisations throughout the world, to raise money to help the International Committee, and the British Government, with other Governments, are being approached by that body. We shall be giving very careful and very sympathetic attention to that appeal when it arrives.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in other countries it is often the usual practice for the Government to help the Red Cross in this way by providing transport?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I was answering a question on grounds of cost. I have not said that the British Government would not supply Service aircraft if both sides agreed to it and the circumstances were acceptable to us. This always has been our policy. It is not a rejection of the use of Service aircraft; it is the circumstances which now exist, and these we have to take into account.

FUTURE BUSINESS: ECONOMIC DEBATE
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Winterbottom will be repeating a Statement on the Territoral Army Volunteer Reserve.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms, whether he is in a position to make a statement to the House about contemplated arrangements for an economic debate in the near future?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. As he and the House will know, there is a Bill now before the other place, the Customs (Imports Deposits) Bill, which will come before your Lordships' House. On the assumption that we receive this Bill by next Thursday, December 5, I hope, with arrangements through the usual channels, that it will be possible to take the Bill, a Supply Bill, through all stages on that day. In that case I hope that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if we have a full economic debate on the Second Reading of this Bill.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer. Those arrangements will be readily accepted by this side of the House.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): 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 Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Preparation of structure plans]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether I may raise some points on this clause, which is one of the major clauses of the Bill. The general idea of a structure plan was outlined in the White Paper on Town and Country Planning which was presented in June, 1967. The passage on development plans begins, in paragraph 15, with these words:
"The present development plans are failing to meet current needs. Part of the trouble is that the areas they cover are too small; the plan-making process is based upon local government boundaries which divide areas with competing and complementary needs and resources and, indeed, create planning problems by artificially separating town from country at the point where pressure for change is greatest."
Under the Bill, the planning authorities remain the counties and large burghs, and this gives rise to several questions. First of all, it makes it difficult for us to discuss this clause without reference to what is likely to happen in the future, because obviously the clause is drafted with a view to the presentation of structure plans in the future. The clause begins:
"The local planning authority shall, within such period from the commencement of this section within their district as the Secretary of State may direct, prepare and send the Secretary of State a report of their survey under section 1 …"
That implies that the Secretary of State may prescribe different times for different

1305
districts. It would be useful to know what the noble Lord thinks will be the time schedule in regard to the preparation of structure plans under the new dispensation.
Secondly, it seems fairly clear that the clause looks forward to new arrangements which are likely to be proposed by the Royal Commission. I think that one can safely deduce from the White Paper that the local planning authorities in future are likely to be larger than they have been in the past and also that the distinction between landward areas and large burghs might to a considerable extent be removed. I do not think that one can read Clause 2 in any other way. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to confirm that this is what we are likely to have.
Even if in certain cases the Royal Commission were not to recommend larger areas, it would be possible for the Secretary of State—and it is his intention—to bring together local planning authorities into groups. If that is so, we can turn to the discussion of what is meant by regions. Subsection (3) of the clause says:

The structure plan for any district shall be a written statement—

(a) formulating the local planning authority's policy and general proposals in respect of the development and other use of land in that district …

(b) stating the relationship of those proposals to general proposals for the development and other use of land in neighbouring districts which may be expected to affect that district; and

And, in the following subsection, it is stated that the plan
"…shall have regard—
(a) to current policies with respect to the economic planning and development of the region as a whole; …"
I do not think that there has been any legal definition of the word "region", and so far as I can see there is no definition of the word in this Bill. Of course, we have had the Scottish White Paper and regional studies of various kinds, of the North-East, the Borders, Tayside, the Lothians and the Moray Firth, some of which have already been published, but it is still difficult to see exactly what is meant by
"… current policies with respect to the economic planning and development of the region as a whole."
1306
What is to be the status of these regional surveys? Have the structure plans to conform to these surveys? Are they to be approved in any particular form by the Secretary of State? Are there to be any opportunities of making observations on them and appealing against certain provisions in them? Are they to be fully debated in Parliament? We want to see exactly what the local planning authorities are being asked to have regard to here and how they are to prepare their structure plans.
Then, with regard to co-ordinating with other regions, I think we get into a rather curious situation. I wonder what is meant by "general proposals". If they are the proposals in the structure plan, where do we start? If region A has to have regard to the general proposals in the structure plan of region B, then plainly region B's plan must come out first; but region B in turn has to have regard to the general proposals in region A's plan. I hope that this point has been fully thought out. I am sure that it has, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us about it. It is important that we should know exactly what are the general proposals in question, who formulated them, where they emanate from, how they were discussed and arrived at anti what degree of consultation and co-operation is to be expected between local planning authorities in arriving at their structure plans. Is it intended, for example, that there should be regional consultations presided over by the Secretary of State for Scotland? How are we going to start on all this? I hope the noble Lord will be able to give us some idea.
One would like to know whether general proposals are going to be in fact general—for example, such proposals as the transportation studies which have been done for Greater Edinburgh and Greater Glasgow, the population study for Grangemouth and Falkirk or the planning that is going on towards (as they always say) West Central Scotland urban development. One fully understands that all these things are going on, but it is difficult to see how they are going to be crystallised or how they can provide adequate guidance to the local planning authorities in the preparation of their structure plans. I thought it right to raise this matter because unless we

1307
can get in mind the way in which plans are to be formed and worked out, and the point at which they should start, I do not think the idea of the structure plan will be of much use, and it will not be much of an improvement on what we have already.
3.30 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, it is generally admitted that the existing districts of local authorities which are within the boundaries of counties of cities and large burghs are in many cases inappropriate for the purposes of good planning. But we have already, to a certain extent, got over some of the worst of these difficulties, because the local planning authorities themselves recognise the defects of the system under which they have had to work. They have therefore sought to eliminate some of these difficulties by getting together of their own free will. We have recently had examples of the growing extent to which this is taking place, for instance, in West Central Scotland. The counties of Ayr, Lanark, Renfrew and Dunbarton have all got together with the burghs within the county boundary to work out common arrangements, not all on the same purpose but on things where they have a common planning interest or where their interests impinge on each other's. That is working very well. No-one can compel them to do this, and no-one has had to compel them. Forces of circumstance made them realise that they all had something to gain from doing this sort of thing.
We are now approaching the point where there is a possibility of such a working party from two counties. I do not wish to be pressed to name them, because while we are hopeful that it will be set up, perhaps the one way of ensuring that it will not is if it is thought that pressure is being put upon them to do it. The new planning machinery can help to make this co-operation more effective and make it more likely that more authorities will see right away the advantages to themselves of this voluntary co-operation. I should at this point emphasise the fact that the regional plans which would emerge from this co-operation are non-statutory. The only statutory plan is the structure plan. In the
1308
same way, the use of the word "region", to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred, has no legal definition in the Bill. I do not want to predict whether "region will have any statutory definition in the future as a result of anything that may come out of the Wheatley Commission, but at the moment "a region" means merely the territory of a number of authorities. The new system will be brought into force gradually area by area—and again "area" has not any specific meaning—and will not be applied in advance of local government reorganisation in any areas where the Secretary of State does not regard the circumstances as ripe for it. But the provisions of the Bill will be applicable and appropriate to the reorganised forms of local government, whatever shape they may take in detail. There is no reason to foresee any need for major new planning legislation when local government reorganisation takes place.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, spoke also about the general plans of local planning authorities, and foresaw the difficulty that, with planning authority A looking to its structure plan, and planning authority B looking to its structure plan, one appeared to be in vicious circle, as each of them had to start first in order for the other to get anywhere, and that made it impossible for the one who started to get anywhere. It will not work in that way. What is envisaged is that authorities will have an idea of what they want to do, but it must be obvious to them, before setting it down in detail, that it cannot be worked satisfactorily in isolation from their neighbours. Having a general idea of where they are going, they should first of all have discussions in general terms with their neighbours so that it is more likely that the structure plan which each will in due course evolve is likely to fit in to the maximum extent with those which their neighbours will bring forward, with the result that we shall have good overall planning over the whole area. Therefore we use the word "general" simply from the point of view that the sooner people get together to start discussing in detail what they are going to do, the more likely it is that they will not waste time on details which will be a source of argument, rather than a source of agreement, among themselves.

1309
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who, with his usual courtesy, gave me notice that he intended to put these questions to me. I say that partly in case your Lordships may think I have rather unusually got all the details of this subject at my fingertips. I have them to the extent to which I had notice from the noble Lord, and I may say that his having done this has enabled me to put my reply in a more concise form than I should have done if I had had to waffle about a bit.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for what he has said. For my part, I would say that the conception of this kind of prestructure co-operation between local authorities is highly desirable. I take it that this can work across the boundaries of any regions that may exist. It will be a question not only of getting local plannning authorities together within a region, but it can cross the boundaries, as well. This is all to the good.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Publicity in connection with preparation of structure plan]:
3.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 17, leave out ("in their opinion").
The noble Earl said: Clause 3 deals with publicity in connection with the preparation of structure plans. Subsection (1) says that a local authority are required to take such steps as will in their opinion secure adequate publicity. My Amendment proposes to leave out the words "in their opinion". The noble Lord may reply that the local authority are not likely to take such steps as will, in their opinion, not secure adequate publicity, or as will, contrary to their opinion, secure adequate publicity, but I think it goes a little further than that. Suppose that other people think the local authority are mistaken—they are not infallible, and they can only do what they think in their opinion is right—and want to appeal to a tribunal or to the Secretary of State against the steps which the local authority are taking, then as the clause stands the tribunal may be obliged to rule that since the local authority had
1310
taken steps which in their opinion were right, therefore, they had fulfilled their function; whereas if the words "in their opinion" are left out and the objector can prove that the local authority are mistaken, the tribunal will be in a position to give a contrary decision. That is really the whole point of this Amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will consider it favourably.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to support this Amendment because too frequently we read in Acts similar words to "in their opinion"; for example, "with reasonableness". All such phrases and words tend to allow the Executive—in this case, the local authority—a very convenient route of escape if they make a mistake. I submit that we have far too much of this language in our modern law now. The phrase "in their opinion" is a very wide term. It is an absolute Godsend, of course, to barristers, to people such as my noble friend in front of me, who practise the law. I support most strongly this Amendment to leave out the words "in their opinion".
LORD HUGHES: I dislike to disillusion the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, in thinking that the Government are on the side of the barristers and that he is against them, but, in fact, if we accepted the Amendment it would indeed be a Godsend, not to barristers but perhaps to advocates, because it would mean that right up to the very last minute decisions of a local authority might be open to challenge in the courts simply because the omission of these words would leave the question open to be determined on the opinion of anybody. Only the courts could then decide whether or not the matter had been acted upon properly.
The next Amendment, to Clause 7, is of course inherently in the same category. Both of these clauses impose obligations on the local planning authority with respect to publicity and participation in the preparatory stages in the formulation of structure and local plans respectively. Those obligations require the authority to take steps which will in their opinion secure the obligations set out in the clauses. The effect of the Amendment would be to delete the words "in their opinion" and leave an unqualified obligation to undertake the

1311
required general action, which would inevitably be different in different areas and which could be tested only in the courts. That would be undesirable. The limits within which the local authority can act are subject to what the Secretary of State may lay down in regulations. But, subject to broad considerations (such as the period during which any notices must be displayed and the opportunity of inspecting documents), the local planning authority are the most competent judges of what publicity will produce adequate results.
Moreover, under Clause 3(3) and Clause 7(3) the actions of the local planning authority have to be reported to the Secretary of State, who has the power to withhold consideration of the structure plan and return it to the planning authority with directions to take further steps, or to direct the authority not to take any further steps for the adoption of a local plan, without taking further specified action. It is highly undesirable that plans should be at the risk of invalidation at the last moment as a result of challenge in the courts on the ground that publicity given to things proposed to be put in the plan was not adequate. If there are inadequacies in publicity they should be corrected at a much earlier stage—at any rate before the formal public inquiry is held.
The essential point here is that, as the Bill stands, the local planning authority will not be the final arbiter as to what steps are adequate. The words "in their opinion" do not in any way prevent the Secretary of State from imposing firm obligations by way of regulations under Clause 13(1)(b); and in addition general advice, based on the Report of the Skeffington Committee on Public Participation in Planning. The combination of regulations, general guidance and the Secretary of State's powers under Clauses 3(4) and 7(4) should ensure that full effect is given to the intention that there shall be adequate publicity and participation.
I hope that, by drawing attention to these other parts of the Bill, I have assured the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that the Government fully accept the point which he makes, that the local authority will not just ride roughshod over what is reasonable and that there
1312
are sufficient safeguards to make it quite certain that what he seeks to do by eliminating these words will be carried out in a way which does not run the risk that the matter might be left in the melting pot with the possibility of court action right up to the last possible moment. For these reasons, I cannot accept the Amendment, but I hope that I have satisfied the noble Earl that I am in agreement with him in principle.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful for that explanation. I am glad to hear the noble Lord say that the local authority would not be the final arbiter. Could he tell us this? He said that if there are inadequacies in the steps which are taken they should be dealt with at a much earlier stage. What would be this earlier stage? Who would be consulted and who would be likely to protest against the steps which were being taken?
LORD HUGHES: Objections might arise either locally, from people who are interested, or from the Scottish Development Department, who, through being aware of what was being done, might advise the local authority," We do not think you are doing enough in this direction. You should do this, that, or the next thing".
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the trouble he has taken to meet the points which I have raised. I think that in the circumstances your Lordships will wish me to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
3.47 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask the noble Lord a question of which I have given him previous notice? The same point arises also on Clause 7. Clause 3(2) provides:
"the local planning authority shall make copies of the plan … available for inspection at their office and at such other places as may be prescribed; and each copy shall be accompanied by a statement of the time within which objections to the plan may be made to the Secretary of State".
I seem to remember that it has generally been the practice in legislating about main plans to lay a duty upon the local authority to publish the fact that the plans are available. They are required

1313
to give notice and to "publish in one or more journals circulating within the area" (I think those are the words usually used) the fact that the plans are available, and saying where they can be inspected. I am well aware that local authorities generally may be expected to do this without being told to do so, but it is curious that a practice which seems to have gone on for quite a long time is being dropped. I should have thought it was a desirable thing for the public, especially if there is to be a time limit within which objections may be made, that as soon as the copies are made available this should be made known publicly and published in the papers. I quite understand that there is likely to be comment upon the plan in local papers, and they at any rate will be notified right away. But the time element may be important here, so the sooner the public know that the plans are available for inspection, the better. I wonder whether the noble Lord can enlighten me on this point.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said that he has already given notice that he wanted to raise this point. This is a very reasonable thing to do because the matter is being raised, not for the purpose of embarrassing Her Majesty's Government or myself, but in order to obtain information. As a result of his giving notice, I hope I shall be able to give the noble Lord all the information he seeks.
It is correct that the requirements as to publicity for planning proposals under the new Bill will be much greater in scope than the present requirements, which already include an obligation to advertise the availability of plans for inspection. The reason for not expressing this requirement in Statute is that it is only a part—and under what we hope will take place not necessarily by any means the most important part—of the whole scheme of arrangements for fostering and facilitating public participation in the planning process at its formative stages which the Government intend to make in the light of, among other things, the recommendations of the Skeffington Committee. To set down in the Bill one particular obligation of this kind would be to give a disproportionate prominence to it, perhaps at the expense of other arrangements. The
1314
noble Lord will appreciate that this is being put in slightly more lay terms than the usual ones of "without prejudice to the generality', and so on.
The Bill sets out the general requirements which can and will in due course be filled out, partly no doubt by regulations and partly in the form of administrative guidance. Clauses 3 and 7, for example, require the planning authority among other things to publicise their planning survey, to secure that persons who may desire to make representations know that they are entitled to do so and are given an adequate opportunity to do so; to make copies of their plans available for inspection and, above all, to satisfy the Secretary of State that they have performed the foregoing duties satisfactorily. If the Secretary of State is not so satisfied he can return a structure plan or direct that no further steps should be taken with a local plan, adding specific instructions on what more they have to do in the way of publicity. This in itself would practically ensure that the deposit of plans for inspection would have to be publicised. In addition, however, the Secretary of State has power under Clause 13(1) to make regulations providing for publicity or notice to be given about a wide variety of matters, including proposals to include matters in plans and procedural steps. These powers would extend to requiring notice to be given of the availability of plans for inspection.
An assurance can therefore be given—and I readily give it—that there is ample provision in the Bill for ensuring that the public are made aware of their right to inspect plans at appropriate stages in the planning process, as well as their rights in other respects to participate actively in the formation of plans. It may well be that in the early stages of the new procedure the Secretary of State may have to send back structure plans, or he may have to say, "Do not proceed any further with a local plan", because the local authorities are not in fact publicising it as widely as he would want. I would not expect that any local authority accustomed to having to advertise in two or more papers would suddenly stop doing it, but it may well be that some of them do not give much thought beyond that, and we would not want that. But I am quite satisfied that

1315
after a fairly short period of time all planning authorities will know the extent to which they have to go beyond what they have done hitherto in order to accomplish the wide degree of local knowledge and participation which we are now seeking to bring into planning procedures.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation, but I would again lay stress on the fact that the time factor may be important because of the time within which objections to the plan have to be laid down. It is important that everybody should know at the earliest possible moment when the plan is laid, and it is from the date when publicity is given to the laying of the plan that the time for making objections should run. I hope the noble Lord will look at this point again. I quite understand what he has said, but the mere fact that there has been previous consultation and that people know much more about what is likely to be in the plans does not obviate the necessity to let people know when the plan is laid so as to give them the longest possible period of time in which to make objections.
LORD HUGHES: I shall certainly be happy to look at this particular aspect of the time factor and perhaps it would be appropriate for me to send a note on the subject to the noble Lord.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Publicity for preparation of local plans]:
3.56 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 8, line 30, after ("time") insert ("(being not less than two months)")
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the time within which objections to a local plan may be made should not be less than two months from the time when copies of the local plan are first made available for inspection. It is obvious that adequate time has to be given for individuals to consult their legal advisers,
1316
for local groups to consult together and for objections to be lodged. In the case of a local authority's plan for a substantial part of a district I do not think two months is excessive and I hope that the Government will accept at least the principle of the Amendment.
There is a difficulty which I readily recognise, which is that Clause 10 applies the same procedure to alterations to a local plan as to the plan itself where such alterations are made on the initiative of the local planning authority or at the instance of the Secretary of State. Where the alterations involve the replacement of the entire plan, much the same time for objections will be required, I should have thought, as for objections to the plan when it was first made. I am not sure whether two months would be necessary in the case of comparatively minor alterations, although one has to remember that they can upset the lives and interests of people very much indeed—particular people, admittedly, but nevertheless people—and on the whole I feel that two months should be the minimum, unless the noble Lord can convince me to the contrary.
Even if the noble Lord can so convince me, I suggest that in the case of minor amendments the right course would be not to leave the time for objections entirely to the discretion of the local planning authority, as seems to be the case at present, but to provide in the Bill for the Secretary of State to allow a shorter period than two months in appropriate cases of alterations to a plan.
I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it is wise to lay down a minimum time for objections, if only because the shorter the time which is allowed for objections the more objections there are likely to be. If the time is too short persons affected by the plan are likely to object first and to think later, and I suggest that it is desirable to lay down a minimum time in order to enable them to consider whether their interests are affected. In that way I believe there will be fewer objections. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: I am in agreement with much of what the noble Lord has said. My only objection to the Amendment is that it would impose a rigidity which the noble Lord himself was fair enough to recognise could be undesirable

1317
in some circumstances. Local plans will be of many different kinds. Some indeed may well approximate to the full scale of an existing development plan; for example, setting out proposals for land use throughout the whole of the district of the local planning authority in complete detail. Some will cover only part of the district, and some will concern themselves only with perhaps a single aspect of the planning. There are circumstances where obviously two months would not be too long a period for the more elaborate case, though I would point out at the present time the period is six weeks in all cases and this has not given rise to any complaint other than the fact that things take too long.
One of the difficulties about these procedures is that when we attempt to fix a period it must inevitably be fixed at the longest time so that no one is open to injustice. The result is that you have a dreadful waste of time in many cases. I have been looking time and time again at the procedures in connection with getting new road works under operation, and one of the annoying things is that the statutory procedures take longer than it takes the contractor to do the actual job. In some cases this arises because of the need to protect people's rights by prescribing periods and then these arc multiplied perhaps two or three times in the course of the Bill concerned. Sometimes every minute is necessary if the thing is hotly contested, but there are other cases where it is nothing other than a sheer waste of time and people are sitting doing nothing just waiting for the expiry of the period laid down.
In this case we do not think that it is necessary to have rigidity of this kind because we have the safeguards elsewhere in the Bill. The object first of all must be to give objectors or people wishing to make representations—not necessarily the same thing as objections—a sufficient opportunity for making those representations. Clause 7(1)(b) already requires the local planning authorities to take steps to secure that
"persons who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations"
are made aware that they are entitled to an opportunity of doing so and are given adequate time in which to do it. But Clause 7(4) empowers the Secretary of State to direct the planning authority
1318
not to take any further steps for the adoption of the plan if he is not satisfied that the appropriate steps have been taken under Clause 7(1).
I want to make it quite clear that in the exercise of his powers under Clause 7(4) one of the things which the Secretary of State will look at is the time which has been allowed for objections to be made in the particular case. If the local authority have in fact allowed two weeks and the Secretary of State thinks that this is merely going to make more trouble than would be the case if a more reasonable period of, say, six weeks were allowed, then he will so tell the local authority. We therefore hope that as a result of Clause 7(1) and 7(4) we shall have four weeks, six weeks, eight weeks, or in some exceptional cases even longer if this should prove to he desirable.
We hope, therefore, by means of this flexibility to safeguard the rights of any individual, and I can assure the noble Lord that if we are going to err in the Scottish Development Department in this direction we will always err on the side of giving too much time rather than too little. But we are able to safeguard the position. We must not waste time by specifying a standard lengthy period when it is obviously net necessary. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will accept that Clause 7(4) combined with Clause 7(1) gives the Secretary of State an opportunity of arriving at the same conclusion its he would wish, to give full time lo people to pursue their interests without necessarily applying it in all cases where, as he himself so generously said in his remarks, it is unnecessary. I therefore invite him to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, but what worries me a little is that he seems to be confusing subsections (1) and (2). Subsection (I) talks about what a local planning authority are to do when they propose to prepare a local plan and the publicity they have to give at that stage. Of course, it is a very good idea that they should have this publicity given to their intentions and that opportunities should be giver for representations to be made at that stage. But my Amendment has nothing to do with that at all. My Amendment deals with the stage when the local authority have prepared the local plan under subsection (2). This is related to the time

1319
within which objections may be made to the authority and, if necessary, an appeal to the Secretary of State. This is the important period, as I understand it.
I think it might be desirable for the noble Lord to look at this matter again to see whether, especially in regard to larger plans and the more important plans, a longer period may be desirable. But, of course, the period within which an appeal has to be made cannot easily he prejudged by the local authority themselves because they cannot know the individual circumstances of the people. The plan may be published just at the moment when somebody is going on a business trip for a couple of months to promote exports or something of that kind. A fairly generous latitude of time is required, simply because the local authority cannot know what the individual needs of the public are. It seems to me that the practice that has been adopted in the past of specifying the period within which this has to be done is preferable to leaving it entirely open to the discretion of the local authority, subject, as the noble Lord says, to what the Secretary of State has to say. It scams to me that a period of time within which objections to the local plan should he made should be well known, otherwise mistakes will be made in different cases. I think that uniformity in this matter is a good thing, otherwise you will have trip-ups. I commend this to the noble Lord and hope that he will look at it.
LORD HUGHES: While the noble Lord was speaking I have read Clause 7(1) and (2) and I remain satisfied that the wording of subsection (4) will give adequate protection to a person who wishes to make representations or wishes to object. It would be wrong for me to refuse to look at the matter again, although I am quite convinced that if I deal with this matter again, either in correspondence or at a further stage, the point of view I express will be exactly the same. The powers in Clause 7(4) have been designed to make certain that we can give the maximum publicity and yet enable the Secretary of State to intervene, certainly in the earlier stages, simply because the local authorities are not going as far as the Secretary of State
1320
would like in making it possible for people to participate—and "participate" must of course include adequate time for them to object if they think their interests are being adversely affected. If we go back to this business of setting statutory limits, we shall not in fact be getting the maximum benefit for everybody concerned from this more flexible concept of planning legislation that we are seeking to bring about. It is obviously right that everybody should have adequate time in which to protect his own interests, and I submit that this provision makes it possible for anybody to be given that adequate time without tying it in every case to the maximum, which would be desirable only in some of the cases.
In these circumstances, I ask the noble Lord not to press this Amendment. Certainly I will look at it. I will read carefully in the Report of to-day's proceedings what the noble Lord has said, and if there is anything further that I can say to assure him or convince him, then again I will do so by letter so that if he remains unconvinced he can come back with the matter at a subsequent stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I certainly do not intend to ask my noble friends to join me in pressing this Amendment today. But I think that when the noble Lord comes to look at it again he will find that he is a little off the mark, and that subsection (4) relates entirely to subsection (1), the preparation of the plan to be submitted to the Secretary of State, and has nothing whatsoever to do with subsection (2), which is the publication of the plan to the public at large, as well as sending a copy to the Secretary of State, who then has to see whether sufficient publicity has been given before the plan has been prepared. It is nothing to do with the time elapsing afterwards. However, if the noble Lord will have another look at this point perhaps we can return to it later. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I have not given notice to the noble Lord the Minister that I intended to raise a particular point here. The reason for that is

1321
that I felt the answer would be so simple, so far as he was concerned, that there was no need to do so. But I would ask the noble Lord why the provisions in respect of the publicity for preparation of local plans, inquiries with respect to local plans, the adaption and approval of local plans and the alteration of local plans should be different from those which are laid down and to apply to structure plans, as is set forth in Clauses 3, 4 and 5. It seems to me that to the individual citizen the local plan may be of more importance than the structure plan, and therefore the measures to protect the rights of the individual should be no less stringent than those which apply to the structure plan.
I do not know that they are less stringent. From my reading of Clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10 they appear to have equal effect, though arrived at by a somewhat different route. But if I am correct, I would ask again, why should not the same procedures apply to each of these two types of plan? Why should not Clause 7 merely state that the provisions of Clauses 3, 4 and 5 in respect of publicity, approval and alterations of the structure plan apply equally to local plans? Certainly it would make for a greater amount of simplicity, and it would have prevented my spending a considerable amount of time in reading these clauses.
But my chief anxiety is that in both cases there should be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, and that in fact he should be the final arbiter. That seems to me to he provided for without doubt with regard to the structure plans. I believe it also applies to the local plans, but I would ask the noble Lord whether he can definitely assure me that that is the case. I have doubts cast upon it merely by the wording of Clause 9(4)(b). It may be irrelevant, but it seems to me to have some relevance to the question I am asking.
LORD HUGHES: I believe the House is awaiting a Statement. If we could now resume the House that would give me a little time to look at Clause 9(4)(b).
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): I think I must put the Question because I have put it once already and I should collect the voices.
Clause 7 agreed to.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: In order that we may hear the Statement by my noble friend Lord Winterbottom I beg to move that this House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, House resumed.

ARMY RESERVES
4.15 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, with permission of the House, I will now repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence for Administration. It is as follows:
"The Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy of last July explained that we were reviewing the Army Reserves. The review has been virtually completed and I can now inform the House of our main conclusion.
"There will be a relatively small increase of some 2,000 in the establishment of TAVR II, mainly for logistic support in our increased NATO contribution.
"We have decided to cease recruiting 'Ever-Readies'—the Special Army Volunteer Reserve. The 'Ever-Readies' were not well recruited and in any case we consider that the tasks for which they were designed can now be better carried out by Regulars.
"I shall at a later date be making a Statement about the future of the Army General Reserve. This is a pool of about 170,000 National Servicemen, of whom some 15,000 are currently required on mobilisation. We plan to meet this requirement from other sources as soon as we possibly can. The Regular Reserve will be growing in size over the next few years and this will help, but we shall also have to place greater reliance on the Volunteer Reserve. To this end we are increasing the establishment of individual volunteers in TAVR II by a further 3,000.
"The disbandment of TAVR III (the Territorials) was announced on January 16 this year as part of the process of putting Civil Defence on to

1323
a care and maintenance basis. One of the objects of our review was to employ the assets of TAVR III to make good the manning shortfall in TAVR II. We intend to give every encouragement to Territorials to join the TAVR II, and we hope that many of them will do so.
"But the influx of Territorials we hope for will be a one-time bonus. We have decided that two permanent changes are necessary.
"First, we intend to draw on the recruiting potential of a much wider area by transferring about 100 of the training centres of the Territorials to TAVR II.
"Secondly, experience has shown that the amount of full-time training currently required of members of TAVR II with its extensive demands on the spare time of the volunteer has a discouraging effect on the retention of trained men. We have decided to allow a limited number of trained men to undertake, with the agreement of their commanding officers, a rather less onerous training obligation. By thus improving the state of manning, we aim to improve the overall efficiency of Volunteer units.
"Finally, we intend to establish up to 100 cadres, each of about 8 officers. N.C.O.s and men, and each attached to a unit of TAVR II.
"These cadres will take some of the peace-time administrative work off the shoulders of the Officers and N.C.O.s of the TAVR II units, who will thereby be enabled to concentrate more on their military training. They will act as rear parties for those units on mobilisation. In addition, they will provide nuclei around which units could be formed when minor changes are made in the TAVR II order of battle; or if circumstances were to necessitate a sudden expansion of Reserves; or if circumstances after mobilisation were to necessitate the formation into units, to meet a military requirement, of Regular Reservists not needed for the Regular Army.
"We expect that most, if not all, of the regimental titles of the former
1324
TAVR III units will be preserved by conferring these on the cadres.
"We are thus bringing the order of battle of the Volunteer Reserves up to date on a simplified organisational structure; we are taking steps to make the best use of the assets of TAVR III, and to bring about improvement in the recruiting of TAVR II.
"My last word is to the Territorials. I would like to thank them for the service they have given in TAVR III. I would like to express our appreciation of their patience during the past year of uncertainty. Finally, I would like to say how much we hope that they will seek to transfer to the Volunteers."
My Lords, that is the end of my right honourable friend's Statement.
4.21 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us this Statement. Noble Lords on all sides of the House are aware that we on these Benches have given the pledge to recreate some form of Territorial Army because we felt, and we still feel, that home defence is of the utmost importance. With the great reduction in Regular forces a well-trained Reserve capable of expansion is essential, and anything that is proposed to improve the present position is welcomed. The announcement in January to disband the TAVR III shocked us, and I should like to pay a great tribute to the personnel of TAVR III who are now going to disappear as such. I was most impressed, and many of us were, at their devotion during the summer in going to camp without pay or allowance or transport, but going at their own expense. We alone among the NATO countries appear to consider that home defence is of no importance, and if this Statement and the plans of the Government go against this dangerous attitude of the past we shall welcome it.
We note from the Statement that there is to be only a relatively small increase in TAVR II at the expense of the "Ever-Readies", and again I should like to pay a tribute to the "Ever-Readies" who are now to disappear. We shall look at the details of this proposal. We support the Government in giving all encouragement to personnel to join

1325
TAVR II. They have done a spendid job, at the expense of great demands on their time and sacrificing holidays with their families, and really their first year has been most successful. The Statement does not forecast any more units, but only a few more individuals. I do not know whether your Lordships noticed that the final communiqué at the Ministerial session of the NATO Council on November 15 said that the quality of reserve forces will also be improved and their ability to mobilise rapidly will be increased. There is not much in this Statement that encourages us to think that this has been taken to heart, and I would ask the Minister whether this plan is intended in any way to meet the sentiments expressed in this NATO communiqué. We certainly hope that it does.
As regards the less onerous training for some of the personnel in TAVR II, we agree with that. It is impossible for many of our excellent and highly-trained men to give up all the time required, and it is quite possible, I am sure, to carry in units a certain number who do not undertake such big commitments. We think that the proposals for the 100 cadres is certainly a step in the right direction and we welcome it, but we must look into it to see whether 100 cadres of a few men is really going to be capable of forming units quickly in time of mobilisation. This is doubtful, and we should like to hear more about it in due course. I should like to ask the Minister if he can tell me whether the personnel in these 100 cadres—I think it was six to eight officers, N.C.O.s and men—are to be Regulars or Territorials? We shall want to know the full details of this plan which, I understand, are still being worked out. Indeed, I have a message from my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk regretting that he could not be in his place to hear the Statement to-day because he is in the Ministry of Defence discussing these matters.
We shall give full support if these proposals will bring about a proper home defence force and a well-trained Reserve capable of expansion. At first sight we are not sure that this Statement will go far enough, particularly in the light of recent events in Czechoslovakia and in the Mediterranean. We shall ask to have, after the Christmas Recess—because time is short now—a full debate to consider
1326
the whole problem of recruiting and reservists in all three Services. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Statement.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to endorse the expression of thanks to the Territorials for the services which they have rendered to the nation, and particularly for the patience which they have displayed in recent months. We propose to withhold comment on the merits of the detailed proposals until we have had more time to consider them, particularly in relation to the needs of the Army General Reserve as a whole. I would only ask the Minister at this moment when he thinks we shall get the Statement on the Army General Reserve which is promised in the Statement which he has just repeated, and for which I thank him.
4.27 p.m.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, I should like to offer one or two observations on the Statement which has been made by my noble friend Lord Winterbottom, and to ask him three questions. Admittedly the Statement and the further detailed working out will require a lot of study. So far it appears to me to be an ingenious shuffle and a funeral service of the Territorials.
The three questions I should like to ask are these. First, was any consideration given by the Government to the role of the Reserve Army, including the Volunteers and Territorials, or is the role still quite undefined? At one time it was moved over from the Ministry of Defence to the Home Office, under the Civil Defence role. That was more or less eliminated, and I made a plea at the time that the Territorial Army should resume its former role, its primary role, of home defence. I received no a answer, so I ask the question again: have the Territorial Army or the Volunteers a role in home defence?
The second question is this. A great emphasis is now being placed by the Government on the Volunteers, TAVR II; and TAVR III, the Territorials, are more or less being eliminated. Am I right in saying that the units and the individuals in TAVR II are merely to fill or to plug holes in the Regular Army, the Regular forces, and that there is no disposable Reserve? Every Commander who goes into battle, every war leader who goes into war,

1327
requires a Reserve, and he may well require that Reserve right at the beginning. Is there any disposable Reserve force other than these units to plug holes in the Regular forces? My third question is this: has consideration been given to the damage to the volunteer spirit on which this country has been built up and on which it now relies to a very large extent? The Territorials for many of us epitomise the best form of the volunteer spirit—the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has just referred to many units who went to camp at their own expense this year. You could not have a finer body of men. Has consideration been given to the great damage to the volunteer movement, the volunteer spirit, in this country?
4.30 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, in saying that this alteration does not go very far. I also agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that this is an ingenious shuffle. It comes down to virtually one form of Reserve force: what is at present called TAVR II. Surely in these circumstances the Government should consider reverting to the old name of the Reserve forces—that is to say, "the Territorials" simpliciter—either Territorial Army or Territorial Force, as it was when formed by the Administration in 1906, when Lord Haldane was Secretary of State for War. It was the greatest pity that when the changes took place two or three years ago this extraordinary mix-up over names was made to apply to the Reserve forces of the Crown. One simple word could have been used, and I therefore beseech the Government to take this opportunity of returning to the single word "Territorials", dropping altogether the "Volunteer".
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, confirm that this plan which he has deployed has the full support of the Chiefs of Staff, without any reservations?
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that this is a disastrous and dangerous policy for this country, especially in face of the troubled situation in the world to-day and the necessity to strengthen our forces having regard to our Continental commitments?
1328
In view of these factors, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government will ensure that the Territorial drill halls are preserved, so that some future and wiser Government will be able to restore the Territorial Army to its old form?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I make a brief comment, within the general framework of what I have said on many occasions in your Lordships' House? I very much regretted the wholesale reductions in the size of the Territorial Army which the Government found to be necessary a couple of years ago. Nevertheless, at first glance—and of course one can only form a snap opinion at the moment—it looks to me as if TAVR II will become a much more efficient organisation than it has been up to now, that its numbers will be increased, and that it will be a more effective form of Army Reserve than perhaps has been the case so far. For this reason, coupled with the fact that there has been a general improvement in the efficient organisation of the Army Reserve generally, I welcome this particular move.
I should like to ask my noble friend whether it is the intention of the Government, later on, when the economic condition of the country has improved, to build upon this newly reorganised TAVR II and to expand it because of the very important avenue for public service which it opens to many young men who might be keen to participate. I am delighted to hear that 100 cadres as well as the traditional titles of many proud regiments, are being preserved.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, the countryside from which I come is the recruiting area for the Cameronians, now disbanded. Therefore, I welcome the proposal about the cadres and, like the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I look forward to hearing more about it. Would the Government in relation to a regiment which has been disbanded (and I speak with some knowledge of the local wish that there should be some nucleus which will embody the military spirit of the area) consider allotting to it some sort of cadre to cover the area from which men used to be drawn?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for his very helpful response to the Statement. I expect that the

1329
whole House will wish to have a debate on the general policy of the Reserves of the Armed Forces, and an appropriate moment must come fairly soon after a full Statement has been made about the future of the Army General Reserve in particular. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and indeed to other noble Lords, for the tributes paid to the Territorials and for their agreement with the hope that as many as possible will transfer to the Volunteers.
May I now try to answer the various points that have been put to me? The whole basis of this strengthening of TAVR II is to improve our reserve support to NATO. As I said in my Statement, the purpose of the increased size of TAVR II is mainly for logistic support in our increased NATO contribution. It is a support to our front-line forces and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has said, a creation of a Reserve Army for home defence. That is the role of the strengthened TAVR 11.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, asked me if the cadres would be made up of Regulars or Territorials. They will in fact be Volunteers, probably drawn from TAVR III units. I have noted what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said on the question of the creation of cadres, and I will write to him on the valid and important point which he has made.
In regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the retention of drill halls, I thought that I had made the matter clear in the interesting debate which took place on this subject in the middle of October. One hundred and fifty drill halls, which were the nuclei around which TAVR III operated, are being retained in one form or another. I indicated in my speech that 100 were required; a further 20 are required for additional Volunteer units, and the remaining 30 are by some means or other being retained for future use by the Volunteers if they should be required. I cannot say what are the exact mechanics, but it is intended to retain the full 150.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that somewhat reassuring reply, but does he mean that drill halls are being retained by the Ministry of Defence, although they may be used by someone else? I understood
1330
from his noble friend Lord Shackleton, who spoke to me about this matter some time ago, that a number of these drill halls were being offered for sale for other purposes altogether, and were not, in fact, being retained.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot speak for my noble friend but, speaking for myself, I can say that since the debate in October the situation has changed towards retention rather than disposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, suggested reverting to the old title of Territorials. This has been considered, but we believe that it does not sufficiently indicate the new role of the Volunteers—which of course is not only territorial but has a front-line Reserve significance. We believe that the name "Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve" indicates more properly the role of the new force, or rather the strengthened force, and should not be altered.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, asked me an impossible question. The basis of advice given by the Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary of State is a matter for them alone, but what I have stated to-day is certainly the policy of Her Majesty's Government. That is the significant point of importance rather than any interchange of advice given to the Secretary of State.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord would give me an answer in those terms. But since, during our discussions and debates every six months, Government spokesmen have not had one single wholehearted supporter in this House, I hoped he would tell us that at least the Chiefs of Staff are on their side.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Lastly, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, asked what would be the function of this new, enlarged Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve. He asked whether it was to plug holes in the Regular forces. That is, perhaps, a rather forceful way of expressing the real facts of the case: its function is to supply reserves for existing Regular units and to replace casualties in them. May I thank the House once again for its very constructive approach on this matter?

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.40 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Adoption and approval of local plans]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: May I ask—
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has given notice that he wishes to speak. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be able to speak later.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I was merely going to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whether it would be convenient for him to answer the questions which I put to him.
LORD HUGHES: When we were discussing Clause 7 before the House resumed, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, expressed doubts as to a difference in the wording of Clause 3 relating to structure plans, and the wording of Clause 7 relating to local plans. He said that the terms of Clause 9(4)(b) reinforced the doubts in his mind. I have taken advantage of the interval to read over the wording of Clauses 3 and 7, and quite frankly I cannot understand why the noble Lord has any doubts at all on the matter, because the clauses are identical except for such differences as are necessary since one deals with structure plans and the other deals with local plans.
For instance, in its preamble, Clause 3(1) has different wording because it refers to structure plans. But when it goes on in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) to deal with what is necessary, those paragraphs are almost identical with paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 7(1). The only difference is in the reference to the actual type of plan, but the action taken is identical. The same applies to subsections (2), (3) and (4) of both clauses. Subsection (5) of Clause 7 comprises in
1332
itself the action which falls under subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 3, and subsection (7) of Clause 3 does not appear in Clause 7 because it relates only to action on structure plans.
With regard to Clause 9(4)(b), to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred, I would point out to him that subsection (4) refers only to cases covered in subsection (3). Where the Secretary of State has directed that the plan should not have effect unless approved by him, then these other conditions in subsection (4), to one of which the noble Lord referred, will have effect. But it is only in those cases where the Secretary of State has not approved a local plan that the effects of subsection (4) come into operation. The case to which the noble Lord directed attention—that is, paragraph (b) of subsection (4)—merely lays down that if, after the Secretary of State has sent the plan back to the local authority for consideration, they have undertaken various courses of action, then the Secretary of State is not going to do the same thing all over again.
I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord that all that we have done—because we are dealing with two different plans—is to take the easy way of having two clauses dealing separately with each plan, instead of using the complicated way of trying to cover both plans in one clause and getting so hopelessly mixed up that neither he, I nor anybody else would understand it either at the first, second or third time of reading.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the long explanation which he has given me. But because the similarity is so great, it makes me wonder all the more whether the one procedure should not apply to both sets of plans. I simply do not understand why it should not. The differences are so slight that they might well be brought together.
LORD HUGHES: Perhaps some time, when the noble Lord and I have an hour to spare in the Library, we can sit down and compare the two plans. He will then find that by what he is now suggesting he is asking me to undertake an impossible task, and if I were to undertake it he would be able to comment on it only in the sort of naval language

1333
which he never uses in your Lordships' Chamber.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Determination of planning and similar appeals by persons appointed by the Secretary of State]:
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was good enough to explain that at the present time it was not proposed to appoint persons in accordance with this and subsequent clauses, because the number of appeals were running at a fairly low level and a high proportion of them were withdrawn each year. I dare say the noble Lord will not yet have had time to consider this matter, but if the Secretary of State were to appoint persons to hear appeals of this kind—that is, appeals against planning permission, appeals in respect of certificates of established use, and so on—what sort of persons would he appoint?
Of course, it has often been the custom in the past to appoint advocates to hear appeals of this kind. On the other hand, in England and Wales the procedure has been quite different because, as I understand it, the people who hear such appeals are inspectors from within the Departments with special experience of planning matters. It will be interesting to hear whether the noble Lord can forecast what kind of person will be appointed.
The last point which I should like to mention here is that the Explanatory Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill refers to the gentleman,
"(for convenience referred to in this memorandum as a 'Reporter')".
We had a long discussion about reporters when we were dealing with social work departments, and we were not very clear then whether the word "reporter" was an apt description. It would be even more inept, I think, in this case, because a reporter is someone who reports his findings to somebody else, and in this case the reporter will be the person who actually decides the case. So although it may have been a convenience to refer to these gentlemen as "reporters" in
1334
the Explanatory Memorandum, I hope they will never in fact be referred to as "reporters" if the Secretary of State ultimately decides to appoint them to hear appeals.
I notice from page 82 of the Scottish Development Department's Report for 1967 that the number of appeals received during the year was 341, which is about the average of the previous two years, and that of these 157 were withdrawn. This, I take it, means that the capacity of the Department to deal with appeals at this level is adequate, and I assume that it is only if the number of appeal; coming up exceeds the capacity of the Department to deal with them that they will then appoint persons of this character to hear the appeals.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has recollected what I said on Second Reading. The Government decided that this was a piece of machinery in the English measure which it was reasonable for us to put into the Scottish Bill, although we thought it was most unlikely, having regard to the volume of appeals, to which the noble Lord has referred, that we should have occasion to use this delegation in the foreseeable future. Simply because of the fact that we do not expect to be using this machinery unless things change very radically in the next few years, I would be reluctant to predict the sort of individual who will be appointed to take decisions on these matters, but obviously he must have one or other of possible qualifications. He must be either someone who is qualified as a planner or someone with legal qualifications. If there is any person who has both qualifications, then obviously he is tailormade for the job. I do not know whether there is such an animal, but it really is much too early to make any prediction at all.
The noble Lord referred to the use of the word "reporters". That term is used in the Explanatory Memorandum because that is the name of the people who are employed at the moment and, as the noble Lord said, it is a proper description for them. Incidentally, I do not accept the implication in the noble Lord's Comment that the use of the word "reporter" in the Social Work (Scotland) Act was inept. That is by the way, but the noble Lord said that its use here is

1335
even more inept, so if I let it go I would in fact be concurring with him, which I do not. It does not follow that if we ever come to appoint somebody to do this particular task, which will in fact be taking decisions and not reporting so that someone else may take a decision, this is the word which will be used; but because is so far in the future, I hope, I should not wish to suggest what term would be applied. In conversation the other day the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, suggested that the word "commissioner" might be more apt. I must say that at first glance this is the sort of thing which commends itself to me as being more appropriate than the use of the word "reporter". However, I am quite certain that it will be sufficiently far in the future, if it ever arises, as to 'be most unlikely to be a matter of other than academic interest either to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, or myself, so I do not wish to be involved.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Compulsory acquisition of land in connection with development and for other planning purposes]:
4.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 28, line 43, at end insert—
("Provided that the purpose for which the Secretary of State may authorise the land to be acquired by such other local authority shall be the same purpose for which he has power to authorise the acquisition of the land by such first mentioned local authority.")
The noble Earl said: Under subsection (2) of Clause 28 the Secretary of State is taking power to authorise a local authority to whom this clause applies to acquire land compulsorily and then to authorise that the land so acquired be taken over by another local authority. My Amendment proposes that this power of the Secretary of State should be restricted so that transfers from one local authority to another would be allowed only for the same purpose as that for which the land was originally acquired. I hope that your Lordships and the Government will agree that that is a reasonable proposal. I do not think it would be fair on anybody, particularly on the people from
1336
whom land has been compulsorily acquired, that one local authority should acquire it for the purposes of, let us say, a recreation ground and that the Secretar of State should then authorise its transfer to another local authority for the purpose of a housing scheme or an industrial estate. I think that it would not be any restriction on the progress of development if it were required that, before there was such a transfer, the matter should go back and be considered again from the beginning. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: Subsection (2) gives the Secretary of State power, in a case where he has authorised a local authority to whom Clause 28 applies (that is to say, a county council, a large burgh or a small burgh), to authorise the land to be acquired instead by another authority, being a local authority within the meaning of the 1947 Act; that is, the same range of authorities plus a district council, a joint board or committee of local authorities and certain others. This is a power which in fact is seldom used, but it is potentially of value and may be of value in this particular concept, where we envisage local planning authorities working together as we discussed on an earlier clause. For example, there may be cases where land lying across the boundaries of two or more local authorities should be developed in close association with the redevelopment of land within one authority, and it is really only common sense in these circumstances that the acquisition should be carried out in a single operation by one of the authorities concerned. There may also be added need for this power in advance of the reorganisation of local government to enable co-operating authorities to work together for the acquisition of land within a regional context.
The effect of making the Amendment would be to ensure that where a different authority was authorised to acquire the land the purpose for which the original acquisition was authorised could not be changed. I presume that the main object of this is to prevent the authorisation of compulsory purchase for a purpose such as an open space, where the value would not be high, followed by its use by another authority for another purpose which, if it had been the original purpose, would I have brought about a higher purchase

1337
price to the person from whom it was compulsorily acquired
This, of course, is neither a new provision nor an extension of the powers of compulsory purchase. It has existed in Section 35(3) of the Scottish 1947 Act, and it has stood the test of time. This has been in operation for 21 years. Like many of the provisions in Part IV of the bill this subsection is designed not to create a new power but to reconstruct an existing power in a way that takes account of the abolition of the requirement that land to be compulsorily acquired must be so designated in the development plan. Section 35(3) of the 1947 Act depends on designation. It is therefore repealed in Schedule 10 because of the abolition of that requirement, and Clause 28(2) does no more than take its place; The general import of Clause 28(2) of the Bill is the same as the general import of Section 35(3) of the 1947 Act.
To come to the merits of the Amendment, we do not think there is any need for a safeguard of the kind proposed. Since both the initial compulsory purchase order and the decision to authorise another local authority to acquire the land lie with the Secretary of State; and since both are linked to the proposals of the development plan, there is no need to fear that land which could be acquired for one purpose can be acquired and used for another purpose.
In these circumstances the question of compensation does not arise to any greater extent than on any other case of compulsory acquisition. The theoretical possibility of a change of purpose after acquisition has been authorised is neither greater nor less whether the original acquiring authority or another authority carries out the actual transaction. The existing safeguards, both statutory (as in the case of the certificate of alternative development procedure) and administrative (as in the arrangements for offering agricultural land back to its former owner), apply equally to both cases.
Perhaps I might say a word about the certificate of alternative development procedure. A local authority may seek to acquire land from someone for a particular purpose. That purpose might be, say, for open space, and in that case the amount of compensation payable
1338
would probably be the lowest of any that could be paid. The owner of the land may say to the local authority that his land could be better used for this, that or another purpose. If he does, then the local authority must go into this matter. If they agree with the owner that, although they propose to acquire the land for an open space, it could reasonably be used for, say, housing development, they give him a certificate to that effect and the compensation to which he is is assessed on the basis that the land is being used for this alternative purpose rather than for the use to which the local authority are putting it. If, on the other hand, the local authority do not agree with the owner that the land could be better used for another purpose and refuse to give him a certificate, this is a matter on which he has a right of appeal. In these circumstances, there is no question of a local authority deliberately see king to acquire land for, say, open space, if they really intend to use it for another purpose and designating it as open space only in order to acquire it at the lowest price, because the individual by this procedure is safeguarded against that.
I do not think I need to go into the matter of offering agricultural land because I think all noble Lords are familiar with that procedure. We are carrying forward in the Bill the procedure in the same terms as it has existed for 21 years. It is only because of the fact that the matter no longer rests on the designation in the development plan (which was a feaure of the 1947 Act) that it is necessary to re-enact it in the form in which it now stands; in Clause 28. I therefore invite the noble Earl not to press this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I agree with what the noble Lord has said about the convenience of enabling land to he transferred from one local authority to another. This Amendment is concerned purely with the cases in which there is a change of purpose. The noble Lord, if I understood him aright, has assured the Committee that this clause makes no change in the previous law in that respect compared with the 1947 Act. I do not want to ask him to look for examples now; but is it the case that this is what has happened under the 1947 Act until now?

1339
Is it the case that when there has been a change of purpose the owner has been offered the land back for, for example, agricultural purposes? Is the onus of showing that the land is now being used for some purpose other than that for which it has been designated laid on the owner or the former owner? Or is the position that the owner must exercise foresight and must claim (and have his claim either accepted or turned down) that the land should should not be used for a certain purpose; so that he may be in a position later, if there is a change of purpose, to claim that it should be given back to him or that additional compensation should be paid?
LORD HUGHES: The position is as stated in the noble Earl's final remarks, and has been so during this decade. If an owner feels that his land is not being put to the best possible use, and therefore is not going to give him the best possible compensation, he has a right to ask for a certificate of alternative development. If he gets it he is immediately covered in the compensation. But if he does not get it, or does not apply for it, and merely accepts that the local authority take over the land for the purpose suggested, then in neither of these cases, if there is a change of purpose, has he any further rights in the matter. That is the position at the present time.
There may be cases where an authority acquire land for some purpose and. because of a change of circumstances, use it for something else—not necessarily something which would have placed a higher value on it. Sometimes it is the other way round. Sometimes a local authority may acquire land for, say, housing, and then, because of something which was not apparent in the beginning, do not put it to this valuable use, but use it for open space. In such circumstances the local authority have no right to go to the individual and say, "We compensated you on the basis that the land would be used for housing. We have therefore paid you too much and we want to reopen the matter so that compensation may be fixed on the basis of the use to which the land is to be put." The position is that in these circumstances both parties are stuck with the original bargain. That is how it has worked during
1340
these 20-odd years; and by and large it has been satisfactory. I would confirm the noble Earl's first point that we are in fact re-enacting the law in the form at which it presently rests.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think the noble Lord's explanation is a reasonable one. I would ask the Committee's leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Power of authorities possessing compulsory purchase powers to make general vesting, declarations]:
5.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 30 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My purpose in speaking to this clause is to enable the Committee to get an explanation of a point that I should like to raise. This proposal in Clause 30, to introduce vesting procedure for compulsory acquisition in relation to acquisitions under the Town and Country Planning legislation, has caused me a little concern, because the Land Commission already have such powers, and it seems to me unnecessary for those powers to be given also to the local planning authorities. If a local authority cannot acquire the land they need, they can invoke the aid of the Land Commission. I would therefore suggest to the Government that this clause is introducing an unnecessary duplication and that it is not desirable that such powers should be given to local planning authorities in addition to the Land Commission.
LORD HUGHES: The brief which I have been given starts off with words which I should have been reluctant to use in any event, because I was quite certain that they did not cover the intention of the noble Earl. The words are, "This is a wrecking Amendment". It is, of course, almost a declaration of war to use words of that kind, but in fact that would be the effect of the Amendment. What I suspected was that the noble Earl, in moving to leave out the clause, was seeking information about why it is necessary. I think I can make even better use of the occasion by seeking

1341
to remove some of the doubts and misapprehensions which people have about a general vesting declaration, which has a somewhat ominous ring about it.
I wish that it had been possible to cover this purpose in perhaps more innocuous terms, because what is done by a general vesting declaration is something which is helpful to the acquiring authority and to the person from whom the land is being acquired. May I remind your Lordships that the White Paper on the Land Commission, published in September, 1965, stated the Government's intention of making available to other public authorities in subsequent legislation the power then being conferred on the Land Commission of making vesting declarations to effect speedy vesting in themselves of land which they were authorised to acquire compulsorily.
What does a vesting declaration do? In the first place, it gives a quick good title to land which is to be disposed of for development, the delays of normal conveyancing being avoided. Secondly, settlement of compensation can proceed independently of vesting, and in most cases quicker payment is possible without full investigation. The effect of this clause is, therefore, as was predicted in 1965, to make available to local authorities a power, once a compulsory purchase order has been confirmed (this is important because all the procedures in relation to compulsory purchase up to confirmation have to be gone through; therefore the land is going to go to the acquiring authority) to obtain a good title to land by a simple and speedy process which will transform all the rights of the existing owner in the land to rights to compensation.
The first of the advantages which I have described is not so relevant to local authorities as to the Land Commission since the former are mainly concerned with acquiring and holding land rather than disposing of it. But the economies of professionally trained manpower and of time which the vesting procedure can provide in land transactions are very material. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said that the Land Commission already have these powers, and he asked why,
1342
therefore, was it necessary to duplicate them by giving them to local authorities? It was never the intention that the Land Commission should supplant other public authorities possessing compulsory purchase powers, and we went out of our way when the Land Commission was being set up to make perfectly clear that it was not going to override the powers of local authorities. Apart altogether from the merits of preserving the rights of local authorities, if it had been the intention to act in that way it would have meant that the Land Commission could have undertaken the obligation then laid on them only by an enormous expansion of their activities and staff, without any guarantee that there would be any corresponding reduction in the staffs of local authorities. This would have been seeking an expansion of staffs which at the present time are in comparatively short supply, and so we should have been multiplying the demand for staff in a market where they did not exist, and to serve no useful purpose.
For these reasons, we came to the conclusion that it would be unacceptable equally to the Government and to local authorities that the Land Commission should take over in all these cases, and, by the same token, I should have thought it would have been equally unacceptable to the Opposition that it should work in that way. May I conclude by giving to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, a clear assurance that so far as compulsory acquisition itself and the rights to compensation are concerned, the procedures, including the rights and safeguards, are precisely the same, irrespective of the use or the existence of the vesting declaration procedure. If anybody has an objection to the use of the vesting procedure (he is no longer here, but it may be gratifying to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, to know it), I may say that the people who stand to lose are the lawyers.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation.
On Question, Clause 30 agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Extension of grounds of objection to blight notice]:
5.17 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 34, line 24, leave out ("do not propose") and insert ("undertake not").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to substitute the words "undertake not" for the words "do not propose" in page 34, line 24. The clause we are talking about extends the grounds on which objection may be made to a blight notice contained in a counter-notice served by an appropriate authority—it all sounds frightfully technical. As I understand subsection (1), it deals with land falling within Section 38(1)(c) of the 1959 Act; that is, land indicated in a plan of land on which a road is proposed to be constructed, or land to be included in a road which it is proposed to alter or improve, other than land falling under paragraph (b) of subsection (1).
I am bound to say that I find it very difficult to see what modification paragraph (b) makes to Section 38(1)(c) because it also seems to relate to roads and what is excluded from 38(1)(c). The other kind of land, apparently, is land indicated in a structure plan either as land acquired for the purposes of the appropriate authority or as land which may be included in an action area as defined in Clause 2(5). The subsection says that in the case of such land the grounds on which an objection may be made include
"the grounds that the appropriate authority … do not propose to acquire … any part of the hereditament or … any part of the affected area during the period of fifteen years, …"
or more.
It does not seem that the appropriate authority is in any way bound by such an assertion. I recognise that Clause 39(2)(b) of the 1959 Act uses exactly the same words—"do not propose to"; but that is simply a statement that they have no present intention of ever acquiring the land. That, surely, is quite different in character from an assertion that they do not propose to acquire it within a given period. Obviously, a local authority, or any appropriate authority, cannot give an undertaking never in any circumstances to acquire the land in the
1344
fullness of time in the future. It cannot do that, and clearly in a case like that the words "do not propose" are appropriate; but nothing less than an undertaking has any value in relation to a given number of years. If they violate that undertaking, they should certainly have to indemnify the person serving notice in respect of any loss he might have incurred or may incur as a result of the violation. Therefore, it seems to me that an undertaking ought to be given in cases of this kind if the local planning authorities are going to rely on that to sustain a counter notice to a blight notice.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord has referred to Section 39 of the 1959 Planning Act where these words are used, although it is his contention that something which is to apply in perpetuity is different from something which is to apply for a limited period of time. I cannot accept as logical what he puts forward. I think it is an ingenious way of getting out of the position in which he might have to admit that this Government were following the excellent example of an Act passed by their predecessors. I am not certain whether my colleagues would not view it the other way round and think that I ought to be explaining why we are using these words and not trying to find different ones.
The noble Lord's Amendment would change one of the circumstances in which a local planning authority can serve a counter notice to a blight notice. The Bill provides that the planning authority can do so if they do not propose to acquire any of the affected land for a period of 15 years. The effect of the Amendment would be to require them to undertake not to do that. In the Government's view this would be an undesirable change. Fifteen years is a long way to look ahead, and I think the best that a responsible public body can be asked to do is to state what they believe the position would be and that they cannot see a likelihood of their having to acquire this land for 15 years. If they gave a binding undertaking, it might be the wrong thing to do. It would be contrary to our idea of flexibility in planning, and therefore it would be unreasonable to require the local authority to give such a firm undertaking when considering their attitude towards a blight notice.

1345
Having said that, I appreciate that the noble Lord's object is not to put difficulties in the way of local authorities but to make it more difficult for a local authority to serve a counter notice in an irresponsible way. After all, it is easier to say that they do not propose to acquire the land in the next 15 years than to say that they will undertake not to acquire the land for the next 15 years.
I would point out to the noble Lord that a counter notice is open to reference to arbitration by the party who has served the blight notice and the arbiter could reject the counter notice if he is not satisfied that the local authority's proposals were firm enough to be founded upon. I have been given some additional words in brackets. I do not know what the legal position is and whether the words are relevant, but they say that it would also seem open to doubt whether any undertaking of this kind, however described, would in practice be more definite than what is meant by a development plan proposal and whether it could be enforced. The planning committee of 1968 cannot bind the planning committee of 1981. This is in fact the principle on which Parliament acts: no Parliament can bind its successor. If local authorities are going to be as successful as we want them to be, we ought not to require them to act in such a way as to tie the hands of their successors. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord, if he can, to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD BALERNO: May I ask the noble Lord whether this blight notice could affect agricultural land which is part of a farm? If so, it might affect a vital part of an economic unit. If you take away a bit of a farm the whole economy of that farm might fall to the ground. Therefore, I should think that the matter having been under dispute, and if it had been settled in favour of the land remaining on the farm, it would be only right that an undertaking should be given. I am very much inclined to support my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I must admit that I am a little out of my depth in agricultural matters these days, but I suspect that when considering the effect of blight on agricultural land, one piece of land would not be considered without its effect on the balance of the farm being taken into
1346
account. Presumably one must consider the effect of blight on the owner or the occupier using the land. I should like to confirm that, and if the noble Lord is content to leave it on that basis I will let him know in due course. I hope I do not have to tell him that I am sorry I was wrong.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I thank the noble Lord for the explanation he has given. No doubt referring the matter to arbitration is a considerable safeguard. Where there is a position of virtual unmarketability of land, which is what blight means (the affecting of the land in such a way that it becomes much less advantageous to dispose of it) if the local authority are not prepared to acquire it on the ground that the blight is not likely to rest—in other words, that the action which is feared by the applicant is not likely to take place, but that action nevertheless takes place and the individual suffers thereby, whatever may have been the anticipation of the arbiter, then it seems to me that the person concerned should be indemnified.
I see that there is a safeguard here. But if you say that you propose not to acquire the land, or you propose not to do such-and-such, and later you do it, and the result is adverse to the owner or occupier of the land, it seems to me that he should be indemnified in respect of the reason why the action which he wanted to take before has been made impossible. It is a difficult problem to resolve fairly. I think the noble Lord has given a reasonable explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [New provisions restricting demolition, etc., of listed buildings]:
On Question, Whether Clause 39 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.32 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I want to ask a question about the provisions relating to buildings of architectural and historic interest. A good many of these buildings are in local authority ownership. I should

1347
like the noble Lord to explain what protection there is under these provisions for the rights of the public in this respect. Where the buildings belong to a private person, then that person has to get permission to carry out any works. Permission is obtained from the local planning authority, and the local planning authority has to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. But what happens when the building is actually in the hands of the local authority which happens to be the local planning authority or another local authority? Does the matter then have to be referred to the Secretary of State, or can the local authority go ahead on a listed building and carry out any work they like—demolish the building, or whatever it may be? I have been unable to detect in the Bill what happens in those circumstances.
LORD HUGHES: The answer is quite a simple one. In the case where the building is in the ownership of the local authority the local planning authority still have to report to the Secretary of State. So the same position obtains as in the case of a private individual.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Building preservation notice in respect of building not listed]:
LORD HUGHES: Amendment No. 6 is a drafting Amendment. The word "district" is the term customarily used in Scottish legislation to describe an area for which a local planning authority is responsible. The Amendment merely takes account of this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 33, leave out ("area") and insert ("district").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Compulsory acquisition of listed building in need of repair]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 46, line 39, leave out from ("may") to ("acquire") in line 40, and insert ("subject to the provisions of this section").
The noble Lord said: This is a small point. I am aware that the words that I propose to alter are in the English Act, but they read oddly to me. Subsection (2) of Clause 49 reads:
"Where it appears to the Secretary of State, in the case of a building to which this section applies, that reasonable steps are not being taken for properly preserving it, he may be authorised under this section to acquire compulsorily the building and any land comprising or contiguous or adjacent to it",
and so on. One would like to know who is going to authorise him and in what circumstances. It is peculiar wording. I should have thought that the more normal wording would have been that
"the Secretary of State may, subject to the provisions of this section, acquire compulsorily".
This is a straightforward drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: I am full of admiration for the way the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, can light on these things which he finds difficult to understand. I must confess that there are many more things which appear in the Bill that I find difficult to understand beyond those which the noble Lord picks on. But once again he has right on his side, although it will not surprise him in the least when I say that the Government think that he has found the wrong solution. Due to his difficulty in understanding this reference to "authorising", he has proposed to put in this signpost. This is wrong, because if we accept this way of dealing with the matter, we cannot be content with putting up one signpost but shall have to erect similar signposts in various other parts of the Bill.
I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn is right in drawing attention to the queerness of the use of the words, "he may be authorised under this section to acquire", in line 39 and 40, and I accept that this is not wholly appropriate, because there is no authorisation which appears to be in question. What I will therefore undertake to do is to have the subsection re-examined, from the point of view of putting forward a possible Government Amendment at the next stage, which one would hope would put the terms of the clause in a form that will pass the subsequent re-scrutiny of

1349
the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, without the necessity of erecting a series of signposts at various points throughout the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will find this a satisfactory assurance, and will be able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I thank the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clauses 50 to 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Directions by Secretary of State to local planning authorities with respect to development affecting Conservation Areas]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 51, line 28, leave out ("the") and insert ("that person or").
The noble Lord said: This is again a minor drafting Amendment. This point is raised just for curiosity. Subsection (2) says:
"Different directions may under this section be given to different local planning authorities; and any such directions may require an authority …
(b) to supply to any person or body, whom they are required by the directions to consult, specified documents or information enabling the body to form an opinion on which to base their advice."
What about the poor "person"? I should have thought that here the appropriate words were:
"… enabling that person or body to form an opinion on which to base their advice".
I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: Once again the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has picked up something which is not satisfactory. On this occasion I do not even have the satisfaction of saying that I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment. I will put it in another form. He has even hit on a perfectly satisfactory way of correcting the matter because, after all, all he is doing is proposing to insert the word which ought to have been there in the first place and was left out by error. I therefore have pleasure in accepting the, Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 56 to 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Delegation of planning functions to officers of local authorities]
5.43 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 58, line 23, leave out from ("incurred") to end of line 26 and insert ("if in all the circumstances it appears to them to he just and reasonable so to do.")
The noble Lord said: I think there is rather more substance in this Amendment, although the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may not be quite so ready to agree with it. I should nevertheless like to put the point of it to him. This, clause deals with the delegation of planning functions to officers of local authorities, and subsection (1) lists the matters which may be delegated for decision to officers of local authorities. Subsection (5) deals with actions brought against officers of a local authority to whom local authority has delegated one of the functions.
If an action is brought in respect of an act done by an officer in tae discharge, or purported discharge, of his functions, and damages are awarded against him, as I understand it the subsection gives the authority power to indemnify him in whole or in Fart on certain conditions if the circum stances are such that he is not legally entitled to require the local authority to indemnify him. The conditions are that the authority are satisfied that he honestly believed that the act complained of was done in the discharge of those functions and that his duty required or entitled him to do it. It seems to me that the effect of these conditions is that if the authority does not indemnify the officer, and if the officer is not able to pay the award, the person who has been wronged will not get the damages awarded to him, or will not get them in full; he will receive damages only to the extent that the officer is able to pay them. Surely, this is most unfair. It is the authority who are responsible for delegating the task to the officer.

1351
They do not have to do it; they do it on their own discretion. Therefore, the authority should ensure that nobody is worse off as a result of their delegation.
The words suggested in the Amendment do not go so far as to place an absolute obligation on the local authority in respect of the actions of their servants, because of course it may be right in some circumstances to require the officer to pay as much as he can. The words proposed in the Amendment are:
"if in all the circumstances it appears to them"—
that is, to the authority—
"to be just and reasonable so to do".
What these words do is to leave it completely to the discretion of the authority, without being inhibited by having to be satisfied that the officer honestly believed the action complained of was done in the discharge of his functions. I believe that the words proposed in the Amendment are well precedented. I have not been able to find them, but I am sure that I have seen something of this kind several times. It seems to me that the test ought not to be the honesty or dishonesty of the officer, but the need to ensure that justice is done and that the award of the court is carried out. Here is a case where the authority have full liberty to delegate or not to delegate. If they delegate, then it seems to me that they must accept the consequences and back up the person to whom they delegate. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: The brief which I have been given has misconceived the purpose which lies behind the noble Lord's Amendment. But, fortunately, that does not in any way affect the reasoning in the brief. In looking at this Amendment we assumed that what the noble Lord was seeking to do was to give the strongest possible security to the officer, and we have not in fact looked beyond the officer to the person who was seeking to he recompensed for the damage which had been done to him by the officer. But, fortunately, if we are increasing the security of the officer in regard to indemnity, we are in fact meeting the point.
We are not disposed to accept the Amendment because we believe that, contrary to what the noble Lord has
1352
argued, this will in fact have the result of narrowing the field in which indemnity may be offered. The circumstances in which an officer may be indemnified against a claim for damages or expenses are those which the noble Lord has stated. I should like to put it in these words. The local authority may indemnify if they are satisfied that the officer concerned honestly believed two things: first of all, that he was discharging his functions, and, secondly, that his duty required or entitled him to do the act that has led to the claim for damages or expenses. Generalising the conditions in the way which the Amendment suggests might well have the effect of creating uncertainty both in the minds of the local authority and, what is even more important, in law about whether or not the authority could or should indemnify in a particular case.
As the Bill stands, there is no doubt at all that they can indemnify provided that they are satisfied on these two definite factors; or, to put it another way, the officer can lose his protection only if he knowingly exceeded his duties. But under the Amendment the local authority would have to make a more subjective and imponderable judgment. For example, without the guidance of the specific words in Clause 63(5), an authority might well decide in a case in which the officer had acted stupidly that it would not be reasonable to indemnify him, even if he honestly believed that he was discharging his functions, and even if he honestly believed that he was doing his duty. They might infer, rightly, that they would in fact be exceeding their powers if they proceeded to indemnify an officer for an act of stupidity. But, as the clause stands, the local authority would be right to indemnify an officer, although he acted stupidly, if he honestly believed that he was doing the job he had to do and that he was under a duty to act as he did.
This is a case where the rights of an individual claiming damages or expenses lie exactly in the same direction as the rights of the officer. The greater the extent to which the officer is indemnified against these claims, the greater the likelihood that the individual will be able to collect the damages to which he is entitled. There may be cases where an officer is not indemnified and he may be in a financial position to pay what is so

1353
awarded. In those cases the noble Lord would not be worried. He is concerned about the cases where substantial damages might be awarded which were beyond the financial capabilities of the officer. If the local authority did not indemnify that officer this would be a wrong against the individual who had successfully rased an action and then was unable to get it implemented, either in full or in part.
I have gone fully into this matter and I am convinced of the rightness of the wording in the Bill: that what it does will be a greater safeguard, both to the claimant and to the individual, than the more general wording implied in the Amendment. In fact it will be difficult for the local authority not to indemnify in terms of the wording of the Bill. Therefore I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: But surely in all cases the local authority is responsible for the actions of its servants. I thought this was a maxim of law that stood in all cases.
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords, the local authority is responsible for the actions of its servants properly undertaken.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: Am I living in a complete fool's paradise? I thought this was the reason one took out a fidelity insurance guarantee policy, to cover the actions—stupid or otherwise—of the servants of a local authority. Is this not so?
LORD HUGHES: Possibly it is, but I am pointing out that the terms of the Bill would make, it proper for the authority to indemnify even where the official was stupid, whereas the Amendment might make it improper for the local authority to do so if they said, "This man was not undertaking his duty properly, therefore we will not so indemnify".
Let us be clear about this. The use of the words "an officer acts stupidly" might be interpreted as a slur on local government officers. It is not so intended. In a number of cases where an officer does something which results in damage to an individual because the officer has acted wrongly in some way, the local authority itself may have acted equally wrongly, and therefore it is right that the authority
1354
itself should be responsible for paying the compensation and the damages. We are seeking to ensure that this is done on the widest possible basis, so that there is neither injury to the claimant nor to the official, but that the local authority should carry the responsibility in every case where it is reasonable for it to do so.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: But am I not right in thinking that it is possible for a local authority with this responsibility to comply with it by "laying it off" by means of insurance?
LORD HUGHES: Yes; and I should think in many cases this would be done. But the noble Viscount will know from his own experience of local authority matters that there are many fields in which the local authority acts as its own insurer because its financial resources are sufficient to enable it to cover everything but the most major catastrophes.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I recognise the force of the noble Lord's argument, and I hope that he will equally recognise the force of mine. I think the right course may lie somewhere between the two. Apparently I took the noble Lord unawares because of the angle Iron which I approached this Amendment. But surely this is the right attitude from which to start: that if an award is made by the courts against an officer, then in such a case that award should be met. It does not matter whether the act leading to the claim was done by the officer acting ultra vires or dishonestly. That has nothing to do with the case. The award should be met, and that is our objective. As to how far the officer is indemnified, that is another matter. I would ask the noble Lord to look at this again, to make certain that in all cases, and not just in most of them, an award of this kind will be met by the local authority which has appointed the officer and is therefore responsible.
LORD HUGHES: I should be quite happy to do this—and in fact I feel that it would be wrong to do otherwise—but the noble Lord is now asking me to go even beyond the terms of his Amendment. His Amendment does not envisage that indemnity would be given in all cases. He enters this caveat:
if in all the circumstances it appears to them to be just and reasonable so to do".

1355
In the first place this contemplates the possibility that there are circumstances in which indemnity will not be given. Looking at it from a lay point of view, one would say "appears just and reasonable" to whom? Just to the ratepayers? Reasonable to the ratepayers? Just to the individual claimant? Reasonable to the individual claimant? Just to the officer? Reasonable to the officer? Just or reasonable to some impartial person outside? It brings in a whole host of imponderables. However, I am willing to look at it again, because there is nothing between the noble Lord and the Government in what we are seeking to do, which is to ensure that indemnity covers the widest possible field.
It would be wrong for me to undertake that in all circumstances the local authority must be required to indemnify, because unless the noble Lord has completely changed his mind on this, his Amendment does not go so far. I am prepared to go with him along the road that the number of cases where there should not be indemnity should be kept to the unavoidable minimum. We should go as far towards a complete indemnification as is reasonable, but we should try to get it in some specific form of wording so that in trying to widen the security we do not—as my advisers tell me this Amendment does—narrow the security which is given to both sets of individuals.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I tried to make it clear that I thought that the right solution lay between my position and his. I was not arguing in favour of my Amendment. Obviously, if an officer has been culpably dishonest then he should pay as much as he can; but when he cannot pay the lot the authority should make up the difference. The point is that the award should be met. That is why I do not think it would be right to say that the officer should be indemnified in full. I see the force of the noble Lord's argument and I see that authorities might not interpret the words I have put down in the way I should like them to and think they ought to. May we leave it at that, and perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to have a further look at it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clauses 64 to 90 agreed to.
Clause 91 [Powers for local planning authorities analogous to s. 46 of Act of 1947]:
6.2 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 82, line 29, after ("order") insert ("being a person who will benefit directly from the development").
The noble Lord said: We are here dealing with powers of planning authorities with regard to stopping up or diversion of any footpath or bridleway, and this subsection says:
"An order under this section may, if the local planning authority are satisfied that it should do so, provide—
(d) for requiring any person named in the order …"
and then these words would be inserted, "being a person who will benefit directly from the development"—
"to pay, or make contributions in respect of, the cost of carrying out any such works."
It seemed to me that it was quite possible that persons might be named in the order who were not likely to benefit directly from the development. Equally, if they were not likely to benefit from the development, then in the case of a stopping up order of a footpath or bridleway there seemed no reason why they should be required to make a contribution to the cost of the works. I think this is a simple Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord said this is a simple Amendment. The subsection which it is proposed to amend enables a local authority when making an order authorising the stopping up or diversion of a footpath or bridleway to order a named person to pay, or make contributions to, the cost of the works. The effect of the Amendment would be to qualify this power by providing that the person named must be one who will benefit directly from the development which is enabled by the stopping up or diversion. We do not think this qualification would be appropriate. The main purpose of the power is to make it possible for a developer to be required to defray the cost of a stopping-up or diversion which is being carried out in his

1357
interest, but there could be a case in which a diversion could take two forms, one of which would incidentally or indirectly benefit other parties than the developer whose development set the process in train. It would be wrong for this more useful solution to be ruled out for want of any means of ensuring that those who benefited indirectly would pay their appropriate share of the cost.
There is no fear of unfairness or unreasonableness in the exercise of this power. An order under Clause 91 if it is opposed car not take effect until it is confirmed by the Secretary of State, and before confirming the order the Secretary of State must give the usual opportunity for representations, a local inquiry, a report by a person appointed and so on. There is ample protection, therefore, against any misuse of the power and there is no need to qualify it in the Act. Even if we thought that it was necessary to remove the theoretical possibility that a person unaffected by the stopping-up or diversion could be named, it is very difficult. The words "directly or indirectly", for instance, are so wide as to be almost without effect, and any more detailed definition seems likely to be too involved.
However, in considering this Amendment we have noticed a possible defect in the provisions of Schedule 6 which may be helpful to the noble Lord, because that Schedule sets out the procedure for orders under Clause 93. Paragraph 1(2) of the Schedule requires notice of an order to be served on various parties—owners, occupiers, lessees, public authorities and statutory undertakers—but there is no requirement for service on a person named in the order under Clause 91(2)(d). To some extent this may be taken as confirmation of the fact that it is not expected that parties not directly affected would be named. However, we propose to examine the possible need for a requirement of service of the notice on any person so named, and I think that if we come to the conclusion that he should be included in those to be named under the Schedule this may go some way towards meeting the noble Lord's point. I expect to be putting down an Amendment to Schedule 6 at the next stage. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will find it possible not to press this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 agreed to.
Clauses 92 to 106 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Control of works for demolition, alteration or extension of listed buildings]:
6.9 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 103, line 24, leave out from ("period") to ("shall") and insert ("and the Secretary of State shall notify the owner or lessee and the authority on whom the notice was served of the date on which the notice is deemed to have been confirmed and thereupon the authority").
The noble Lord said: This is a rather more complicated matter and I approach it with some diffidence. This Part of the Schedule is headed "Proceedings on Listed Building Purchase Notice", and deals with a requirement when a listed building consent is refused—if that is the right expression—that the local authority shall purchase in circumstances where the use of the land cannot be made beneficial either as a result of the refusal of the application or the attachment of Conditions. It says:
"If, before the end of the relevant period"—
which is a period described in subsection (3), that of nine months beginning with the date of the purchase notice, or of six months beginning with the date on which a copy of the purchase notice was transmitted to the Secretary of State, whichever first expires—
"the Secretary of State has neither confirmed the purchase notice nor taken any such action in respect thereof as is mentioned in subparagraphs (3) to (6) of paragraph 13 above"—
which are the various things that he may do instead of confirming—
"and has not notified the owner or lessee by whom the notice was served that he lees not propose to confirm the notice, the notice shall be deemed to be confirmed at the end of that period"—
and then come the words that it is proposed to leave out:
"and the authority on whom the notice was served shall be deemed to have been authorised

1359
to acquire the relevant interest compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of Section 49 of this Act …"
I should be grateful if, to start with, the noble Lord can explain this rather curious procedure. It seems to me that if the Secretary of State either does not like to be bothered to deal with this matter or loses the papers, or something like that, then at the end of a certain period the notice shall be deemed to be confirmed. I have never before heard of a procedure of this kind so far as the Secretary of State is concerned. The idea that he should do nothing and then, through his doing nothing, the notice should be deemed to be confirmed, to say the least of it, seems most unusual.
What the Amendment seeks to do is to say that this notice shall be deemed to be confirmed at the end of the period, and then there should appear the words:
"and the Secretary of State shall notify the owner or lessee and the authority on whom the notice was served of the date upon which the notice is deemed to have been confirmed and thereupon the authority shall be deemed to have been authorised to acquire the relevant interest compulsorily …"
This, at least, would make clear that the Secretary of State is not acting by inadvertence in this matter, or that the confirmation is going through because the Secretary of State has not bothered to deal with the matter. I find this a rather curious precedent to establish. I do not know whether there are any precedents of this kind, but at any rate the Amendment would require the Secretary of State to take some action, in the words of the famous story, "even if it is only to say 'Goodbye'". I beg to move.
6.14 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord's recollections in this matter are not so good as they usually are. He has said that he has never heard of this procedure. It is the procedure which exists under the 1947 Act and which was so acceptable that it was confirmed in the 1959 Act; so at least he was a party to it on one occasion—on the second occasion by commission and on the first occasion, perhaps, by omission. But, quite frankly, I cannot understand the Amendment. I know that this was one of the conditions suggested by the Scottish Landowners' Federation, because I, too, received the document. They do not make secrets in
1360
these matters. We just do not know why they want this Amendment. They seem to be seeking to act against their own interests in this matter.
Let us examine the position. If there is a purchase notice the Secretary of State can confirm it or reject it. The Landowners' Federation are not seeking to do anything to encourage the Secretary of State to reject a purchase notice; it is in the interests of their members that a purchase notice should take effect. It does not seem to me to matter in the slightest whether the purchase notice takes effect because the Secretary of State does nothing, or whether it takes effect because he confirms it. I could have, understood the Amendment if they had said, "Why should we have to wait nine months or six months?; let us have it for six months and three months", or "three weeks and two weeks." But they are not asking for it to be expedited, but in fact to say that at the end of the period of nine months or six months, whichever is the earlier, the Secretary of State will say that the notice is deemed to have been confirmed; not that the Secretary of State will say it has been confirmed, but that it has been deemed to be confirmed. In other words, all that they are asking is that the Secretary of State will say at the end of the period, "I'm sorry, boys, I have forgotten about it; but you will have exactly the same result as if I had acted upon it and confirmed it."
There may be a whole variety of reasons why the Secretary of State may not have acted during this period, even including the one that, for some extraordinary reason which I cannot foresee, it has not even reached him. In those circumstances, it is much in the interests of a landowner that at the end of a specified period or periods of time he has the protection that, if no decision has been taken for or against him during that period, the right to act against him automatically lapses and the purchase notice takes effect. I can think of nothing more favourable to the person having the benefit of a purchase notice than the putting in of this provision that at the end of a given period he is automatically deemed to have his purchase notice confirmed.
I am quite certain that the Scottish landowners are a fair body of people, but I am equally certain that the reason why

1361
they put forward this Amendment was not because they were worried about the reputation of the Secretary of State. They were not worried about the possibility that people would say "Goodness! this is because the Secretary of State has forgotten all about it and it is taking effect now just because he has done nothing. "They must think there is some advantage to them in this procedure and, if there is any advantage which can be given to them by doing what they want and which we have been unable to find, I am quite prepared to have a look at it. But there is the possibility that they might in some cases lose, whereas, so far as I can see, in no case can they lose at all by what is in the Bill.
I would therefore suggest to the noble Lord that he should withdraw the Amendment and endeavour to find out exactly what the Scottish Landowners' Federation are after. At least he can justify going back to them on the basis that the Government are as ignorant as he is as to what they are getting at. If there is a useful purpose then by all means he can bring it back. I may say, in this connection, that the provision in the Bill has much in common with the Planning Act purchase notice procedure on both sides of the Border. This is in Section 17 of the 1947 Act. At the moment we are reconsidering certain aspects, and it may well be that when we are looking at the wider context we shall also be looking at this particular point.
For the life of me, however, I cannot see that any reconsideration of this point would be other than against the interests of the landowners. It may be that we are being obtuse and that there is some obvious point that they are after which we have quite failed to see. If there is a useful purpose I would invite the noble Lord to have another go at it after he has elicited what is behind it.
6.20 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I shall willingly accept the noble Lord's invitation. It may be that the Scottish Landowners' Federation, to whom, as he quite correctly thought, I am indebted for this Amendment—if that is the right expression—
LORD HUGHES: I would not have used the word "indebted" in the circumstances.
LORD DRUMALBYN: —were in the same error as I myself in thinking that this was something quite normal However, I will certainly find out what is behind it, and if there is any substance behind it I can refer to it at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Control of works for demolition, alteration or extension of listed buildings]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask a question about Schedule 4? This question of listed building consents can give rise to quite a lot of trouble. There is one point I would raise on this, that is, that under paragraph 3 if the Secretary of State calls in an application, then there is no appeal. He himself considers it, and his decision under paragraph 3(5) is final. It is very important to make certain—and one knows from one's own experience in the Scottish Office long ago how important this is—that the right people are consulted at the right time. I should like to ask what it is that will govern the Secretary of State's consent to call in applications for consent in such cases. Is it purely a matter of public interest or of the importance of the building? I should like to know on what this would be based.
I should also like to ask a question about paragraph 7, which says:
"Where an application is made to the local planning authority for listed building consent, then, unless within the prescribed period from the date of the receipt of the application, or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority, the authority either—

(a) give notice to the applicant of their decision on the applications; or,

(b) give notice to him that the application has been referred to the Secretary of State in accordance with directions given under paragraph 3 of this Schedule,

the provisions of paragraph 6 of this schedule shall apply in relation to the application as if listed building consent had been refused by the authority …"
There are so many periods that are to be prescribed in the course of this Bill that I should think it is going to be very difficult to keep track of them all. But

1363
this one, I should have thought, was fairly important, and I wonder whether the noble Lord can give me some indication of what sort of period is likely to be prescribed in a case like this. Here the presumption, of course, is that the consent has been refused by the authorities. It is the opposite presumption from the one we were considering earlier. I wonder whether the noble Lord could explain that.
Those are the main points that I wanted to raise on this Schedule. It is a complicated and important Schedule. Of course one knows how very much public interest there is in the preservation of what are now to be called by the unpleasant phrase "listed buildings" (it makes one think a little of the Leaning Tower of Pisa), and I think it is very important that this should be very carefully studied.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord was not so kind on this point. He did not give me notice of his intention to raise it, and I must admit that I was well pleased about this section of the Bill, in relation to these buildings. I thought it was going so far to meet the requirements and the wishes of those interested in preserving buildings that all we should get for this would be commendations rather than questions.
It is difficult to be precise about what would govern the Secretary of State's decision to call in a particular case, but in general terms it would be affected by the importance of the building and its environment, perhaps the likelihood of controversy—in short, as the noble Lord himself put it, that delightful phrase which covers so many things, "the public interest". Obviously, sometimes controversy is likely to arise. There can be circumstances in which locally the local authority are pulled two ways. There may be the desire to protect the building, the protection of which may be very much in the national interest as distinct from the local interest. On the other hand, there may be a contrary pull on the local authority which would be very much in the local interest, but which would be of no particular appeal from a national point of view.
In these circumstances, the Secretary of State might decide that the national
1364
interest might not be given the weight it fully deserved, and that in these circumstances he, with his responsibilities, both local and national, was in a better position to arrive at an impartial and right decision than could be arrived at locally. That is one particular set of circumstances, but I must come back in the end to the words which the noble Lord himself suspected I might use, "in the public interest".
As to the time limit, we have not yet decided what these limits should be, and I hope the noble Lord will not press me to make a forecast, because if I did it would not be a forecast at all, but merely a guess; and if we are going to enter into guessing games he is just as able to guess himself as to ask me to do it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, but he has not answered my last point as to why the result of inaction, so to speak, in the case of paragraph 7 on the part of the local authority with regard to the application, is the opposite of the result of inaction on the part of the Secretary of State in paragraph 14 of Part III of the Bill.
LORD HUGHES: I should like to look at this. Sometimes the right thing to do is to act on positive factors, and sometimes it appears to be more correct to act on negative factors. Quite frankly I cannot, offhand, say why in the one case it is a positive which appears the right way, and in the other one it is the negative, but I will inform the noble Lord as speedily as possible, so that if he thinks there is any value in consistency in this matter he can seek to introduce it. I ought to know the answer to this question but it really has slipped my mind. I think this is a case where consistency would produce the wrong result, but I cannot guarantee that.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord and I must apologise to him for not giving notice of this particular point. He probably can diagnose the reason why—that I did not think I was going to have to deal with this particular Schedule.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Schedules 5 to 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Adaptation and Interpretation of Enactments, etc.]
LORD HUGHES: This is purely a drafting Amendment to correct a printing error. I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Page 114, line 3, leave out ("22(1)") and insert ("22(2)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 117, line 36, after ("requirement") insert ("or on requirement as to operations to be carried out").
The noble Lord said: The brief which I have been given on this Amendment says "The purpose of this Amendment is to assist the reader by describing with greater accuracy the content of section 17(2) of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 which deals with alteration and extension as well as with demolition of property. The Amendment in no way alters the effect of paragraph 36 of Schedule 8 to the Bill. "This proves conclusively that those who draw up these Bills do not always set out with the purpose of seeking to confuse people. They generally intend to make a Bill as intelligible as possible. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: Amendment No. 15 is a drafting Amendment to correct a printing error. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 119, line 36, leave out first ("of") and insert ("to").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Enactments repealed]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 125, line 31, after ("24(7)") insert ("subject to the exception in section 69(3) of this Act").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment is to qualify the repeal of Section 24(7) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1945 which appears in Schedule 10 to the Bill. Section 24(7) of the 1945 Act provides that where an order under subsection (4) or (5) of Section 24 extinguishing a right of way or rights of statutory undertakers in
1366
respect of apparatus under certain land is duly made and not withdrawn before the making of the order, the order shall be provisional only and shall be of no effect until confirmed by Parliament. Clause 69(3) of the Bill provides that certain provisions (including Section 24(7) of the Act of 1945) shall cease to have effect. As a result of this provision an order under Section 24(4) or (5) shall no longer be subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure. The sole exception is in respect of an order made before the commencement of Clause 69 of the Bill. The Amendment takes account of this exception in favour of orders which have been made before. It was not intended that they should lose the benefit which they have at present, and this Amendment puts the matter right. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (COLLIERY WORKERS SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEME) AMENDMENT (No. 2) ORDER 1968
6.34 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennet I beg to move that the National In Durance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment (No. 2) Order 1968, the draft of which was laid before this House on November 12, he approved. In view of the fact that the Special Orders Committee has examined this Order and advised the House that it can be passed, I will not at this hour delay your Lordships with a speech. However, if there are any questions, I shall do my best to answer them. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment (No. 2) Order 1968, laid before the House on November 12 last, be approved.—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.