Lords Sitting of 4 November 1975

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

ROYAL COMMISSION POWERS
Lord WIGG: 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 are the powers of Royal Commissions.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, it is usual for the Warrant appointinga Royal Commission, which is issued by Command of the Queen, to give the Commissioners power to call witnesses, to call for information in writing and to call for, have access to and examine all such books, documents, registers and records as may assist them. The Commissioners may also be empowered to visit and personally inspect such places as they deem expedient.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, while the Minister's Answer is, of course, wholly in line with the reference in Todd's Parliamentary Government of England of 1869, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that a Royal Commission has no powers whatever to send for papers or persons, if those persons are not willing to attend? Is he also aware that any reference to the use of, "the usual powers"—aRoyal Commission has the usual powers as mentioned in connection with, for example, the Royal Commission on Gambling or, again, the Royal Commission of 1874—is wholly misleading, because all the authorities agree that a Royal Commission has no powers? Furthermore, is my noble friend aware that on the two occasions since the First World War when a Royal Commission has sought powers a change of name was required, because an Act of Parliament was needed to give it those powers?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, without some research I cannot pretend to know what examples my noble friend has in mind, but he is quite right in saying that a Royal Commission does not have coercive powers. That is perfectly true and I think that it could be a quite formidable difficulty were it not for one fact; that is, that so far as the Home Office is aware there is no evidence that the lack of existence of such coercive powers has in any way inhibited the getting of the requisite amount of information from witnesses.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that the two examples I quote relate to Section 84 of the Government of India Act and the Inquiry into the coalmining industry in 1919? On every occasion when an Inquiry was necessary it has been found that powers were required. Is my noble friend saying that coercive powers are not required? If so, why is it that in the case of a Select Committee those powers are expressly conferred by Parliament?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, on the latter point raised by my noble friend, he is quite right. All I am saying is that there is no evidence, so far as the Home Office is aware, that in recent years there have been any difficulties in obtaining the assistance of witnesses before a Royal Commission. That is the only point I am trying to make.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to take this on board? He is to have an Inquiry into the betting and gaming industry. Is he not aware that it is a fact that one family has amassed a fortune of not less than £600 million and has never on any occasion disclosed the facts on which the public could make up its mind? Unless that Royal Commission has powers, then the Royal Commission is a fraud.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if there were any such difficulties, then it would certainly be a matter of some concern to the Government. All I can do is repeat to my noble friend that in recent years there has been no evidence that the lack of existence of coercive powers has inhibited Royal Commissions from discharging their responsibilities.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend inclined to agree that in the

985
last 60 years, at any rate, successive Governments have appointed Royal Commisions as a device in order to shelve awkward questions?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am certainly well aware that that charge has been made on a number of occasions, and it may well be that it has been justified on a number of occasions. But I do not think it would be right for a Government to come forward with proposals to Parliament on the complex matters which are involved in betting and gaming legislation, without careful analysis by a body of the eminence of a Royal Commission.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, in that case why did not the Minister, when I questioned him at the end of July, agree that, before a decision was taken that there should be a Royal Commission as against a Select Committee—and I readily agree that the argument is balanced—this House and another place should be consulted, because it is a matter of vital concern not only from a fiscal point of view, but from a social point of view.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I can well recall my noble friend raising the point before the Summer Recess and, certainly, the Government took this into account in the discussions which took place within the Government, as to whether we should proceed by way of a Select Committee or a Royal Commission. As my noble friend fairly says, the argument is to some extent an evenly balanced one. We came down in favour of a Royal Commission and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, has agreed to become Chairman of it.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is it not a fact that inquisitorial powers based on compulsion are not universally popular?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I hesitate—
Lord WIGG: May I ask my noble friend—
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I hesitate to enter this discussion and I do so to ask the Minister whether he is aware that there was at least one useful Royal Commission, which was set
986
up in 1946, entitled the Royal Commission Rewards to Inventors with powers to summon witnesses? Is he also aware that that Royal Commission was set up in order to deal with patents and trade mark matters, instead of the courts? Is the noble Lord further aware that that Royal Commission was headed by a former Member of this House, the late Lord Cohen of Walmer, and that that Royal Commission happened to have myself as its part-time secretary, which is my reason for presuming to interevene now? I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that certain Royal Commissions have powers to summon people to deal with matters that are not dealt with by the courts.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I believe the whole House would agree that the Commission was fortunate to have the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, as its secretary. I should add that I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that it is surprising that one who upholds the rule of law should, when it suits him, describe the power to sub-poena as inquisitorial, whereas last night he was supporting the rule of law on all counts? Does the Minister not agree that that kind of dichotomy in thinking is very near to humbug?

COMMUNITY LAND BILL AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES
2.45 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: 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 which local authorities have prepared their schemes under the Community Land Bill ready for presentation to the Secretary of State by 31st December 1975, having regard to the fact that information was given on 27th October that many local authorities, though not named, were ready.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, it would be premature before the Community Land

987
Bill receives Royal Assent to ask local authorities to report progress on their preparations for implementing the scheme.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask whether she is aware that it was stated in our debate the other day that a number of local authorities had already prepared their plans? Would it not be in the national interest for those local authorities which had prepared their plans to receive a little commendation? —for, though I do not agree with the Bill, I always like to commend people when they have done something good. Arising out of that question, may I ask the noble Baroness whether there is more than one local authority which has prepared its plans? Will the noble Baroness bear in mind that I thought her very polite Answer rather eccentric?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I believe that, particularly in this House, we are all very much in favour of eccentrics and I take that as a compliment. In answer to the noble Baroness's question, the information was volunteered informally by local authorities and their associations and we have neither the statistics nor the names to give her. However, I will certainly pass on her commendations through my Department as the names of the local authorities come to our attention.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask her whether it is not a little odd or indeed a little funny, that when we were opposing—as I certainly opposed it —the very short time given to us, she made so much of the fact that there were many local authorities which had been able to do it, whereas now she does not seem to know which they are? Is that not even more than eccentric?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I shall not be drawn about that. I admit that I am odd, funny and eccentric. Nevertheless, there are a number of local authorities which, according to the confidential information which we have, are in the process of making their plans. Until Royal Assent, we shall not be in a position
988
officially to announce that. It would be improper and we should not be able to give a comprehensive reply without being able to state any names or statistics. I do not see any contradiction in that at all and, if I may say so, it was not I who made a great deal of this but Members of the Committee, including the noble Baroness herself.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, if the noble Baroness cannot give my noble friend any information on that score, can she tell us whether there are any local authorities which have taken no steps whatever with regard to making plans and which have declared quite clearly that they have not the slightest intention of doing so?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord appears to be better informed than I. I have heard rumours—which I would hesitate to repeat except within this Chamber—that there have been some authorities which have been advised on political grounds not to go ahead with the plans, but I should not like to state that.

NATIONAL SAVINGS SCHEMES
Lord BARNBY: 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 they are now intending to widen the issue of National Savings certificates.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, since taking Office, the Government have improved the terms of all National Savings securities. The latest examples of this are the introduction of two index-linked savings schemes. The Government have no further plans for indexation, but the position is under continuous review.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that, with regard to the invitation to subscribe to National Savings certificates—of which there are now understood to be over 2,000 million in circulation—that invitation contains adequate intimation to would-be subscribers that, during the life of the present Government, the debasement of the currency has resulted in savers losing 25

989
per cent. of what they put into the certificates? Furthermore, are they satisfied that the warning that is required in most other financial advertisements that the units can go down as well as up is, in the case of the Government securities, adequately given?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, on 1st January this year the amount contributed to National Savings certificates amounted in total to £1,941 million, excluding accrued interest. At the end of September, it was £2,067 million. I believe that that shows that, as a whole, National Savings are competitive.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, could the noble Lord elaborate on what exactly is meant by that absolutely original phrase "a continuous review"?
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, could the noble Lord ask the Government to reissue tax reserve certificates as a means whereby people can save for their taxes? These were withdrawn from sale to the general public, I believe by the last Labour Government.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that is another question. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Question on that matter I will do my best to answer it.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, the Minister was good enough to explain that there has recently been that extension, in which it is a matter of age as to who can make use of it. Is it administrative difficulties which prevent the extension being made to other age groups? By comparison with Government undated bonds, on the basis of 15 per cent., the reward seems low and the hazard great.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, as I said, there are two schemes. First, there is the scheme which applies to people who have reached the age of retirement under the National Insurance scheme. There is also the Save-as-you-Earn scheme which applies to everybody aged 16 years or more.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while the index-linked schemes are extremely good value for money, it would be a good idea—as inflation has been rather
990
rampant—to increase the maximum amount that can be invested in them?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Government have two conflicting obligations. One is an obligation to the taxpayer to buy goods and services as economically as possible, and secondly there are certain social obligations. The Government believe that by the action they have taken they have got the right balance.

PARAQUAT: SALE AND USE PRECAUTIONS
2.51 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: 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 they will consider the banning of sale to the general public of the weed killer known as paraquat in view of the recent tragic accidents.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government look to the Advisory Committee on pesticides and other toxic chemicals for advice on safety precautions for this and other similar products. These precautions already include provision under which sales of the liquid formulation can be made only to those who require the supplies for the purpose of their trade or business. Within the last year the Advisory Committee has reviewed the use of paraquat. In the light of its findings the Government are not intending to alter the present provisions.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but could he say, first, how many accidents have occurred in the past two years as regards to weed killer; and, secondly, is there a known antidote?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I have not got the figures for the past two years; they are not yet available. But over the last seven years for which figures are available—that is, 1966 to 1973—there have been 61 deaths of which, I regret to say, over half were suicides, and in regard to another 10 open verdicts were recorded. There is no known antidote, but the product is subject to the Act dealing with poisons, and the Advisory Committee is satisfied that Paraquat is perfectly

991
safe provided it is used in accordance with the recommendations on the label. I welcome this opportunity to urge all those who handle the product to observe the precautions printed on the label and, in particular, not to decant it into any other container.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us a little more about why the Committee refrained from taking any action with regard to these lethal weed killers?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this is not the only product which is lethal if it is mishandled. But there is no known case where paraquat has killed anybody when the precautions have been observed. There are other products of this kind which are very necessary in agriculture; of course strychnine, for killing moles, comes immediately to mind.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can my noble friend say how it is proposed to protect children and people who are perhaps a little abnormal mentally, who have little difficulty in obtaining this product in tool sheds or wherever it is kept?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this is subject to the Pharmacy and Poisons Act of 1933. Paraquat can be sold only by an authorised seller of poisons, that is a pharmacist, or by a listed seller who must be registered with the local authority. The seller must know the purchaser to be a person to whom paraquat may properly be sold.
Lord ALLERTON: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that paraquat is an essential form of pesticide for certain types of agriculture, and that for that reason its continuing use will be justified?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords; of course the noble Lord is perfectly right. Paraquat has been of immense value in sustaining crop yields. In many situations—for example, for direct drilling which can avoid ploughing—there is no alternative to this product; and home food production would suffer if we were to restrict its use.
Lord BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that paraquat is
992
sold under a different name as a weed killer and that the print that is attached to its container is not very easy to read?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend is of course quite right, paraquat is sold under the name "Gramoxone", which is the name used by its manufacturer.

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK rose to move, That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clauses 4 and 25; and that Standing Order No. 44 be dispensed with to enable the Report to be taken on the same day as the Committee (on Recommitment).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I understand that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if on Recommitment we discuss only Amendment No. 31 in the Marshalled List to Clause 4, and all the Amendments to Clause 25, with the exception of Amendment No. 163. The other Amendments to these clauses will be taken on Report in the usual way.
Moved, That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clauses 4 and 25; and that Standing Order No. 44 be dispensed with to enable the Report to be taken on the same day as the Committee (on Recommitment).—(Baroness Birk.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Baroness for what she has said, and to say that we entirely agree with her suggestion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
2.58 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) in respect of Clauses 4 and 25 on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment)

993
in respect of Clauses 4 and 25.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Expressions relating to land and planning law]:
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): I understand that it is not proposed to move Amendments Nos. 18 to 30 in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects I shall call Amendment No. 31.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON The Lord Bishop of LONDON moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 5, line 44, after ("1974") insert ("or any later date").
The right reverend Prelate said: I should like to associate myself with the expressions of gratitude that have been extended to the Government for agreeing that this Part of the Bill should be recommitted. As your Lordships will appreciate, this clause is of the greatest possible concern to the future work of the Churches and charities of this country. Therefore, it is very important indeed that these matters should be given the very fullest opportunity for debate, and I thank the Government for agreeing to this Recommitment. The Amendment which I am moving is the same as that which I moved on 22nd October and, after debate, withdrew. Its purpose is to remove, so far as the Churches and charities are concerned, the difference between pre- and post-White Paper day land, and to remove the 10-year period during which the Churches and the charities are protected from the operation of the Bill.
In the previous debate, there was very general acceptance of my Amendment throughout the Committee. Indeed, there was not a single speech made in opposition to it, except that which was made from the Government Front Bench. At the end of it, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor undertook to do what he could to carry out the further consideration he had promised, and to bring before your Lordships the ancillary matters which have since flowed from the latest discussions with the Minister. We were very grateful to him for that assur
994
ance, and as a result of it I then agreed not to press my Amendment to a Division.
We now know, through the Amendments which they have tabled, what is in the mind of the Government and, alas!, only some very meagre and dry crumbs have fallen from the Minister's table. The lost year is recovered, so that we should have 11 rather than 10 years in which to put our affairs in order. But the rule remains, as does the rigid difference between pre- and post-White Paper day land; and, as we shall see when we come to Clause 25, the 10-year rule for the holding of charitable land continues, when we have asked for one year. So I have no alternative but to reintroduce my Amendment to Clause 4.
May I quite succinctly remind the Committee of what it attempts to do? Its purpose is to remove, so far as all charity land is concerned, the distinction between land owned by a charity on White Paper day and land acquired subsequently, so far as the acquisition duty of local authorities is concerned. This means that although they will still have power to acquire such land if necessary in the exercise of their ordinary statutory powers, local authorities will not be under a duty to do so. Accordingly, a charity will always be able to develop its land for its own use or otherwise, without the intervention of the local authority, and, if the provisions of the development land tax Bill follow the same pattern, be able to develop it or sell it free of tax. This will apply irrespective of when the land was acquired, either before or after White Paper day, and of whether the land is functional land or investment land. This Amendment, together with the corresponding Amendments to the compensation provisions of the Bill in Clause 25, will therefore ensure that, even after the lapse of the 10-year period, charities remain free to continue their operations unimpeded and to redeploy their assets in the form of land in the same way as they can those held in the form of stocks and shares so as best to meet the needs of the times and maintain the incoming capital which sustains the work which they do for the community.
I do not intend to deploy again all the arguments which I used previously in support of this Amendment. I want now to concentrate, simply and briefly, on the

995
one point which underlies the case put forward by all the Churches and charities of this land. So far as I know, Churches and charities have never disputed the basic principle underlying the philosophy of this Bill; that is, that land should be used well and in the best interests of the whole people. But they claim that the work that they do is, by definition, one of service to the community, so they assert that they should not be inhibited in the use of their resources for the benefit of the community.
The nub of disagreement is expressed in the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in this House on 21st October, which I quoted in my speech of 22nd October. On that occasion he said:
"It was never the intention of the Government that development by Churches and charities should be completely excluded from the land scheme, since such exemption would lead to the establishment of a particularly privileged class of land owners".—[Official Report, 21/10/75; col. 1380]
It is the conviction and contention of the Churches and charities that there is no claim to "the establishment of a particularly privileged class of land owners." We claim, on the contrary, that the Bill is depriving an area of national life of the means of doing its work. It is the Bill in its present state which is creating a new situation, not the Churches and charities which are claiming something new for themselves.
Let me elaborate this point. For four centuries charity land has been protected by law. In the past, charity land has been given or bought in order to make possible the purposes which are beneficial to society; and the object of charity law is to ensure that charities, whether they be ecclesiastical or secular, are protected in the possession of their land and that they use their assets for the purpose for which they were given, and for no other. The Charity Commissioners control transactions by charities with meticulous care, so that the assets are used only for the purpose for which they were intended. The Church Commissioners, a statutory body, are charged by law to use their assets only as the law permits for the benefit of the Church of England; and other religious bodies are equally strictly controlled by trust deeds or by Acts of Parliament.
This point is absolutely fundamental; and I quote from an expert in the administration of charities with whom I have had some communication. He has said to me:
"What the Bill does actually is to confiscate part of the value of land and apply it to public purposes chosen not by the donors but by central or local government. This is an entirely different proposition, and cuts at the constitutional position of charity whereby the State guarantees, as it has since the Tudor Parliaments, to enforce the purposes of charitable trusts against all corners".
This is no new argument. It was considered in 1950 when the Nathan Committee reaffirmed the traditional policy of Parliament towards charities; it was enshrined, with the agreement of all Parties, in the Charities Act 1960; and it was reaffirmed at the time of the Land Commission in 1964 and 1965, when the principle of exemption for ecclesiastical and charitable land, both functional and endowment, was once more established.
So that far from begging for privilege, the Churches and charities are by this Amendment asking the Government once more to affirm that they stand by the traditional policy towards them. They ask that their assets shall be protected, so that under the law they may continue to be employed for the purposes for which they were given. In our view, the Bill as it stands confounds that traditional policy and sets up in its place a system under which the assets of charitable land could be used in a way in which it was never envisaged they should be used.
I wonder whether the Government appreciate that, as regards charities, the Bill as it stands goes back on the settled policy as regards charitable land which has existed for 400 years, and which was reaffirmed as recently as 20 years ago. I hope that this is a matter of inadvertence, for, if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to alter the status of charitable land, this should be done openly and with opportunity for full debate, and not as an item in an extremely difficult and complicated Bill. My Amendment would redress the balance. I hope that even at this very late hour Her Majesty's Government will see the force of this argument and will restore to the Churches and charities the protection they need and look for if they are to do their work effectively and are to have the means to do it. I beg to move.
3.10 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: (Lord Elwyn-Jones): I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate takes the view that the position into which the provisions of the Bill as proposed by the Government have put Churches and charities has resulted at the end of the day in the production of merely meagre and dry crumbs. I hope to indicate in the course of my observations that that, I think, does less than justice to the attempt the Government have very seriously and conscientiously made to be fair in this legislation to both the Churches and the charities, recognising the unique contribution that they make to the life of our society and to the personal lives of most if not all of us.
Towards the end of the debate which the House had when the right reverend Prelate moved the same Amendment, I promised that the Government would look at it carefully in the light of our discussion. This we have done most carefully and, knowing the seriousness that the right reverend Prelate and those for whom he speaks attach to this Amendment, I am sorry that the Government have not found it possible to meet his wishes in this respect for reasons (which, I submit, will be sound reasons) that I shall be indicating.
The effect of the Amendment which we are presently debating would be to make interests owned by charities into non-outstanding interests; that is, not subject to the duty imposed by Clause 18 of the Bill on the relevant authorities to bring development land into public ownership whenever those interests are acquired.
The Government still feel unable to accept that proposition. The Government indicated the reasons for this in detail when we last debated the matter and, like the right reverend Prelate, I do not know that it will be helpful to retraverse that ground in detail. The broad proposition is that if the integrity of the Community Land Scheme is to be maintained and its purpose accomplished we cannot go as far as the Amendment proposes. I submit that the Government, within the necessity of maintaining the effectiveness of the Community Land Scheme, have gone a long way to help the Churches and charities to adapt to the new system. The special benefits
998
they have already provided and those that are now tabled for your Lordships' consideration in Clause 25 (which we shall be discussing later) place them, at any rate, in a unique position. I withdraw the word "privileged" for I know that that has undertones which are unacceptable. But they place Churches and charities in a unique and favourable position compared with all other owners of land.
I think it right, in view of the broad criticism that has been expressed by the right reverend Prelate, that I should rehearse briefly those special provisions for the Churches and charities so that their full extent may be made clear. First, the acquisition duty and the consequential suspension of planning permission will not apply to land owned by any charity on White Paper Day for any kind of development. That is the effect of Clause 4(3)(b). It will cover a situation where a mixed development, for instance, is proposed; for example, a city centre site, and where the charity is dependant on realising the commercial value of the site in order to finance that part of the development which is intended for their use. Secondly, when the authorities acquire such charity land the valuation basis will continue to be market basis for 11 years or until the second appointed day, whichever period ends later. That is provided for in the new subsection (3)(b) in Amendment No. 167. I agree that it would be wrong to build that up into a great and important matter; but, at any rate, it will be an addition of convenience that, in the decade now ahead, will help the Churches and charities to meet the situation which the Bill presents them with.
Thirdly, after that time—the 10 years or 11 years since White Paper Day—they will get prevailing use value for land acquired. This will also apply to land that comes into their ownership after White Paper Day so long as it has been kept in continuous charity ownership and use for at least 10 years. This is the main effect of the tabled Government Amendments to Clause 25. They will give the Churches and charities the benefit of being able to relate the value of their land to values prevailing in the neighbourhood. Fourthly, development land tax will never be charged on any development or disposal of land owned by a

999
charity on White Paper Day and while this, as the right reverend Prelate said, in relation to past practice is not a novelty so far as the Churches and charities are concerned, in relation to and compared with the position of other owners of land it is an important concession.
Those are benefits of considerable assistance and value to the Churches and charities. There are others of rather less importance which we shall come to in the course of discussions on the Bill; but those four are the main benefits, if that is the right word, when one considers the context in which they have been made. I submit that they are both substantial and unique.
During the series of discussions the Government have had with Church and charity interests, they have repeatedly emphasised that any special provision made in the land legislation for charities must be consistent with the principles of the land scheme. As memories tend to fade during a long debate it might be timely to remind your Lordships of what the land scheme is all about. It is put clearly and succinctly in paragraph 16 of the White Paper which states that the Government objectives are:
"to establish a permaent means:

(a) to enable the community to control the development of land in accordance with its needs and priorities; and

(b) to restore to the community the increase in value of land arising from its efforts."

The community attach major importance to the accomplishment of those two objectives.
The Government have gone far in helping with the problems that the Churches and charities believe they will be facing; fears which, with respect, are sometimes exaggerated. As I said in our previous debates, we are fully aware of the vital role of the Churches and charities in our community. For the land they owned on White Paper Day—over a year ago now —they have been well protected. This has been done in the ready recognition that at that time they could not foresee what exactly the Government's land policy held in store, and the Government have recognised this in the wide-ranging special provisions that they have introduced to make the transition from the present system to
1000
the time when the new system is in full operation as smooth and helpful as possible.
When it comes to land charities acquired since the White Paper was published, after White Paper Day, we are in an entirely different situation. By his Amendment, the right reverend Prelate seeks to abolish that difference and to abolish the distinction between what was known to all concerned before that date and what became known to them after that date. The Government have sought to make it as easy as is practicable within the purpose of the scheme to achieve the transition from total exclusion of Church and charity land from that time to a partial compliance with it. As I have said in my observations to the Committee, they will, if these measures acquire a force of law, be in a far more favoured position than other relevant sectors. For these reasons, I must ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
3.22 p.m.
Viscount GAGE: My Lords, on a previous occasion I said that I was a member of a housing association which is developing Church land chiefly for retired clergy and other worthy persons. I also stated that I thought it was wrong to stop this work. In view of the almost unanimous support which the right reverend Prelate received at the first discussion we had on this matter, and in view of the not altogether unsympathetic attitude of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, we all expected a good deal more than we are now getting. I agree we are getting something and, as one would expect from such a skilled debater, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made the most of it.
On the vital question of the period of time, we have had this extended only from 10 to11 years. This leads me to wonder why the Church and these old charities have to be made the subject of any restriction. We have been told by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the reason is that if the Churches were not put in this position they would not conform to the theory behind this Bill. But what is this theory? We do not belong to any group which attracts the odium of noble Lords opposite, such as the speculators. I think that we do what is generally accepted to be

1001
good work. As the right reverend Prelate said, everything we do is under the constant supervision of the Charity Commissioners who would immediately come down on us if we did anything irregular.
It has been made clear that we do not conform to this theory. But what is the theory? It seems a theory evolved entirely by the Labour Party. I do not think it has any wider appeal than that. There may be a certain number of Government supporters who think, as I think they do, that charity is now old hat; they may think that Christianity is old hat. I do not see why the slight authority which the Government have at the present moment should empower them to raid the assets of the Church and these old charities with this tremendous tradition behind them. What would happen if the land was taken over? That would be administered by a number of minor civil servants all on establishment, all on superannuation, and the administration would be far more expensive and less effective than it is today. I feel like a crusader fighting the infidels in this matter. I should be glad to follow the right reverend Prelate in any course of action he sees fit to take.
3.25 p.m.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, what is 10 years? With very great respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor what is 10 to 11 years when the right reverend Prelate was talking of 400 years? If we try in this country to "monkey about" with people's wills, we will get into the law courts and get into trouble. Wills are wills; if today people are considering giving land to the Church, for whatever purpose, they give it for posterity. If they feel that in 10 years' time it will be taken away, then, my Lords, you will kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Land has been given to the Church for centuries; if we are now going to change the law and now give them the land for 10 years, then it is nothing short of robbing the dead.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, I must repeat something of what I tried to say last time in support of the Amendment proposed by my right reverend friend, and for reasons which perhaps have been somewhat overlooked. I agree with what has appeared in various newspapers (though of course the noble and learned
1002
Lord Chancellor was far too courteous and gentlemanly to refer to them) regarding the way in which certain charities impose upon a credulous public, and such a process should be ended as quickly as possible. There has been no definition offered in your Lordships' House as to what properly constitutes a charity, and what is not a charity at all but an imposition. I would cordially agree there are many so-called "charities" which need far more scrutiny than they receive, and are entitled to much less money than they get. But that does not dispose of the problem of some charities with which I would presume to think I am not unengaged; one of them is the vastly changing condition under which charities have to operate today if they are to be relevant to the contemporary situation.
A charity is not a fixed mark enduring from century to century. As conditions change, so do the proper ends of the charities directed towards the amelioration of those conditions require to be changed as well. I speak from personal and direct acquaintance with a number of charities, some connected with the Church, others not connected with any form of the Christian Church, which, in order to continue, not only to require help which has been given to them before White Paper Day but require the ability to conduct and to conclude arrangements in the process of being made which are vital to their continuation. Without this they will become, if not completely derelict, certainly less valuable and less entitled to the support which I am sure the noble and learned Lord wishes to give them. It is because of this inability to continue—not to ask for any privileged condition—to render the service which we believe is apposite and right that this Amendment commends itself overwhelmingly to my mind, and to my conscience as well.
If it is true that there are continuing needs for charities of the kind which care for alcoholics, for boys out of Borstal, for one-parent families, then there is ample evidence—though I will not delay your Lordships by deploying it now—that there is an absolute need for those charities to have the ability to improve upon the things which they have been trying to do, unhindered by the pecuniary and. I believe, crippling weight which will

1003
be put upon them if, in the acquisition of further amenities and land needed in order to continue their work, they come under the obligation that they have not so conducted themselves as to acquire that land or those amenities before White Paper day. It is the continuation of the charities, not their acceptability as being some kind of peculiar or exceptional case to be regarded with some disfavour—though, as has been said with certain requirements that can be met by a Government which I am sure is anxious to do the right thing about them—which constantly require changes in their administration and settlement and in the whole environment in which they seek to do their work, which commends itself to me as the most imperative need for the support of this Amendment. I hope that that support will be forthcoming.
Lord ALPORT: I have not taken part in any of the discussions which have surrounded the mass of legislation which the Government are putting through Parliament at the present time. I intervene now only off the cuff, so to speak, because I might be able to give the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues an example of the effect which this piece of legislation will have upon one charity. I am chairman of the management committee of a home for elderly people. This was started by a lady 25 years ago, and she is still running it in the most marvellousway today, when she is well over 80. She has given the whole of a piece of property to this charity, and associated with the property in the early days was a small farm, run primarily to provide special diets for the elderly people who were living in the home, and also to provide a certain amount of money which was contributed to the maintenance of the charity. The farm was retained in her own name; she was still the proprietor of that land, although she had given the house and its surrounding garden to the charity.
In the middle of this year, after White Paper day, when I and others had only recently come to be associated with this, she decided that she would hand over this small farm to the charity. The object of the exercise was primarily to enable the management committee to take advantage of a scheme which had long been in her mind. This scheme
1004
involved selling part of the land for development by another charity which intended to provide a group of homes for elderly people which were to be associated with our house, our garden and the other amenities which we have there. The intention was that we should then use the money for the land which would be sold—and sold at the district valuer's valuation—to build a nursing wing for our elderly people's home. This is very important, because the problem which this lady has faced so often during the last 25 years has been that of having to send elderly people away, perhaps during the last few months of their lives, to a place which was some distance away from their friends and relations so that they could get the specialised and intensive type of nursing required by elderly people in those circumstances, and which is a different form of nursing from hospital nursing. The lady thought, and we agreed, that it would be marvellous to be able to use the money that we received for this property to build a nursing wing for our elderly residents.
As I understand it, unless the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate is passed, we shall not be able to take full advantage of the money which is received from the sale of the property to another charity, in order to provide us with some of the funds which we shall require for this form of development. This development, I would stress, is highly desirable, as all those who are familiar with the problems of old people will realise. So we shall not sell that land—we do not have to, so far as I know—and therefore the other charity involved will not build their old people's houses or flats there. We shall not build our nursing wing either, and thus the whole purpose of the benevolence and far-sightedness of a very elderly woman, who has given her life to a very important element in the life of a small community in my part of Essex, will be frustrated.
This cannot be the object of the Government; this cannot be the attitude of any Government in a country such as ours in regard to charities. I cannot understand why the Government and the noble and learned Lord should shy away from the word "privilege", so far as charities are concerned. It may well be that under the present law some charities do not deserve the special treatment they

1005
get. But surely those charities which do deserve it should not have it taken away from them, simply because a few charities have got through the net when they should not have done.
I have very often listened from the seat now occupied by the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees to many of the debates which have taken place on much of the legislation over these last weeks. I can tell the noble and learned Lord, and noble Lords who sit on the opposite side of the Chamber, that much of this legislation will simply go by the board over the passage of time, because in due course, when those who have to deal with public affairs in this country—not on the grand scale that we have here, but on a small scale in the towns and villages of this country—realise the effect it is having on their lives, they will demand its change.
I would therefore ask the noble and learned Lord and the Government to realise that the mainspring of social life in this country is represented by the charitable instincts of the people, and anything that offends or frustrates them will become in the end a source of grievance and something which will succeed in undermining the other purposes of this piece of legislation. Therefore, I would say, from my own very small experience in the very small context of a very small charity which means a lot to a small number of people, that I hope the noble and learned Lord and his noble friends will reconsider the decision he has just announced to your Lordships.
3.39 p.m.
Baroness HYLTON-FOSTER: I did not take part in this debate during Committee stage, because the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said so many of the things that I should have liked to say. But today I have been puzzled by a remark made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who said, if I understood him correctly, that the period of 10 or 11 years ought to give charities plenty of time to adapt to the new system. With respect, I do not think it is up to charities to adapt to the new system, because they are only filling the gaps and doing the jobs which cannot be done by the statutory services, who cannot perform many of the tasks because they have neither the personnel nor the
1006
funds and who, in any case work only for limited hours. Charities today must keep up with the changing needs of society. This may very well mean moving their premises in order to fill gaps which occur, and how can one tell now where gaps will be in 10 or 11 years' time? Unless the charities are assured of having sufficient funds and of being able to sell properties so that they have sufficient funds to embark on new premises and new ventures, I think the position for them will be very disappointing. So I support the right reverend Prelate in his Amendment.
Lord HAWKE: I would not want to add very much to what the right reverend Prelate has said; he said it so well. But there are two points I should like to make. First, if his Amendment is accepted charities will not stand out like a sore thumb. As I read it, the statutory undertakers are already exempt from this Bill. Everybody knows, for instance, that the railways own vast quantities of land which they say they use for operational purposes while in practice they do not. So charities would be merely another form of statutory undertaker, but operating under the Charities Act instead of the various railway and water Acts, et cetera.
Secondly, I believe that if the Bill is passed as it is, in spite of what the law may be, innumerable people, elderly people and so on, making their wills will not leave land to charities because they will believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Government are going to take it away from them. That will be a most inhibiting factor. They may be entirely wrong about the law, but that will be a psychological factor. It will stop them in future from leaving land to charities.
3.42 p.m.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: Although there is not much new to say, this is such an important matter that I should like once again to express my strong support for what the right reverend Prelate has said, and, particularly, for the way the noble Lord, Lord Soper, has expressed the case. I should like to express appreciation for the efforts the noble and learned Lord has made to improve matters. Particularly, I would express satisfaction that he has rather formally withdrawn the word "privileged". The expression, "privileged

1007
class of land-owners" has been prejudicial politically since 1917 and it is most unfortunate that it should ever have surfaced in this context.
I would make only one slightly technical point to add to the others. Perhaps I may put it metaphorically by saying that you do not get the Sword of Damocles free; you rent it In other words, once it is known that there is a time limit on certain things that can be done with property, the entire atmosphere in which people approach the necessity for doing business with owner-charities is changed and a premium is put on delay and an influence on prices obtainable by charities —there is waiting and then prices are lowered simply because there is a time limit.
The disappointing feature throughout the conciliatory, if obdurate, speech of the noble and learned Lord was that he expressed himself entirely in relative terms: that what is proposed is a "bit better", and that charities and Churches should do "somewhat better" than everybody else. Surely that contradicts what many noble Lords, including myself, said in the previous debate: that there is an absolute difference here, a difference of principle; that the Churches and charities are largely operated by people who do something they need not do, who do it for nothing and without material reward.
I feel that somewhere within the argument—I disagree with the noble Lord who made this a Party matter; I do not take it as that at all—is some false doctrine in what is preached to us by the Government. One sees traces of the doctrine, which has been quite seriously propounded—and I have heard people propounding it—that if things are not done by the State, well, that is too bad and people will have to wait, but they must not be done by other organisations. That is a very bad doctrine indeed. One does not need to be connected in any way with charity to realise what an anti-social doctrine it is. I hope that the absolute claim, which has existed since Tudor times, for these exemptions of which noble Lords have spoken will be maintained. I should greatly dislike to see this Government being the first Government since the Tudors to pass reactionary legislation on this subject.
Lord HYLTON: I supported the right reverend Prelate last week and am delighted to do so again this week. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was kind enough to say that Churches and charities make a unique contribution to our society. Nevertheless, the position he outlined as a result of the Government's Amendments and concessions does not appear to Members of your Lordships' House on all Benches to be anything like unique enough. The Government may consider that they have a mandate to pass this Bill, but I would very much question what mandate they can possibly have to overthrow what has been settled public policy for many hundreds of years regarding Churches and charities.
Why are the Government going beyond the terms of the Land Commission Act 1965? And, if this Bill is to be taken as a precedent, what further taxes and imposts may we expect to be laid upon Churches and charities in future years? The whole Committee should support the right reverend Prelate if only because Churches and charities have over the centuries pioneered all the newest forms of social welfare and moral welfare and of health and education, and I am quite confident they will continue pioneering. I am quite confident, also, that they will continue to provide a choice for a person in need of service which he will not have if he has to rely solely upon statutory services.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I also should like to support the right reverend Prelate in this Amendment. There is one aspect which has not yet been mentioned. I may be wrong in this and perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will tell me if I am. I have been connected with many charities, as many noble Lords know, all my life. One of the things I have done is to be a member of charitable trusts that give money to charities. I have been nearly 50 years on one trust, and certainly 25 years on another. The grants we gave were always given to enable the charities to enlarge, to become more important, and to grow in strength and value to the community. We were guided in all the grants we gave by the fact that these organisations were charities. We did not

1009
give grants to any organisation of a commercial character or which did not meet the usual description of charities in Acts of Parliament.
If the status, so to speak, of the land which is acquired, or of the buildings which are acquired, or of the work which is done through grant-giving trusts for charities, is altered, what is to happen? Are the trusts then not going to be able to give their money, which is used and owned on a charitable basis, not a commercial basis? What will happen? Are we to be hampered by this situation or will we be able to go on, or what? It seems to me that this is another aspect which might be quite detrimental to the development of charities. By the word, "charity" I mean the word in a wider sense than the noble Lord, Lord Alport, does. There may be detriment to many other, different types of social work which is done by volunteers—whether, as the noble Baroness says, the Red Cross or another organisation. This work is done by volunteers, by people who are anxious to help the community.
In my long experience in this connection I have seen many permanent statutory services arising over experiments made by charitable organisations in the first instance. To mention one, there is the Youth Service, which in the days when I started running clubs (goodness knows how many years ago it was) was a very small organisation, but now is part and parcel of every local authority in the country. All local authorities have youth officers and youth work and different types of club work; and we all pay rates for this Service. When it started there was nothing of that kind at all. The Service was entirely voluntary and the money we gave from our charitable funds—I am speaking now of trusts —was given to develop this work.
I may be wrong but I believe that under this new legislation it will be very difficult to do what in the past was of enormous value to voluntary organisations and to the social work of the country—something which has now become part and parcel of a great deal of our ordinary social and community work. I realise that there are interests which noble Lords opposite are keen to support. Therefore, it would be a thousand pities if the kind of work that is done by Churches, charities and
1010
voluntary organisations, were to he hampered by legislation. Quite frankly, I think this would be a very great mistake.
The Earl of BALFOUR: While we are discussing Amendment No. 31, it is important to point out to your Lordships that if the Government's Amendment No. 30 which stands in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is carried, Amendment No. 31 falls, even if we go into the Division Lobbies. Secondly, may I remind Her Majesty's Government that populations move. Many a church in a built-up area has subsequently been sold and become, say, a plumber's store. Alternatively, the population has moved away from an area and an old people's home has become a ware-house. In my own area I can think of a hospital which was specially built for tuberculosis patients after the 1914–18 War. It is now being used as an old people's home, but unfortunately it is miles away from anywhere. Populations are constantly moving. Churches desparately need to be able to acquire land at a price no higher than local authorities would pay for it in residential areas, particularly in areas where there is an increase in the population, so that they can then erect Churches. Charities need to be able to build amenities such as squash courts, or community halls, or some other form of recreational building and to acquire land at a reasonable price. They should not be subject to the type of land tax with which I understand we are likely to be faced soon, or with the penalties that the provisions of this Bill will impose.
If I may return to my first point, I feel that we are losing almost half of what we ever hoped to achieve by trying to move Amendment No. 31. If Amendment No. 30 is carried, it falls anyway.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, has been trying to catch the ear of the Committee, if that is the appropriate expression, for some time.
Lord CRAWSHAW: May I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his help in getting me launched. I wish I could reciprocate his kindness by affording him some support but I fear that I must join the battalions of those who are arraigned against him on this

1011
occasion and suggest that charities and the churches are themselves a vital part of our community and exist solely for the purpose of serving people in general. By subjecting them to this Bill I fear that the Government can only reduce their capacity. One must ask in what way local authorities will use the revenue accruing to them more valuably than the churches and charities themselves. They may well pass the money straight back to the Churches and charities—a cumbrous, bureaucratic and somewhat Irish procedure. Why not leave the Churches and charities to get on with the job they know so well?
I, like most noble Lords, must declare several interests in charities. One in particular concerns me at the moment. For the past 18 years I have served as a County Commissioner in the Scout Association and sit on the Committee of the Council in London. At present the Association has about 600,000 members. Concern is being expressed about how the effects of this Bill will impair the service that the Scout Association can give to the young people of this country. In times of financial stress—and all charities are feeling the pinch at the moment—the areas of the country most adversely affected invariably are the most deprived and the most remote rural areas. At the moment the Scout Association owns 1,100 acres of land, mainly camp sites.
The kind of situation that is causing concern is that of the Tolmers Camp site in Hertfordshire—a 100 acre site that is now within the Green Belt. It is very unlikely that the Association will want to sell this site within the next 10 years, but after that the situation is uncertain. As building ultimately encroaches it may well be advisable to sell, but the agricultural value price only will be obtained under this Bill. There is real concern as to whether this sum can ever be enough to find a replacement camp site in an accessible area, and I am sure the answer to that question is that it will not. Great things are being, done in the Scout world—by our local association in Birmingham following the sale of their camp site for £250,000. In the last few years, more professional help has been recruited and they have been able to reduce membership subscriptions. Also
1012
they have been able to provide many amenities which many other local associations have been unable to afford. Finally, the Girl Guides' Association also wish to be associated with the remarks I have made. I strongly support the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate.
Baroness GAITSKELL: As an Agnostic, may I express sympathy for the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate. I do so despite the fact that I am 100 per cent. in favour of the principle of this Bill. I do so because of my experience in the United Nations where for five separate years I have been the delegate to the Human Rights Committee. There I have defended people who wished to be religious against the Communist countries who were always attacking religion. I have always had to defend voluntary organisations. Therefore, it seems to me that in this instance it is logical that I should express at least sympathy for this Amendment of the right reverend Prelate. Since there are many religious people in this country who are concerned with charities that are usually run in a non-Governmental way, it seems to me that it is right that I should be allowed to express this sympathy.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I was in the North of England last weekend when a situation was disclosed to me about which I feel I ought to say a word or two today. First, may I say that I am supporting the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate. Quite a long time ago in the place where I live a very generous family built a hospital for crippled children. Before I make my criticisms. I ought to say that, in general. I think that the present Government have done a great deal for the disabled. Therefore, I am putting this forward only because of the difficulty which has arisen. This hospital was specially built for crippled children, and was called the Sanderson Home. After some considerable time it was heavily endowed so that it could be kept running, but now, administratively, it has become involved in the National Health Service. I would have raised this on a later occasion, but this seems an opportunity to mention all the problems which will arise unless we accept this Amendment.

1013
Within the last two years, the friends of the Sanderson Home collected money to build a very special swimming pool, because anybody who knows anything about crippled children, as they used to be called, knows that they very often benefit by having exercises in swimming pools. Quite a large sum of money was spent by the friends of the Sanderson Home to provide this swimming pool. Suddenly, the Government have decided to close down the hospital and to send the children—children who have gone to that home year after year, and also children who have come freshly to it—to no one knows where. No-one knows what is to happen to the endowment which kept the hospital going. In the North of England, there is the greatest possible anxiety, because, after all, that hospital has been a great source of strength to what used to be called crippled children. When the administration was taken over by the National Health Service—which ran it with consultants and people who were specialists in the problems of these unfortunate children—no one thought for one moment that this would be a hospital selected for closure.
As I come from that part of the world, and have always been closely allied with all the things going on there, I was immediately contacted and was asked what would happen. I said, "Well, I really do not know. Nobody knows what is to happen to the money"—
The LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, will permit me to intervene, I hope not impertinently, with the greatest respect to her the matter that she is raising, although of the greatest importance, has no relevance to what we are currently discussing.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I should hate to disagree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but I would point out that charitable money is involved, because of the fact that within the last two years this very good swimming pool was built with charitable money. I can assure the noble and learned Lord, although I am slightly out of order—
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: —that it is a wonderful opportunity for explaining that charitable money is involved. Out of their own pockets, the friends of the Sanderson Home have collected money to build this pool, and that is charitable money. It is very important to know about this. This was a charitable undertaking and, although it has been administered by the National Health Service, there is still the private endowment which came as a charitable contribution when the hospital was built. I shall not go any further—
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: —but I thought it was a wonderful example of what could happen to charitable undertakings. I hope to develop this subject later when we come to National Health Service closures. But I thought it was a good thing to raise now, because I was immediately asked by my friends, and by the friends of charitable undertakings in the North who look after crippled children, what would happen, and what was to be done with the endowments which had been made. Therefore, I shall certainly support this Amendment, and I hope that this angle will be taken into consideration.
4.5 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: First, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for agreeing to recommit this part of the Bill, which we did not have an opportunity to debate fully either in another place or in this House. May I also say that we appreciate the concessions which the Government are proposing to make. However, I hope that after listening to the debate this afternoon they will consider further representations.
It is my belief that the Government view the purposes and needs of charities in the same way as we all do. I was fortunate in taking part in the debate in this House on 25th June on voluntary organisations, and I recall—and, indeed, it may be useful for the Committee to recall—what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said on that occasion.

1015
When referring to voluntary organisations, he said:
"Of course, there are some…who would argue that we are all in some danger of making too much fuss about this problem;"—
that is to say, the problem of voluntary organisations—
"that with the development of the modern Welfare State there is now far less need for voluntary service. I am bound to say that I find this a singularly foolish view. First, it denies the existence of the splendid spirit of idealism that binds the voluntary movement together—a movement consisting of thousands of widely diverse organisations yet with one central objective of relieving the problems and anxieties, and sometimes the pain and anguish, of many millions of our fellow citizens.
"There is a second reason why those who sometimes mock the voluntary movement are wrong. There has not been a time—certainly not since the last war—when our statutory services have been under more intense pressure. If the lifeline provided by many dedicated volunteers were cut, many of our most under-privileged people would be the first to suffer."—[Official Report, 25/6/75; cols. 1410–1411.]
I think we would all agree with those sentiments expressed so well by a Member of the Government. It is because we agree with those sentiments that we very much hope that the Government will reconsider the views put forward this afternoon. They were put very forcibly by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, and I would very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said about new and developing organisations. Running like a thread throughout the debate in June, speakers from all sides of the House described particular charities which had arisen to meet new needs. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred to alcoholics, but there are charities for the homeless young, for helping single and separated women, for helping discharged prisoners and for drug-takers. A number have recently arisen to help specific needs. All of them, if only the Amendments of the Government are carried, will be affected and I cannot believe, on whatever definition one has of the community, that it can be the intention of the Government that these people will suffer. It is for that reason, above all, that I hope very much that the Government will take the opportunity of the recommitment of this series of Amendments, and the opportunity afforded for reflection on Report, to consider these Amendments.
4.9 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: The noble Baroness, Lady Young, apparently was under the impression that I was going to support the Government, and that is why she intervened. Presumably the noble Baroness had the right to intervene; she is in an exalted position, unlike myself, because she sits on the Front Bench. I should like to offer a few observations, and I will give the reason why.
First of all, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may be aware that many Members of your Lordships' Committee have received a vast number of documents relating to this very intricate and somewhat complicated subject. I have received many myself, and I confess quite frankly that I could hardly understand a word of what I read. I have been listening to this debate, and sometimes one gains more from oral representation than from the written word. Therefore, I want to begin by asking two questions which have occurred to me. The first is this. If the Amendment were to be accepted by the Government, how much land would be involved? Would it be a vast amount or a percentage of the land in the United Kingdom which could hardly be said to impinge on the principle of the national ownership of land? I have made some discreet sotto voce inquiries about whether this matter has already been mentioned, and so far as I know, it has not. So may we be informed how much land would be involved if this Amendment were to be accepted? The second question is this. Is there anything particularly improper if we should impinge at some stage and for valid reasons on the principle of nationalisation? As I understand it, that is the case for the Government. The principle has been accepted. Ought there to be any exceptions?
Most of us have had some experience of nationalisation. I mention this only to illustrate my argument, not in order to convey the impression that I am an authority on the subject. But I happen to have been associated with piloting two important nationalisation Bills through another place; one the coal industry Bill and the other electricity supply Bill. Certainly in the case of the coal industry the principle has been impinged upon in

1017
this form: that although the vast majority of coal producing elements have been brought under public ownership and managed by what is alleged to be an independent corporation, some elements in coal production been been exempted and are still exempted.
The same applies to civil aviation. Although the State has exercised almost complete authority over civil aviation, there are some elements that are privately owned; so the principle has again been impinged upon. The same applies to the Bank of England. We nationalised the Bank of England, but the clearing banks were exempted and similarly the merchant banks. Here we are faced with a similar situation. We may agree about the nationalisation of land, the right of local authorities to acquire land as and when it is regarded as necessary. We accept the principle, at any rate on this side of your Lordships' House. Is there any valid reason why there should be no exceptions? I feel there should be.
I occupy the same theological position as my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. I should be the last person in your Lordships' House to seek to represent the theologians, although I am well aware of the history of the innumerable controversies which have taken place as between the State and the Churches in relation to the acquisition of land. I can remember what I read about Henry VIII and the monasteries. I am also aware of what happened in the county of Durham way back in the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, when the Government of the day was superseded by the theologians. The bishop exercised complete control, and it was not until Cromwell arrived that the authority of the bishops was superseded. I am well aware of these facts. I do not want to revive these controversies but nevertheless it seems to me, even as regards the Churches, that an exception might properly be made.
When it comes to the question of charities, I have no doubt at all in my mind—none at all. It seems to me to provide what is regarded as a breathing space. A matter of 10 or 11 years is so minimal, so minuscule, that I am surprised that the Government, with all their intelligence and acumen, have ventured to offer that as an argument against the Amendment. What is 10 or 11 years? It is the argument rather like that used
1018
by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, that a week in politics is a long time, or some reference of that kind that he made several years ago. It seems to me that a case has been made out.
I come now to my conclusion. After all, the conclusion is the most important of my observations, and Members of your Lordships' House will understand the reason why in a moment. Unless I can be satisfied by my noble and learned friend that the amount of land involved is likely to destroy the principle of land acquisition by the State and local authorities because of the amount of land involved, and, secondly, that the principle involved in the Amendment does impinge upon the principle of nationalisation, I will vote for the Amendment. I say that with the utmost regret because of the effect it might have on the Government's future. I say that with the utmost seriousness.
I understand from letters that I receive and from observations made to me by people in the streets and on the highways that I still possess some influence. I was not aware of it until I was told about it. Therefore, I warn the Government to be exceedingly careful; they should not push their luck too far. So far they have got on remarkably well: they are getting an awful lot of their own way, and I am very glad to note it. But, as I say, just consider the situation; be a little, not emotional or sentimental about it, but paternalistic or something of the sort. Just regard this in a logical fashion, be reasonable about it; either review the situation, or accept the Amendment, or take the consequences; I shall vote against the Government.
4.20 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I have been called a number of things in a substantial period of my life in public affairs, but to be listed by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, as among the infidel, is a new experience for me. It brought to my mind the observation of Lloyd George in the House of Commons on one occasion when my fellow countrymen were being abused. He said:
"When my forbears were a God-fearing people enjoying a high standard of culture and civilisation, the forbears of the right honourable gentleman were living on the barren shores of the North East coast on piracy, paganism, and periwinkles."

1019
Well, that is a diet that I have never enjoyed and do not propose to enjoy even in the cause of supporting Her Majesty's Government.
The debate has ranged over a wide area and it has exposed a number of serious misconceptions which may account for some of the prevailing anxiety which has been expressed. A number of the speakers in the debate seemed to be thinking that we are debating development land tax. We are not on this Amendment, and the Amendment would have no effect on development land tax. What we are here considering is whether local authorities should be under a duty to acquire development land owned by charities and bought by them after White Paper day if that land is needed by local authorities for relevant development. That is the issue that we are debating.
The noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, spoke of the Churches having acquired land from the believers for over 400 years. Of course, any land that they have on White Paper day is immune, is sacrosanct, is protected; so there is no worry about that inheritance. There is no question of robbing the dead, assuming that their testamentary dispositions have been effective. Indeed, there is a provision in the Bill which will ease the problems relating to testamentary dispositions of land to charities if the relevant conveyance or transfer has not taken place at the appropriate time. The point that I wish to emphasise is that the proposals in the Bill certainly do not threaten the work of charities as such. The question that we are dealing with is acquisition of land for development by local authorities, and that is the nature and purpose of the scheme. The local authorities were dismissed in rather severe terms by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, as embodying a facade of democracy. I am not sure that that is a very generous tribute to them. In their own sphere they perform in a democratic field a role as important as that of Members of the Houses of Parliament.
What we are concerned with then is the acquisition of land for development: development land. The vast majority of charities do not deal in development land, will not be affected by these proposals, and they will have no effect on their work. Therefore, in so far as this limited field
1020
causes anxiety, the field is very limited indeed. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, referred to money given to support charities, by grants or otherwise. That again has no link with the development of land. Money so given can be invested, and there are numerous investments available which can be used to perpetuate income and which are entirely independent of development land.
Therefore, if one looks at the matter within the context of the Bill and the proposals in the Bill, I cannot help thinking that the fears that have been expressed ought to be considerably allayed. As I have said, the concessions made by the Government are very substantial concessions. The acquisition duty and the consequential suspension of planning permission will not apply to land owned by any charity on White Paper day for any kind of development upon that land. I have emphasised that when authorities acquire that charity land, the valuation basis will continue to be market value for 11 years; and then I have emphasised the important new provision embodied in the Amendments, that the charities and the Churches will get prevailing use value for land acquired. Those are very important concessions, which will diminish any loss to the Churches and charities embodied in these proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Soper, asked me the definition of "charity". It is defined in the Bill in terms which may not be greatly illuminating, but it is the definition which is used in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, the relevant section of which reads:
"In this section 'charity' means any body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only."
But I and the Government have not approached this problem in any sense on the basis that charities ought to be regarded as objects of suspicion. On the contrary, we have recognised the indispensible role of the charities in our life and in our society, and have attempted to meet their needs.
There were a number of case examples given in the course of the debate where one would have liked to have had time for further and better particulars of the precise nature of the transactions. So far as I was able to understand the case that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, mentioned,

1021
the Amendment would have no effect whatsoever on the transactions that he has described. If, at a later stage, he would like to take up any aspect of it with me, I shall be happy to discuss it with him. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, raised the position of statutory undertakers. They will not be exempt from development land tax; they will not get prevailing use value at the stage where it will become available as the basis of compensation for Churches and charities, nor will they enjoy any exemptions under Clause 25.
The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, asked a question about the boy scout camp site. My understanding is that that site would receive housing value if by the time it was acquired the land round about had been developed for housing, so that housing would then be the prevailing use and compensation would be on that basis. There again, if he would care to discuss the detail with me I should be happy to do so, but I understand that to be the position. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who I see has come back into the fray with the same enthusiasm which he has shown through the watches of the night, seems to be asking for something for which the Churches are not now and have never asked; namely, the ability to buy land on the same basis as the local authorities. In the future local authorities undoubtedly will benefit greatly from this scheme. They will be able to buy land in future net of development land tax, but no one else will benefit outside Government from those financial arrangements. My noble friend Lord Shinwell said when he began his speech that apparently the noble Baroness, Lady Young, must have thought that he was going to rise to defend the Government. I am sure that no such thought could possibly have entered her mind.
My noble friend asked me two specific questions, one being how much land would be involved in this category of development land in the possession of the Churches and charities at the material times. I am afraid I cannot at this stage answer that question; it depends on what the authorities consider is necessary by way of making and having available land for development and how much they acquire. I cannot say more, but what I can say is that we on the Government side believe that to make the further con
1022
cessions in relation to land acquired since White Paper day would disturb the whole principle on which the scheme will operate.
Secondly, my noble friend embarked on one of his current essays in scepticism on nationalisation which, if I may say so, I have heard before, though it is always given with a fresh and vigorous voice. However, this scheme is not nationalisation of land but is a scheme for community ownership of development land only—ownership by the local authorities of the country—and that is the extent of it; it is municipalisation of development land. Whether that bit of information will give any comfort to my noble friend and induce him on this occasion yet again to support the Government I know not, but I hope it will.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and especially am I grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for putting the issues so squarely before us and with such clarity and honesty. Of course, the Churches and charities are grateful for the concessions which the Government have been able to make, but those concessions do not touch the really basic problems with which the charities and Churches are faced. The first is this question of the 10- or11-year rule during which they must get their affairs in order and in line with the provisions of the Bill. One after another noble Lord has said that this is a quite impossible condition; it is impossible if one is negotiating for planning permission or if one is negotiating for loans, and this condition really would be impossibly inhibiting.
The other matter on which we have asked for relaxation is this rigid differentiation between pre- and post-White Paper land, and again we have pointed out that this will have a stifling and stultifying effect on the work of the Churches and charities. It is not merely a question that they have owned land which has been protected for 400 years but, as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, pointed out, they are looking forward to the future and they will be very reluctant to get rid of land which is protected, because it is pre-White Paper day land when they know that land acquired after that date will be subject to the restrictions of this Bill. On neither of these two matters

1023
have her Majesty's Government been able to give us any kind of relaxation.
I am sorry, moreover, that the noble and learned Lord—and I speak with great respect—has not really dealt with the matter with which I concerned myself most fully in my speech on this Amendment. We, the Churches and charities, regard this as a change in the whole attitude of Government towards charities. These charities have been protected for 400 years. They have been protected by successive pieces of legislation, and here the charities will be subject to the conditions of this Bill under certain
circumstances. We believe that all the causes of our alarm and concern will arise in a year or two's time and we believe that Churches and charities are entitled to the traditional protection which they have had for so long from Parliament. In the light of the universal support which my Amendment has received on two occasions, I do not feel that it would be right for me to withdraw it.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 154; Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Adeane, L.

Exeter, M.

Merrivale, L.

Airedale, L.

Falkland, V.

Mersey, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ferrers, E.

Middleton, L.

Allerton, L.

Feversham, L.

Monck, V.

Alport, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst, E

Gage, V.

Newall, L.

Amory, V.

Garner, L.

Northchurch, B.

Amulree, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ashbourne,

Goschen, V.

Ogmore, L.

Atholl, D.

Granville of Eye, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Auckland, L.

Greenway, L.

Onslow, E.

Avebury, L.

Grenfell, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balerno, L.

Gridley, L.

Piercy, L.

Balfour, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Platt, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Porritt, L.

Banks, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Barn by, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rathcavan, L.

Barrington, V.

Hankey, L.

Redesdale, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hanworth, V.

Reigate, L.

Belstead, L.

Harcourt, V.

Rochester, Bp. [Teller.]

Berkeley, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sackville, L.

Birdwood, L.

Harvington, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Boothby, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brock, L.

Hayter, L.

St. Helens, L.

Byers, L.

Henley, L.

Sandford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Sandys, L.

Carrington, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Savile, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hood, V.

Sherfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Shinwell, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hylton, L.

Snowdon, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Somers, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Inchyra, L.

Soper, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Inglewood, L.

Stamp, L.

Cowley, E.

Kemsley, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Killearn, L.

Strang, L.

Croft, L.

Kindersley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Daventry, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathspey, L.

Davidson, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

de Freyne, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Denham, L.

London, Bp. [Teller.]

Thomas, L.

Devonshire, D.

Long, V.

Tranmire, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Trevelyan, L.

Dundee, E.

Lothian, M.

Vernon, L.

Eccles, V.

Loudoun, C.

Vickers, B.

Effingham, E.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Vivian, L.

Elles, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wigoder, L.

Elton, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Wolverton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mancroft, L.

York, Abp.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.]

Aylestone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McLeavy, L.

Balogh, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Melchett, L.

Birk, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Blyton, L.

Gardiner, L.

Paget of Northampton, L

Brockway, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Pannell, L.

Brown, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peddie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hale, L.

Popplewell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Raglan, L.

Burntwood, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hoy, L.

Segal, L.

Champion, L.

Jacques, L.

Slater, L.

Cole, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Summerskill, B.

Craigavon, V.

Lee of Newton, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Crook, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to
4.48 p.m.
Clause 25 [Assumptions as to planning permission on or after second appointed day]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 24, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("this").
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee for us to consider together with this Amendment, Amendments Nos. 161, 164, 166 and 169, which are all drafting Amendments. They differ in one respect from the series of Amendments which previously appeared on the Marshalled List, and it may he an advantage if I mention what that difference is before we discuss the substantive part of the Amendments and those standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
Since preparing the original Amendments, we have decided, for technical reasons which are completely unconnected with charities, to revert to the original wording in what now appears as the series of preliminary Amendments Nos. 160, 161, 164 and 166. In framing his Amendments Nos. 162 and 165 to Clause 25, the right reverend Prelate has adopted the framework of the original Government Amendments which are now replaced by Amendments Nos. 161 and 164 and has reproduced their terms up to the point where the substantive provisions which he seeks for charities diverge from those of the Government.
1026
He has also added his name to Government Amendments Nos. 160 and 166 in approval of their technical content and without prejudice to the matters which he challenges.
Whatever the outcome of our debate on Amendments Nos. 167 and 168, which contain the substantive provisions and which will follow the present drafting exercise, it will save time and trouble at a later stage if the preliminary Amendments are adopted in the form in which the Government have now expressed them. I assure the right reverend Prelate that there is no catch in this. There is nothing up my infidel sleeve. Indeed, had we been able to table the Amendments in this form earlier, I have no doubt that the right reverend Prelate would have followed them in his own series. I therefore invite him, at the appropriate moment, to withdraw his Amendments Nos. 162 and 165 and I invite the Committee to accept the Government's Amendments Nos. 161 and 164 in their stead. As I have said, the substantive Amendments Nos. 167 and 168, which we shall next be debating, will remain completely unaffected and it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if we proceed in this way. Before I sit down, it may also be to the convenience of your Lordships if I mention now Amendment No. 169, which is consequential on this series of preliminary Amendments. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: I am entirely happy about the course which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has suggested so far. I confess that I find it exceedingly complicated, and I am very surprised to find myself

1027
linked with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on some of these Amendments, but I understand that some of the points which I am suggesting are acceptable to the Government. Therefore, I am entirely happy about the procedure which the noble and learned Lord suggests.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 161.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 35, leave out from beginning to ("that") in line 21 on page 25 and insert—
("(2) For the purpose of assessing the compensation it shall be assumed—

(a) subject to subsections (3), (3A) and (3C) below, that planning permission would not be granted for any development either on the land or on any other land, and

(b) subject to subsection (3C) below.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 164.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 26, leave out from beginning to ("any") in line 27 and insert—
("(3) The assumption in subsection 2(a) above shall not be made as respects development of any class specified in Schedule 1 to this Act or in Schedule 8 to the Act of 1971 or Schedule 6 to the Scottish Act of 1972 (development which is not new development.)
(3A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) or (3) above no account shall be taken of—

(a)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 166.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 31, leave out ("(ii)") and insert ("(b)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.53 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 25, line 40, at end insert—
("(3B) Where during the whole of the period often years immediately preceding the date as at which compensation is to be assessed—

(a) the interest in land has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), and

(b) the land (as distinct from the rents and profits thereof) has not been used other-
1028
wise than wholly or mainly for charitable purposes.

then, for the purposes of assessing the compensation it shall be assumed, subject to subsection (3C) below, that planning permission would be granted for any development by virtue of which the use of the land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails in the case of contiguous or adjacent land.
(3C) The assumption in subsections (2) and (3B) above shall not be made where—

(a) during the whole of the period beginning with 12th September 1974 and ending with the date mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above, the interest in land has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), and

(b) that period is a period of not more than eleven years.

(3D) For the purposes of subsections (3B) and (3C) above, the interest in land shall be treated as owned by a charity at any time if, at that time, the charity—

(a) has or had entered into a binding contract for its acquisition, or

(b) subject only to completion of the administration of a deceased person's estate, is or was entitled to it under the terms of the deceased person's will.")

The noble and learned Lord said: We now come to the substantive Amendments Nos. 167 and 168, and it may be convenient to your Lordships to discuss the two Amendments together. Amendment No. 167, which is a Government Amendment, gives effect to the third part of the package of special provisions for charities which were announced by my right honourable friend the Minister on 15th July. This sets out the conditions in which assessment of compensation at prevailing use value will apply after the second appointed day. Amendment No. 168, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, is on the same point. I address myself first to the Government Amendment. The first thing I wish to say is that its provisions go considerably further than was announced in the Minister's Statement in July, since there is now no requirement that there should be a building on the land in question before it can qualify for assessment of compensation at prevailing use value.
If I may remind your Lordships, "prevailing use value" is the term used to describe a method of valuation, originally conceived in the Planning Act 1947, in which it is assumed that planning permission would be granted for any development by virtue of which the use of the

1029
land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails generally in the land round about. The Government's provisions will remedy the particular problem facing charities where they own land with a very low, or even nil, current use value—like a disused church—and where they would be dependent upon realising the value of such a site in order to finance their continuing activities. The reference in the Amendment to,
"land (as distinct from the rents and profits thereof)"
is intended to secure that compensation at prevailing use value shall be available only in respect of land which has been in the "operational use" of a charity, as distinct from land held for merely investment purposes; for example, offices leased out for rental income. As to those premises, charities, like everybody else, will receive the value of the land in its current use as offices, together with the value interest in the right to rebuild the offices.
The circumstances in which prevailing use value will apply are as follows. For land owned on White Paper day it will apply after the special market value provision has reached the end of its period —that is to say, after 11 years from White Paper day, or after the second appointed day, whichever ends later. For land acquired by charities after White Paper day, the prevailing use value basis will also be available so long as the land has been owned continuously by a charity—any charity—for 10 years from the date it came into its ownership. The importance of this 10-year qualifying period is simply to establish the bona fides of charitable ownership. As I have said, in my view these provisions are substantial and fair. They go beyond what the Minister originally promised, and should be of great value to all charities with interests in land.
I turn now to other benefits that Amendment No. 167 will confer. Your Lordships will notice that it is now provided that charities will be enabled, under subsection (3C)(b) of the Amendment, to receive compensation at market value for 11 years—not 10 years as hitherto—or until the second appointed day, whichever may be the later. This was a concession that I undertook to put forward when we discussed this matter on a previous occasion. As your Lordships will know, the
1030
extension of the 10 years, which was originally provided for, to 11 years is to take account of the year which has elapsed since the publication of the White Paper. The new subsection (3D)(b) will also ensure that land shall be treated as owned by a charity on White Paper day where a testator who had made a charitable bequest dies before then but the land had not actually been conveyed to the charity by that date.
Taken with the concessions introduced by virtue of the Amendments tabled earlier to Clause 4 of the Bill, these amount to substantial concessions for Churches and other charities. The Amendments that the right reverend Prelate seeks to move would go further. They would remove any distinction between pre- and post-White Paper day land, would perpetuate compensation at market value after the second appointed day, would reduce from 10 years to one year the qualifying period for establishing that charity land is in bona fide charitable use, and, finally, would ensure that after the second appointed day charities could elect to receive compensation either at market value or prevailing use value, whichever might be the higher, even where compensation to which they might be entitled under any other enactment would be a lesser amount.
I have already endeavoured to explain that the Government have drawn a distinction between charity land owned on White Paper day and land acquired by them after that date in full knowledge of what was proposed in the White Paper. They have always stressed that special provisions must be in accordance with the basic purpose of the land scheme. Amendment No. 168 to Clause 25, which will be moved by the right reverend Prelate, is not acceptable for that reason, and I must invite your Lordships to prefer Amendment No. 167, which I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: Perhaps I can speak to my Amendment No. 168, as it is applicable. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has pointed out, the purpose is first to ensure that Churches and charities remain entitled to compensation on the basis of market value for their land whether or not that land was acquired by them before or after White Paper day

1031
and irrespective of whether they disposed of that land before or after 10 years or after the second appointed day. In other words, the Amendment prolongs indefinitely the concession which the Government have announced for land which Churches and charities have on White Paper day, and which was to last for 10 years from that day. Secondly, my Amendment would provide that where land has been used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes for at least one year the Church or charity is entitled to compensation on the basis of prevailing use value—that is, the use prevailing on adjacent or contiguous land, be it office or shop use, or whatever it may be—if that basis is better than compensation yielded on other bases: that is, market value or existing use value.
The Amendment tabled by the Government would allow that where land has been in charitable use for at least 10 years they will have this concession, and my Amendment seeks to reduce this to one year on the ground that 10 years is too long and does not meet the case where a piece of land or a building bought by a charity for a particular purpose is then found to be unsuitable for that purpose and has to be got rid of again. One year was the period accepted for the same purpose in the Land Commission Act 1967, which was itself a work of the Labour Government of the day. I do not want to have to divide the House on this matter, and, at any rate, I should like to be able to consider this carefully and move my Amendment at a later stage, but I would ask whether Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider some relaxation in this 10-year rule and would try to meet me over the Amendment I am moving, which requires one year.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: I should like to support the right reverend Prelate in his Amendment because of the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, in a previous debate, when he made the point that charities are pioneering new spheres. I think we have to recognise that time and time again it has been the voluntary effort that has pioneered the new charity or service, which subsequently the Government have felt it necessary to provide themselves. These new charities are not easy to get off
1032
the ground. You get hold of some small premises to start in and then, as the charity becomes better known and as people seek your help—battered wives could be an example, or the unmarried mother—you seek larger headquarters. A charity can develop in its work very quickly, and very soon require new headquarters. The 10-year rule is, to me, far too limiting on premises which could, in a much shorter period, be outgrown. If a charity succeeds and is able to obtain better and larger premises, they would be deprived, because they were only a year or so old, from having the real compensation which would apply under the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, which provides for a 10-year period. If I read my Sunday papers correctly, the Government seem to regard with the greatest disfavour asset-stripping in another context. I think it quite deplorable that they regard it as a virtue when they apply it to charities.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am sorry to come in rather late, but perhaps I may say a few words. May I please ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to explain to me what would be the position under Amendment No. 167, subsection (3D)(b), if a person dies in 12 years' time and leaves a large chunk of land to a charity or to the Church? I am not quite certain here whether the Church would be under a penalty in that case or whether they would be entitled to the benefit of that person's will in this respect. Even reading the drafting—I have not really had time to study this—I do not quite understand the position there, and I wonder whether that could perhaps be explained to me.
Lord SANDFORD: As your Lordships know, the Government have played the Churches along ever since the summer without, until just now, making clear their rather vague undertakings, and it is only now that we see clearly how inadequate and unacceptable the Government's proposals are to the Churches and the charities. There is only a week to go before Prorogation, and I would have thought that, although we are now seeing signs of repentance from the Government, they would be much encouraged along the right lines if the right reverend Prelate were to move and press his Amendments. We have two more stages, and if the Government are willing to come towards him to meet him they will

1033
have their opportunities then. But I would feel much happier if we had Amendment No. 168 made to the Bill as those remaining days tick by.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: In relation to the right reverend Prelate's question as to whether any further concession would be made on the 10-year test to qualify as charity land, I am afraid that the answer I have to give is discouraging to him. Quite frankly, the answer is in the negative. As to the question that was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who has a genius for detecting the difficult question to answer, especially in the small watches of the night, as I understand it, in the case of the testator who leaves a will bequeathing land to a charity or a Church in 12 years' time, under the terms of the Bill the charity will be deemed to have owned the land from the date when the testator died, and if the charity kept it for 10 years it would attract prevailing use value. If that is not the right question or the answer is
not clear, perhaps the noble Earl will speak to me privately and we will have a session on it.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: Can the noble and learned Lord enlighten me about the procedure here? If Amendment No. 167 is carried, does Amendment No. 168 then fall; or am I entitled to move it?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps we had better see the outcome of the Division on Amendment No. 167. I would apprehend that Amendment No. 168 would fall. From the point of view of the right reverend Prelate, I think that that would be the brutal consequence.
5.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 167) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 128.

CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Foot, L.

Pannell, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Peddie, L.

Balogh, L.

Gardiner, L.

Platt, L.

Birk, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Popplewell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hale, L.

Raglan, L.

Brockway, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rusholme, L.

Brown, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hoy, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Slater, L.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Crook, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Summerskill, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor, Gryfe, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Berkeley, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Airedale, L.

Byers, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Dundee, E.

Allerton, L.

Carrington, L.

Dundonald, E.

Amory, V.

Clwyd, L.

Eccles, V.

Amulree, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Atholl, D.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Elles, B.

Auckland, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Balerno, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Elton, L.

Balfour, E.

Cowley, E. [Teller.]

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Exeter, M.

Banks, L.

Croft, L.

Falkland, V.

Barnby, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Barrington, V.

Daventry, V.

Gage, V.

Bathurst, E.

Davidson, V.

Gainford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Denham, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Belstead, L.

Devonshire, D.

Glenkinglas, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Long, V.

Sackville, L.

Goschen, V.

Lonsdale, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Greenway, L.

Lothian, M.

St. Davids, V.

Grenfell, L.

Loudoun, C.

Sandford, L.

Gridley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandy, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Savile, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Mancroft, L.

Somers, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stamp, L.

Hankey, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Meston, L.

Strang, L.

Harcourt, V.

Middleton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Monck, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Harvington, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Strathspey. L.

Hayter, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Henley, L.

Thomas, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Newall. L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hornsby-Smith. B.

Northchurch, B.

Tranmire, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vernon, L.

Inglewood, L.

Onslow. E.

Verulam, E.

Kemsley, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vickers, B.

Killearn, L.

Piercy, L.

Vivian, L.

Kindersley, L.

Porritt, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Redesdale, L.

Windlesham. L.

Lauderdale, E.

Reigate, L.

Wolverton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Young, B.

London, Bp.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.21 p.m.
The LORD BISHOP of LONDON: My Lords. I formally move Amendment 168, to which I have already spoken.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 40, at end insert—
"(3A) The assumptions in subsection (2) above shall not be made where at the date mentioned in subsection 1(a) or (b) above, the interest in land is owned by a charity.
(3B) Where during the whole of the period of one year immediately preceding the date as at which compensation is to be assessed—

(a) the interest in land has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), and

(b) the land, (as distinct from the rents and profits thereof) has not been used otherwise than wholly or mainly for charitable purposes,

then, for the purposes of assessing the compensation it shall be assumed, if the charity entitled to the compensation so elects, notwithstanding subsection (2)(a) above, that planning permission would be granted for any development by virtue of which the use of the land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails in the case of contiguous or adjacent land.
(3C) For the purposes of subsections (3A) and (3B) above the interest in land shall be treated as owned by a charity at any time if, at that time, the charity—

(a) has or had entered into a binding contract for its acquisition, or

(b) is or was indefeasibly entitled to it under the terms of a deceased person's will."

—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 168) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 127; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Berkeley. B.

Dundonald, E.

Airedale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Eccles, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carrington, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Allerton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Elles, B.

Amory, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Amulree, L.

Cornwallis. L.

Elton, L.

Atholl, D.

Cottesloe. L.

Emmet of Amberley, B

Auckland, L.

Cowley, E.

Exeter, M.

Balerno, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Falkland, V.

Balfour, E.

Croft, L.

Ferrers. E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Gage. V.

Balniel, L.

Daventry, V.

Gainford, L.

Banks, L.

Davidson, V.

Glenkinglass, L.

Barnby, L,

Denham, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Barrington, V.

Devonshire, D.

Goschen, V.

Bathurst, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Greenway, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Grenfell, L.

Belstead, L.

Dundee, E.

Gridley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Lothian, M.

St. Davids, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Loudoun, C.

Sandford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandys, L.

Hankey, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Savile, L.

Hanworth, V.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Harcourt, V.

Mancroft, L.

Somers, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stamp, L.

Harvington, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hawke, L.

Middleton, L.

Strang, L.

Henley, L.

Monck, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strathspey, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Newall, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Inglewood, L.

Northchurch, B.

Thomas, L.

Kemsley, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Killearn, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Tranmire, L.

Kindersley, L.

Onslow, E.

Vernon, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Verulam, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Piercy, L.

Vickers, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Porritt, L.

Vivian, L.

Lloyd, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Reigate, L.

Wigoder, L.

London, Bp. [Teller.]

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Windlesham, L.

Long, V.

Sackville, L.

Wolverton, L.

Lonsdale, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Peddie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gardiner, L.

Popplewell, L.

Balogh, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Raglan, L.

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Rusholme, L.

Blyton, L.

Hall, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brown, L.

Henderson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Hoy, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Summerskill, B.

Craigavon, V.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Crook, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Foot, L.

Pannell, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.30 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment 169.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 44, leave out ("(41") and insert ("(2)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move Amendment 170.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 4, after ("section") insert ("other than subsection (3B) above").—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments in respect of Clauses 4 and 25.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with: Report received.
5.32 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, in the Marshalled List for this Report stage there are no less than 16 places where I have moved that the clause should be omitted. As that is a rather unusual procedure on Report, I feel that I owe it to your Lordships to offer an explanation and to assure the Government that I do not intend to press any of those Amendments. It is the normal practice, if I may quote from the Companion, that:
"An Amendment to leave out a clause or a Schedule is not desirable on Report if the purpose underlying the Amendment is to

1039
initiate a general debate, … Such an Amendment is not, however, out of order; it may, indeed, be appropriate when, for instance, a Lord wishes to learn the outcome of an undertaking given in Committee."
In the course of the Committee stage of this Bill we were given between 50 and 60 undertakings, and in the course of Friday night, at the last stage for tabling Amendments for incorporation into the Marshalled List, I had observed about a dozen points where Government Amendments seemed to me to have fulfilled undertakings given to reconsider matters which had been raised on this side, and elsewhere in the House. By last night some further undertakings had been met by letters from Ministers to various Members of your Lordships' House who had taken part in the proceedings on Committee stage; but some undertakings are still outstanding, and in any case I think the House as a whole would wish to know the outcome of many of the undertakings given in Committee. That is the purpose of these Amendments of mine.
Clause 1 [Definitions]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, leave out lines 13 to 27.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 1, I have a long series of other Amendments (20 in all) I wish to speak to, and it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I read out the list of numbers. With Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 4, 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 35, 37, 39, 103, and 193. This series of Amendments will reorganise Part I of the Bill and it might be helpful if I start by making it clear how Part I will read if this series of Amendments is accepted. First, there would be authorities for the purposes of the Bill; Clause 1 would enumerate the authorities and Clause 2 would deal with joint boards. We should then have a series of clauses dealing with interpretation: Clause 3 deals with development land and relevant development; Clause 4 deals with outstanding material interests; Clause 5 deals with statutory undertakers; and Clause 6 deals with other interpretations. Finally, commencement would be dealt with in Clause 7, referring to the appointed days, and so on.
This reorganisation of the definitions in the Bill has been made as a result of the debate during Committee stage in your Lordships' House. It was felt to be unsatisfactory that some definitions were in the relevant clauses throughout the Bill rather than being gathered together at a central reference point in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, stressed the difficulties to a lay person reading the Bill, when Clause 1 was debated at the Committee stage and my noble friend Lady Birk undertook to consult the Parliamentary draftsmen about the regrouping of the definitions. This long series of Amendments has been brought forward as a result of that undertaking, and they merely achieve the regrouping of definitions without altering any of them. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for his explanation of this sequence of Amendments. I believe it makes simpler the understanding of Part 1. As this was a point raised by us on this side during the Committee stage—that this complicated Bill was then arranged in a somewhat difficult order—we welcome these Amendments, because it now appears to be much simpler and more logical as regards Part 1. Perhaps I might mention just one point here. I wonder whether in the sequence of definitions the one for "development order" has been left out. If I am right, may I ask why this is so?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, by leave of the House, I am not absolutely certain whether the definition of "development order" is included in the long string of Amendments, but perhaps I can reply more fully to the noble Baroness when I am dealing with a later consequential Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("within whose areas the land is situated") and insert ("whose areas include the land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and in doing so I should like to speak to a very much shorter list of other Amendments. Again, I think it might be for the convenience

1041
of the House if I read out the list. With Amendment No. 2, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 102, 139, 142, 158 and 159. These are all minor drafting Amendments which achieve consistency. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we have no criticism of these Amendments which, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, in fact are consequential and minor drafting Amendments. Am I right in thinking that Amendment No. 139 should in fact read, "Page 32, line 34, leave out ('is situated')", not line 24 as the Amendment says?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, my understanding is that "24" is correct, but again maybe I could leave it until I come to move No. 139 and deal with the point then.
Clause 2 [Joint boards]:
5.42 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 30, after ("If") insert ("following representations from one or more of the authorities concerned").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will remember that when we were debating joint boards under Clause 2 we found a fair amount to disagree about, but I thought that one of the matters about which there was no disagreement was that it would be unthinkable for the Secretary of State to set about establishing a joint board if one or more of the local authorities involved had not first made representations to him. Inasmuch as the Government agreed with that, I should have thought that this Amendment was acceptable to them, and I hope that it is. I beg to move.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, briefly, I should like very much to support this Amendment, particularly so far as local authorities in Scotland are concerned. May I again remind the House that, of course, regarding the Town and Country Planning Act. Part I and Schedules 1 and 2 were repealed by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. I feel that these few words will not in any way change the general meaning of
1042
the Bill but will be of considerable advantage, particularly in any matter dealing with Scotland.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it is true that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on Committee stage, in the debate on the Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill? drew attention to this point. In replying to him and other noble Lords, I should have thought my noble friend Lord Melchett made it absolutely clear that the Government foresaw that a joint board would be set up only where the authorities concerned, or at least a majority of them, wanted it. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was concerned that this should be written into the Bill. However, the provisions of Clause 2 follow those of Section 1 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (which in their turn go back to the Town and Country Planning Act 1947) which allow the Secretary of State to set up joint planning boards.
Incidentally, I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was quite wrong when, at col. 1306 of the Official Report, he said that this planning precedent is not applicable to matters of land acquisition. It has been made clear many times in the discussions on this Bill that the Bill is about land acquisition in the context of planning, and local planning authorities therefore have powers of land acquisition under the planning Act which could be exercised by a joint board established under that Act. I am sorry to bore your Lordships—that point has, I know, been made from this side of the House very many times.
The provisions in the planning Act have been in operation for 30 years and have caused no practical problems in operation. If they had done so, I should have thought the Opposition would have used the Local Government Act 1972 in order to make changes and to right anything they felt was wrong in the previous Act. The fact that they did not do so shows. I should have thought, not that they had missed out on this point but that they accepted also that it worked perfectly well. So there appears to be no justification at all for writing in this provision.
Any joint board set up under Clause 2 will certainly—and this is a point to be remembered—be more democratic than

1043
the present two National Park planning boards. This is because the provisions of Clause 2 follow those of the 1971 Act and provide for all members to be appointed by the constituent authorities. However, the Opposition amended these provisions as they apply to National Parks in the Local Government Act 1972, and therefore paragraph 11 of Schedule 17 provides for one-third of the members to be appointed by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, recognised this when it was pointed out to him by my noble friend on 27th October. But it is the presence of members not appointed by local authorities which has caused much of the resentment about the role of the National Park planning boards; and I feel from what he said before, knowing that this is an interest dear to his heart, that Lord Sandford has this very much in mind. This is a trap which Clause 2 of this Bill does not fall into. We consider that the whole question of consultation is very well covered in the clause and that it is quite unnecessary for this provision to be written into the Bill.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, if I may say so, that was a rather elaborate response; I am grateful for it. My recollection of the Committee stage is that we were all entirely agreed that the Secretary of State would establish these boards only if representations were made to him, if they were wanted. I do not see that it would do any harm to have it in the Bill, but I will not press the matter. We have more important things to discuss. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Meaning of relevant development]:
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 30, at beginning insert ("In this Act "development land" means land which, in the opinion of the authority concerned, is needed for relevant development within ten years from the time at which they are acting
(1A)").—(Lord Melchett.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 34, leave out paragraph (b) and insert ("and").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the plot on which somebody wishes to build a single dwelling-house. It has a chequered history, and at the end of the discussion I think the House will have to decide as a matter of principle which is the right thing to do. I will try to explain as simply as possible what has happened, in the certain knowledge that the noble and learned Lord has very kindly written to me and if I were only to read out his letter I should probably get it a good deal more right than I shall by explaining it out of my head. Perhaps I can leave him to do that when he comes to reply.
In the White Paper, certain limited exemptions were provided—and I think "exemptions" is the right word—for plots of land owned on White Paper day upon which the owner intended to build a house for himself or a member of his family. Such plots were said to be exempt from this scheme of the whole of this legislation. "Exempt" meant not only that they were to be exempt from the duty after the second appointed day of a local authority to acquire them for the purpose of building the single dwelling-house for the member of the person's family who owned it on White Paper day; they were also to be exempt from the power of the local authority to acquire the plot for that purpose, or so I understand it. Effect was given to this promise in the Bill as it was originally introduced in another place by the very elaborate provisions of what were then Clauses 4 and 5. It was a complicated procedure and involved giving notices and registering the facts within a certain time, and then the exemption, I think, operated.
In the course of the lengthy discussions on this Bill it has been decided to reorganise the whole scheme of things. We have now in the text of the Bill, whereas previously it was not, the provisions for exempted development, which are those which appear in Schedule 1, and also provisions for excepted development, which is not the same and to which the powers of compulsory acquisition under Clause 15 will indeed apply. They will not apply to exempted development. The excepted development appears in Clause 3(1)(c.)
There is another category, the one which appears in Clause 3(1)(b) —our old friend the single dwelling-house. But it

1045
is no longer the same single dwelling-house as it was when the Bill was introduced. Instead of being a single dwelling-house to be developed on a plot owned by somebody on White Paper day which will be occupied by himself or by a member of his family, it is now to be all single dwelling houses, whenever owned, to be developed and lived in by whomsoever one may think. The result of this change has been that instead of a limited collection of single plots, which everybody was promised in the White Paper would be not only excepted but exempted so that the local authority could not acquire them under this Bill, we have now reached the situation where those plots are now capable of being the subject of compulsory acquisition under this Bill.
If the Government wish to legislate by White Paper and then take something like a year, or rather more, before the Bill which finally gives effect to the White Paper becomes an Act of Parliament—and, indeed, quite a long time before the Bill is introduced at all—they must expect people to rely upon their White Paper. Everybody knows that Socialist Governments do this; they did it last time and they are faithfully doing it again. Therefore, people organise their affairs upon the basis that what is in the White Paper is true and accurately represents the intentions of the Government. Accordingly, may I suggest to the House that in this case a considerable number of people relied upon the White Paper and thought to themselves, "This is very good. My plot, which I owned on White Paper day, upon which I intend to build a house for my mother or my daughter is exempted from the scheme of the Bill. No local authority will be able compulsorily to acquire it. If they want to acquire it they will have to do so under some other legislation. I am not part of the scheme of the Bill in respect of my plot". They will be grievously disappointed because the Government have changed their mind, and a year or so after the White Paper was published have reversed that decision. It is true that they have done so in order to be tidy and logical. Nevertheless, they have misled all those who for over a year have been relying on the White Paper. I do not think that this is right.
One could do various things about it. One could put back the elaborate procedures in what used to be Clauses 4 and
1046
5. I would not advocate doing so, because it seems to me to be a very complicated and difficult process. Alternatively, one could do what this Amendment and the next Amendment that appears as Amendment No. 15 would do; namely, make all the single dwelling-house plots into exempted development so that they could not be compulsorily acquired under this Bill. That is wider than what is contained in the White Paper. However, in a measure of this kind I should have thought it was not too bad to be a little less restrictive than one originally said one would be.
The noble and learned Lord defended the situation in the Bill as it now is when we discussed it during the previous stage of the Bill, by saying that in the case of the compulsory acquisition of a plot for a single dwelling-house it would be a great pity if the local authority had to promote its compulsory purchase order under two different powers, as for the rest of the land under the powers given by the Bill, but as for the single dwelling-house plot under some other powers because it had no powers under the Bill. If I may say so, that would be a very bad argument if it were to be reproduced today. By the original scheme in the Bill where the single dwelling-house plot that was owned on White Paper day and intended to be used to build a house for a member of the family was exempt, that is precisely what the local authority would have had to do then. They would have been unable to acquire that plot under the powers contained in the Bill. Therefore, if it formed part of a larger area of land that they desired to buy for a major housing or industrial development, they would have had to buy it under some other powers, whereas no doubt they could have bought the remainder of the land under the powers contained in the Bill.
It is no use saying that it is a bad thing to have to use two different powers in order to bring forward one's compulsory purchase. It was inherent in the Bill that the Government introduced. That seems to me to be more or less conclusive. I have no doubt that it is a matter of choice but I would choose, and I ask the House to agree with me in this, to stick to the promise that was made in the White Paper upon which people have been acting and relying for some

1047
time, even if it means going a little wider than that, rather than do away with the reassurance that was given in the White Paper and go back on the Government's word. I hope that in these two Amendments I have achieved this in a simple way and I beg to move the first one, Amendment No. 5.
The Earl of BALFOUR: May I support this Amendment and draw your Lordships' attention to the wording of paragraph 2 to Schedule 1 on page 51, Perhaps I ought to declare an interest here. It reads:
"The carrying out, on land which is used for the purposes of agriculture or forestry, of any building or other operations required for the purposes of that use, other than operations for the erection of dwelling-houses …"
There will be cases where a farmer or, for that matter, anybody else may wish to erect a house for his own use or in connection with farming, that may be miles away. If the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross is not accepted, the ordinary house, which we have taken so much trouble to try to protect, will come within the provisions of Clause 15 of the Bill.
I ask your Lordships to consider that there are many occasions when a person may need to build a house either for himself or for a member of his family or perhaps even—I am sure your Lordships will understand this—for an employee who is necessary to that household. Let us suppose that a person who is very well off is disabled and that he wishes to build a house for use by a nurse or a gardener. I feel that this ought to come within the provisions relating to the single dwelling-house. The emphasis is upon the single dwelling-house and I entirely support my noble friend.
5.59 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the noble Viscount. Lord Colville of Culross, has indicated, we discussed this matter during the Committee stage of the Bill. He made the point then that to the extent that it does—and I shall submit in a moment that the practical effect is minimal—the Bill detracts from the White Paper exemption providing for the building of a single house for a member of the owner's family on a plot that was owned on White Paper
1048
day. I venture to suggest that the practical effect of departing to the extent that the Bill does from that position during the interim period must indeed be minimal. Whether or not that be so, my first submission to the House, as indeed the noble Viscount has indicated, is that the exemption which he proposes by his Amendment No. 15 goes far beyond anything that was promised in the White Paper. As he has indicated, this was confined to a house for occupation by the owner of the land or by a member of his family. The proposed Amendment would remove entirely from the acquisition power development consisting of a single dwelling-house and although authorities will not normally be expected to acquire land for such development there might be circumstances in which it would be right for them to do so.
Even more important, inclusion of the building of a single house within Schedule 1 also has valuation implications, since by virtue of Clause 25(3) development within Schedule 1 is included within current use value after the second appointed day. The consequences of bringing single plot development exemption within current use value are considerable and not calculable. It could lead to landowners trying to break their land holdings up into single plots for dwelling-houses to get the value of the right to build a single house added to current use value. That would be unacceptable for a number of reasons.
Secondly, as the Bill now stands the intention is to treat virtually all the exemptions from the land scheme set out in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the White Paper by including them within "excepted development". The only exception to that is agricultural development, which is essentially different from the other categories in that it is the current use of most land. That has been generally accepted both by outside bodies and in another place and we see no reason to depart from this general approach in the case of building a single house for a relative. The only reason why this exemption was previously included in the Bill was because this was the only way to achieve statutory exemption before the creation of "excepted development" and we do not see that the change is significant from the point of view of this

1049
category of development since the Secretary of State would clearly be prepared to confirm a compulsory purchase order only if there was some quite exceptional circumstance justifying it. Indeed at present it is impossible to envisage any such circumstance in relation to the circumstances described in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the White Paper.
A further observation that might be relevant is that if the plot is going to be acquired anyway, would the owner care greatly whether it was under the powers of the Bill or some other power? Since the development is "excepted development", the procedure would be the same in both cases. Under the Bill as originally drafted, the authority could have acquired the plot under the Bill's powers so long as it was not to build a house for the owner or his relative and that limited class. I hope that in the circumstances of what I have endeavoured to give by way of explanation of this highly technical matter the noble Lord will feel disposed not to press his Amendment.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could answer one point raised on this Amendment? I think he said that the White Paper exempted only the owner of the plot or a member of his family and that my noble friend was wrong to have said that the single dwelling-house now in the Bill was in fact what was covered in the White Paper.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: No, my Lords; the noble Viscount conceded that in his speech.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful for that, but would the noble and learned Lord not agree that it was the Government who changed the whole basis of the single plot? Coming to the point of compensation which the noble and learned Lord made, I think he referred us to Clause 25(3) and I believe he said that this would change the basis of the valuation from existing use to, I presume, market value. Could the noble and learned Lord confirm that point?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I can of course only speak again at Report stage by leave of the House. If I may say so, perhaps it would be fitting that I should remind noble Lords that we
1050
are at the Report stage and if we are to get on we must avoid the temptations of treating it as a Committee stage procedure.
I have endeavoured to explain that the inclusion of the building of a single house within Schedule 1 has valuation implications, since by reason of Clause 25(3) development within Schedule 1 is included within current use value after the second appointed day, and one of the consequences of bringing the single plot development exemption within current use value may be, as I have indicated, that it might lead landowners to break up their land holdings into single plots for dwelling-houses so that in addition to getting current use value they could get the value of the right to build a single house on the plot as an added factor. This is what I am told and I verily believe it to be true.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has been verily misled by the procedure on recommitment this afternoon, and references that he made to Clause 25(3) ought, according to one view of the Bill —that is, the text that we have in front of us—to be to Clause 25(4)(b) or, according to another view of the Bill whereby we have inserted Amendment No. 168, to subsection (6) or (7). The difficulty of course is that we have not got a final text. Nevertheless, I take the point and I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that in order to get over that we should adopt the technique which is often used and which has been used in Schedule 8 to the Town and Country Planning Act where we are talking about compensation, and break up Schedule 1 to this Bill into two parts. I will then move a consequential Amendment (if I can find the right place) whereby we do not take account of my paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 for the purposes of compensation, but we deal with it only for the purposes of exempted development and compulsory purchase. I do not think there is any practical difficulty about doing that and that will meet the point on compulsory purchase made by the noble and learned Lord.
I think the noble and learned Lord made two points of substance. The second point that he mentioned was that the Secretary of State will be very chary about confirming the compulsory

1051
purchase order on the sort of plot which used to be covered by the old Clauses 4 and 5 and which was exempted under the White Paper. That is good for us to know, but I am very much afraid that a person who happens to be in the category originally exempted altogether from the scheme of the Bill will not have followed the somewhat mercurial course that this Bill has taken through Parliament. After all, these are bound to be people with small amounts of land and they are the sort of people who often deal with compulsory purchase orders themselves. They do not necessarily have advice. They may know that they were exempted in the White Paper. If they happen to look at the terms of the Bill they will find that their exemption has disappeared. They will not know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on Report stage in the House of Lords made a pronouncement about what the Secretary of State would be likely to do on a compulsory purchase order. Therefore they may throw up their hands in despair and never take the point at all.
For this reason, among others, I would suggest to the House that it would be much better if we were to put this provision into the Bill. Then it is in an Act of Parliament which is, after all, the law of the land which applies to everybody. It is not an administrative concession which is contained in a speech
of a Minister, however sincere and however accurate it may be, made in one House of Parliament and which is available only to those who read Hansard or who happen to see it reported in a newspaper if it is so reported. That is not a satisfactory way of dealing with these things. It is much better if it is in the Bill.
The other point is this—and this is the first point of substance made by the noble and learned Lord. He said that my Amendment would have a minimal practical effect. That may be so. Why, then, was it the subject of Clauses 4 and 5 in the legislation as originally introduced? What was the point of the Government making the promise in the White Paper, and then introducing it in the legislation when it came before Parliament, if the effect is of minimal practical importance. It must have been sufficiently important to warrant a promise, and to warrant a complicated procedure. Why now is it dismissed as being something we need not trouble about? I am not satisfied about that. I consider it would have been much better if we made this plain on the face of the Statute. As to the compensation point, I will see whether I can deal with that later.
6.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 118 Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cowley, E.

Goschen, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Gowrie, E.

Allerton, L.

Croft, L.

Grenfell, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Cross, V.

Gridley, L.

Amory, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Amulree, L.

Daventry, V.

Hanworth, V.

Arran, E.

Davidson, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Balerno, L.

Denham, L.

Hawke, L.

Balfour. E. [Teller.]

Devonshire, D.

Henley, L.

Balniel, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Banks, L.

Dundonald, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Barnby, L.

Eccles, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Barrington, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Kemsley, V.

Bathurst, E.

Elles, B.

Killearn, L.

Belstead, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kindersley, E.

Berkeley, B.

Elton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Brecon, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Exeter, M.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Falkland. V.

Long, V.

Carrington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Foot, L.

Loudoun, C.

Colville of Culross, V. [Teller.]

Gage, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gainford. L.

Luke, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Mancroft L.

Mansfield, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strang, L.

Marlborough, D.

Pender, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Platt, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Merrivale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Tranmire, L.

Meston, L.

Redesdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Middleton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Vernon, L.

Monck, V.

St. Davids, V.

Verulam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Vivian, L.

Newall, L.

Sandford, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Northchurch, B.

Sandys, L.

Wigoder, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Savile, L.

Windlesham, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Wolverton, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Somers, L.

Worcester, Bp.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Young, B.

Onslow, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Pannell, L.

Balogh, L.

Gardiner, L.

Popplewell, L.

Birk, B.

Hall, V.

Raglan, L.

Blyton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rhodes, L.

Brockway, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rusholme, L.

Brown, L.

Hoy, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L.

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Crook, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stow Hill, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rendal, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Fulton, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.20 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) development consisting of the replacement or alteration of an existing building where there has been no change in the ownership of the land.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to include as an excepted development in Clause 3 a,
"development consisting of the replacement or alteration of an existing building"—
I have tidied this up—
"where there is no change in the ownership of the land."
Buildings do wear out. I have in mind three particular categories. I am thinking of a case where somebody has in his possession a house which is sub-standard and wishes to develop it, or perhaps even rebuild it if it cannot satisfactorily be brought up to the proper building standards. Also, there is the very important case where industry is developing and may need to rebuild completely part of its works. It does not involve a change in the ownership of the land. I feel that it is
1054
something that should be excepted from relevant development within the meaning of Clause 3. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, there is no dispute over whether or not rebuilding or alteration coupled with an element of extension should fall within the category of excepted development. Annexe A in the Paper on The Scope of the Community Land Scheme made it clear that the Government's intentions cover re-building or alteration with an extension of up to a 10 per cent. increase in floor space. So, as I understand it, the only dispute between the Government and the noble Earl is in the mechanics of achieving this. This Amendment would write the exception into the Bill. I regret to say that we cannot accept this, because this is a matter that the Bill, with the special exception of the building of a single house, leaves entirely to regulations.
This use of regulations is justified on two grounds. First, regulations are more flexible, and, as my noble friend Lady Birk explained at Second Reading in October, make it possible for detailed definitions to be drawn up in consultation with interested parties. I think there were several points in the Committee stage when

1055
we saw the importance of consultations on the categories of excepted development, and when we saw that there was still a certain amount left for further discussion. If a lot of independent propositions are written into the Bill, they may overlap or clash. It is much more satisfactory, in our view, to look at the whole field of development and attempt to draft general classes to be included in the regulations. The results can then again be discussed with interested bodies before Parliament is asked to approve the regulations.
Secondly, putting some things in the Bill and others in regulations means that interested persons would have to look in two places, the Bill and the regulations, to find everything that is excepted. It is much simpler for them to look in one place, the regulations, for all the categories of excepted development. In view of the fact that we have accepted that there should be a 10 per cent. increase in floor space allowable on rebuilding or re-development, and in view of what I have said about the importance of leaving this to regulations so that consultations may take place, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I am sure there will be many people who will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for having answered this; at least we have some record in Hansard to this effect. I must say that it still leaves very much open what will eventually appear in the regulations. I am not altogether happy. I trust that this will be provided for, as the noble Lord says, and even allow for a 10 per cent. extension to the building. The problem is that very often you have something like a sub-standard kitchen or bathroom which may involve an extension, in the case of a single dwelling-house, to a far greater extent than that. May I remind noble Lords that if industry is not expanding, time alone is leaving it behind. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.23 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) development for the erection or alteration of any building, which when erected or altered would be eligible for a fifty per
1056
or more reduction in rates under sections 39 or 40 of the General Rate Act 1967, or in Scotland, sections 22 and 23 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is on an entirely different point. What I was thinking of in this case was the building of churches, the building of village halls, the erection of buildings to be used for general recreation or educational purposes, which, when erected or altered, would be eligible for a 50 per cent. or more reduction in rates under the relevant rating Acts. I am sure that where a building would be eligible for as great a reduction as 50 per cent. or more of rates—which, after all, is the local authorities'income—we should give it the benefit of being an exempted development within the provisions of this Bill. The sort of case I am thinking of is the building which is erected entirely for the benefit of the community, and which, if it were to be taxed to a great extent under any provisions, would probably not be built at all.
As noble Lords who are members of the Government have said on more than one occasion, this Bill is designed to be of benefit to the community. The buildings with which I am concerned are very definitely for the benefit of the community and not something out of which any profits can be made. I moved a similar Amendment at Committee stage, but I drafted it incorrectly; I had not allowed for the 50 per cent. or more reduction in rate able value. I beg to move.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, there is one thing that can be said; that is, that the noble Earl is not consistent. I was interested in his observations in regard to community halls. In areas like mine we had the closing down of mines. We had welfare halls which are now turned into community centres and have become the responsibility of local authorities. They work under management committees set up to raise the finance to keep these places going, and to give accommodation to the young people of the area who have nowhere else to go. If these places have to be kept up, if they have to receive grants afforded to them by the local authorities, then those authorities must receive rate poundage from somewhere.
The people who use the premises, opera societies and musical festivals and one

1057
thing and another—I do not know whether the noble Earl has seen this in his own area up in Scotland, but it is the case in my county of Durham—are doing a good job of work, but somebody has to carry the responsibility and find the money to keep them going. They need caretakers who have to be paid a wage. They receive grants through local authorities towards meeting their initial expenses, so as to keep these places open. Therefore, we must come down on the side of the local authorities in regard to this matter, because rate poundage has to be imposed upon a local welfare hall, or even a cricket ground or sports centre in the villages. I have much sympathy with the case presented by the noble Earl, knowing the full facts about how these places have to be kept going, but they can be kept going only by the good will of local authorities and other people who are prepared to assist them.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as the noble Earl pointed out, he moved a similar Amendment in Committee, and at that time my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor explained that the Amendment was unacceptable as it went far beyond the special provisions already announced for Churches and charities, and because effectively it would make special provision for the very large number of organisations coming under Sections 39 and 40 of the General Rate Act. On this particular point I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Slater, who showed the same sympathy I have for the motivation behind the Amendment, but I think also made an extremely valid point.
The noble Earl indicated that he intended to return to the matter on Report and would limit the number of organisations for whom he sought benefits. But in fact it has not quite worked out that way. As the Amendment is worded it could still include any of the bodies described in Section 40(5), as they may be entitled to an unlimited discretionary reduction in rates, so his Amendment would not make that matter sufficiently exclusive. In any case, the Amendment is certainly unacceptable even if limited only to the bodies listed in Section 39 and Section 40(1)(a) and (b.) as it is not
1058
the intention of the Government, as has been made clear, that any development carried out by a Church or a charity at any time shall not be held to be relevant development.
The Government have been quite prepared to give special treatment to land in respect of which Churches and charities had entered into commitments for development before they had any knowledge of the land scheme, but have made it quite clear that they would not be prepared to prejudice the operation of the scheme by excluding permanently from relevant development all developments carried out at any time not only by Churches and charities but also by any of the other organisations, and in that I include the village halls and places for general recreational purposes which the noble Earl mentioned when he moved his Amendment. The special provisions which are already included in the Bill, and which have been described so many times, together with those tabled for addition to Clause 25, ought, I feel, to be quite sufficient to enable charities to carry on their work effectively when the land scheme is in operation. Therefore, I cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment, and hope that he will withdraw it.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I think that I must have the final say here, to establish that my concern was for the erection or alteration of very special buildings. They are non-profit-making, and they were for recreational or educational purposes. I am sorry that the Government feel that this sort of thing ought to be left entirely in the hands of the local authorities, being taken out of the hands of those who, on their own, wish to make this effort to provide something for the community. If that is their wish, then it is regrettable. However, I think I must leave the matter there. I warn the Government and everybody concerned with the Bill that the very fact that the Government are taking things away from private individuals and putting them in the hands of an authority which, in so many cases, can be cold and unfeeling, is something about which I have considerable regret. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 1. This might be a convenient moment for me to answer the question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when I spoke to Amendment No. 1. She asked me about the definition of "development order". As I understand it, the definition of "development order" has not been removed, and it remains in Clause 4 on page 4 at lines 32 to 34. I hope that that answers the question she put to me. I beg to move.
6.36 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 3, at end insert—
("(4) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this section and any regulations made under the provisions of this Act, the term "exempt development" means development referred to in Schedule 1 of this Act and the term "excepted development" means development referred to in subsections (1)(b) and (c) of section 3.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendment No. 22 go together. The noble Baroness will be glad to know that these are helpful Amendments, or supposed to be. One of the criticisms of this Bill has been that it is so terribly complicated to understand. Indeed, we made this criticism on a number of occasions at Committee stage, and I am glad to see that the first thing that the Government did was to introduce Amendment No. 1 to reorganise the definitions because they were so complicated. This Amendment helps the ease of understanding.
We have in the Bill a number of expressions: "development"; "development land"; "development orders"; "development plans"; "relevant development"; "excepted development"; "exempt development". They can tie you up in knots. "Excepted development" and "exempt development "are so similar that they are extremely confusing to simpletons like myself, and indeed to other people. Even the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, got us tied up a little when he said:
1060
"We have made it perfectly clear that we should not expect local authorities to involve themselves in excepted development except in exceptional circumstances."
Even that modest phrase takes some five minutes to understand. I do not blame the noble Lord, because I have heard that kind of complication when we have been discussing the Bill outside the Chamber. The whole basis of the Bill rests on "relevant development", "excepted development" and "exempt development". But it is very complicated when you say, "What is excepted development and what is exempt development", and they are defined nowhere.
"Exempt development" is not defined anywhere other than Schedule 1, and then it is not a definition: it is merely a statement of fact. It says: "Schedule 1, Exempt Development". "Excepted development" is not defined at all, other than, we are told, in regulations which have not yet been formulated other than the curious document Annex A. Apparently, "excepted development" is defined there, but where is Annex A? Your Lordships might like to know that you can get it in the Printed Paper Office, but how anyone outside the House knows where to get such an Annex A I do not know. Maybe they should get it from the Department of the Environment, but they are not to know that it is available. Further to complicate it, Clause 3(1) defines "relevant development" as "any development except—" various things, but what it excepts is "exempt development" as well as "excepted development".
I have put down these Amendments in order to try to write into the Bill what is "excepted development" and what is "exempt development", so that we all know what we are talking about—at least in some measure. I hope that the noble Baroness will find that this is a constructive Amendment, and that she will have no hesitation in accepting it. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not describe himself as a simpleton; even if he were to do so I am sure that noble Lords would not agree with him. I thought that at one point, as he was reciting some of the words in the Bill, he was about to break into song and I am tempted to feel that now, on Report, we have the same cast,

1061
almost the same script and the same scenario. I am sure that the noble Earl meant this to be a helpful Amendment—two Amendments in fact because with the leave of the House I will address my remarks at the same time to Amendment No. 22. Amendment No. 9 is, as the noble Earl explained, intended as an avoidance of doubt provision, explaining the terms that are used, while Amendment No. 22 defines the development referred to in Clause 3(1)(b) and (c). Frankly, I think the result of these Amendments would be to cause almost total confusion because they would bring into the Bill terms which have been designed for administrative convenience but which, except for the title of Schedule 1—"Exempt development"—are not used in the Bill. In any case, I imagine that these Amendments are in the nature of a kite being flown, because if the approach were serious there would obviously have to be a number of consequential Amendments, and they have not been tabled.
Leaving aside the defects, which are a minor point, I cannot see that the Amendment would help by redrafting the Bill in this way. I am far from calling myself an expert on this subject, though day-by-day I learn more, but even to me Schedule 1 explains the position clearly. I was re-reading it while the noble Earl was speaking and it explains quite clearly what the position is. If, after reading that, we go on to Clause 3(1), we see, as the noble Earl pointed out, the reference to "relevant development" and the use of the phrase "development of any class"—and in Committee we went into why the single dwelling house has been included—and then we go on to read in subsection (1)(c):
"…development of such class or classes as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations".
Frankly, this makes it extremely clear and there seems to be little gained from adding more words to the Bill. If there is a problem, other than that in the mind of the noble Earl, this will readily be resolved when the regulations under Clause 3(1)(c) are made. There will, of course, be explanatory publicity issued by the Government and I cannot see the ordinary members of the public being concerned, even if I were to push Annex A under their noses. I do not
1062
think they will want to find Annex A. What they will want to know is how this will affect them, and even definitions further spelt out of, for example, "except" and "exempt" would not get the ordinary person very much further. They would need a far wider and far more simplified explanation than is to be found in any piece of legislation. Thus, although I accept the helpful intention behind the Amendment, I must ask the noble Earl to withdraw it.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Ferrers because although the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that these proceedings reminded her of the same cast and the same scenario, this discussion proves that the players in this scene have still not mastered the plot. What my noble friend said in a pleasant and cavalier manner masked a serious point. The definition of this excepted development is not in the Bill. It is a major concession that the Government have made halfway through the Bill's passage through Parliament. It affects an enormous number of people; it affects every small builder, every industrialist up to 15,000 sq. ft. if he wishes to develop and it affects individuals, yet nowhere do we see this very special part of the Bill mentioned. The noble Baroness said—or I understood her to say—that she did not think that anybody who wished to examine this part of the Bill would be interested in Annex A. I think that people will be tremendously interested in it.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the noble Earl must have misunderstood me because I did not say that. I referred to the ordinary person or member of the public. I did not refer to anybody especially interested in the Bill. Anybody who is particularly interested in the Bill —or the Act as it will be—will, of course, be interested in that. I was making the point that when they had read that, they would find it sufficiently explanatory. I said that the ordinary person who wanted to know the effect of this legislation on him would not find the spelling out of this provision helpful because it would still be very technical.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right because it is technical. Nevertheless, to the ordinary person Annex A covers man

1063
subjects in which ordinary people are interested. It covers recreational buildings, small buildings, including churches and meeting halls and—this is made clear in Annex A—a wide range of extensions to buildings of all types. The noble Baroness is being rather unkind to the ordinary person. I speak as an ordinary person and I am interested in Annex A. I therefore ask why Annex A is not in the Bill. What effect does Annex A really have? It is not law and we are told that there will be regulations, but we are not told when the regulations will be published. My noble friend has raised a very serious point and I hope that he will consider most seriously what the noble Baroness has said.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am bitterly disappointed in the noble Baroness's reply, because I thought she would be bound to accept the Amendment. Indeed, I tried hard to word it so that she would accept it, but I thought that possibly her advisers would say that this would be a most intolerable intrusion into the Bill and that, for that reason, the noble Baroness should not accept it. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull said it all went to show that the players had not yet mastered the plot. I tried hard to see how that could possibly be a compliment to myself, but I can only take it as being the greatest insult possible, which is of course absolutely justified, and it was in order to try to master the plot that I tabled this Amendment.
The noble Baroness really let the cat out of the bag when she said that the terms "exempt development" and "excepted development" were designed for administrative reasons. That is exactly the trouble. They are designed for administrative reasons and this is our complaint about the whole Bill; it is so designed for administrative reasons that the average person reading it cannot grasp what it is always all about. However, this is not a point over which I would ask your Lordships to take any exercise, either mental or physical, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, three undertakings were given on Clause 10. One—as reported at col. 1345 of Hansard—was given to my noble friend Lady Young about the length of leases for redevelopment by pension funds, which my noble friend does not wish to pursue at the moment. Another was given to my noble friend Lord Balfour and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross affecting compensation, which my noble friend Lord Balfour intends to raise again on Amendment No. 172 to Clause 27, and I hope it is helpful for the Government to have that notice. The third we were discussing in the course of our debates on Amendment No. 5, so there is no need for me to move Amendment No. 10, which was to leave out Clause 3.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
6.49 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Exempt development]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 51, line 4, after ("permission") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will, with the permission of the House, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. In Committee—as reported in Hansard at col. 1394 for 21st October—the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, raised the question whether Schedule 1(1) as drafted covered the case of development which would normally be permitted under a general development order where, for special reasons, an Article 4 direction had been made requiring expressed planning permission to be applied for in respect of that development, indeed, I think the noble Lord also raised the point at another stage in the Committee proceedings. I have since looked at the point. It was always intended that, in such cases, the development should remain within exempt development but the present drafting does not achieve that. The noble Lord has raised an important point. I am very grateful to him for drawing our attention to this. These three Amendments remedy the defect to which he has drawn attention.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having dealt with this, because I believe

1065
that it was not fully covered before. That having been achieved, I do not feel I have anything else to raise on Schedule 1.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 5, after ("force") insert—
("or
(b) would be so granted but for a direction given under the order.")—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 7, after ("is") insert ("or would be")—(Lord Melchett.)
6.53 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 51, line 8, at beginning insert ("in addition to any development falling within paragraph 1 above,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will be replying to this Amendment and I feel I should perhaps offer him an apology for a point which I have just found in looking back through our debates in Committee and which relates to my new friend, Section 132 of the Town and Country Planning Act. I am grateful to him for introducing me to that strange piece of the Statute, which I had not previously come upon. I am sorry that I had to leave the Chamber before I had an opportunity of saying so on the occasion in question.
In relation to the present Amendment, I believe that there is on both sides of the House an agreement that a slightly curious overlap occurs. The provision of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Schedule have been cobbled together from different sources. The first derives from the general development order which deals, in this case, with what is demed to have been granted planning permission under Part III of the 1971 Act, but paragraph 2 comes from somewhere else and the difficulty about it is that the two paragraphs
1066
deal to some extent with the same territory.
As we heard in Committee, under the general development order, planning permission is deemed to have been granted and, therefore, for the purposes of this Schedule, this is exempted development and can be taken into account for the purposes of compensation. One sort of agricultural development concerns agricultural buildings up to what used to be 5,000 square feet and what is now 4,465 square metres, though these are subject to other conditions as well. However, under paragraph 2 of the Schedule, we have agricultural buildings of unlimited size also exempted and allowed to be taken into account for the purposes of compensation.
I am moving the Amendment for two purposes. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that, for both purposes to which Schedule 1 relates one should take the larger of the two into account. I am sure that that is what is intended, in which case I suggest that, as we are combining two sets of words which have different derivations, it is as well to say so. I would add that, if by any chance the Government are minded, when the Bill goes back to another place, to suggest that the Amendment which we made at this point last time should be reversed, we shall then have a situation under which horticulture will be dealt with specially and there will be a special restriction on horticultural buildings under paragraph 2 which will not apply under paragraph 1. Therefore, at the point where the Amendment has been put down it will be necessary to say which of the two paragraphs is to prevail.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, told me last time that there was an overlap in the Bill as drafted when it was before us in Committee, and I believe that he will have to put words into the Bill at his point in order to tell people, for the purposes of compensation and of deciding what is exempted development, whether paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 prevails. Here it is a comparatively simple matter. In the hypothetical circumstances which I suggested in the second part of my remarks, I believe that it will be more important if it should ever occur. I therefore ask the noble Lord to look at this once more, so that we may avoid a lot of trouble and

1067
litigation in order to decide what the Bill is supposed to mean. However, for the purposes of this Amendment, I believe that it is sufficient that these words should go into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Viscount said about the obscure section of the Town and Country Planning Act. In relation to the Amendment, it was always clear that the carrying out of building ancillary to agriculture or forestry was partly covered by the general development order exemption contained in paragraph 1. My advice is that the Amendment adds nothing of substance to the Bill and that it is unnecessary as a clarification. I am further advised that, while it is not for me to pre-empt what another place may decide to do with the Bill when we send it back, even if horticulture were to be put back in the Bill in the other place, the words would still not be necessary. The exception would cover only paragraph 2 and not paragraph 1. However, I believe that, so far as the second point is concerned, it is something which we ought to leave to the other place. If they feel that additional words are necessary when they look at the Amendments which have been made, that is a matter for them. But my advice is that, as the Bill stands, the Amendment is not necessary for clarification.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am convinced by that, but the only method by which I could draw attention to this point was by putting down an Amendment. The noble Lord is right that the words in question would not be correct, supposing the hypothesis which we are working on to occur in another place, but I believe the noble Lord will find other words to be necessary. It was in order to implore the noble Lord to look at this again and to avoid the difficulties which I feel will otherwise arise, that I put down the Amendment. I have now drawn the point to his attention and he has said he will look at it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 17, at end insert—
1068
("(4) Development consisting exclusively of the building of a single dwelling-house.")— (Viscount Colville of Culross.)
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned until 8 o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT 1973 (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1975.
6.59 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) rose to move, That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (Amendment) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th October, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, although I rise to seek the approval of your Lordships' House to the Order reproscribing the Ulster Volunteer Force, I should like to take the opportunity of explaining—as my right honourable friend has done earlier today in another place—the way in which the Government see the security situation in Northern Ireland at present and the manner they consider best suited for dealing with it.
It has become clear that there has been a change in the nature of violence in Northern Ireland this year. The campaign to disrupt life through the bombing of Government and commercial premises has given way to a wave of murders. Gangsters and criminals arc acting without any facade of political backing or belief and terrorist organisations are engaged in gang warfare, seen particularly in the last few days in the feud between the Provisional and Official IRA. There is an atmosphere of lawlessness. The Government propose to crack down on this, using methods most appropriate for such a situation. In the forefront must be the Royal Ulster Constabulary, supported, as necessary, by the Army and with the sanctions of the law and the machinery of the courts behind them to restore the rule of law.
The prime role of the police is the first of a four stage approach to the present situation. Already the RUC has shown how it can respond to the challenge. This year over 1,000 people have been charged with serious crimes, including 118 with murder and 77 with attempted murder. The formation of the "A" Squad to deal with sectarian murders has paid dividends, and there is increasing evidence of public support demonstrated by co-operation from the publicin providing information about crimes and criminals. I am pleased to report, moreover, that since my right honourable friend's Statement in September 1974 about policing, the RUC has increased its strength by 443 recruits to give a present total of 4,760, and the strength of the RUC Reserve has increased by 2,200 to bring it to a current strength of 4,894.
A key element in the Government's approach is reliance on the courts to deal with offenders rather than the detention process. Detention has played an important part in dealing with violence from 1972 to 1975, but there is a price to be paid for it. Detention has offended a large section of the law-abiding community in Northern Ireland, and particularly the minority community from the Cardinal downwards. It has caused widespread resentment on all sides, and although my Party did not oppose its introduction by our opponents, the time has come to reconsider it. We are convinced that so far as is humanly possible, the proper procedures henceforward for dealing with lawlessness are the traditional ones of arresting, charging and sentencing in the courts.
It is essential, however, if this policy is to succeed, to make improvements in the prison system. There are two main problems at present: the existence of special category status and the absence of a parole scheme. We all deplore special category, while appreciating the reason why it had to he introduced. But as I explained to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in the debates on the Emergency Provisions Act (Amendment) Bill, there would be no point in abolishing it without first having appropriate cellular accommodation for all new prisoners in place of compound conditions. I am pleased to report that 200 cells will be ready almost immediately
1070
and that others are in the course of construction.
My right honourable friend, therefore, has decided to end it for all offenders accused of crimes committed after 1st March 1976. Those in prison who already hold the status will not be deprived of it. But offenders sentenced for crimes committed after the due date will be treated like any other prisoner. The accommodation problems, although improving, are exacerbated by the fact that there is no parole scheme in Northern Ireland, and the greater the success of the Security Forces, the more pressure is put upon the system. We have given a great deal of consideration to the possibility of introducing a parole scheme, but have concluded that the special circumstances in Northern Ireland—particularly the problems of compound conditions and supervision after release—will not allow for a scheme comparable to that in Great Britain. Accordingly, my right honourable friend intends to introduce legislation to provide for the conditional release of prisoners after one-half of their sentence has been served. Once released, the prisoner will be liable to serve the outstanding balance of his sentence if he is convicted again during that period. Conditional release in this way will replace the existing procedure whereby unconditional release is granted after two-thirds of the sentence has been served but, as now, release will be subject to good behaviour in prison.
I must stress that this conditional release scheme is in no sense an amnesty, it is in lieu of a parole scheme. Up to date, people in Northern Ireland have been considerably worse off than their counterparts in Great Britain, in that every prisoner in Great Britain is entitled to be considered for parole after he has served one-third of his sentence, and 40 per cent. are actually given parole with supervision. At the moment, all prisoners in Northern Ireland serve a full two-thirds of their sentence, but are then unconditionally released. Under the new scheme they will be conditionally released after half their sentence. Those serving sentences of one year or less will be given remission of one-half of sentence without conditions, while those serving life sentences will continue to have their sentences reviewed as at present the new provisions will not apply to them.
The intention of the Government is that these penal reforms will start in March 1976 and take full effect by 1st July 1976. I have no doubt that they are highly desirable and much needed, and, as I have said, they will enable us, in conjunction with the new accommodation, to phase out special category status. People convicted of offences after the introduction of the new scheme will not be granted special category status. They will be treated as all other prisoners. In the new legislation there will also be provisions for community services orders, deferred sentences and bail hostels, other desirable reforms for Northern Ireland which already exist on the mainland.
My right honourable friend has also mentioned detention. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, made the point in his Report that
"Detention can only be tolerated in a democratic society in the most extreme circumstances".
The Secretary of State has signed no interim custody orders since February, and there are now only 172 detainees in custody, compared with over 500 at the beginning of the year. It is worth commenting that all these 172 who are left have been held for more than eight months, and some for up to three years. My right honourable friend has stated today that, in view of the measures that he has announced, he is strengthened in his resolve to release the remainder of the detainees by Christmas, unless, there is a fundamental change in the situation.
These proposals show the way in which the Government are looking to the future. However, the most important factor of all is that the law-abiding people in Northern Ireland should themselves take measures to support the police and the Government in restoring law and order and peace. Before I leave this subject I must point out that these measures will come before your Lordships in the form of an Order in Council in the new Session, when there will be ample scope for detailed discussion.
I apologise to your Lordships for spending so much time on the general security situation rather than the matter of the proscription of the UVF, which is the purpose of this debate. It seemed to me, however, that your Lordships would wish to know of the Government's
1072
proposals at the earliest possible moment and this debate provided that opportunity.
Coming now to the Order, your Lordships will recall that the Ulster Volunteer Force was originally proscribed in 1973 in the Emergency Provisions Act—thus continuing earlier proscription in the Special Powers Acts—but that in April 1974 the Secretary of State announced that he intended to remove both that organisation and the Sinn Fein from the list of proscribed organisations. He did so in the knowledge that many people in these organisations wished to engage in political activities, while at the same time there was no evidence of the organisations as such engaging in acts of a violent nature. Indeed, the Ulster Volunteer Force had announced a ceasefire in November 1973, and called for an end to sectarian killing and, through the Volunteer Party, contested the October General Election. Regrettably, the organisation turned its face once more towards violence. By the middle of this year they had admitted involvement in the appalling Miami Showband killing, and subsequently in the further indiscriminate killings on 2nd October. In view of this my right honourable friend took the decision to proscribe it.
The Order has been made by the urgency procedure, but in these circumstances it was only proper for the Government to act both quickly and decisively. While the Government's policy remains that of encouraging people in Northern Ireland to engage in political activities so long as these are lawful, there can be no protection for those who claim to be acting politically one moment but the next moment turn to violence. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (Amendment) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th October, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
7.11 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, this Order for the proscription once again of the UVF is an almost inevitable consequence of the appalling violence about a month ago in which the Ulster Volunteer Force admitted its involvement, and I support the Government in the decision which they have taken. I am

1073
bound to say to the Government that I think this may well re-open questions about the position of the Provisional Sinn Fein, who have obvious and close liaison with the Provisional IRA; but that is not the matter which we are discussing this evening, and it does not alter the support which I am giving to this Order. I agree absolutely with the Government's view that, in the final analysis, it is the police and the courts which must be responsible for law and order in Northern Ireland; and may I emphasise that I very much welcome the Government's renewed undertaking, which I know was this afternoon given in another place, though I am not quite sure whether it was given by the noble Lord this evening, that while the security situation demands it the Army must remain in strength in Northern Ireland.
The figures which the noble Lord. Lord Donaldson, has given us this evening of people charged in the courts in Northern Ireland this year and of the increase in the numbers within the RUC are certainly very encouraging; but, of course, the test for the police in Northern Ireland is progress in areas where in the last few years their writ has simply not run. I confess I find it difficult to see any substantial progress on this front until in some way the Roman Catholic population is identified more closely with the police force. Some 18 months to two years ago there were, I think, plans for the setting up of local police committees. I wonder whether perhaps some initiative along these lines may be still at the planning stage, and whether it is possible to bring them forward in the foreseeable future.
I welcome also the announcement about the introduction of the new cellular accommodation at the Maze. On both sides of the House we know the reasons for the introduction of special category status, and on both sides of the House it is agreed that somehow or other this has to be ended. I certainly concede that. What I am not entirely clear about from what the noble Lord has said is whether the Government intend to deny special category status to any prisoner entering one of the new cells. If that is to be the policy—and it seemed from what the noble Lord said that that is
1074
the policy—I have a simple question. Are the Government confident that demand is not going to exceed supply? If special category status is to depend upon the availability of the new cells, it seems to me that in the event of demand exceeding supply there could be very real difficulties of a formidable nature.
I realise, of course, that the Government statement about conditional releases will relieve pressure on prison accommodation. These releases raise, I would have thought, one small question. I may be on the wrong track here, but it is the question of parity in practice in Great Britain. I realise from what the noble Lord said that in Great Britain parole can be offered after one-third of a sentence has been served. Presumably, however—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, would know very much more about this than I do—some prisoners do not qualify automatically for this, and I wonder whether, if parole in Great Britain for, let us say, a convicted bomber from Northern Ireland is to be withheld whereas a conditional release is to be offered as of right after half of the sentence has been served in Northern Ireland, that situation might not lead to pressure being brought on the Home Secretary for the transfer of convicted prisoners from Northern Ireland who are serving terms of imprisonment in Great Britain. I should be grateful for guidance on that point, and as to whether the statement has been made with the agreement of the Home Secretary.
Finally, I am interested to know the Government's thinking about the services needed to support the policy of conditional releases and the new moves towards community service orders, suspended sentences and bail hostels in Northern Ireland. Particularly at a time of high unemployment, it is surely essential for the Government to be as confident as they can that the probation and social services are numerous enough to make the success of their policy reasonably hopeful. It is perhaps a paradox that the Government are proscribing an organisation in the Order which we are considering and at the same time are introducing measures for prison reform; but a paradox is nothing new in Northern Ireland affairs, and I support the Government in the measures which they have announced to the House this evening.
7.17 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, it might be helpful if I were to reply to the noble Lord before anybody else who wants to speak does so, just to clear the points he has raised. The question of police committees I think was a point which he raised. This idea was mooted in the White Paper preceding the Sunning dale talks. Afterwards, the Government supported the establishment of such committees, but the commitment lapsed with the disbanding of the Executive. Several unofficial committees have been set up and are operating without financial aid from the Government. But my impression is that the SDLP, who are crucial in this, were not really prepared to go heavily into support of such things until the overall committee which was visualised by Sunning dale was set up—and, of course, it never has been. So I think there is not a great deal to look for there at the moment. This is something as to which I think we need to make some political progress before we can really seriously revive it.
On the question of cells and cellular accommodation, the noble Lord asked whether everybody who was put in a cell would be deprived of special category status. The answer is that it is the other way round. Nobody who is tried for a crime committed after 1st March, and who is first kept in remand and subsequently sentenced, will be put anywhere except in a cell. He will not get special category status. He will be treated like an ordinary prisoner, and we have enough cells to deal with this situation, which I think is what the noble Lord really wanted to know about.
As to parity with Great Britain, the position is that, looking right across the board in Northern Ireland, our prisoners will be worse off than 40 per cent. and better off than 60 per cent. of the British prisoners. The position is that for the man in prison in Great Britain consideration for parole arises after one-third of his sentence, and 40 per cent. get it—not necessarily at one-third, but at or after one-third. Those people are better off than our people, who will be released under conditional release after half of their sentence. The 60 per cent. who do not get it are slightly worse off than ours, in that they have to wait for the expiry
1076
of two-thirds of the sentence before they get their normal unconditional release. That is the exact comparison.
The noble Lord asked whether this will create problems between men sent to prison in Great Britain for crimes connected with Northern Ireland—men with a reasonable excuse to ask to be sent back to Northern Ireland. The answer is that it may; but most of those convicted of the very serious crimes in Great Britain will have life sentences. The new arrangements do not affect life sentences at all. We might run into one or two anomalies if somebody gets a very long sentence; but when this happens the probability of parole after about halfway gets quite high. I doubt whether there will be a great deal of difference.
My Lords, the noble Lord asked whether we had Probation Service facilities for dealing with such new ideas as community service orders, bail hostels and so on. The answer is that we are short of probation officers but we are increasing our intake reasonably well. The probation officers are not being asked to deal with the conditional release people; they are not having placed upon them this very large burden which has been placed on the English Probation Service for people on parole. Our view is that as these things develop, the Probation Service will develop and we shall be able to deal with it. There is rather a shortage of suitable personnel, but we are working hard on this and, on the whole, we think we shall be able to deal with it.
7.22 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I welcome, as my Committee will, the statement made by my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. I am quite sure, as we are all aware, that the more serious crime can be brought before the courts where everybody can see that the case is proved against them as against detention in relation to which it can never be said that anything has been proved, the better. I am delighted to hear that, unless there is a serious change in the situation, it is proposed to phase out detention by Christmas. I think that everybody agrees that the special category was an unfortunate mistake. It was always clear to my Committee that it would be difficult to get rid of it. I am glad to hear that, at least for the future,

1077
it is anticipated that that course can be followed and I am equally glad to learn of the conditional release which is proposed as an alternative to parole.
My Lords, may I ask what are the Government's present plans for further cellular accommodation how large and when it is anticipated that that will be available? Secondly, in view of what has been said about the large number of releases by the end of the year, is any further step being taken on the welfare side?—because, as my noble friend knows, we are always rather concerned that prisoners against whom crimes have been proved in open court have a proper welfare service when they leave; whereas for reasons that I partly understand, detainees have nothing at all.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, as is my custom, I will not go into details other than to welcome the statement. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and I have had the advantage of hearing a certain amount of the debate in the other place this afternoon. One of the things which gladdened my heart was to see the bipartisan policy was still fully in operation. Indeed, I had the advantage—which the Minister did not have owing to his responsibilities here—of hearing the winding-up speech by Mr. Stanley Orme. He thanked the House for their reasonable attitude—more reasonable than on some previous debates. This gave me great heart for the following reason. There have been two bipartisan policies in the last few years which have supported the policy which Her Majesty's Government have adopted towards Northern Ireland. One has been the bipartisan policy at Westminster and the other the bipartisan policy at the Dail in Dublin, unfortunately now shattered; with the Republic on the verge of an Election. Therefore, if we are not going to have a bipartisan policy between the two major parties, in Dublin it is heartening for an observer of the Northern Ireland scene to know that we are going to continue to have a bipartisan policy in London. I think that this is one of the most important things to emerge from this afternoon's debate in another place.
My Lords, it is hard, I know, for Ministers to get over to the people of Northern Ireland that what they say is true. I was therefore delighted that in
1078
the general announcements this afternoon, the Secretary of State stressed over and over again that there would be no amnesty. It is not because I am against an amnesty that I am so delighted; but that it is another way of saying that there will be no British withdrawal; because extreme Republicans, as the Minister knows only too well, have been pressing and pressing for a declaration of intent, as it is called in Belfast. It is this declaration of intent which, unfortunately, the Fianna Fail Party, a week ago, decided to back in opposition to the Government in Dublin. Therefore, the Secretary of State's remarks this afternoon in that context were to my mind extremely important.
One of the problems in dealing with Irish affairs—I think that this was said at least 50 or 60 years ago—is that when you make an attempt to settle the Irish question you never get very far because, halfway through, the question changes. I think that there is some truth in that little story with regard to Northern Irish affairs as well. I can recall only too clearly that two or three years ago people were saying in Belfast—and someone like the Rev. Ian Paisley springs to mind—that, "If only Britain will keep out of our affairs, we can settle everything among ourselves." My Lords, the previous Administrations, under Mr. White law, introduced legislation to make possible an Assembly, which was immediately broken up by these people who said, "We can settle our affairs if only the British keep out of it." The Convention was then set up by the present Administration and, if what we hear is true in Belfast, the majority report from the Convention will be totally unacceptable in London. Soonce again despite the obvious efforts of the present Administration to keep out of Northern Ireland affairs—some people even say that they are trying too much to do so—it still seems to be impossible for the local politicians to settle their own affairs.
My Lords, I think anybody who has tried to administer Northern Ireland understands only too well the appalling difficulties which this creates. I was, I must admit, a little surprised having myself proscribed UVF 10 years ago, when the Administration deproscribed them. Now they have had to reproscribe them. I think that what the noble Lord, Lord

1079
Belstead, said is true: that extreme Protestants will wonder why the Provisional Sinn Fein are still unproscribed. I am not raising that in any spirit of hostility; I can see the reasons. But I think this will probably be a question which will arise and I know that the Minister appreciates that.
My Lords, finally may I say how much I welcome the reforms announced today which I am sure come very dear to the heart of the Minister who himself, in a totally different English context, is interested in prisoners and prison reform.
7.30 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I have not had the advantage of listening to the debate in another place, or of hearing the statement of the Secretary of State, and the statement made in this House this evening is of a complex and detailed character. I am not therefore going to enter into the details of it, but there are three points I want to make. The first is to welcome the decision to end detention without trial, and the release of all those who are now detained without trial before the end of the year. I am perfectly sure that that decision will change fundamentally the psychology in Northern Ireland; the psychology not only among the Catholics, but also the Protestants who, one must remember, have also been subject to detention. I think the figures which the Minister has given of those who have been detained without trial in the ordinary way by juries and judges, indicate to us that even in the extraordinary situation in Northern Ireland today it is possible and, indeed, better, to proceed by democratic judicial methods than by the methods of detention without trial. I welcome very deeply the decision of Her Majesty's Government in that respect, and believe it will contribute greatly to an improvement of the situation in Northern Ireland.
The second point I want to raise is this. I think that the Government have been right in allowing what would ordinarily be described as conditions for political prisoners—I believe it is called Special Category A—during these recent months. As the Home Secretary knows, nearly every week I get letters from young people who have been imprisoned for criminal offences and who are now enjoying
1080
the possibilities of Special Category A. This is what has impressed me: that those foolish young people who committed those crimes under the political circumstances in which they have been imprisoned, are now turning in constructive directions. From January they will be students of the Open University, and I believe that the Government have been absolutely right in giving those young people the opportunity while in prison to begin to think in constructive terms instead of feeling that they were repressed in such a way that their old convictions, their old repressions, their old frustrations, should dominate their lives in the future. I am a Humanist but, strange enough, I have almost found myself a spiritual adviser to some of those young people.
I shall refrain deliberately from entering into the broader political considerations in Northern Ireland. I will not even follow the noble Lord in that respect. It is recognised by all sides in Northern Ireland today that there can be no re-opening of the problem of the frontier except with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. If that is accepted, then surely the important contribution which those who believe in the ultimate union of Northern Ireland can make is not at this stage to create controversy about the Border, but to demonstrate in Northern Ireland itself that Catholic people and Protestant people can work together for their common aims. There is a trade union movement there, and a big ship-building works. Probably Catholic workers are treated with some discrimination; but take the social and economic demands of the workers in Harland and Wolff—they are exactly the same as the social and economic demands of the Catholic workers.
My great appeal to Northern Ireland today would be this: that the workers, both Catholic and Protestant, should put aside the division about the Border—because they both accept that there shall not be change without consent—and should concentrate on their social and economic demands uniting them. If they did that, they would prove by the unity of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland that finally it would be possible to have Catholic and Protestant unity in Ireland as a whole. I will not pretend to be able to analyse the statement which

1081
we have heard in detail tonight, but I greatly welcome the two proposals to which I have referred.
7.39 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the three speakers who, with one or two reservations here and there, have welcomed my right honourable friend's new proposals, which I believe are deeply fundamental and important. I think my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner will feel that though the first response to his Report may have been less than total, the response now is really what he asked for. The undertakings about special categories, the undertakings about detention, the undertakings about something in lieu of a parole scheme, are three deep and important matters to which by noble and learned friend's Report referred. I am grateful for his support.
I should like to answer the question that he asked about further cellular accommodation. We have 200 cells ready now—or they will be ready in a couple of days. We shall have another 300 in 12 months' time; we can have a further 300, perhaps, between eight and 12 months after that. These are not yet commissioned, because we are not sure that we are going to need them. But we have the space so that we can take them. Meanwhile, the young offenders centre at Pardysburn—I think it is called Hyde bank —will have another 300 places by the middle of 1977. By 1980 there will be 400 more places in Maghaberry and a few years later there will be another 400 places there. In addition to this, we have, of course, a certain amount of cellular accommodation in Belfast Prison being used for remand prisoners. There is no intention of changing that, but if we became pressed arrangements could be made to use some of this accommodation for newly convicted prisoners. Therefore, my advice to the Secretary of State has been that we can do this. We have various margins in front of us; we hope it will be like this but if not it will be like that, and we can deal with it. So I do not think that my noble friend need worry.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, with his usual elegant pessimism has made one or two points to which I should like to refer. I am very glad
1082
to hear that he felt as I do about this afternoon's debate in another place; that is, that the bipartisan policy was not at risk and, as he pointed out, the fact that there is a slight risk across the Border makes it all the more important that there should not be here. He stressed the point of no amnesty, and this is very important. I think that one of the reasons why convicted criminals of crimes of a scheduled type are so anxious to claim special category is that they feel this will one day carry an amnesty. We have now given it all the amnesty it is ever going to get, which is the same as any other prisoner convicted of a crime in Northern Ireland. We have introduced something in lieu of a parole system—in some ways rather better and in others not quite so good—but this is the most that anybody will ever get. They will be treated like all the others and there is no advantage whatever from this point of view in trying to stick to special category.
Just as the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, is an elegant pessimist, my noble friend Lord Brockway is an eloquent optimist. I am always accusing him of optimism in relation to Northern Ireland and I only hope that his optimism is justified. I am delighted at his reaction to the very firm comments of my right honourable friend about ending detention. Clearly, this could go wrong, but he has committed himself as far as any politician could at this stage.
As regards the young people my noble friend was talking about, there are very difficult problems involved here. We can look after the young people. We are introducing quite elaborate vocational training schemes and there are a good many facilities for them; but under the special category arrangements we are not at all sure they will come, because what a boy likes is to be with the men. As a fighting boy, as he thinks he is, he wants to be with the fighting men, and it is very difficult to get these boys—whose lives are going to be totally ruined by this association—to come away and be on their own and accept the facilities that we are offering. This is only just beginning.
We have only just got the vocational training facilities available and we are putting every effort into dealing with this. But if my noble friend, who has

1083
contacts with many people on the other side, would tell them that the best thing anybody can do is to get people under 21 out of the compounds and into training, this would be very helpful. I do not think there is anything more to add. I am most grateful for the reception which my right honourable friend's proposals have had here. I believe they are of absolutely fundamental importance and we shall have the opportunity to discuss their details when the Order in Council comes up either in December or January.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.46 p.m. until 8 p.m.]

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
Further considered on Report.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 17 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3 insert the following new clause—
Outstanding material interests
3A.—(1) A material interest in land shall be treated as outstanding for the purposes of this Act unless—

(a) it is owned by art authority, a local or new town authority, a parish or community council or, in Scotland, the council of a district within the area of a general planning authority, or

(b) during the whole of the period beginning with 12th September 1974and ending with the relevant time, it has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), or

(c)it is of a description specified in an order made under this subsection by the Secretary of State.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a material interest in land shall be treated as owned by any person mentioned in that subsection at any time if at that time that person—

(a) has or had entered into a binding contract for its acquisition, or

(b) subject only to completion of the administration of a deceased person's estate,
1084
is or was entitled to it under the terms of the deceased person's will.

(3) An order under subsection (1) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—(Lord Melchett.)
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Shannon): My Lords, we also have a manuscript Amendment, No. 17A, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved as an Amendment to the Amendment:
Leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert ("(b) it is owned by a charity or");
In line 16, leave out ("or had");
In line 19, leave out ("or was").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate I beg leave to move the manuscript Amendment. Perhaps I should start by explaining the purpose, which is that before we go on to consider the purport and content of the proposed Amendment we must make sure that it reflects the change in the Bill that we have effected by Amendment No. 31 to Clause 4. I beg to move the proposed manuscript Amendment to Amendment No. 17.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: There has been proposed a manuscript Amendment to Amendment No. 17, Amendment No. 17A.
Line 8, after ("1974") insert ("or any later date").
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I accept that this manuscript Amendment is consequential on Amendments made during the recommittal proceedings on clauses earlier this afternoon.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether for the sake of good order we ought to get this straight. I think the noble Earl sitting on the Woolsack has one version and I have another. I think the one I have is the one prepared after discussion with the Government's advisers and should be the right one, but I am quite happy to move the one that the noble Earl sitting on the Woolsack has just suggested I move, if that is the best one. I think we ought to get it right.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if I may by leave speak twice on this manuscript Amendment, I am in agreement

1085
with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that his version is better and it may be for the convenience of the Chairman if someone passed him a copy of Lord Sandford's version.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House generally if the Amendment which we are discussing could be read out in full.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl sitting on the Woolsack is now in a position to do that.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: My Lords, I am now in a position to do so. The proposed Amendment to Amendment No. 17 reads:
Leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert ("(b) is owned by a charity or");
In line 16, leave out ("or had");
In line 19, leave out ("or was").
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, that is the Amendment that I think we should now accept. I beg to move.
Clause 4 [Expressions relating to land and planning law]:
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 en bloc. I spoke to all these Amendments with Amendment No. 1.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 23, at end insert—
(" "charity" has the same meaning as in section 360 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 and as respects Scotland "charitable" shall be construed as if it were contained in that Act")
Page 4, line 26, at end insert—
(" "community council" means a community council in Wales")
leave out lines 30 and 31.
Page 4, line 40, at end insert—
(" "enactment" includes an enactment in any local or private Act of Parliament, and an order, rule, regulation, byelaw or scheme made under an Act of Parliament")—(Lord Melchett.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we went over so many Amendments so rapidly at the beginning, that I did not ask all the
1086
questions I had it in mind to ask. I do not quite understand why the definition of "development land", which is what Amendment No. 20 relates to, has been removed. Is this going in the other clause or is this simply being taken now under Clause 17?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I think the answer to the question of the noble Baroness is that "development land" has been inserted in the Bill by my Amendment No. 4 to Clause 3; she will see that we have agreed to insert the definition of "development land" at that stage. The noble Baroness can rest assured, unless we have made some ghastly mistake, that there is no substance in these Amendments. They just re-order the Bill.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I should like to ask a question in connection with Amendment No. 19. I am not familiar with English legislation in this field, but there are community councils in England and Wales. I am a little curious to know why in this case only Wales is concerned. Is it possible to have an answer to that question?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if I may by leave of the House speak three times on this series of drafting Amendments, I should be grateful if the noble Earl would allow me to answer that question at some later stage when I am moving one of the series of Amendments.
8.9 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 42, at end insert—
("("excepted development" means the development to which section 3(1)(b) and (c) refers.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers I beg to move this Amendment. It has in fac been spoken to already with Amendment No. 9 and I do not think it should be necessary to say very much, other than to bear out a point which my noble friend made earlier. So far as Clause 4 is concerned—that is, expressions relating to land and planning law—we believe that inclusion of a definition of the expression "excepted development" is needed. My noble friends have spoken to this Amendment already and I do not

1087
think it needs further amplification. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 9. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, withdrew No. 9 after a considerable debate. So I take it that this Amendment is being withdrawn as well, because it is consequential.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, there has been a misunderstanding. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.10 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 23 to 30 en bloc. I spoke to all of these Amendments with Amendment No. 1. It may be convenient if I tell the noble Earl that I understand that in this context community councils occur only in Wales and that this is quite deliberate. That was the point he raised on Amendment No. 19. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 6, at end insert—
(" "functions" includes powers and duties").
Page 5, line 10, at end insert—
(" "government department" includes any Minister of the Crown").
Page 5, line 15, at end insert—
(" "land acquisition and management scheme" has the meaning given by section 16 of this Act").
Page 5, line 18, at end insert—
(" "local authority" means—

(a) in relation to England the council of a county or district, the council of a London borough, the Common Council of the City of London and the Greater London Council,

(b) in relation to Wales, the council of a county or district,

(c) in relation to Scotland, a regional, general or district planning authority within the meaning of Part IX of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973,

and this Act shall apply to the Isles of Scilly as if the Council of those Isles were the council of a county").
Page 5, line 24, at end insert—
(" "Minister" means any Minister of the Crown or other government department").
Page 5, line 26, at end insert—
(" "new town authority" means a development corporation as defined in section 2 of the New Towns Act 1965, or in section 2 of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968").
Page 5, line 29, at end insert—
(" "parish council" includes a parish meeting and the parish trustees of a parish,
"planning permission" means permission granted (or to be deemed or treated as granted) under Part III of the Act of 1971 or of the Scottish Act of 1972, and in construing references to planning permission to develop or to carry out development of land, or to applications for such permission, regard shall be had to section 32(2) of the Act of 1971 or section 29(2) of the Scottish Act of 1972 (permission to retain development),
"prescribed", in relation to the form of any document, means prescribed by regulations under section 53 of this Act").
Page 5, line 36, leave out from beginnning to end of line 18 on page 6.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
Page 6, line 28, leave out ("or for any other kind of development")
Page 6, line 30, leave out ("that kind of") and insert ("relevant")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for not moving Amendment No. 32. I hope that means he is content with Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 which I should like to speak to now and which cover this point. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 clarify Clause 4(8). They have been put down as a result of the debate at col. 1470 during the Committee stage. The Amendments clarify the situation where there is a planning application or planning permission for development which includes both non-relevant and relevant development. In this kind of case, the application or permission is to be regarded as for relevant development. For example, if there was an application for planning permission for a development which included only some relevant development, the application would be subject to the procedure in Clause 20. I hope that these two Amendments make the situation clearer and meet the points which were raised in Committee. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has explained, the Government have honoured the undertaking that was given in Committee to look again at the wording of Clause 4(8)—in the amended Bill it is now Clause 4(7)—and, as the noble Lord has explained, have produced the

1089
new wording in Amendments Nos. 33 and 34. I am not wholly convinced that that which I offered in Committee is not better, but one thing is certain: that any change to the original wording must be for the better, provided that it can be understood by those who will have to interpret this subsection. The new wording is now intelligible—just!
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 35 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 39, at end insert—
("(10) References in this Act to any enactment shall, except where the context otherwise requires, be construed as references to that enactment as amended or extended by or under any other enactment, including this Act.")—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 36:
Leave out Clause 4.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 36. Four undertakings were given on this clause and we have dealt with three of them. The last one relates to an exchange that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, when I asked him what exactly was in mind when provision was made in the Bill for—
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but if he is going to refer to the exchanges in Committee, could he give me the reference so that I may keep an eye on things?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I apologise. I have exchanged a note with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, but we are moving fairly fast, so I can well understand that we may have missed it. I will not press the noble Lord if he is unable to answer this question off-the-cuff, but if he can I shall be grateful. At the Committee stage I asked the noble Lord for what purpose Clause 4(3)(c) had been provided and he said that it would cover bodies like the Welsh Land Authority but that he might be able to go further. I am wondering whether he may care to take this opportunity to go further. If he could, perhaps he would deal also with a similar question which was asked
1090
by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, when we were discussing Clause 5. The reference is col. 1479 of Hansard. These are not very important matters, but if the information is forthcoming it would be helpful to have it on the record.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I shall be happy to give noble Lords further examples. I am advised that the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies are two more examples, and also housing associations and new town commissions. I do not pretend for one moment that I am giving an exhaustive list to the noble Lord but I hope that those further examples are of some help.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, they are indeed. I am most grateful to the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 37 when I dealt with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Transpose Clause 4 to after Clause 5.—(Lord Melchett.)
Clause 5 [Statutory undertakers]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 38:
Leave out Clause 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 38. Three undertakings were given on this clause and we have just dealt with the first. We do not wish to pursue the second undertaking. The third led to a quite important letter from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. It may well be that they may care to have something on record in the Official Report relating to this matter. I beg to move.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, could advise the House of a letter which I found very helpful. The query which was raised during the Committee stage of the Bill related to the question of the surplus land that statutory authorities hold. The point that was made in Committee was whether

1091
the Government have any record of the surplus land that statutory authorities hold, what will be the future relationship that they will have with the authorities and whether they will be required by the Bill to dispose of any surplus land which they do not want. One of the points which was raised time and time again by many Members of this House was that it is known that statutory authorities are very loth to part with land for reasons which one can understand; they never know whether in years to come the land may prove to be useful. One sees that under the management scheme of this Bill the authorities themselves are subject to a five-year rolling programme. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, whether the statutory authorities would also be subject to a five-year rolling programme which they would have to report to the local authorities and which could be discussed by those who were interested in it.
I have two points to make. First, as regards statutory authorities, the public should be made aware of who owns what. May I cite to the noble Lord a case within my personal knowledge of a certain water company which, as a result of the reorganisation of the water authorities, now looks after sewage. This company now farms over 4,000 acres. It farms this enormous amount of land because it says—possibly rightly—that it has to have the land in order to spread the sewage, if it needs to do so. Here is a case where it could be argued that none of the ratepayers in this area knows that this water company owns this enormous amount of land, and I think that under this Bill there should be a relationship between the authorities concerned with the land and the statutory authorities. I hope the noble Lord will be able to advise us later as to this.
Another point I should like to raise with the noble Lord is on the correct definition of, "operational land". I think there has been some trouble in the past as to what is operational land with statutory authority, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to shed some light on that.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I confess I am somewhat mystified by this
1092
procedure. I am not clear whether it is the wish of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that I should read out in toto the letter that I sent to the noble Earl with copies for him to circulate to his noble friends, and it might be helpful if I had some guidance on that before I embark on a rather lengthy reading.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to expand a little on what I said at the beginning of the proceedings. Because of the pressure that has been put on us by the Government, we are in the position of not having time to consult people outside and although the procedure of the Ministers writing to us about undertakings is the best and the most normal way of proceeding, it hardly meets the case at the moment. We have to prepare for the next stage next Monday and there certainly is not time to exchange correspondence. Some of the points made in these letters are made by way of reassurance to those of us in this House and can be left at that, but in some cases they are points for consideration either by my noble friends who have asked the question or by Ministers who are responding, and it might be worth having at least some part of this correspondence on the Record. If the noble Lord feels that what he has put in his letter is important but that it would be tedious to read it all out, there is the device of including it in the Official Report. I do not think that applies in this case. There is the alternative of just acknowledging the fact that there has been correspondence and leaving it at that, and then people reading our Report know that there is a letter which can be looked at if they want to pursue the matter.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification and I take it that in this instance I shall not have to read the letter out from start to finish, because it is a long letter on a technical point which, although relevant to the Bill, does not arise directly from the provisions of the Bill which we are now discussing.
The noble Earl asked me about five-year rolling programmes. He will know that there is no provision in the Bill to make statutory undertakers submit five-year rolling programmes. I confess that

1093
I do not see any justification for statutory undertakers submitting five-year rolling programmes any more than private industry or property companies or many other people who own large amounts of land. The answer to the noble Earl is that there is no provision in the Bill to that effect.
The noble Earl also asked me about the definition of "operational land", and I take the point that there is some difficulty. He will know, as I said in my letter —and this might be a convenient paragraph to read out—that there has been difficulty sometimes in establishing whether or not land is surplus, and this is illustrated by the fact that there have been long-standing provisions in Statutes simply to resolve this question in doubtful or disputed cases. One of these is repeated in Clause 5(5) of the Bill, where there is a provision for the Minister responsible for nationalised industries to determine the question.
There is another which can operate in compulsory purchase cases, as in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Authorisation Procedure Act 1946. The definition of "operational land" is the same as in Section 222 of the 1971 Act. It has somewhat less relevance in the context of the acquisition of surplus land because of the abolition of special Parliamentary procedure. That was something which I mentioned in my letter to the noble Earl, but it was also dealt with at considerable length at the Committee stage and I do not think it would be helpful to go over that ground again.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I asked the noble Lord one other question which I think is relevant to this letter; that is, what is the future relationship between the Government and statutory authorities, and indeed whether the Government have records at the moment of the land being held by such authorities?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as I said in my letter, the answer to that is that the Department do not in fact collect this information because their responsibilities do not call for it.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, before we leave this point, I should like to express my thanks for receiving a copy of the letter sent by the noble Lord to my noble
1094
friend Lord Kinnoull. There is one point I should like to raise. The noble Lord mentioned in his letter that he did not feel that periodic reports on the amounts of surplus land would be helpful. I think the Survey of Derelict and Despoiled Land in England, 1974—there were two volumes published—was a helpful one, and I should not like the noble Lord to leave this point with no appreciation of this survey. We attach great importance to it.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Other interpretation]:
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move Amendment No. 39.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Melchett.)
Clause 7 [The appointed days etc.]:
8.28 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 9, line 2, at end insert—
("(1A) The first appointed day shall not be earlier than the first date when a draft of regulations under section 3 of this Act excepting one or more classes of development from relevant development has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to preclude the first appointed day when the transitional arrangements of the scheme come into force from being appointed before a draft of the relevant development regulations, which will be made under Clause 3, has been approved by Parliament. This Amendment is, in effect, a redrafting of a similar Amendment (No. 31) tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and as we made clear at that time the Government accept the validity of the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. The reference is Hansard, 22nd October 1975; columns 1496 to 1499. We have now tabled our own Amendment to deal with the matter. We have always accepted the necessity for the relevant development regulations to be available publicly before the first appointed day and would,

1095
in any case, have ensured that this was done, although we did not regard it as essential that such provisions should be written into the Bill. However, the Government took note of the concern expressed by the Opposition, and on consideration we are now prepared to give statutory force to those intentions. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful for another step along the road of repentance.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to ask one question on this issue, but first I wish to congratulate my noble friend on persuading the Government to move this Amendment. I should like to come back to the subject of the first appointed day. I do not know whether an announcement has been made as to the date of the first appointed day, or indeed the date of the regulations, but already this afternoon we have seen that the regulations are a matter of extreme importance. They represent a large chunk of the Bill and affect many people. I believe I am right in saying that no date has yet been given. I hope to draw the noble Baroness by asking her when these regulations are to be published. When is the first appointed day? We want to know this so that all persons affected by the Bill will be able to take the course of action that they wish to take. I would remind the noble Baroness that aspects of this Bill and various dates connected with it are very important for those outside this House who are concerned with land. I am thinking, in particular, of those who have to try to advise clients and, indeed, of the clients themselves who are worried by so many of the matters in the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness can say when the first appointed day will be known.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I do not see this Amendment as a step on the way to repentance. I think the noble Lord should graciously accept it as an acceptance of something which he put forward. As regards the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I would refer again to what I said at column 1499 of Hansard, to which I
1096
have already referred, when I gave an assurance which I repeat today, that the first appointed day would not be before 1st April 1976. It is hoped that the regulations can be made available in draft for consultation before the end of the year, but we have promised consultation. It is not just a case of sitting down and writing out the regulations. Consultation must take place with other bodies before the regulations will be ready. We have already passed an Amendment which lays down that the regulations will be drafted before the first appointed day. Although we still consider it unnecessary to write the date into the legislation, I can give a firm assurance for the Record that the first appointed day will not be before 1st April 1976. It was along those lines that I wrote a letter to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I speak with the leave of the House. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for what she has said, but I must stress that this is a very important point. The noble Baroness said that regulations are to be a matter for consultation. Can I take it from her that under Appendix A these will be the minimum regulations and that there will be no question of taking out some of them, but of simply adding to them after consultation?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords. These are the regulations, which are not spelled out in the Bill, about which we had a debate earlier this evening and also in Committee. These will be in more detail—and there is a blanket cover in the Bill—and will then be discussed. It was for that reason that we discussed this subject in Committee. I myself made the point that in order for there to be flexibility and a width of possibility in drafting the regulations, consultation is necessary. The latest date I have is that they will be available for consultation before the end of the year, and we have already given an undertaking within the Bill—this Amendment has now been passed—that the regulations will be drafted before the first appointed day. I am now giving the House an assurance that the first appointed day will not be before1st April 1976.
8.34 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 9, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) The first appointed day shall not be earlier than 1st April 1976").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am still going to move this Amendment briefly. May I at the same time take the opportunity of thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her letter to me on this Amendment. In her letter, the noble Baroness stated:
"I am prepared to give a categorical assurance that the Secretary of State will not bring in the first appointed day before 1st April next, but I really do not feel it is either necessary or desirable to write this into the Bill."
I am quite prepared to accept that, but may I ask the noble Baroness to make certain that the local authorities, or any authorities functioning under this Bill, are aware of that fact so as to let developers know that in the case of, I think, Clause 19 they must have planning permission in before that date to take advantage of a development which would come outside the provisions of this Bill. This is something that needs the maximum amount of publicity. Once again, I am grateful that this sort of thing will be recorded in Hansard. I have raised the point with no desire to waste your Lordships' time. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am grateful for the brevity and tolerance with which the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, moved his Amendment. I can assure him that this matter will receive the maximum amount of publicity. In fact, the date and the assurance have now been written about and given so frequently that I am certain that this will get around. By all the administrative means at its disposal, the Department of the Environment will certainly make it quite clear to the local authorities, who will be quite cognisant of this.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, can the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, say why it should not be written into the Bill? One must remember that the first appointed day brings in the new acquisition powers under Clause 17, and this is a major step in this Bill. I do not see why this first appointed day should not be written into the Bill, unless it is
1098
to be changed. Although the noble Baroness says that it is now widely known, I have not seen it. I do not think the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who received that letter knew about it beforehand. I doubt whether any of my noble friends knew it. It is an important point. Can the noble Baroness say whether it has also been announced in another place?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it will be helpful if at this stage I may speak again by leave of the House, because it will both expedite matters and put them in a better pattern. However, I hesitated before getting up, because we do not want to keep bobbing up more often than we need on our Front Bench. I do not understand why the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, says that this is the first he has heard of it, because I remember him sitting faithfully through the whole of the Committee stage, when I gave an undertaking—quite apart from the letter I sent to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour —at column 1499 of Hansard for 22nd October 1975, that the first appointed day would not be before 1st April 1976.
One of the difficulties about writing it into the Bill is that onceit becomes a Statute it goes on and lays down everything for the Act. To write in something which, in a way, is almost a transitory thing by the time 1st April comes—we are not giving a date, but are saying, "Not before 1st April 1976"—does not fit in with the drafting of a piece of legislation of this kind. In any case, the wording of the Amendment of the noble Earl is defective. But there is nothing sinister about it. We are saying, "Not before 1st April". I should have thought the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would have been pleased, because once one starts to write in something rigidity is apt to set in. He at least knows the earliest date about which he was concerned; unless he was anxious that the first appointed day should be earlier than that, though I do not think that that was his intention.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for making that statement, and for making it so clearly at this stage. I am sure that the noble Earl. Lord Kinnoull, who has been so assiduous in watching this point, was following the debate when this point was raised before.

1099
But it has been a long and concentrated procedure, and if one's attention wanders occasionally, it is not because we are not listening to what the Government are saying. It is just that human frailty sometimes overtakes one at the end of a long day's proceedings. I do hope I have not missed the point. I wondered whether the noble Baroness could go further and say when the Government expect to be able to announce when the first appointed day will be.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do not think I can at this moment go any further, but if during the proceedings in this House I have any further information I shall not hesitate to make an announcement in the House.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I am very grateful for this discussion, and I am sure it will be of tremendous value to the local authorities, in fact to every authority, and, for that matter, every developer. I sincerely hope that it will be as late a date as possible, and the fact that it is put off until not before the 1st April is very helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Commencement dates, etc.]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 52, line 4, after first ("Act") insert ("in such a way as enables members of the public to inform themselves as to").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will move Amendment No. 41 and speak to Nos. 43, 45 and 46. These Amendments are all designed to give greater publicity to the relevant date orders which bring in the full duty or prohibition provisions of Clauses 18 and 21. Amendments Nos. 43 and 46 strengthen the provision governing the registers of such orders which the Secretary of State must keep by requiring them to be available at all reasonable hours, and to be kept in such a way as to enable the public to inform themselves of the details of the orders. Amendment No. 45 inserts a new provision requiring each of the authorities affected by an order to publish a notice of its effect in the Press and also to keep a copy of the order available for free
1100
public inspection at their main office at all reasonable hours. Amendment No. 42 is simply a drafting Amendment which puts the provisions affecting the Secretary of State and authorities respectively into separate paragraphs.
When Schedule 2 was debated in Committee the Opposition put down a number of Amendments which sought to ensure greater public knowledge of the making of relevant date orders. My noble friend Lord Melchett accepted the need to ensure this maximum publicity for such orders and for the public to have easy access to them. He undertook to reconsider the provisions, which, as your Lordships see, we have done. First, we have taken up the Amendment No. 33 moved in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, which imports from the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the requirement that the register which the Secretary of State is required to keep is kept "in such a way as enables members of the public to inform themselves" as to the details of the orders. To this we have added the requirement that the register must be available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal offices of the Secretaries of State. Secondly, we have met the points made by the noble Baroness. Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, about local publicity, by requiring authorities to publish notices about the orders in local newspapers and to make copies available free for public inspection at their principal offices. These requirements, in addition to those already provided in the Bill, and the administrative arrangements which will be made for registers to be kept in the Department's regional offices, should provide all that is necessary to ensure that members of the public have all the information they need. I beg to move.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for these Amendments. I am sure they are absolutely necessary. In particular, I am very pleased at Amendment No. 46, paragraph 2(b) of which says that the authorities:
"…shall deposit a copy of the order at their principal office and shall keep it available there at all reasonable hours for public inspection without payment."
I wonder whether I could take this opportunity, without wishing to delay the House

1101
at all, to ask the noble Baroness if she and her colleagues would investigate a complication that has cropped up from time to time. Somebody may wish to take an extract from these orders, and even though it is for his own use I understand that, strictly speaking, he may be contravening copyright regulations.
This is a complicated matter, and I am not necessarily asking for an answer at this moment. If it could be made possible for people to take copies of extracts for their own use, I am sure that is something that would be very much appreciated by a great many people. I have struck this complication in taking extracts from Ordnance Survey maps when applying for planning permission; I have been faced with the fact that I am supposed to buy a copy of the map or whatever it might be, which is extremely expensive and very often far more than I actually need when it is to be used purely and simply for the purpose of obtaining planning permission. If somebody does take extracts I hope they will not be faced with this complication of contravening copyright regulations.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, my noble friend has raised a very interesting point. In my experience, when copying a plan one stamps the plan with a duty stamp. I very much welcome these Amendments, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for the undertaking that he has given. I should like to ask about one point. Paragraph 2(a) of Amendment No. 46 reads:
"shall publish a notice of the effect of the order in two or more newspapers circulating in the locality, of which one shall, if practicable, be a local newspaper, —".
When putting in this form of wording I think it is quite common to say that such notice shall be for two or three consecutive weeks. It is very helpful when advertising on a matter of this importance if it is not put in for just one insertion, because it may well be that this is a holiday period and the advertisement does not receive wide readership. I hope the noble Baroness will consider that point. Secondly, the sub-paragraph says "if practicable, …a local newspaper". I do not know what this implies, whether one looks at the circulation of local papers. I would hope that "local newspaper" would come at the beginning
1102
rather than putting it at the end; in other words,
"shall publish a notice of the effect of the order in two or more local newspapers".
Baroness BIRK: With regard to the noble Earl's point about the extract, I am very sympathetic to the point and would like to check further this question of copyright. I can tell the noble Earl that people can certainly buy a copy at the Stationery Office, but that is a slightly different point.
So far as the newspapers are concerned, we have to say "where practicable" because there are not always local newspapers, and with the state of the industry at the moment, one does not know whether there will be local newspapers in the future. I think that the noble Earl will agree that we are quite right to emphasise the need for it to be in a local newspaper, or indeed perhaps more than one depending on the district and the number of papers. This can only happen if there is a paper circulating in the area, and also, I imagine, if it is considered that it has the sort of circulation which will make it worth while and will reach a sufficient number of readers.
As to how often this ought to be done, I imagine that would need to be considered as a question both of cost and of how many people one could reach, and on the particular practical problems. Notice will be taken of this because the whole object of these Amendments—and the object behind them will be made clear—is that the public should know and should have access, so that we shall adopt any way by which this can be promoted. There is no need to write into the Bill anything more about how many times. If in fact one did that and said "twice", one might find that those in some areas would be happy and would have done some deal with the local paper to insert an advertisement for, say, three or even four issues. Therefore, it is right to leave it in this way so that arrangements can be made. I have carefully noted all of these points, and the point about copyright I shall certainly look into.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, with the leave of the House—and this is an Amendment we have not discussed before—may I say that under planning legislation I think words are to be found to the effect that the planning application

1103
should not be published in less than two issues of the local Press. I have not got the wording right, but they put in a minimum figure rather than no figure at all.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, before we conclude the discussion on this Amendment, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness because the point I raised in Committee on her Amendment No. 46 is met. I should like to say how grateful we are for this, and also for the assurances she has given to my noble friend Lord Kinnoullabout looking at this other point. I am sure I have seen written somewhere words as to the minimum number of issues in which a notice should be published. If the noble Baroness will look at that, we shall be grateful.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I shall certainly look at that. I cannot help feeling that there is probably some good reason behind it. It was probably thought that the way it is now worded is an improvement. However, I shall look into it and be in touch with the noble Earl and the noble Baroness.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 43.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 7, leave out ("2.—(1)") and insert ("(1A)").—(Baroness Birk.)
8.55 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 52, line 10, at end insert ("and registers covering the whole region or metropolitan county, as the case may be, shall be kept at some convenient and central office in Glasgow, Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Birmingham."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should first like to add my thanks to the Government for the arrangements they have made for the publication and advertisement of these important orders. What has been achieved by their Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 goes a long way to meet the points we were concerned about. May I revert to my particular concern, which is for the big cities. There will be developers, builders, others concerned with land and development in the
1104
big cities whose needs we need to consider. May I cite the example of Liverpool. Liverpool is a large metropolitan county area where there does not happen to be a regional office of the Department of the Environment, so people in Liverpool will not be able to find in the DOE regional office what the citizens of Manchester can find, or what the citizens of Leeds can find; nor will the citizens of Sheffield, because there is not a regional office there.
I want to ask for a reassurance that the point will be met, because the requirement contained in Amendment No. 46 only requires each authority to publicise and put on display at their principal office the order which applies to them, so that the Metropolitan County of Merseyside, strictly speaking, will be required by the Bill only to put out a copy of the order that refers to them. My feeling is that the metropolitan counties will probably not be exercising very many powers or duties under this Bill. The major part of them will be undertaken by the metropolitan districts; and there is no obligation on the metropolitan county to publish orders applying to the metropolitan districts in their area. Anybody who is just working within a single metropolitan district is covered; he can find all the information required. But almost certainly there are builders and developers and others working across the whole of the Merseyside metropolitan county whose needs will not, strictly speaking, be met unless my Amendment No. 44 is provided for in some way or another.
I do not think that it is necessary to move this into the Bill because it is rather a technical and administrative point, but it would be reassuring to know that the needs of people doing building and development work across the whole of the big metropolitan counties, and in Glasgow, the regional authority in Scotland, will have their needs met by comprehensive registers covering the whole of each of those respective areas. I do not want to press this Amendment, but it would be nice if the noble Baroness could give us some reassurance on this point.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this is of course a similar Amendment to the one the noble Lord put down on Committee. As was explained then, the purpose of the

1105
central register provision is simply to provide a central reference point which will give an overall view of the progress of the scheme over the country. I think he will probably agree that in this case it is mainly for those engaged in development on a national scale. Therefore, this sort of register really only acts as an index. What developers and their professional advisers will need and want to see are the statutory instruments making the individual orders.
We took note of the noble Lord's point, and because it is very much more in the nature of an index we do not accept the need for the regional registers which the noble Lord's Amendment would provide. By bringing forward our own Amendments which, among other things, provide that all authorities shall keep copies of the orders affecting their areas available for free inspection at their offices, we have covered somewhat the same point. In addition, the Government Amendments would require authorities to give publicity to all such orders. Therefore, I think that the noble Lord's concern, for instance, about metropolitan counties, would be amply met by the fact that the metropolitan county council will have to conform with these requirements. I think he will agree that it would be better for local authorities to do it than to set up another set of regional organisations, or to put around another set of regional summaries. When he looks at our Amendments I think he will see that his points are covered as fully as he can possibly expect.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, if the noble Baroness would do the same and look at my Amendment, which is different from the Amendment I moved at Committee, in the respect that it is now asking for the metropolitan counties to carry the registers rather than the DOE regional offices, I shall certainly look at her Amendments and see whether they meet my point. I am still left with the feeling that there will not be a single central place in each of the metropolitan counties and the Scottish region of Glasgow, unless something like my Amendment is accepted. I am quite content to leave it for the noble Baroness to see that it is done by some administrative means. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 45, to which I have already spoken.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 11, at end insert ("all")—(Baroness Birk.)
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 46, to which I have already spoken.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 12, at end insert—
"2. As soon as practicable after the making of an order under section 18 of this Act, each of the authorities whose areas include land to which the order applies—

(a) shall publish a notice of the effect of the order in two or more newspapers circulating, in the locality, of which one shall, if practicable, be a local newspaper, and

(b) shall deposit a copy of the order at their principal office and shall keep it available there at all reasonable hours for public inspection without payment."—(Baroness Birk.)

Clause 8 [The Authority]:
9.1 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 47:
Leave out Clause 8.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment to give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor an opportunity to say something more about the undertaking which he gave to my noble friend Lord Aberdare about laying before Parliament directions to the Land Authority for Wales.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Government gave consideration to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in relation to his Amendment at an earlier stage imposing a duty on the Secretary of State to lay copies of directions given to the Land Authority for Wales before both Houses of Parliament. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, butas he received the letter only today, it is not surprising, in the hurly burly of the legislation we are considering, that that news, which will not be regarded by the Opposition Front Bench as good news, has not seeped through to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.

1107
The matter was debated in Committee and I then put forward a number of difficulties in the way of what was proposed. I called in aid the fact that there were respectable precedents for not at once laying copies of directions before Parliament, in the Maplin Development Act 1973 and the Water Act 1973. It was also the case, as I submitted, that it was normal for copies of directions involving national security—there will not be many of those, I agree, but there will be a few—not to be notified to Parliament even in annual reports, though his then Amendment did not provide for this, and that otherwise the Land Authority was already required in the Bill to include directions in its annual reports which would, of course, be laid before Parliament. It is also the case that meetings of the Land Authority will be open to the Press and public so that information about directions which will be ventilated and discussed at those meetings, would become public knowledge as a result of that. I also indicated that the duty would place an additional burden on the Land Authority and, indeed, on Parliament itself, which would outweigh any benefits likely to arise.
The issue has been reconsidered since then, but I am afraid that we have come to the conclusion that the objections that we made earlier and the difficulties that we then indicated remain. In the case of directions given to the Land Authority under Clause 8(3), it is true that the burden of work involved in that would not in itself be likely to be heavy, but the difficulty is that if the principle were accepted, it could be argued that directions given to the Land Authority under other powers in the Bill and directions given under the Bill to local authorities in England and Scotland should similarly be laid, and then we should be faced with a very significant burden.
As I said, the precedents point the other way, in spite of the apparent departures in the Welsh Development Agency Bill and the Industry Bill, which were treated as exceptions to the general rule for very special reasons in that they involve the expenditure of public funds supporting private industrial undertakings or in undertaking new enterprises. The 28-day period allowed for laying copies of directions in those cases was directly
1108
related to issues of commercial confidentiality arising from new operations of that kind, and the further point should be made that meetings of the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish Development Agency, unlike meetings of the Land Authority for Wales, are not required to be open to the Press and public. For all the reasons I have given, we still take the view that an Amendment on this point would be unacceptable; that the present arrangements provide sufficiently for these directions to become publicly known at a reasonable point of time and that the Bill should stand as it is.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The object in moving this Amendment, as I said at the outset, is not solely to inform myself about these matters but to get some of these things on the Record. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Accounts and audit]:
9.6 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 12, leave out lines 4 to 24 and insert—
"(2) Sections 154 to 166 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply to the Authority as if it was a local authority within the meaning of that Act."
The noble Baroness said: This and the subsequent Amendment, No. 49, deal with the same point but put two alternatives to the Government. On reflection, after the Committee stage, my noble friends and I felt that the position of individuals in Wales had not in any way been helped by the establishment of a Land Authority. Not only is it a non-electedbody—although I understand there will be four local authority members on it—it cannot in any sense be described as a democratic body. However, the fact is that the powers of local authorities in regard to planning have been taken away, and with those powers and rights of individuals has been taken away their right to question the accounts at a district audit.
In effect, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who replied to my noble friend Lord Colville at the Committee stage, gave three reasons why the Government had decided that it would be all right to do away with these rights for individuals.

1109
However, on reading over the account, I did not find any of those reasons very satisfactory. The first reason, so far as I could see, was that the Government will be keeping an eye on the Land Authority, so that there is no need for the individual to do so. Although I have faith in all Governments, even Socialist ones, and believe that they will act meticulously in these matters, I do not really feel that it is good enough in legislation to say that just because the Government are watching there is no need for anybody else to worry. It is always a system of checks and balances, and in this case it is equally arguable that the individual should have a say.
The second reason given was that local authorities are elected bodies and that it is therefore right that the public should have the chance to check up on the accounts at a district audit and to ask questions and make complaints if they wish to do so, whereas, as the Land Authority are an appointed body, the same need will not arise. That again assumes the argument that because the Land Authority are a Government organisation no individual need object at all. Finally, we are told that the whole process will be subject to scrutiny by the Government's own auditors and that therefore nobody need worry at all, but that if they did need to worry they could write to their Member of Parliament. I am still not satisfied that this is giving equal rights to people inWales, and as compared with England certainly not in this limbo before devolution—if devolution takes place. It seems to me that very real rights which will be enjoyed by people in England and Scotland have been taken away from people in Wales, and I feel that this is a matter which ought, in their interest, to be aired once again.
I do not feel that it is good enough to say that any question about the accounts can be raised either through a Member of Parliament or with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is hardly likely to devote much Parliamentary time to debating an audit in part of the Land Authority's accounts. Finally, I feel that it is a very long way round to appeal to the local Commissioner, though I agree that that is the ultimate long stop. I am not a person who feels that we should take all matters to a local Commissioner. I
1110
believe that there are other and far more straightforward ways. I should like to know more of the Government's justification for taking away these rights from the Welsh people. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I do not believe that it is a question of taking away rights. The position in Wales is different from that which will obtain in the rest of the country when the Bill becomes an Act because there is a Land Authority in Wales while there is no Land Authority in England or Scotland. So I cannot accept that any rights are being taken away by the Bill. There is one other point which I should like to make in beginning my reply to the noble Baroness. It is that I feel that she may inadvertently have said that the planning powers of Welsh local authorities were being taken away. Of course, the planning powers of Welsh local authorities will not be affected by the setting up of the Land Authority. Ifelt that the record should be put straight on that point.
It is true that the provisions in the Bill do not give the public at large the rights in relation to the Land Authority which they have in relation to transactions by local authorities. However, the Land Authority are a different organisation from a local authority. The provisions dealing with its accounts and audit are similar to those adopted for nationalised industries, Statutory undertakings and many other appointed bodies carrying out public functions, such as new town development corporations and the Civil Aviation Authority. Local authorities carry out a wide range of functions which are financed in many different ways including rates, Government grants, loans from private and Government sources, profits, rents and so on. The activities of the Land Authority, on the other hand, will be considerably more circumscribed (though the activities of local authorities will include those of the Land Authority). Its sources of finance will be more restricted. They will not include rates, so the Welsh public will not be concerned as ratepayers in the Land Authority's activities.
The Authority's activities will, moreover, be under strict control by the Secretary of State and by Parliament. Their annual reports and accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General's

1111
reports on their accounts have to be laid before Parliament, which is not so in the case of local authorities. The Secretary of State has to keep an account of his loans to the Land Authority and Parliament sees these and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on them. Once again this is not so in the case of local authorities. In short, the arrangements set out in the Local Government Act 1972 are designed to cover a wide range of local authority activities, partly financed from ratepayers, and most of which have little or no relevance to activities under the community land scheme. It is convenient in England to apply the provisions en bloc to the community land scheme; that is because the authorities which will be operating the scheme in England and Scotland will, on the whole, be local authorities.
It does not follow, however, that the whole range of powers and provisions of the Local Government Act will provide the best method of dealing with the Land Authority. That is why I took some exception to the noble Baroness saying that rights were being taken away. The Bill confers rights on individuals in England and Scotland—and this is a point I made at the Committee stage—because the authorities operating the scheme in England will on the whole, be local authorities and Wales, where there is a Land Authority, is not in the same position.
The Welsh public who are concerned with particular transactions of the Land Authority will be protected. They will have the same rights as in England, for example, to object to compulsory purchase orders on their land. They will have the same rights to go to the Lands Tribunal on questions of compensation. They will also have the right to complain to the Secretary of State about the actions of the Land Authority, either directly, or through their Member of Parliament; and the Secretary of State has power to give the Land Authority general or limited directions.
Should anyone allege maladministration, as the noble Baroness said, he would be able to bring the matter to the attention of the Commissioner for Local Administration through any member of the Land Authority, in the same way as a complaint against a local authority can
1112
be brought through a councillor. In the event of criminal activity by a member or official of the Land Authority, legal proceedings could be taken under appropriate legislation, and there is nothing in the Bill to protect individuals from the penalties prescribed by law.
If there is any loss of rights in Wales it is, in effect, in relation to rights as ratepayers. Since, however, the finances of the community land scheme in England are separated completely from the finances of other local authority activities, and in Wales the Land Authority is also separately financed—so that in neither country will there be any call on the rates—we do not consider that in practice the public at large will be deprived of any significant rights. Since the interests of the Welsh public will be additionally safeguarded by the special role of the Secretary of State and of Parliament, I do not feel that either of the two Amendments to which the noble Baroness has spoken—Nos. 48 and 49—are necessary. I hope that the reasons which I have set out at some length will assist the noble Baroness in feeling that she can withdraw the two Amendments.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, spoke, I thought rather smugly, of the Land Authority being a different organisation from local authorities. Of course it is; that is perfectly true. But he omitted to refer to the great dissatisfaction in the country at the remote ways of behaviour frequently followed by the nationalised industries and the appointed bodies, of which we have an ever increasing number in this country. I should have thought that where we have had experience—not least in relation to the Northern Economic Planning Council—we ought to have some regard to this, especially in financial matters. Surely, after having heard—certainly in the days of the last Labour Government, if not this one—a good deal about participation in planning, and about bringing people ever closer to the authorities which have to make the decisions, the speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord is most extraordinary.
If the noble Lord had ever been a Member of another place he would have appreciated the difficulties with which Members struggled week after week,

1113
month after month, trying to get, not necessarily satisfaction for their constituents, but at least an explanation. But, apparently, those things mean little to him. I hope that at least the noble Baroness who moved the Amendment will not be taken in by the noble Lord's reply.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I find great difficulty in reconciling the case put up by the noble Lord with what has been said about the Government considering seriously in what form they will provide for greater devolution in Wales. Here, at the same time, they are treating Wales quite differently. The noble Lord referred to the Land Authority and said that local authorities would have certain rights. But this nationalised body is very different from a local authority where there is a majority Party, one or two Opposition Parties and debates on issues in the council chamber, as well as a public gallery, and the local Press faithfully reporting the decisions of the local authority.
It is taking away so much which is provided for the local authorities in England and Scotland, that it seems to me quite incredible that Wales should be treated so differently, and it will have an even greater reason for saying how desperately remote is the Authority which will control the development land acquired under this Bill.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would not expect me to say that I am very happy with his reply, although I accept that he has given a very full one. I am bound to disagree with my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith, in that I think the analogy with the nationalised industries was not the happiest of analogies to draw. Although it is not strictly a nationalised industry, I think there are plenty of people who would like to be able to question, for example, the accounts of the Post Office in considerable detail, considering what we have all had to put up with by way of increased postage. But that is another issue.
I am very glad that at the end of his argument the noble Lord accepted that individuals in England and Scotland will be able to exercise the right to question the accounts, and recognised that individuals in Wales will not have a similar
1114
advantage. This is an issue which deserved to be aired. This is a right which, in the course of time, when they see how the Land Authority is working, people will come to regret they have not got; and it is particularly unfortunate now, when so many constitutional arrangements are being discussed, that something which had formerly existed is to be taken away from the Welsh. I do not intend to press this Amendment this evening, but at least it is something to have it on the Record so that when we come to monitor the effects of the Bill we shall know how individuals have been affected by it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.22 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 12, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) Sections 159 and 165 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply to the accounts of the Authority as if

(a) the Comptroller and Auditor General were a district auditor, and

(b) the Authority were a local authority whose area comprises the whole of Wales.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this concerns a very similar point but it is not a similar Amendment, and I should like to speak briefly to it. Again, it is obviously in the interest of the individual in Wales. As the powers under this Bill are to be exercised by a Land Authority, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, and therefore individuals cannot go to a district audit if they wish to question the accounts, I have suggested in this Amendment applying Sections 159 and 165 of the Local Government Act to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Section 159 says, in effect, that a person may inspect the accounts and make copies of them, that he may question the accounts and object to them, and, furthermore, that he may make representations to the Secretary of State asking for an extraordinary audit under Section 165, if he thinks that to be necessary. This is, in effect, taking a part of the Local Government Act and applying it to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and it seems to my noble friends and myself that this would be a way in which individuals in Wales could be put in the same position as individuals in England and Scotland. I beg to move.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend on this Amendment. This seems to answer the point that arose on the last Amendment, which did not seem to be wholly satisfactorily answered by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I should like to ask the noble Lord—because in the discussion on the last Amendment he seemed not to accept this—this question. Does he accept that the individual in Wales will not have the same right as the individual in Scotland or in England, as regards questioning the accounts of the authorities under this Bill and, in particular, the Welsh Land Authority? It seems that if this is correct my noble friend's Amendment will be the only recourse that an individual in Wales will have, and for that reason I very much hope that it will be accepted.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I had thought that I had dealt with this point when replying to the previous Amendment, because the arguments are, by and large, exactly the same. The answer to the point which the noble Earl asked me is that of course the rights of individuals in Wales, so far as local authorities arc concerned, are totally unaffected by the Bill. It is true that the individual's rights so far as the Land Authority is concerned are not the same as the individual's rights so far as the local authority is concerned. I have already spelled out at some length the arguments for that.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, my noble friend asked a specific question: whether the rights of the individual in Wales were the same as those of the individual elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, replied by referring to an individual's rights as against his rights so far as a local authority is concerned. Surely the point that is raised is that of the rights of a Welshman as against the rights of an Englishman. It is as simple as that.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Lord intervened after I had answered the question which he has now asked me, I have no doubt that after he studies the Official Report he will see that I answered the noble Earl's question fully. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to read what I have said, and will come back if he is not satisfied.
1116
The procedures for auditing or questioning the accounts of bodies like local authorities and water authorities which can raise revenue by rates or precepts have been different traditionally from those in relation to other public bodies without this right. This is the basic point that I made on a previous Amendment. It applies to this Amendment as well. The provisions in relation to the Land Authority are based on those of new town development corporations, the Civil Aviation Authority and other similar public bodies operating on a quasi-commercial basis. We are not depriving the public of any rights that they normally have in relation to statutory bodies established to meet public purposes. It must be unprecedented for the Comptroller and Auditor General to be subject to questioning by members of the public about the accounts of bodies whose accounts lie is auditing. The Comptroller and Auditor General is responsible to Parliament, and the accounts of the Land Authority are presented, like those of similar public bodies but unlike the accounts of local authorities, to Parliament. That was a point that I went into in detail in a previous Amendment.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord has not said when discussing these Welsh bodies that all the arguments he has put forward have the acceptance of the Secretary of State for Wales. Unless he has disappeared there is, in the other place, a Secretary of State for Wales; and presumably, before the noble Lord answered all the questions raised about Wales he must have had some consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales. Does the Secretary of State for Wales accept exactly what the noble Lord is saying about the position? If he is satisfied, then presumably the noble Lord is entitled to be satisfied; but surely the answer to the points which have arisen must come after discussion with the Secretary of State for Wales. There have been arguments put forward about Wales being different from England and Scotland. Has the noble Lord had any expression of support from the Secretary of State for Wales for the answer he has given?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that my noble friend Lord Melchett will

1117
permit me to answer the question of the noble Baroness. I have been listening with rapt attention to the discussion in the last few minutes as to whether Welshmen are treated at least as well as Englishmen. That this question should have been raised on a day when my native team of Llanelli drew with Australia, 28 points each, is naturally a matter which rings a bell in my mind. I can assure the noble Baroness that there have been close consultations with the Secretary of State for Wales, who regards with enthusiasm and admiration the proposals of the setting up of a Land Authority for Wales. If he were here he would say in Welsh, "Clwych, clwych"—which, being translated, means, "I entirely agree."
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I cannot match the noble and learned Lord and say something in Welsh, though I may add as a postscript to this debate that although I do not normally take part in Welsh affairs, my mother's family all came from Pembrokeshire—Dyfed as I think it should be called—and as that was sometimes known as "Little England beyond Wales", I feel I have some connection with Wales. I am not at all surprised to hear that the Secretary of State is very pleased with these arrangements, because he is going to run Wales in this respect, so I should think he is very pleased indeed.
Turning to the argument about this proposal, the suggestion in my Amendment is unprecedented; but, as noble Lords on the Government Benches have told us on many occasions, this is a major reform Bill, so it probably calls for major reforming Amendments in order to redress the balance. We have had a very full discussion on this matter. I am sorry that the Government will not consider the points that we have made. As I said on the earlier Amendment, this is a matter that we shall watch, and it will be of interest to know how many people exercise these extraordinary and obscure rights that they will have via their Member of Parliament, or whether they will complain once more again of how out of touch Government are with what ordinary people are thinking and doing. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Management, etc., of land held by the Authority]:
9.32 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 13, line 16, at end insert—
("(4A) As soon as practicable after the making of any arrangements under subsection (4) above for the discharge of any functions of the Authority by a local authority, the local authority shall—

(a) send a copy of the arrangements to every other local authority within whose area the functions are to be so discharged, and

(b) deposit a copy of the arrangements at their principal office and keep it available there at all reasonable hours for public inspection without payment.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment would require every county council which has entered into an agency arrangement with the Land Authority for Wales to send a copy to every district council within the county and to make it available for public inspection without charge, and it would similarly require every district council to send a copy of any Agency arrangement to the county council (or to any neighbouring district council if the Agency were to be operated in their area) and to make it available for public inspection. In this way extra publicity will be achieved for Agency arrangements additional to the publicity which will in any case arise through the openness of the proceedings of the Land Authority and local authorities. The Amendment arises from a proposal of Lord Sandford's at Committee stage. The Government are, of course, at all times eager to encourage publicity and openness in Government, and they had proposed to achieve this for agency arrangements by requiring the Land Authority to keep and make available a register of agency arrangements into which they had entered. That was criticised as being remote, and I hope that while the earlier Opposition Amendment was deemed to be unsatisfactory, that which is now proposed will give full satisfaction to the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, as we are so keen and eager to welcome this Amendment, may I do so in so many words. I feel that whatever else the

1119
vigilant and eager democrats in Wales may be deprived of, they will not be deprived here.
Lord INGLEWOOD: May I raise one small point on this Amendment? Wales is not an island surrounded by the sea and therefore there are certain counties in Wales which have a common Border with England. This is a point I have raised in this House on many occasions under many different Governments when we have been discussing separate arrangements for Scotland, England and Wales. I believe it says in the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the local authority shall:
"…send a copy of the arrangements to every other local authority within whose area th functions are to be so discharged, …".
Since planning—at least in an intelligent world such as I hope we are living in—does not stop at a county boundary, it can be just as important to an English authority to know what a Welsh county authority is doing as it is for a neighbouring Welsh county to know. There is no mention at all of England in this Amendment and therefore I assume that the obligation being imposed on the counties in Wales ceases with the border with England. I should like to hear from the noble and learned Lord either that I am mistaken or, if I am not mistaken, that he thinks this Amendment is wrong.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Amendment relates to Clause 14, which, in turn, refers to the duties and functions of the Land Authority for Wales. I am bound to say that it had not occurred to me that we should spread the gospel over the border into the adjoining English counties as well. I should have thought that was not really necessary, but I am certainly willing to look at the point. There is nothing insular about the Welsh, as the noble Lord will know well! However, I should have thought that in the context of a clause dealing with the duties and functions of the Land Authority for Wales, to require them in addition to deal with the impact of planning upon all neighbouring authorities would be imposing quite a burden. The planning aspect will in any event be the responsibility of local authorities. What mutual arrangements
1120
exist between authorities on the Welsh and English sides of the border. I know not. I imagine that they are on a basis of mutual exchange of information where there is any possibility of a development, as it were, overlapping two planning authorities; but in any event that will be the function of the local authorities. We are concerned in this Amendment with the Land Authority's duties and functions in respect of Wales.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for saying that he will look at this again, and although I think, with him, that it would be a mistake—
Several Noble Lords: Order, order!
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we are in the Report stage—a matter to which I ventured to refer earlier.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 13 leave out lines 17 to 21.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in dealing with Amendment No. 51, if I may I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 93, 109 and 110. Amendments Nos. 51 and 93 would delete two Amendments which were carried by noble Lords opposite at the Committee stage. In both cases I indicate that the Government supported the basic objectives behind the Amendments, but had reservations on specific points. Amendment No. 51 deals with the provision that would require the Land Authority, in respect of land which it has acquired but not yet developed, to manage the land in a way which would encourage its agricultural use, but to consult the Ministry of Agriculture on how this should be done.
I opposed the Amendment at Committee stage not because I opposed its spirit but because we considered that the provisions in the Bill already place the Land Authority under a duty to have regard to the interests of agriculture in managing their land and in considering its development. I also said that the specific obligation to consult the Ministry of Agriculture in every single case would be cumbersome, wasteful, unrealistic and

1121
unnecessary to achieve the purpose behind the Amendment. Finally, we felt it was wrong in principle to place duties, obligations or restraintson the Land Authority for Wales which did not apply to other authorities carrying out identical functions. Amendment No. 93 would delete paragraph 3(1)(dd), which added to the contents of the Land Acquisition and Management Scheme reference to arrangements for the management of land held by an authority pending development, with particular regard to the need to encourage the full and proper agricultural use of any farmland which has been acquired in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture.
Again, I indicated that there was no real difference between us on this matter apart from the point on consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, which I indicated would be nonsensical if applied to every land purchase by authorities, and I think I am right in saying that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, took this point on board. However, on reflection there is another problem with paragraph 3(1)(dd) and that is that in our view it does not go far enough. It extends only to land acquisition and management schemes, yet authorities ought, in our view, to be thinking about land management not only when preparing their LAMS but, even more important, when they are operating the scheme. So some kind of wider requirement needs to be placed on authorities to manage land. This is the object of Amendments Nos. 109 and 110. These work by amending paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 6 so that authorities must have regard for factors set out there, not only in disposing of land but also when managing land prior to disposal. So in this important respect we are attempting to go further in these two Amendments, Amendments Nos. 109 and 110, than noble Lords opposite did in their two Amendments which I am seeking to delete.
The particularly important factor in the context of the Amendments which were moved by noble Lords opposite is, of course, in paragraph (1)(c) of Schedule 6, which requires authorities to have regard to, "the needs of agriculture and forestry". This, taken together with the new Amendments, will mean that authorities in exercising their functions under the LAMS scheme must have regard to
1122
the management of agricultural land in their ownership. It seems to the Government that this approach will achieve the result which noble Lords opposite intended in their Committee stage Amendments, but without the undesirable features which I indicated at the time those contained. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was kind enough on both occasions at the Committee stage to say that these Amendments were put forward in a helpful spirit. May I say that the Amendments I am now moving and speaking to are put forward in an equally helpful spirit; I hope they will be acceptable to noble Lords opposite.
9.43 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I must confess to being much surprised at the Amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for two reasons. One is due to an incompatibility we discerned between this Bill and the Welsh Development Agency Bill when we were reviewing Amendments from another place. Amendment 4 from another place said this:
"In exercising their functions the Agency shall have regard to the requirements of agriculture and efficient land management"
Your Lordships accepted that as entirely necessary and beneficial, and there appears to be an inconsistency between what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has just said and that which was written into the Welsh Development Agency Bill.
Secondly, as Lord Melchett said, we attempted in Committee to make our Amendment in helpful manner. We believed that by placing squarely in the middle of Clause 14 the provisions for consultation for the proper agricultural use of any farmland, this was a means of emphasising the obvious, which is a very desirable thing to do in the case of setting out the requirements laid before an authority. We accept what the noble Lord. Lord Melchett, said in his reply at cols. 1550 and 1551 extending into col. 1552 of the Official Report of 22nd October, which we read in detail.
In his closing remarks at col. 1553 he said:
"A failure to keep the land in farming use would therefore reflect a serious failure of management by the authority and in that case it is our view that a directive from the Secretary of State would probably be needed rather

1123
than mere consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture."
We should pre-empt the possibility of failure by arguing once again before your Lordships that subsection (5) of Clause 14 of the Bill is eminently satisfactory and desirable. Although we shall not press the point at this stage, we believe that at a later stage it maybe desirable to return to it.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for what he has said. When I first saw his Amendment on the Marshalled List, I thought that it was a "fast one" and that he was trying to reverse an Amendment which we had inserted at Committee stage. Unfortunately, while the noble Lord was giving his explanation, I was subjected to the kind of interruption to which one is periodically subjected and I missed the operative part. I shall certainly look at the report of what he said, as will my noble friend. I was interested to hear him say that the Amendment which he has moved not only accepts the same spirit as the one we had wished to be accepted, but goes further. If that is so we are grateful. Our immediate impression, as my noble friend Lord Sandys has said, was that something of a specific nature should be written into the middle of the Bill. However, we are grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said.
9.46 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. When they read the Schedule as amended by Amendments Nos. 109 and 110, they will see that it goes wider, that it achieves everything that is common ground between us and underlines the Amendments moved by noble Lords opposite without the slightly ludicrous idea that for every single piece of land consultations have to take place with the Ministry of Agriculture. There was a great deal of common ground. It is that which we have sought to meet in this series of Amendments and I am glad that they are accepted by noble Lords opposite.
Clause 15 [Powers of acquisition and appropriation]:
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 52:
1124
Page 14, line 8, leave out from ("any") to end of line 8 and insert ("development land").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment similar in nature to that which we moved at Committee stage. I recall saying then that we were concerned that this Amendment should be written into the Bill. The noble and learned Lord who spoke on that occasion gave us a fairly detailed explanation which required study. I said to him that we would return to this matter on Report, because one of the Amendments, that relating to single plot dwelling-houses which came later in the Committee stage, slightly muddied the waters of this Amendment. However, we dealt earlier with that matter.
In this Amendment and the following two Amendments, Amendments Nos. 53 and 54, we are concerned with the powers of acquisition which local authorities are given by this clause. The powers of acquisition are such that they can acquire any land which, in their opinion, is suitable for development. We wish to see the words "development land "inserted instead of" "land suitable for development". If we look further down the page, subsection (3) says:
"Where an authority exercise their powers under subsection (1) above in relation to any land…".
We believe that those powers are very wide indeed. In every other clause of this Bill the reference is to "relevant development". This is the only clause where the reference is to "any development".
The Bill gives the authority power to acquire land which in their opinion is suitable for development. The words "development land" are defined in Amendment No. 4, and development land is land which is needed for relevant development. "Development" as opposed to "development land" is a much wider concept, and that is defined under Clause 4 and also under the Act of 1971. So we believe that if we were to put in the words "development land" the local authority's powers would be restricted to acquiring land which is needed for relevant development.
If your Lordships accept this Amendment it will restrict the powers to relevant development, but as it stands the Bill allows local authorities not only to buy any land, but any land which in their opinion is suitable for any development.

1125
Again we think this is too wide because it is in their opinion and their opinion only; in nobody's else's opinion: not the owner's opinion, not the opinion of the people in the locality, not the opinion of the people who might be affected. It is their opinion—the local authority's opinion—and they can acquire land which is suitable for development. It does not have to be shown that it is needed for development, or that it is required for development, or that it is desirable for development or that people would benefit from the development. It has only to be land which is suitable for development.
As was mentioned by a number of noble Lords on all sides during the Committee stage, these are very wide powers indeed, and I would ask noble Lords opposite quite seriously to consider this Amendment. If it is argued that by inserting the words,
"which in their opinion is suitable for development",
that includes not only relevant development but also exempt and excepted development, I would suggest that in time to come that might prove to be far wider because these powers are being given for any development of any nature whatsoever.
It is a curious thing that only in this clause do we get these very wide powers, and I respectfully suggest that it would be more appropriate for those powers of acquisition to be restricted to relevant development, since the local authorities have all the powers necessary for acquisition of other types of land (which otherwise would be excluded were these words put into the Bill) under other measures. These are wide powers, and I hope the noble Baroness, if she is going to answer, will agree that they are too wide. I accept that she may find this Amendment slightly less helpful than some of the others which we have moved from this side of the House. Nevertheless I hope she will realise that they are moved in a spirit of sincerity, to try to make the Bill, when it becomes an Act, as workable as possible, and to prevent putting into the Bill powers which may appear to be appropriate now but which, in years to come, may prove to be far wider than was anticipated. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: I should like to support my noble friend in his Amendment. I believe it to be a most important Amendment. I do not believe that the Government can claim that it follows in the direct and historic line of previous legislation. I think at one stage the noble Baroness suggested that the whole Bill followed closely the Uthwatt Committee recommendations. I do not believe that they contemplated wide powers, because we seriously believe that in Clause 15 powers of acquisition have been set out in such a manner that an authority can do what it likes.
As my noble friend Lord Ferrers has described, these phrases are disguised in terms which are somewhat difficult for an individual not particularly well versed in the law, to discern at first sight. Nevertheless, on closer examination it will be quite apparent that the use of the word "any in subsection (3) is a very important one to exclude. We believe that this Amendment should have the support of your Lordships. We believe that it is not appropriate to vest in an authority the powers set out in Clause 15. We adduced arguments to this end both on Second Reading and Committee stage.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friends in this Amendment. I have had a good long experience with local authorities. Local authorities with no restrictions as to what they think they would like to do, or sometimes at least with no idea of the importance of the land they want to get in relation to other interests such as agriculture, can be very —I was going to say "dangerous", which perhaps is not the right word, but can be very frustrating in any given area. I do not think we should give local authorities as much power as there is here.
As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, "any land which, in their opinion, is suitable for development" is a very wide power indeed, whereas the words "development land" which is more restricted and more under control in relation to other interests in the areas concerned, is a better definition. Of course, when talking about land, one is apt to think in terms of agriculture. In the course of life, on many occasions I have been written to by people in connection,

1127
for instance, with enormous new roads; people who have had to fight very hard in order to get a road line which does not damage very seriously indeed their agricultural developments. I know that probably here we are thinking in terms of land around towns for the development of either factories or housing. Nevertheless, it would be better, I think, not to give such a wide power to local authorities. Some may be very wise in these things, and some may be not so wise.
My Lords, even although I speak as someone who has had a great deal of experience in local government, I would be happier that the powers given to any local authority were more closely defined and more restricted than the powers given in this Bill. I hope the Government will think again about this, because it is something which frightens many people who think that their livelihood and the value of their land, and so on, are going to be seriously interfered with, not really to the benefit of the whole community.
9.59 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, at this time of night I shall try to be as brief as I can with what are really some quite complicated Amendments. First of all, in answer mainly to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood—although the points were made in different ways by noble Lords opposite—authorities already have very wide powers to buy land by agreement. They can buy land for the benefit, improvement or development of their area. This derives from an Act of 1963. So far as compulsory powers are concerned—and if I may say so, unless I misheard, it sounded to me as though the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, rather missed the point—an authority can exercise these powers compulsorily only if the Secretary of State confirms the compulsory purchase order. This does not apply to exempt developments. I thought I would get that out of the way.
My Lords, the effect of the Amendments which have been moved would be two-fold: first, they would remove the powers for authorities to buy land for excepted development which would destroy the whole basis behind this category of development. For all types of development within this category there
1128
are circumstances where it could be right for an authority to acquire land for such development. I think there was also a certain amount of confusion which could be avoided if we used the phrase in the Bill, "relevant development", instead of "suitable development land", which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, used. If an authority could not do that, it would be at a serious disadvantage. To take two examples, it may be needed to facilitate the provision of recreational facilities—this has been raised many times during these discussions—where this can be achieved only by public acquisition; or for reasons of positive planning, which is one of the principles underlying the Bill, where the development proposed consists of rebuilding with a 10 per cent. enlargement; and here there may well be need for public acquisition in order to obtain the best result in planning terms. Any restriction of this sort must have an effect on these developments.
Secondly, the Amendment would remove in any circumstances the power for authorities to buy land for relevant development which was not needed for ten years. Generally, of course, this would not matter. But suppose that an owner wished to sell such land by agreement; then it could well make sense for the authority to acquire the land and allow it to continue in its existing use until required for development. In those circumstances, it may be socially and economically wise for the authority to acquire it, but the Amendment would remove the possibility of the authority doing so. Also it should not be assumed that buying this far in advance would necessarily be expensive. For example, an authority might buy a shop in a town centre that was due for redevelopment and be able to cover the costs of acquisition by letting it for use as a shop until the time for redevelopment arrived.
For these reasons alone, the Amendments are quite unacceptable in principle. On a further point, that new powers to acquire other than development land are unnecessary, which I think was mentioned by one noble Lord, since authorities can always rely on their existing powers, here again there are two flaws to this argument. First, there is the problem of fragmented compulsory purchase orders. Of course, related orders can be considered together at a

1129
single inquiry, but this is much more cumbersome, and while it may be unavoidable where an authority is buying for specific purposes, it does not seem sensible in the circumstances of a wide acquisition power such as is provided for in the Bill. Thus if an authority was buying, say, 50 acres of land with the intention of making 40 acres available for private housing and laying out ten acres as a recreation ground, it seems to me that it would be quite wrong that it should not be able to use the new acquisition power to buy the whole 50 acres.
The second point is even more fundamental. If authorities already have similar powers, then, it may be asked, what objection is there to restating those powers in the Bill? It is therefore necessary for the Opposition to justify withholding those powers. The whole concept is within the context of public ownership through the community and positive planning. These Amendments, which I can quite see would be favourably regarded by people who are against the principles underlying the Bill, nevertheless are quite contrary to what is being achieved within this Bill, and therefore they are quite unacceptable. It takes the level at which it is possible to go into relevant development far too low, and it completely stymies the whole objective of the Bill and turns it into something entirely different. Although the noble Lords putting forward the Amendment could argue that they consider that in their terms it might make a better Bill, it would certainly not be the Community Land Bill, based on the principles of public ownership and positive planning on which this Bill is based. I have been as brief as I can at this time of night, but I have made the fundamental points in order to establish why it is that these Amendments are quite unacceptable to the Government.
10.6 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, to sum up the argument of the noble Baroness, it runs like this: the acquisition power must extend not only to land for relevant development, it must cover and embrace land for excepted development as well. I think that is a summary of what she said, and it also repeats what was said in Committee in a slightly different
1130
way. The noble Baroness also produced what I might call the fragmented CPOs argument, which was also produced on Committee. I thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, had disposed of that. If the acquiring authority wanted to take the land for development that would fall under the heading of development excepted by virtue of regulations to be made under Clause 3(1)(c), there is absolutely nothing to stop them. They can merely use powers given them by other legislation (these are many) just as they do now. Indeed, we have had Annex A, but also Annex B, which says:
"Normal compulsory purchase procedure, will apply in any case where an authority wish to use the new compulsory acquisition power to buy land for the purposes of excepted development."
I do not see that we have got any further by the noble Baroness's argument, and I am not convinced at all.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, could I say a few more words here? One of the important things that a local authority has to do before it acquires any land, even by agreement, is to make quite certain that that land is within a development plan and that it can be generally programmed satisfactorily. But I am sure that this should not be further than 10 years ahead. The noble Baroness mentioned buying a shop, but I argue that this is not development. I feel that her answer has been unsatisfactory.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for having given her reasons for finding these Amendments unsatisfactory. She said that if these Amendments were passed they would stymie the objective of the Bill. I do not believe that they would do that. She said that land which was suitable for development would stop the local authorities from buying in advance, and that there may be occasions when the local authorities would have to buy 10 years in advance, and if this Amendment were to be pressed that this would prevent them from doing this. She also said that if the local authority wished to make some areas recreation areas, they would need the authority given under this clause. With the greatest respect, the local authorities have huge powers of acquisition which would enable them to acquire such

1131
land as they required for recreation without the provisions which this clause has at present.
One comes back to two basic points on this clause: you are giving to the local authorities power of acquisition for any land whatsoever, and you are giving them powers to acquire any land which, in their opinion and nobody else's, is suitable. We believe that those powers are too wide to
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.15 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 53, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 9, leave out subsection (2).—(Earl Ferrers.)
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 54, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 12, leave out ("any") and insert ("development").—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be adjourned.
give and that they should be restricted somewhat; and that they should be restricted by this Amendment. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support us in the Lobby.
10.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 52) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Balerno, L.

Elton, L. [Teller.]

Middleton, L.

Balfour, E.

Exeter, M.

Monk Bretton, L.

Bathurst, E.

Falkland, V.

O'Neill of the Main, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gowrie, E.

Redesdale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gridley, L.

Sandford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L.

Cowley, E.

Inglewood, L.

Selkirk, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Kemsley, V.

Somers, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Devonshire, D.

Long, V.

Vernon, L.

Digby, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vickers, B.

Drogheda, E.

Luke, L.

Vivian, L.

Dundee, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Young, B.

Elles, B.

Mansfield, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bernstein, L.

Hughes, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Collison, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hoy, L.

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