Lords Sitting of 22 October 1975

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LORD BARNETSON
Sir William Denholm Barnetson, Knight, having been created Baron Barnetson, of Crowborough in the County of East Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Moore and the Lord Goodman.

MARITIME AREAS: PROTECTION
2.40 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: 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 plans they have for policing the maritime areas likely to come under British jurisdiction with the introduction of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone envisaged in the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the arrangements for protecting the offshore interests of the United Kingdom which were referred to by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal during the debate last May on the Defence Estimates would apply to the policing of any United Kingdom economic zone.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Would it be possible for him to be a little more explicit and give us a few more details as to what has happened now, and what happened in the Defence Estimates of March this year?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords; by a happy accident, the extension of the economic zone to 200 miles,
1414
which is supported by Her Majesty's Government, coincides somewhat fortuitously but happily with the requirement to protect the offshore installations of the United Kingdom. The facilities which will be available when the five ships mentioned in answer to the noble Earl's previous Question, will be operation in 1977, are such that by that time we should have 20 ships and four aircraft supervising the general area. It may be of interest to the House to know that the intention is that there will be four Nimrods providing the "eyes"; 20 ships consisting of eight coastal mine-sweepers and one fast patrol boat provided by the Royal Navy; three inshore and three offshore patrol vessels, provided by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and five offshore patrol vessels provided by the Royal Navy, which have been mentioned earlier.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, while it is possible to police in a naval fashion or an air force fashion the offshore installations of the North Sea, when it comes to the much wider consideration of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone envisaged for conference decision—if there is ever a decision of that kind—can my noble friend say whether we have the naval Forces capable of dealing with that situation? Is he aware our naval Forces are weaker now than at any time since before the First World War?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think the important point is to be able to identify a threat in advance, which can be done by the four Nimrods which are to be allocated to this role. There-after, not only will the 20 ships I mentioned be available, but also there will be other Forces of the Royal Navy in that area which will not be useless.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as the Law of the Sea Conference is considering some very important matters such as a régime for mining the very valuable metals at the bottom of the deep ocean, and also rights of innocent passage, may I ask whether the Government are confident that the Conference will soon reach a conclusion in the sense of the consensus that exists for a 200-mile zone? If not, will the Government them selves try to promote an international agreement on a fishing zone, since this is a very urgent matter for the fishing

1415
industry? This could be done and could be consistent with the concept of a 200-mile zone.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I answer formally on this matter? My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made clear before the April Conference in Geneva on the Law of the Sea that Her Majesty's Government want a Convention embracing all the main issues and commanding wide support. We have sought a compromise to this end. First, we endorsed at an early stage the growing demand for a 200-mile economic zone. This we now strongly support; but we want to see freedom of navigation over-flight within this zone. We cannot accept a zone within which the rights of the coastal States are so extensive as to make it virtually a territorial sea. I used the word "com promise" earlier in this statement; compromises are not always easy to achieve.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, have the Government considered the use of dirigibles for this patrol work? They are economic to run, have a long endurance and have been used success fully for similar work in wars.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will draw this very interesting suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what is important, in these matters of how much water our sovereignty extends to, is the question of how we control that area? Is he aware—and I am sure he is—that the original three-mile limit was simply the limit to which gunfire would carry from the coast? Therefore, it was the area which could be controlled. Will he press upon his colleagues the fact that it is most important that we ask for sovereignty over those areas that we can control by modern methods, and not over those areas which we cannot control?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, sovereignty is one thing and control is another. This is subject to the negotiations now proceeding.
Lord MOYNE: My Lords, are the Government considering co-operation
1416
with the French, Irish and other Governments whose interests in a 200-mile limit would overlap with ours.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we are working with other interested nations on a regional conference involving Holland, Norway, West Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France and Britain to explore what basis for international peacetime co-operation may exist. Discussions between these nations will include the resources available to each country to combat malicious or accidental damage to offshore installations. I believe that we are the host to this conference which is reconvening next month.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, a moment ago the noble Lord said sovereignty is one thing and control is another. While agreeing with him, may I ask whether he is aware that sovereignty without control merely makes one a figure of fun?

ROADS: SPRAY FROM LARGE VEHICLES
Lord DE CLIFFORD: 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 progress has been made in the research programme into the problem of massive sheets of dangerous mud and spray thrown up by multi-wheeled vehicles travelling at high speeds, and whether they have any proposals to mitigate this danger during the coming winter.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, in addition to the research into this problem which is being undertaken by Southampton University, the Department has reviewed existing data and carried out practical tests to see whether mudguards can be made more effective. We believe that some improvement is possible, and have arranged discussions with the motor industry on how best to achieve it.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which to me sounds like one of those rather slow and dreary methods of producing a good answer. But are we really, year after year, as bad weather

1417
approaches, to have to listen to our radios and hear the police warning people of mud and spray being thrown up by vehicles driving at high speeds on motor ways? If we are, I feel that we should take some steps to expedite, as speedily as possible, all the research which is going on.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, this is not a simple matter; if it were, no doubt something would have been done much more quickly. The fact is that research which has been undertaken shows that little can be done with mudguards, mud flaps or any other change in the construction of vehicles, because the speed at which a vehicle travels makes much more difference to the amount of spray or mud thrown up, than does any change in its construction. What is important is that people should drive at a sensible speed when it is wet.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, can the noble Lord say to what extent the tyre manufacturers are involved in these re search discussions?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I think it is more a matter of the road surface than of the tyre construction. Research is being done on alternative road surfaces which hold less water, because a lot of the water that is thrown up is obviously lying on the surface of the road. Distinct advances have been made in that line of research.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when going down the Ml these large vehicles throw up a bow-wave which is completely opaque to overtaking vehicles, so that as they overtake they burst through a screen? Is it not possible to devise some form of guard which would prevent that wave going out on the offside? That is where the danger lies, so could something come down on the outside of the wheel to prevent them spraying outwards?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, re search has shown that most of the water and spray is thrown out sideways, so it would be necessary to enclose the sides of the tyres. I understand it is impossible to do that, without affecting the braking capabilities and various other important safety factors concerned with the tyres
1418
and the axles of large vehicles, because of the heat generated by entirely enclosing the wheels. The answer, I would say, if a large vehicle is going very fast and throwing out lots of spray, is not to attempt to overtake it.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that the throwing out of this massive amount of spray creates a screen through which no driver can see, and could not a driver of such a vehicle be considered as driving without due care? Would the noble Lord perhaps prod the motorway police, so that when they see things like this happening they take steps either to prosecute or to caution drivers on their driving?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the Department of the Environment have certainly informed the Home Office of the results of their research, and in particular of the fact that it is the speed at which vehicles travel which makes most difference to the amount of spray generated. I understand that the police forces patrolling motorways have been advised of these facts, and if in the judgment of the officers on the spot it seems necessary they will use the motor signalling equipment to control speeds of vehicles in difficult weather conditions.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, if one has followed behind a vehicle which has mud flaps fitted, as opposed to one which has not, one notices that the one with mud flaps is far less beastly to one's vision in bad conditions. Could the noble Lord tell us a little more about the Government's thinking now? His noble friend told us last year that heat was causing trouble with mud flaps, but as I think most of us have noticed that vehicles with mud flaps are not so harmful, can the noble Lord tell us something more?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I think my noble friend was referring to mud guards and not mud flaps. I may have misunderstood and perhaps I have got it wrong, but, certainly, research has shown that mud flaps make very little difference; and, if I may say so, the noble Lord's observations has been disproved by scientific observation—which is the object of conducting research in the first place. The difficulties over heat generation arise if one tries to enclose a wheel sufficiently

1419
to prevent water being thrown out side ways and, as I have said, research shows that the vast majority of the water and spray is thrown out sideways from the wheel. I said in my original Answer that we feel that certain modifications to vehicles may provide some improvement, and the Department will be holding discussions with the industry the day after tomorrow on that very matter.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have been trying to come to his rescue for some time? Is he also aware that, while we must agree that this is a serious problem, it is also an extremely difficult one? Is he further aware that, although he is technically correct in what he has told us, from my personal knowledge of work which I was privileged to do at the rquest of a previous Minister of Transport, Mrs. Castle, some 10 years ago, I believe that the answer he has given today would have been equally accurate then?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, first, I was not aware that I needed rescuing, and if that is a rescue I might have been better off without it! I do not honestly think that is so. Research has been conducted at Southampton University in the last 12 months. I am not aware that it was known for certain earlier that most spray is generated by sideways movement rather than being thrown backwards, as the noble Lord opposite said, which is the popular misconception. Also, I do not believe it was known a year ago that the amount of spray is so directly related to the speed at which vehicles travel.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, when he talks of the heat problem, that this does not really arise when there is plenty of water available to cool the heat?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, before my noble friend endeavours to answer that question, it strikes me that instead of this being a Question Time we are having an exposition of the knowledge of your Lordships on this matter. May I suggest that my noble friend should seek to reply to the last point and we should then move to the next Question, since we have been dealing with two Questions for 15 minutes.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the answer is simply that if you put mud flaps on a vehicle they are there during dry weather as well as during wet weather, and there will be overheating during dry weather.

ROADS AND DANGEROUS LOADS
2.56 p.m.
Earl CATHCART: 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 satisfied with the existing regulations relating to transport tankers conveying dangerous substances by road and in particular whether the system of describing various toxic, inflammable and explosive loads by marking the outside of the tankers with small identification signs is adequate to ensure the maximum safety to the public in the event of a traffic accident.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): No, my Lords, the Government are not satisfied. The Health and Safety Commission are now studying proposals for new regulations covering the construction and operation of vehicles conveying hazardous materials and how best to make the voluntary marking scheme mandatory. They will also examine the possibility of painting the vehicles in a distinctive colour. Mean while, a voluntary scheme for the display of hazard information markings on road tankers carrying dangerous goods came into operation on 1st July, which will help the emergency services to operate swiftly and safely.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, which is very satisfactory. Is she able to assure the House that these new regulations that are being drawn up will include, in particular, the transportation by road of dangerous waste material?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords. To the best of my knowledge, discussions are under way at the moment and I can assure the noble Earl that this important factor is being taken into consideration.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether it is a fact that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has been in touch with us about this? Is this not a world problem which is being dealt with on a world basis?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, it is to some extent; and the markings and labels are partly based on a United Nations code.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us how far the regional water authorities are in touch on this matter, and how far they are aware of the dangers which might arise on roads which cover their areas? Can the noble Baroness also tell us how far they are interlinked with this?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot. If the noble Viscount had asked me about railways, I could have told him immediately. How ever, I will write to him on that point, if I may.
Lord KINDERSLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she realises the tremendous danger involved in carrying 40 million gallons of chemicals and nearly 60 million gallons of petroleum on our roads today? Is she also aware of how much that danger is increased during the winter months when there is sleet, snow and fog to contend with? May I ask the noble Baroness whether she will look at that point and press on by whatever means possible in order to achieve her object?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords. That is why, at the beginning of my Answer to the original Question, I said that the Government are not satisfied at the moment. That is why we are taking this action.

ANGOLA: ARMS SUPPLIES
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 can give an assurance that no arms from the United Kingdom are being supplied to any of the warring factions in Angola.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, any export of arms from the United Kingdom would require an export licence and I can readily give an assurance that no licences have been, or will be, issued for such a purpose.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I welcome that Answer. Is the Minister aware that I put this Question because in a quality newspaper the allegation had been made? If we are exporting arms to Zaire are there implemented reservations to prevent her from supplying those arms to any of the forces in Angola?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, such an export would be made officially under licence and of course the conditions would be set out clearly to any Government importing such arms.

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
3.1 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Baroness YOUNG: Amendment No. 15C is consequential on an earlier Amendment and is not moved.
Clause 4 [Expressions relating to land and planning law]:
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 24, leave out ("or machinery") and insert ("machinery or any internal fittings").
The noble Earl said: The object of Amendment No. 16 is to make certain that any internal fittings are included within the provisions here. If we say just "machinery" it could, I feel, have the effect of including storage space or things of that nature in these provisions. This is basically the object of the Amendment. We have our definition of "building", but I want to make quite certain

1423
that it covers all types of industrial buildings, whether used for storage or for machinery purposes. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: This definition would depart from the well precedented definition in planning legislation as it is given in Section 290 of the 1971 Act. To alter the definition in this way is in our view unnecessary. I am advised that any sensible view of the meaning of "building" would include internal fit tings as well as plant and machinery. The Amendment would also be undesirable because it would cause confusion throughout the existing planning legislation where this definition as it appears in the Bill also appears, because if we made this Amendment it would cast doubt on whether the definition of "building" in existing planning legislation included internal fittings.
The Earl of BALFOUR: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 16A:
Page 4, line 31, at end insert—
(""community" means the body of people living or working in the area of the relevant local authority,").
The noble Baroness said: I think the Amendment must be self-explanatory. We are of course debating the Community Land Bill and yet at no point in the Bill is the word "community" defined. Sometimes, perhaps unkindly, I suspect it was the intention of the Government that it should not be defined because it is one of those words which are sup posed to have a cosy overtone and there fore to be interpreted well by everybody. However, there is a much more serious point to it. We ought to know what is meant by "the community", for two reasons. First, it would be a mistake to regard "community" as being synonymous with a local authority or a local council, because a great many people are involved in the community who are not members of the local authority or, alternatively, have interests in the community which are not necessarily the same as those of the local authority. Here I am thinking particularly of amenity societies of one kind or another and many others who take a very real
1424
interest in the place in which they live but are not members of a local authority.
The second reason why I think the word should be defined is that when a council is acquiring land it is important to define for whose benefit the land is being acquired and to indicate the intention that it is not being acquired by one authority in another authority's area for the benefit of the community in the first authority but not necessarily in the receiving authority. Therefore, there are serious reasons for needing to define "community", and I hope the Government will be prepared to consider this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord GRIDLEY: May I support my noble friend Lady Young who is pro posing this Amendment. I support every thing she has said which comes to my mind in connection with the development industry, but there are other reasons why I rise to support her. Under this Bill great and extensive powers are given to statutory authorities and even to local authorities, and this Amendment will go some way to protect the interests of the private citizen and the individual. For those reasons I strongly support every thing my noble friend has said.
Lord SLATER: Can we ascertain from the noble Baroness whether she is serious in moving this Amendment regarding the community? What is "the community"? Surely to goodness her intelligence must be so far advanced that to come along with an Amendment such as this seems to be outrageous! I think that the noble Baroness or those who are responsible for the Amendment are insulting the intelligence of the general public in regard to the community and this Bill.
Lord CAWLEY: Does the word "community" occur anywhere in this Bill except in the Short Title?
Lord HYLTON: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, replies and before noble Lords opposite use very strong language, it should perhaps be noticed that in other spheres the expression "community"—for example, as in the social services, community care—very often relates to no care at all. The expression "community industry" some times has been thought to mean making bricks with no straw.
Lord HAWKE: There is some doubt here because to my mind "the community" means the whole British people, and in the minds of some of my noble friends it means the people in the local authority area. I think if the word "community" is going to be used in the Bill we must say which we mean.
Baroness YOUNG: Perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, and say that all my Amendments are serious. I would not dream of taking up the time of the Committee on anything which I did not regard as a serious matter. If he is so sure what "community" means in this context, perhaps he would give us his definition of it; a definition does not appear in the Bill. It is quite clear from what my noble friends have said that there are a good many variations, and it would be useful to know what the word means in the Short Title.
Lord SLATER: I would not for one moment seek to outwit the intelligence of the noble Baroness for which I gave her credit in our debate yesterday.. That is my answer to the question she has now raised.
Baroness BIRK: We have had a short, sharp debate to open the proceedings to day. There are two Amendments on this point. If this Amendment is not coupled with the other, it is pointless. It is true that the word "community" does not appear anywhere except in the Short Title, but the explanation is given in paragraph 1 of Schedule 6, where it is spelled out that in carrying out their functions under Clause 17 authorities should have regard to the needs of persons living or carrying on business or other activities in the area, or wishing to do so. I find it rather extraordinary to have an Amendment of this kind. I should have thought that the word "community" was self-explanatory. If the noble Baroness and her friends want it to be incorporated in the Bill, they will have to give a far more precise definition than they have given. It was not spelled out in the Local Government Act 1972, and as a result of that Act there is a series of bodies and organisations which have found it very difficult to define things in a precise way.
The Amendments are intended to ensure that in exercising their functions
1426
under Clause 17 authorities have full regard to the interests of the community in their area. We accept that the intention behind the Amendments is a commendable one. In fact, this point is written into the Bill, but Amendments of this type are quite superfluous for two principal reasons. First, it is inherent in the duties of councillors to look to the needs and wants of the community in their area and, indeed, to those of future communities. It would scarcely be proper to write into the Bill an instruction to local authorities to exercise these functions for the benefit of the community. I am amazed that the noble Baroness, who has such great experience in local government, should not assume that it is through the local authority, which is representing and dealing with the needs of the community and whose members are elected, that you have to channel anything that you wish to do.
Since there have been strictures about definitions and not narrowing things enough, to have inserted in this wide and woolly way words which mean nothing seems to me wrong and superfluous. The noble Baroness mentioned amenity societies, but one would have to spell out every group, organisation and society in order to make it hold in a statutory manner. It is quite clear that the local authorities are the bodies through which all that we are discussing in the Bill is channelled. Together with the explanation in respect of Clause 17, this covers the point quite adequately.
Lord LEATHERLAND: It is difficult to define the term "community" in a Bill such as the one which is now before the Committee. In a little village which I know, the village churchyard is regarded sacredly as the very heart of the community, yet the people who are lying in that churchyard are neither, in the words of the Amendment, living nor are they working in that area. The term "community" is something which is incapable of material interpretation and I suggest that without doing harm to anybody the noble Baroness might very well withdraw her Amendment.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Before that happens, it would be as well to bear in mind that this short debate may well have served a useful purpose. Governments ought not to use words in a Statute

1427
which are incapable of being defined. It may well be that the lesson to be learned from this debate is that greater care should be taken to ensure that that is done. Indeed, in the Trade Descriptions Act Parliament has gone to a great deal of trouble to prevent misleading labels being put on articles. We have shown that we want to do that by all Parties having subscribed to the Trade Descriptions Act. Therefore, the lesson we ought to learn from this debate is that in a Statute which affects so many people very deeply we should try very hard indeed not to use words which are incapable of being defined.
Baroness GAITSKELL: The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, who sits on the same side as the noble Baroness has answered her by saying that "community" means the British people in that area with which the clause is dealing.
Lord RHODES: The noble Baroness the Minister endows local councillors with more knowledge about their constituents than they possess at the moment. She has said that "community" is not spelled out in the Local Government Act 1972, and the more is the pity because today we have more remote control than ever. If there was ever a time when we needed to denote what is meant by "community", and not just the privilege of a few councillors who are as remote from their constituencies as they are at the moment, this is it. Therefore, it would be far better if this Amendment were included in the Bill.
Baroness BIRK: I find this contribution quite absurd in this context. One is still left with a wide, woolly lack of definition if one uses the word "community". In this Bill "community" is used to define that the taking over of the ownership of land and planning will be done through the community by means of the local authorities. This differentiates it from one central body. The fact that in various circumstances councillors are remote from their electors is a matter for them and their areas. It does not mean that if you insert the word "community" it will make their behaviour any better.
I agree that the object is right, but I do not agree that inserting a word like "community" will change the whole
1428
structure. What we are concerned with—and it is quite clear that the Opposition are against it—is that the owner ship of land and planning should be in the hands of the community and exercised through the local authorities. I do not know what the noble Baroness will say, but if the Opposition accept this principle we do not need to spend more time worrying about a word which cannot be defined in the Bill in a way that makes sense in their context. May I suggest that it has been carefully spelled out all through the Bill that this will operate through the local authorities who represent, and who for generations have represented, the community. The fact that the 1972 Act happens to be a bad Act so far as local government is concerned, does not affect the relationship between local authority members in general and the people they represent. It is the Act that is wrong, not whether or not one uses the word "community".
Baroness YOUNG: I feel that this debate has been well worth while. The 1972 Act refers in Section 27 to "communities". There are several sections upon it. As a result of moving this Amendment to try to find out what "community" means, we have heard that it is incapable of interpretation, a point which was well answered by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. It goes to show that it is intended that nobody shall quite understand what it means. Other noble Lords have said, "Ah, but every one knows what it means". When any body makes that statement it nearly always means that nobody knows exactly what it means. We hear that it is to apply only to the British people. That is nice for anybody else in the community who does not happen to carry a British passport! It means that they will not benefit by it. At the end of the day the only definition that the Government can give is that in towns "community" means the municipalisation of land. I am not quite sure what its equivalent is in the country, but its definition is perfectly clear in towns, and that anybody who is not connected with local authority need regard himself as outside the community. I think at least it is something to have got this narrower definition. I beg leave to with draw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.20 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 5.
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 17 I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 75, 181, 200 and 218. These are drafting Amendments, the effect of which is to bring together in one clause all the references in the Bill to private interests in Crown land. This will also make it clear, by implication, that the Bill does not bind private interests in Crown land except where specifically mentioned.
The references transferred to the new clause are: (a) from Clause 4, the definition of "Crown land"; (b) from Clause 23(12) which provides that the clause (Disposal notification areas) applies to a material interest in Crown land which is a private interest; (c) from Clause 44(4), which provides that the clause (Disposal of land at direction of Secretary of State) applies to a material interest in Crown land which is a private interest; (d) from Schedule 4, paragraph 24 (Crown land) which provides that the power to acquire land compulsorily under Part III may, with the written consent of the "appropriate authority" be exercised as respects a private interest in Crown land.
Although this may sound complicated, I can assure noble Lords that these are drafting Amendments. I think they should be welcomed because they tidy up some of the definitions, to which reference was made when we were discussing Clause 1. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sure the noble Baroness will be glad to hear that in my opinion these are a considerable improvement and we on this side of the Committee welcome them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of BALFOUR: With the leave of the Committee, I shall move Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 en bloc. In the first of two clauses concerning definitions, we have the term "disposal". I argue that if I were to lease a house to somebody else I should not have disposed of it. Yet it says that disposal includes a lease or a grant or assignment, et cetera.
1430
I feel that in the case of a lease a person has not disposed of something and there fore this definition is misleading. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 15, after ("exchange") insert ("or")
Page 5, leave out lines 16 and 17.—(The Earl of Balfour.)
Lord MELCHETT: These two Amendments will affect two provisions in the Bill in particular, namely, Clause 41 which deals with consent for disposals, and Clause 44, which deals with the disposal of land at the direction of the Secretary of State. Their effect would be that the Secretary of State could not control leasehold disposals by an authority nor could he direct an authority to grant a leasehold interest. The Government's policy is that leases should not be of an unlimited term. Discussions are still going on with interested bodies as to what the limit should be. We also intend that there should be provision for regular rent reviews.
We feel that there needs to be a limit to the period of a lease so that the authority may have a say in the redevelopment of the land and thus fulfil the objective of positive planning which is central to the whole of this lands scheme. Similarly, the requirement about rent reviews is necessary so that the community may secure a proper share in any future in creases in value, and so that nobody shall ask me after I have sat down, may I say that I am using the word "community" here to mean all the ratepayers in that area and ultimately all taxpayers in this country. In view of that explanation of why this definition has been adopted, I hope the noble Earl will withdraw these two Amendments.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am sorry, but I must press a little further here. My point is, that if one leases something one has not disposed of it. I should have thought that was quite simple, and I argue that there should be a separate definition for a lease, where you do not dispose of anything, and where you actually sell something, in which case you have disposed of it. I feel that this definition of the word "disposal" is quite misleading.
Lord FOOT: Is not the noble Earl labouring under a misapprehension as to

1431
what this is about? This is an interpretation clause, the object of which is, as I understand it, to state what a particular word or words mean for the purposes of this Statute. It is not saying that the word "disposal" in the English language or in the Oxford Dictionary, includes leases. This is trying to define the meaning of this word as it is used in the Statute. That is all it is about, and it is perfectly appropriate, is it not, to define in clear terms what the word "disposal" means as used in this particular Statute?
Lord HYLTON: I do not want to go into the technicalities of these Amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has mentioned that consultations are proceeding at the present time as to the terms of future leases to be granted. I hope the Government will take great care over the consultations, because in the past where an industrialist has had freehold premises of any sort he has been able to borrow against his freehold in order to finance his business and his manufacturing activities. If leaseholds only are available in future, and if the terms of those lease holds are very stringent and the rent reviews are frequent, there will be no security against which the industrialist can borrow.
Lord MELCHETT: To take that point first, I accept what the noble Lord has said, and had he been here at a late hour last night—
Lord HYLTON: I was.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Lord may not have been in the Chamber at the time, but on the possibly more import ant point of the investment that pension funds make in leasehold properties, I said that their interests will be borne in mind when these consultations are taking place. However, that is not, I think, the central point of this Amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Foot said, the definition of "disposal" in the Bill is included for the purposes of the Bill, and in my original reply I explained why the Government felt it was important that "disposal", for the purposes of the Bill, should include leases. I am advised that it may well be that "disposal" would actually include the disposal of leasehold interests even if it was not spelt out, but it is in fact spelt out in the Bill for the avoidance of doubt.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I think the explanation given on the definition of the word is clear enough, but in answering that particular point the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has rather underlined the question of the rent reviews. I had not appreciated until now that it was contemplated that there would be compulsory rent reviews and, if that is to be the case, I consider it is quite essential that very early on people should know what is considered to be a reasonable period before there is a rent review. I support 100 per cent. the noble Lord who explained about keeping a business running through difficult periods; that when you are perhaps losing money on your actual trading, you keep the thing afloat in the knowledge that the value of your premises, if they are freehold, at any rate are compensation for the period of down turn.
This is removing the freehold. If in addition to removing the freehold, which I believe is an important thing in maintaining a coherent, healthy company, you are replacing it with a leasehold, and if rent reviews are so frequent that you never really know what you are under taking in terms of the value of your property, the position will be very dangerous indeed in maintaining the private sector in industry, and business generally in this country. I am not so much concerned with the words of this Amendment, but the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is one that ought to be examined. We ought to have a clear explanation before we go much further, so that people who are making arrangements for their businesses know where they stand.
Viscount RIDLEY: Are we going to be allowed to debate this matter on Clause 41, or are we supposed to debate it under this clause? I have a lot to say on this, and perhaps I should wait till Clause 41, if we ever get there.
Lord MELCHETT: We shall certainly get there in the end, but I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that it would be better to leave this discussion until the substantive clause. I do not think I used the phrase "compulsory rent reviews". To put the record straight, I said there would be provision for regular rent reviews. I take note of what the noble Lord said. This will be

1433
a matter for consultation, but perhaps it would be better to concentrate on this Amendment for the time being.
Lord SOMERS: Before we decide on this, could the noble Earl define the word "excambion"? I have never heard of it, and find that even the noble Lord, Lord Strang, has not either.
The Earl of BALFOUR: It is a Scottish legal term for "exchange". It is as simple as that. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, for what he has said. If I may respectfully say this to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, gave me a far better answer than he did. However, I beg leave to withdraw these Amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
3.32 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 19A:
Page 5, line 34, after ("building") insert ("other than an occupied dwelling-house and any garage, outhouse, garden, yard, court, forecourt or other appurtenance occupied with, and for the purposes of, the dwelling-house").
The noble Baroness said: I have put down this Amendment out of concern for the security of the home. Since the Bill was first published the position of the owner-occupier has not altered a great deal, but I believe that it is worth while to debate this subject because so many people are affected as owner-occupiers that at some stage we ought to have a discussion on their future. The object of this Amendment is to remove completely from the provisions of the Bill, the occupied dwelling-house, in particular from the compulsory purchase provisions in Clause 15, and consequently from the modifications of the Acquisition of Land Act in Schedule 4, paragraph 3, and from the disposal notification area provisions in Clauses 23 and 24. The Amendment would also remove the occupied dwelling-house from the existing use value pro visions of Clause 25; thus, in effect, continuing the exemption of owner-occupiers permanently from development land tax. The wording of the Amendment is precedented in Clause 3(2).
What I hope the Amendment will do is to highlight the effect of the Bill on homes, since all aspects can be concentrated on one Amendment. I hope the Government will consider it seriously. It is an issue
1434
which was debated in another place, although not precisely in those terms. It is an Amendment to which I look in order to get a statement from the Government as to what they think will be the effect of the Bill, which makes a major alteration to law and a major alteration to the presumptions underlying planning decisions and compulsory purchase orders. I beg to move.
Lord FOOT: Is the noble Baroness, Lady Young, not making precisely the same mistake as the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, made in his last Amendment? The object of this definition clause is to tell the people who come to read the Bill when it becomes an Act what is the meaning of the word "land", wherever it is used throughout the Bill. That is the whole purpose of this part of the interpretation clause. It has no other object. The noble Baroness is striving to introduce into the interpretation clause what is the substantive content of the later provisions of the Act. It is wholly inappropriate to bring that in at this stage.
If the noble Baroness wants to argue the case for excluding the single dwelling—I do not know whether that is not now beyond argument—the appropriate stage is when we are considering the powers of acquisition, and so on, which are to be given to local authorities. Surely we can dispose of this fairly quickly.
Lord GRIDLEY: With reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has just said, would it not be better if the Liberals brought forward some Amendments to this Bill if they want to speak—
Several Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord GRIDLEY: —to subjects of this kind? I feel that the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, have relevance to this Bill. It is most desirable that the interests of the individual, the house owner-occupier, who may have buildings on his land, should be protected from acquisition by very powerful authorities which have this power under the Bill.
Baroness BIRK: I do not imagine for a moment that the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, and certainly not the noble Baroness, Lady Young, are suggesting that nobody except Tories should speak to their own Amendments, and that Liberals

1435
should be counted out if they want to join in what is, after all, a Committee stage of the whole House. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, of course, is absolutely right about this, on two counts. First, he is right on the whole question of where in fact the noble Baroness has landed her Amendment which, for the purpose that she is seeking, which is a general debate on house ownership, is the wrong place. Secondly, the definition, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot said, just defines "land" as it follows throughout the Bill.
The Amendment would effectively exclude from local authority powers of acquisition under Clause 15 any land occupied by a dwelling-house or its appurtenances: and if I may say so, the right place to discuss all this is on Clause 15and Schedule 4. This is not the right place to discuss it. However, as it has been brought up, perhaps I can make two or three short points, and hope that the general discussion will take place on the right clause. That will make things much easier for the whole Committee. I am certain that the noble Baroness does not want to delay us more than is necessary.
To bring about this exclusion in the way suggested by the noble Baroness, particularly in this Part, means that it would run all the way through the whole Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, pointed out, we must be absolutely clear that this will be not at all feasible. Clearly, cases will arise—for example, in urban development—when the acquisition of land occupied by a dwelling-house and other appurtenances could be necessary, and to exclude this completely and absolutely might utterly undermine the re development or development plans of an authority. I must point out there are no precedents at all in any other compulsory purchase legislation, or in any other legislation, for excluding buildings from the power to acquire in any circumstances. Such a restriction could produce a ridiculous distortion in the pattern of development. For example if this suggestion really were taken on hoard as it is, an authority could be forced to leave an existing house in the middle of an area of new development, even if the owner was willing to sell. I cannot believe this could possibly be the object. It is also quite inconceivable that one
1436
could have a general power to buy land that does not include houses. This is an accepted principle of compulsory purchase orders.
Finally, it is quite legitimate to discuss the protection of owner-occupiers. I am not trying to stifle that, but, as has been pointed out both by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and myself, it would be far better and more productive if that matter were discussed on Schedule 4.
Lord FOOT: Before we leave the point, may I inquire, purely out of curiosity, why it is that when one comes to the definition of "land", in Scotland, one finds that it includes land covered by water whereas apparently in England it does not include land covered by water. May I ask whether this Bill applies to Lake Windermere?
Baroness BIRK: I think I need a little longer notice of that question: per haps the noble Lord would wait a few moments until I get the answer.
Baroness YOUNG: I listened to the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, about where I should have put down my Amendment. I am bound to say that, interesting as I found his question, I did not quite see that it was relevant to my Amendment. Strictly speaking, it should have come up on the Question, Whether the Clause shall stand part?, if we are out to correct one another on the correct procedure.
The essential point of my Amendment is that it is a probing Amendment, and it precedes quite a number of others that we on this side have put down on the question of the security of the home, a matter of very great consequence to a very large number of people in this country. At this stage, I think it is very important to have on the record a statement from the Government that we can study as to what are the intentions in this respect. I entirely accept that an Amendment such as this would be unprecedented in planning legislation and I quite appreciate that it would create great difficulties. The point of my argument, and the reason for the fears of so many people about this Bill—which I have no reason to think will be allayed by anything which has yet been said—is that the asumptions which have under lain planning law are now to be altered,

1437
on the Government's own showing; because this is a major Bill of land reform affecting everybody, and people should not be in any doubt as to what it means. Evidence is already beginning to come in as to the way it might affect people.
It think it is useful to have had this debate. We shall, of course, study what the Government have said and we shall return to this matter on Clause 15 and on Schedule 4, and at one or two other places in the Bill where the matter arises. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Baroness BIRK: May I answer the noble Lord, Lord Foot. It just came suddenly back to my mind that corporeal hereditaments in England include water, and, therefore, Lake Windermere is included.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 19B:
Page 6, line 7, after ("assumed") insert ("unless an intention to the contrary is proved").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19B, which is to Clause 4(2) at the top of page 6, and would have the effect of the first part of that sub section reading:
"… For the purposes of the definition of 'material interest' above it shall be assumed unless an intention to the contrary is proved that any option … is exercised".
The point of this Amendment is that without it somebody who has an option but for good reasons would be quite unable to exercise it is put in a disadvantageous position compared with somebody who has no option at all. This seems to us to be unfair.
Therefore, I think the assumption there must be qualified with the words, "unless an intention to the contrary is proved". It may be that the exact purpose that I am seeking to achieve could be met better with rather different drafting. The situation we want to create is where it is possible for the person with the material interest to show that it would be quite impossible or is quite impossible for the option to be exercised. The person with that material interest ought to be in the same position as a person who has no option at all. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: The concept of a material interest as a substantial interest in land is central to the Bill's provisions. Public ownership is interpreted in Clause 21 as meaning ownership by an authority (or by another public body or a charity), of all material—in other words, substantial—interests. For the purpose of calculating the life of a lease it is clearly necessary to assume that any option to renew is exercised. Otherwise, someone could take his interest out of the category of material interest by having a lease granted for a six-year term with an option to renew, with each extension running for only six years.
As I understand it, the Amendment accepts the general principle but would attempt to prevent this assumption about renewals running in a case where it could be proved that there was no intention to renew or extend. This looks harmless in principle. It is easy to imagine circum stances in which it would be clear that no extension was intended, as the noble Lord said, but this is really not some thing that can be written into the legislation without a great deal more effort than this simple Amendment suggests. There are difficulties.
In particular, if an intention not to renew has to be proved, it would be necessary to provide some procedure for establishing what was the owner's intention, perhaps including the possibility of an appeal to the Secretary of State or some other body. This would be to introduce a complex and unnecessary jurisdiction for dealing with what would, in our view, be a very limited problem. Furthermore, it would be necessary to provide the time at which the intention has to be proved. I would be interested to know from the noble Lord how this would work if at the time the duty to acquire applied the time for exercise of the option was several years away. I should have thought at that stage it might be quite impossible to say whether or not, in the event, it would be possible to renew the option, let alone whether or not some body intended to renew the option. I think there are great practical difficulties here, and I hope the noble Lord will reconsider the Amendment.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: The reply says very clearly that this cannot be done because it would be difficult to find the answer. The principle behind it

1439
is surely so important that a great deal of trouble ought to be taken to find it. The point my noble friend put is a very simple one, and I think it would be accepted as fair by everybody; that any one who cannot take up the option, for reasons they can prove are genuine and good reasons, ought not to be in a worse situation than someone who has not got an option at all.
One understands that to put that in a form that would be acceptable in a Statute would not be easy, but it is quite clear that it ought to be attempted and much trouble ought to be taken to see whether it can be brought about. If it can be proved that it is not the fault of the individual, that it is not to avoid obligations or to avoid having to pay compensation if they do not take up the option, if it can be shown that it is, in fact, a situation where it is not possible for good reasons—even though it may mean setting up machinery where the Minister is able to judge whether or not the reasons are genuine—I believe it ought to be done. The only answer that we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is that it would be difficult. I accept that it would be difficult, but, nevertheless, efforts ought to be made to achieve it.
Lord SANDFORD: I think I owe an apology to the Committee for perhaps having made this problem look more difficult than it really is, by using the word, "intention" where I ought to have used the word, "ability". If the word "ability" were substituted for "intention"—I am not moving a manuscript Amendment but just probing the matter at the moment—then what my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has said has a considerable amount of force, and I think my own original case has force also.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asked me to suggest how this might be brought into operation. I would say that the moment when this proof needs to be produced is the moment when the land on which the material interest is held gets caught in a disposal notification area or a five-year rolling programme. That is the moment when the issue arises and if somebody wants to take advantage of it because they have an option and foresee that they really will be in a position of
1440
not being able to exercise it and would have no difficulty in proving it, there must be something somewhere in the Bill which puts them into the same position as a person with a similar lease but with out the option. I should be well content—and I hope that my noble friends will be—if the noble Lord can say that, despite the difficulties which he foresees, he will look into this matter to see whether, with expert draftsmanship, some thing along the broad lines of what I intended could be devised, because if it is not devised there will be a serious injustice.
3.52 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Lord has put to us a slightly different problem which I think raises different issues. If what he intends is that somebody who simply will be unable to take up the option should not be caught, then subject to any legal advice which I might take I should have thought it would be possible for the person with the lease to get rid of his option; to assign it to the free holder, and avoid any possibility of this business of the option arising. That would be simple. It would avoid having to write into the Bill what in any event would be complicated provisions.
May I raise one other difficulty which occurred to me while we have been discussing this. What would happen if a leaseholder with an option proved to the satisfaction of whatever body is to have jurisdiction in this that they did not intend to take up the option in five years' time and subsequently did? There are real difficulties, and if somebody has no intention of taking up their option the best thing to do is to get rid of the option, and that solves the problem.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: There is a precedent for having the approval to withdraw and then taking it up later. If a planning permission is revoked for good planning reasons, there are procedures which lay down quite clearly that the person having accepted the compensation for a revoked planning permission cannot take advantage of development later even though they find it possible to do so without repaying the compensation, or having to pay some penalty to do it. I believe that the principle behind this is an important one, and it is possible to find a way out. I should have hoped that the noble Lord would have said

1441
that he would go to some trouble out side the Chamber to see whether it is possible to find the words, while acknowledging that it may not be easy.
Lord SANDFORD: I wish that I could persuade the noble Lord to be more forthcoming. I do not want to press this Amendment because I can see that it does not accurately express my wishes. The noble Lord argued as though the precise words that I had used, and which I have already renounced, represented my case. My case is the one which would be more accurately represented if the Amendment were to read, "unless an ability to the contrary is proved". That is a rather different situation, and I should have thought that it deserved some consideration. That is all I am asking the noble Lord, but if he is not willing to do that I shall have to consider seriously whether I shall press this Amendment despite its defectiveness.
Lord MELCHETT: I shall consider it. I thought that I had considered it in my previous reply. I said to the noble Lord that it seemed to me that the solution to my difficulty and to his was the one I suggested, if that was not based on his original wording but on his amended wording that the person with the lease should surrender the option. Neither of the noble Lords who replied to me took up that suggestion. It may well be that we all need to think about this. I will certainly say from this side of the Committee that we will think about it.
Lord SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.55 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones) moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 13, leave out from ("Act") to ("by") in line 14 and insert ("unless—
(a) it is owned").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 are purely drafting Amendments which eliminate some rather unattractive double negatives in the present draft. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 substitute a positive provision for a negative one in defining material interests which shall not be treated as outstanding for the purposes of the Act. Amendment No. 21 attempts
1442
to make it clearer that an interest must have been owned by a charity during the whole of the stated period in order not to be treated as an outstanding material interest. It also makes it clear that charity ownership need not be by the same charity throughout. Amendment No. 22 is consequential on Amendments Nos. 20 and 21, and substitutes a positive provision for a negative one, ensuring that for the purposes of subsection (3) a material interest shall be treated as one being owned by any of the bodies listed in subsection (3) if at any time they had entered into a binding contract to acquire the interest in question.
There are consequential Amendments, Nos. 188, 189, 190 and 191 to these Amendments. They are purely drafting, and the substantive discussions upon charities which the right reverend Prelate has been waiting so long to have discussed will come up on the next Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: If it were not pre sumptuous of me to do so, I should like to congratulate the Lord Chancellor on the drafting of the law and thank him for it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
Amendment movedߞ
Page 6, line 17, leave out from ("authority") to ("or") in line 24 and insert ("or
(aa) during the whole of the period beginning with 12th September 1974 and ending with the relevant time, it has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON The Lord Bishop of LONDON moved Amendment No. 21A:
Page 6, line 23, after ("1974") insert ("or any later date").
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving this Amendment I am aware of the heavy responsibility which lies upon my shoulders because, as chairman of the Churches Main Committee, I am speaking for all the religious communities of this country, Christian Churches and the Jewish community. Although I have no remit from the charities of this country, I know that this Amendment has the

1443
approval of Sir Philip Allen and important representatives of the National Council for Social Service. Therefore, I can justly claim to be speaking not only for the religious communities but also for all the charities of this country. In his speech at about ten o'clock last night the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor paid a nice tribute to those who work in these organisations in referring to the unique contribution which the Churches and charities make to the life of the nation; therefore, it is for them that I am moving this Amendment.
I hope I shall not try the patience of the Committee if I remind your Lord ships of the history which has brought us to this moment as regards the Churches and the charities. When the White Paper on land and the Bill which depended upon it were issued, the Churches were so deeply disturbed about the possibilities of the Bill impoverishing and impeding their work that they felt it necessary to make strong representations to Her Majesty's Government. When those representations at a lower level did not seem to be bearing fruit, the Archbishop of Canterbury accompanied by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, the Chief Rabbi, the representative of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and the representative of the Archbishop of Wales led a deputation to the Prime Minister, who gave over an hour of his time, received the deputation with great courtesy and acknowledged that there was substance in their anxieties, and said that the Government would look very carefully at the representations that had been made to them.
So it was that in a Statement in another place on 15th July the Minister indicated some very considerable concessions that would be made to Churches and charities, and it was in the light of those representations by the Minister that the Amendment in the name of Mr. Kevin McNamara, which would have exempted all Churches and charities from the operation of the Bill and which certainly had the support of the Churches and charities—and I believe the support of a considerable number of representative people—was withdrawn. On Report in another place some of these concessions were written into Clause 4(4) and Clause 25
1444
of this Bill and their purpose, as expressed in a Press release from the Department of Education, was that,
"These Amendments were made to the Bill at report stage to enable churches and charities to carry out development on land that they owned on White Paper Day without the land having to come into the ownership of the authority. Churches and charities would also be entitled to receive compensation at market value for at least ten years from White Paper day when they sell land that was held on White Paper day which they no longer require."
Since that Statement and the Amendments on Report in another place, there have been considerable consultations between officers of the Department of Education and officers of the Churches Main Committee, and I think also of the National Council of Social Service, and there has been growing concern about the way in which the Government interpret these Amendments and the way in which they will work. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on Second Reading of the Bill in this House, said that the provisions setting out the basis of compensation had raised a number of complex issues which had to be examined.
Therefore a deputation, which was led by Sir Philip Allen and myself, waited on the Minister last Friday. Again, he gave us a very considerable amount of his time, received us with much courtesy and heard us, I think, with great interest and concern. The Press release about our deputation recorded that,
"There was a useful exchange of views on matters of concern to the churches and charities following the introduction of special provisions for them into the Community Land Bill at report stage in the House of Commons last Monday. The Ministers undertook to give further consideration to some of these points before the final stage of the Bill in the House of Lords in a few weeks' time."
We are in very great difficulty, because the Minister did not reveal to us what his reaction would be to the matters we had put before him, or indeed what they would look like when they reached legislative form. Here we are at a very late stage in the passage of this Bill, here is a body of the very greatest importance in this country—the Churches and the charities—and yet still we have no idea whatever as to what will be the Amendments to this Bill which will affect our work so vitally.
I do not want in any way to be interpreted as being discourteous to the

1445
Minister. On the one hand, I feel it would be ludicrous that this debate could take place in Committee without any word being said about the concerns of the Churches and charities; and therefore, though I do not wish in any way to impugn the word that the Minister has given to us—that we shall know what he suggests—yet I have felt bound, in order that we can have a debate, to table this Amendment. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate, as I hope Her Majesty's Government do, that by being left un informed until this very late stage—it may be, I presume, next week—about any of the Amendments which will affect us, we shall be hard put to give expert examination to those Amendments and then, if necessary, table our own Amendments if we are not satisfied with what the Government are proposing. It is for this reason, and this reason only, that I am moving this Amendment; in order that we may be able to have a debate.
I shall listen with great interest to who ever replies on behalf of the Government to the points I am making. I hope I shall be given sufficient grounds to believe that we are to be met on the important points we have made. I confess that my confidence was somewhat shaken by the rather rigid and hard line which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor took in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, at about 10 o'clock last night, and I hope that the rigidity of that reply does not really represent the mind of the Government in this matter. I do not want to have to press this Amendment to a Division, but I may have to think very seriously of doing so if I am not given some satisfaction that when we see these Amendments on Report we will be satisfied and be given a very full opportunity to debate them at that stage of the Bill.
I should perhaps express the reasons for our continued anxiety about the Bill as regards the Churches and charities. Some of these are matters of interpretation. We want to know the details of the concessions that will he made on this vital matter of current use value. We want to know what is meant by charities developing land "for their own use". We have been given an assurance by the Minister that a mixed development will be permitted; that is to say, if we have a down-town site with a redundant church and a large vicarage with a garden
1446
attached to it, and we want to develop in such a way that there is a community centre, a church centre, a vicarage, flats for old people and some shops, which may be able to make the whole thing a financial viability, then that kind of development will be permitted. We want some very clear definition of what is meant by "own use".
Again, we will need some very clear advice as to what is meant by "curtilage", because it may mean anything or nothing. We should like all charity land to be included, but in the case of a school, for example, is a playing field that may be some way from the school regarded as the curtilage of the school? If there is a detached graveyard or cemetery belonging to a church some way away, does that constitute part of the curtilage? We want these matters to be very clearly expressed for us. We also hope—though this is a rather technical point—that the period of charitable use be reduced to one year as is set out in the Land Commission Act 1967.
These are matters on which we want clarification. But there are also three main matters of fundamental importance which we discussed with the Minister and about which we are very anxious to have encouraging information. The first concerns the impact of the development land tax; the second concerns the 10-year period, and the third concerns the very rigid differences between pre and post White Paper day land. As regards the development land tax, we are very grateful for the concession that this will not be applied to land owned by Churches and charities before White Paper day. On the other hand, it will be applied to land obtained by both after White Paper day, and this seems to be clean contrary to the normal practice observed over a long period whereby Churches and charities have been relieved of such taxation. As recently as the Finance Act 1974, such a concession was made in the development gains tax. We are told that this con cession cannot be made because the development land tax is not a tax at all but is a bridging operation. This may astonish some noble Lords, as it has astonished me. How can a tax not be a tax? It suggests a riddle, "When is a tax not a tax'?" Apparently, the answer is, "When it is the development land tax". But we do not feel the force of

1447
this argument, and we hope very much that land obtained by a charity or a Church after White Paper day may also be relieved, as has been customary, of the impact of the development land tax.
There is a 10-year period during which the Minister has suggested that Churches and charities are to put their house in order and come, so to speak, into the scheme. If there is to be a 10-year period—we hope that there will not be, and one of the intentions of our Amendment is that there should not be a 10-year period—we regard this as altogether too short a period. I do not believe that I am revealing any confidences if I say that the Minister has said he will look at this point to see whether the period cannot start at a more profitable time because we have already lost a year and the 10-year period is now nine years from White Paper day. In any case, we regard this period as much too short. This is so, for instance, in the raising of loans and it will very much affect the whole development of the schools programme.
Moreover, we live in a changing world and, as pre White Paper land is replaced, so the Church or the charity which replaces it will lose its privileges under the Bill. This affects certain Churches more than others. For instance, the Methodist Church has always worked on a policy of looking forward to where it thinks a community is likely to grow up, and of buying land which may be needed for a church at some future time. Then the community does not develop so the land is sold and the Methodist Church goes somewhere else where it is more greatly needed. That kind of activity which, as I say, is especially exercised by some of the Free Churches, will be very heavily penalised because the land will be post White Paper day land.
Again, what will happen if a Church or a charity receives by legacy a gift of land which takes place after White Paper day? That land will not be relieved of the impact of the Act, and that seems very unjust. Indeed, over the exemption limit, it may well be that we shall be unable to develop land for our own use without the intervention of the local authority, so that the 10-year limit is one
1448
which has very many disadvantages and difficulties.
However, our main anxiety is the rigid distinction between pre and post White Paper day land. As it now stands, the Bill will lead to an undue rigidity because Churches and charities will be very reluctant to sell their pre-White Paper day land because it will immediately be transferred into the other area. So, also, they will he reluctant to negotiate voluntary exchanges; for example, for the readjustment of boundaries. It very often hap pens that a local authority will go to a Church or a charity which owns land and ask it for a voluntary exchange. I know of one case in Scotland where a builder has suggested to somebody that it would be a great convenience to swap a piece of land in an operation which had been previously agreed.
Clearly, no Church or charity will in volve itself in that kind of exchange if, by so doing, the land which it has retained for its own use and which is pre-White Paper day land becomes post-White Paper day land. So all these difficulties will arise if there is this rigidity. Indeed, if White Paper day land is compulsorily purchased one might have the ridiculous situation that replacements cannot be developed after the second appointed day without the intervention of the local authority. So, we ask, why should the Churches and charities be worse off as regards post-White Paper day land than those others who are being given exceptional treatment? The statutory undertakers will not be subject to the Act and we are told that there are certain commercial activities and concerns which will also not be subject to the operation of the Act. The Churches and charities feel, with some reason, that they should be allowed to have the same privilege.
In his intervention yesterday evening. the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor 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.]
There are already exceptions which are to be made and there will already be certain classes of privileged owner. The Churches and the charities have been here

1449
for several centuries, and I find it very difficult indeed to believe that the operation of the whole Bill will be imperilled if this concession is made to them.
So my Amendment is designed to remove this difference between pre- and post-White Paper day land. We believe that this is a reasonable thing for the Government to give the Churches and charities. It is not for me to plead for the recognition of the work done for this nation as a result of the community and charitable work done by the Churches of every denomination and by innumerable charities which are directed by their trust deeds to use their resources in particular ways. This is a vitally important element in the whole of our national life. If we are not given these concessions, then after 10 years we shall be back where we started, and all the things that have caused us such immense anxiety will be operative once more. Therefore, we very much hope that the Government will accept this Amendment which so simply does all that is needed. I beg to move.
Viscount GAGE: I wish to associate myself with what the right reverend Prelate so positively said, particularly with reference to the 10-year limitation. I am connected with the National Federation of Housing Associations which comprises a large number of these associations. I say at once that the majority of these are satisfied with the concessions that have been given to them, and are accordingly grateful to the Government. But the majority of housing associations are not holders of land; they buy land ad hoc for their purposes, and they are not really affected by measures involving investment in land. However, there are some associations—in a minority—which are holders of land. I happen to be a member of the Chichester Diocesan Housing Association which is developing Church land and building houses on pieces of land, intended largely for retired clergy and other worthy people. We are, I believe, doing very well, and we very much hope to bring the whole scheme to a successful conclusion.
There are other Church housing associations. One was referred to the other day by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. It would be really intolerable if our efforts to deal with these
1450
housing problems—which I suppose would otherwise fall as a burden upon the local authorities—were prejudiced by uncertainty regarding the type of threats that might be hanging over our efforts. Therefore, I strongly support what the right reverend Prelate said.
Lord SOPER: I wish to support the right reverend Prelate and I hasten to declare an interest—in fact, a number of interests. It is for two reasons that I would delay your Lordships. One is that at present the financial position of many admirable charities is grievously threatened and any prospect of an increase in this kind of threat would throw a great many of them out of business altogether. The essential point that I seek to con tribute—rather than repeat what has been so admirably said by the right reverend Prelate—is that if charities today are to be viable they must be capable of improvement and change; the nature of those charities ought to change with the nature of the needs to which they are devoted. I wish to give one or two illustrations of what is meant by that generalisation.
In the beginning when the Churches endeavoured to do something about alcoholism, they were engaged upon a plan which had a good deal to do with medicaments like Salvarsin and Antabuse; they had very little to do at that time with the more sophisticated methods of community care which, in their turn, demand a very different kind of hostelry from those originally set up to try to make some first-hand improvement in the condition of alcoholics. If work among alcoholics is to continue effectively—and surely it must—then it must adapt itself to new methods and acquire new premises in which to put those methods into effect.
This is equally true of the new definition of the bail hostel and of the requirement of premises for other institutions. Premises which we were able to acquire in past days are no longer suit able. If many of the charities with which I am concerned are to continue to be more effective, they must increasingly adapt themselves to new needs and, in many cases, that quite definitely means new types of building and new acquisitions of property. In the mission in which I work, we are already engaged in negotiations to do that in regard to a number

1451
of charities for which I am responsible. Speaking on behalf of many others—and not only religious charities—there are already in the field programmes of adaptation which will require new premises. If indeed the White Paper day becomes the focal day, then in many cases it will be impossible to carry out these new enterprises which are so required.
I agree that we are asking for exceptions, and I recognise that exceptions have already been made. But I humbly claim that we are exceptional, and that a great many of the efforts which voluntary charities now undertake become the bellwethers of intelligent and enlightened public enterprise later. It would be a total impoverishment of the general well being of the community if we were not facilitated in our attempt not merely to maintain the charities to which we are now committed, but to move into the future with a more intelligent and more practical method of dealing with the ones in a community where, by its best endeavours, the community as a whole can possibly deal with only the "ninety-nines". I make this plea as a cri de cœur, but I also believe it has a substantial and very practical relevance and I hope that this Amendment will be accepted.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: As one who is very active both in Church and charity work, I wish to add my plea to that so eloquently and so movingly expressed by the right reverend Prelate. I do not need to make his speech all over again, nor the speech which has been made on behalf of the charities. I wish to make two points, and I hope that your Lordships will for give me if I make the first one a little, you may feel, crudely. The principle which it is sought to alter in this Bill, is one of religion and of charity which has been cherished in this country over the centuries. To seek to alter the principle, either by abolishing it or tinkering with it, is rather like saying that until 12th September 1974 plus X years, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house", but after that there will be amendments.
Secondly, I wish to add to what the right reverend Prelate and the last speaker said the point that people do not help a
1452
Church or a charity for pay or for profit; they do it for nothing. Of course, I am not referring to the clergy; but the many other people who help Churches of all denominations do so without remuneration and without expecting profit on earth, or possibly in Heaven. People working for charities, again in enormous numbers, do for the community what they do not need to do in the least. Not only that, but certainly, in the case of the charity I know best, they do a good deal of what government probably ought to be doing but know that they cannot do, or have not the means nor perhaps the will to do. Therefore, it is small wonder that this exemption that Mr. McNamara has so rightly asked for in another place, has been enjoyed and understood by our people for many years. Therefore, in supporting the Amendment put forward by the right reverend Prelate, I must also be understood to support the other points that he has made.
Baroness WHITE: I should like to support briefly the Amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate and sup ported by other noble Lords. I do so as a member of the Executive Committee of the National Council of Social Service. I am afraid that I am perhaps more familiar with charities than with Churches. We had our executive meeting yesterday, Sir Philip Allen reported to us, and considerable anxiety was expressed. I have every hope that my noble and learned Friend will be able to come at least some way towards us this afternoon. I would perhaps remind him that the Prime Minister is to address our annual meeting in a few weeks' time, and the warmth of his reception will depend a great deal on what my noble and learned friend says now.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I should like to support the right reverend Prelate and congratulate him on the very clear and careful case he presented. I think he moved his Amendment with great eloquence. There is very little left to say on his case, except that this issue of the exemption of charities and the Churches from both the development land tax and the new acquisition powers has been simmering for the last five or six months, ever since the Bill was published. Indeed, I do not think the attitude of the Government has so far been very charitable.

1453
I recall that on the first occasion when the Bill was published there was no exemption for the charities and Churches in it. Then, after a good deal of pres sure, Amendments were brought in by the Government, I think at midnight on 15th July—perhaps when the Treasury were not watching—and certain assurances were given that further Amendments would be made. So it is disappointing that not all of these assurances have been incorporated in the list of Amendments that we now have before us. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will say when all those assurances which were given will be implemented; and I hope it will not be too late in the passage of this Bill, because this is a very important issue.
As the right reverend Prelate advised us, it seems that the reply that the noble and learned Lord is to give perhaps slipped out quite unexpectedly yesterday, when, as the noble and learned Lord has already said, the Government declared their attitude. I must say that I find that statement, as indeed the right reverend Prelate has said he does, quite contradictory, because already the Government have made an exception in their Amendments by partly giving way. They have given way on about 50 per cent. of what the charities and the Churches want, so why not go the whole way? When one considers precedents on this issue, I do not think one needs to go further back than the Act setting up the Land Commission, when the then Government, in which the noble and learned Lord played a very distinguished part, made a decision which must be the same as their decision today; and, again, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will tell us what happened in the case of that Act. How were the charities and Churches dealt with on that occasion? And if they were dealt with, as I suspect, as an exception, then perhaps he could say why the arguments which the Government used then cannot be used in this case.
The last and fundamental point which I would put to the noble and learned Lord is that the Bill which we are now studying with such care has, as we all know, two main objectives; to allow the community to control development, and to restore to the community the increase in
1454
value. One must ask: what is the purpose of the charities and the Churches? It is, of course, to serve the community—I think no one would quarrel with that—and if these bodies come to the Government and say, "Under this legislation our service to the community is damaged, our work is impeded and our assistance is impoverished", then I believe that the Government can only be seen to be totally churlish if they do not heed their words. I know that the noble and learned Lord is a very compassionate man, and I can not believe that when he replies he can be anything but convinced by the right reverend Prelate's case.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: I am very worried about the position with regard to the land owned by the sub normality hospitals. As your Lordships know, these hospitals are being gradually phased out, but in some cases the large ones own vast areas of land. In some cases this land is their most valuable asset, and it is one which must be safeguarded for them. Can the Minister give me any information as to how they would stand? With regard to the financial needs of these hospitals and their patients, will it be possible to make sure that any benefit which should arise will be returned to them and will not go into the general local authority kitty? It seems to me that the time limits in this clause are too rigid, and for this reason I should like to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
Lady KINLOSS: I am concerned about land in trust for any Church charity. The Roman Catholic communities support many charities for trust land, not least the partial financing of the Hospital of Saint John and Saint Elizabeth. Also, what is the position of churchyards, which may not necessarily be near their church? They may be full and are perhaps waiting to be re-used after a lapse of the required number of years. I should like to feel that there was not a set time limit. There fore, I should like to support this Amendment which has been moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
Lord HYLTON: I should like to sup port as strongly as I can the Amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate. The noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, has raised the question of land belonging to subnormality hospitals, and I very much

1455
hope she will raise the question again in your Lordships' House. However, I would respectfully suggest to her that this is not the ideal moment for it. We are considering Churches and charities, and I think we must start from the position that, of their very nature, charities exist to serve the community. They are subject to the Charity Commissioners, and if they do not serve the community they will fall foul of the Commissioners. On the question of Churches, in my view any Church that is true to its calling will automatically serve the whole community and not simply its own members, and one has seen countless examples of this wide, general, open service.
On these grounds it seems right that any windfall gains that may accrue to Churches and charities should be allowed to be retained by them. One understands that windfall development gains accruing to private individuals or companies may be taken from them by the community, as represented by the State, to be applied to public as opposed to private purposes, but I urge most strongly that Churches and charities should be allowed to retain their windfall gains This seems right if one considers, for example, how, over the past centuries, the Churches have pioneered health services and hospital services, have led the way with schools and have led the way by introducing many and very varied forms of social welfare, the majority of which have, in the fullness of time, been taken over as State welfare services. No one complains about this; most of us look on it as a very natural progression, leaving both Churches and charities free to continue pioneering and free, also, to provide a choice for the person in need of service.
It is for this kind of reason that I agree so strongly with the right reverend Prelate that the ten-year period is far too short and far too rigid, and that post-White Paper development land should be just as free as pre-White Paper land. What is needed is some kind of "roll over" provision, as has been worked out in the case of other taxes, and also a provision for subsequent gifts of land to both Churches and charities. I support this Amendment most strongly.
Lord CACCIA: May I also rise to support this Amendment? It has been rightly said that the noble and learned
1456
Lord the Lord Chancellor is a most compassionate man. From what he has said in your Lordships' House he has also shown that he likes to pursue a logical argument. It is not very long since your Lordships were considering the work of the voluntary societies, and on that occasion those of us who spoke for those societies had much encouragement. On this occasion I speak particularly for St. John's and to a certain extent for the Red Cross, in which I am also involved. We had great encouragement from the Government to think that our work was valued, and was valued in a way which they would wish to support. They showed then that they fully under stood the difficulties of financing charities at a time of rapid inflation and, there fore, we had every hope that when other measures were brought forward this point would be logically borne in mind.
It is not very much in terms of money that is involved for the State; when you think of the amounts that might accrue to the charities in this country out of an Amendment of this legislation such as is suggested by the right reverend Prelate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us this year, for instance, that the borrowing requirement—that was at the Budget time—was to be of the order of £9 billion. We now understand that the borrowing requirement is of a very much larger order. That is in one year.
We are talking of sums of money that could not be of any relevance to that kind of economic situation. What we ask is this easement in order for us to do with voluntary work, in many cases, things which otherwise would be left undone to the detriment of the com munity—and that word comes into the Bill—and in this case it must mean the community of the whole British public. We ask for alleviations which will enable us to do this work through voluntary support and voluntary effort and, there fore, I should like strongly to support the Amendment suggested by the right reverend Prelate and hope for both the logic and compassion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Lord CLITHEROE: I had intended to speak in support of the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate. I have listened to the speeches made by other noble Lords. All the points that I would

1457
have made have been made by them better than I should have made them, so I shall sit down.
4.41 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): I well understand the concern and interest that is shown in this remarkable Chamber in the problems related to the Churches and charities. I venture to use the word "remarkable" because we have heard today in this House some of the leading figures of the Churches and of the world of charities expressing their views. If I may say so, this has been one of the aspects of belonging to this Chamber which has most delighted and excited me since I have had the honour of becoming a Member.
I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate should think that I have been rigid. I do not think that rigidity is one of my customary postures and, if I may say so, in dealing with the problems connected with the Churches and charities the Government have sought to be fair to both. The concessions which have been made have been made in a spirit of concern and willingness to help to the extent of not destroying the fabric of the Community Land Scheme. The discussions came to a successful climax which resulted in the Statement that was made on 15th July. My information is that it was not made at midnight but at mid afternoon on a Monday when I am in formed that everyone in the other place was as fresh as a daisy and as alert as a fox; so that if there are any shortcomings it is not due to the midnight oil that it is thought was burning on that occasion. The Statement that was made on 15th July was positive and I am a little surprised that the right reverend Prelate feels that those who like him are concerned and have responsibility in the field still feel that there is a great deal that is uncertain. There have been more recent discussions since 15th July which may result in a further meeting of the wish of the Churches which I shall refer to before I sit down.
May I first turn to the terms of the Amendment under the umbrella of which—and I am not complaining that the debate has ranged rather widely over the whole field—we are conducting this debate. Perhaps I could first assist noble Lords by indicating what would be the
1458
effect of the Amendment. It would re move the distinction between pre- and post-White Paper day land owned by Churches or charities for the purpose of creating a non-outstanding material interest. That, as noble Lords will by now know as we become steadily familiar with the jargon of the Bill, is relevant to certain major provisions of the Bill; namely, Clause 18(2) under which an authority may be given the duty to acquire all outstanding material interests in land needed for designated relevant development and Clause 22(8)(a) which has the effect of disapplying the provisions for suspension of planning permission where the permission is granted in respect of land in which there are any material interests outstanding.
The effect of the Amendment will be to extend considerably the special provisions for charities which, as I have indicated, were announced by the Minister on 15th July in another place. These provisions were rightly accorded to charities in recognition of what I ventured to describe last night, and which I happily repeat today, as the unique service that the charities and, of course, the Churches provide to our community and in order to assist them to make the transition to the full land scheme. It has never been intended that an exemption from the acquisition duty should apply to any land acquired by a charity at any time. As I ventured to say last night, that would lead to the creation of a specially privileged position for them as owners of land.
It has been urged with his customary eloquence and skill today by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London that the exemption should apply to all of the land of Churches and charities, regardless of when it was acquired, since to do otherwise would cause them financial hardship and would cause (as has been said, if not today, on another occasion) their commitments to be frozen into the existing pattern and prevent them providing new services where these are needed. I venture to express the view that that argument and those anxieties are not well-founded.
First, charities and Churches will be able to undertake any type of development for which they receive planning per mission on land they owned on White Paper day. This will cover the situation where a mixed development is proposed

1459
—for example, in a city centre site—and where the charity is dependent on realising the commercial value of the site in order to finance that part of the development which is intended for their use. Secondly, under the terms of the special provisions, they will not be liable to development land tax in respect of development value realised through such developments. Thirdly, they will continue to receive market value where their land is acquired by an authority for 10 years, or until the second appointed day, whichever is the longer period. That provision was designed to overcome the problem which I appreciate has been of great concern to the Churches and to charities, that of redundant church or charity sites, particularly in city centres which have a high hope value for future development.
Regarding the ten-year period, during which, as I have said, the charities will get full market value for their land if they own the land on White Paper day, the Minister has said that he will—and I will be disposed to encourage him so to do—consider what one might call the lost year that has passed between White Paper day and the date of Royal Assent. I am certainly happy to indicate to the Committee that he has said he will consider it, and I will encourage that consideration in a favourable direction. The expectation regarding the ten-year period was that it would give sufficient time for the Churches and charities to deal with the situation and to arrange their affairs to enable them in the ten-year period to face up to the problems raised by the transfer to current use value. I should have thought that that period of a decade ought to suffice for that purpose.
The fourth concession—if that is the right word—that I wish to mention is that Churches and charities will be able to take advantage of the excepted development regulations which will be published in due course under Clause 3 which will provide that development where the total floor space does not exceed 10,000 square feet will be permanently excluded from the Land Scheme Duty. This will no doubt include many charity buildings, church lands, parcels of which of that kind of size, or less, may become available.
1460
Finally in this part of my indication of how the Government have sought to enact needs of Churches and charities I should like to add this. The Government will be introducing Amendments in fulfilment of the promise of the Minister in his Statement of 15th July in another place to provide for the circumstances in which the prevailing use value basis of compensation will apply when charity land is acquired for development. These circumstances will apply after the ten-year period of the market value basis for land held by a charity on White Paper day is completed or the second appointed day is reached, whichever comes later, and also after ten years of continuous charitable use of land acquired by a charity after White Paper day. As the Minister has explained there have been some technical problems in framing the provisions and he was anxious to meet the Churches Main Committee and the National Council of Social Services before finalising them. I understand that a useful meeting was held last week, and I am assured that the Amendments will be tabled in good time for Report on this aspect of the matter. I will certainly do my best to ensure that they are made available as soon as possible.
The term "prevailing use value" is one which is used to describe a method of valuation originally conceived in the Planning Act of 1947 in which it is assumed 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 generally in the land round about. Whether that explanation of it makes it very much clearer I know not, but perhaps a reading of Hansard may elucidate the matter. The special provisions to which I have referred are substantial, and I hope and think ought to solve most of the problems that the Churches and charities felt they would be facing. It has been made clear from the beginning that whatever provision was made it would have to be consistent with the principles of the land scheme; and one of its cardinal principles is that land needed for development should in the end pass through the hands of the community at large, mainly through the agencies of the county and district councils and, in Wales, the Land Authority.

1461
The Government consider it reasonable and right that the exemptions for land owned by Churches and charities on White Paper day, before which date they had entered into commitments without knowledge of the land scheme, should be given special treatment. But the Government have felt unable to accept that developments that took place in the clear knowledge of the scheme should enjoy exemption from the acquisition duty. Nevertheless, this is a fresh Amendment; considerable thought and effort has been given to its preparation and much in support has been said about it today. In the light of what has transpired, I am able to undertake on behalf of the Government to look further at what is suggested. It is right that I should make if clear that I say that without commitment. I emphasise that because, although clearly the Government have a duty to charities and Churches, they also have a duty to others. The points that have been raised in the debate on this Amendment will have to be closely examined in the light of the viability of the whole scheme.
As to certain particular matters that were raised, the position regarding sub normality hospitals is that if they arc National Health Service hospitals they will belong to the Government and their land will be Crown land; that is to say, it will be outside the scheme. Private subnormality hospitals may or may not be charities, depending upon their foundation. It would involve an examination of the circumstances and status of each. I was asked questions about curtilage problems which are dealt with to some extent in the 15th July Statement. I do not think problems are likely to arise about the dilemmas which the right reverend Prelate raised about that because it may come to be dealt with when we come to consider the prevailing use pro visions when we reach the Report stage. These are matters which I hope will be finalised as soon as that becomes possible.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—and I am most grateful to him for his gracious reference to myself—about the position of charities under the Land Commission Act. The Land Com mission Act exempted charities from betterment levy in respect, first, of land forming part of their permanent endowment and, secondly, land which had been
1462
used for the purposes of a charity for at least a year. The analogy, if there is one, with the present scheme arises on development land tax, which we shall be debating in due course when the Bill concerning that matter comes before your Lordships. The difference is that betterment levy was not meant to be a transition to current use value, as the development land tax is to be; but that goes into a field which we shall be able to discuss later.
I do not know whether I have covered all the matters that have been raised in this important debate, but I hope I have indicated that I recognise the weight and seriousness of the submissions which have been made. I will do what I can to carry out the further consideration that I have promised and bring before your Lordships as soon as possible the ancillary matters which have flowed from the latest discussions with the Minister.
Lord HAWKE: May I ask the noble and learned Lord to clarify whether White Paper land will be free from the provisions of this Bill: (a) forever? (b) for 10 years? or (c) up to the Second Appointed Day? I do not think that was made quite clear.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I would not venture to answer that without giving it consideration. I am not absolutely sure at this moment whether or not it goes beyond the 10-year period. It certainly covers the 10-year period, but perhaps before the debate on this matter is concluded I shall receive guidance from a well-known corner of the Chamber. I will certainly answer the point before the end of the debate.
The Duke of ATHOLL: While the noble and learned Lord is receiving guidance, may I raise a point concerning a charity with which I am particularly concerned: that is, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution? Because the coast line of this country is changing over the years and because the demand for our services varies according to the traffic over the years, we find it necessary from time to time to close down lifeboat stations and to start new ones in other places. This is obviously an expensive operation, and to a certain extent the cost is met by selling the lifeboat houses in those places where there is no longer need for a life boat. So far as I can gather, we shall be

1463
all right for the next 10 years, but the coastline will goon changing after that time and the demand for our services will also continue to change. Therefore we shall find it extremely difficult to start new lifeboat stations, although they might be very much needed, after 10 years have passed. So I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord and the Government to take that point into consideration when they are looking at the matter.
5.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and also for the very courteous way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has replied to the points made. I am. however, not greatly encouraged by the response that he has made, because the intention of my Amendment is quite clear—that is, to remove all difference between pre-and post-White Paper day land as regard the Churches and charities, so that they may be entirely free to develop their land in the way which will give them freedom to do their work for the greatest possible benefit of the community.
I need hardly remind your Lordships, since others have spoken about this, that neither the Churches nor the charities are in business to make money for them selves. They are here to serve, and it is their desire to do so as freely as possible. I am sure the noble and learned Lord will have noticed that not one single speech has been made so far in this debate in favour of the point of view that he has expressed, and against the principle which is enshrined in my Amendment. Nevertheless, we have been given an assurance that this matter will be looked at. Also, as I said earlier, I am deeply sensitive of the fact that the Minister has told us that he will table Amendments on Report. My only regret, and indeed my difficulty, over this is that the welfare of the Churches and the charities should be left until such a very late hour in the progress of this Bill. I therefore think it right that I should not force this matter to a vote at the moment, although I appreciate, as I am sure does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the pressure I am under from the Churches and charities, as it has been
1464
expressed in this Chamber. Therefore I think it right not to press my Amendment at the moment but to wait and see what comes to us on Report stage. I should like to give due notice that if I am not satisfied with what is presented to us then I shall again introduce my Amendment and test the feeling of your Lordships.
Lord HYLTON: I am sure that all those who have spoken in support of the Amendment are most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for promising to have a second look at certain matters, and are also grateful for what he said about prevailing use value being taken into account in compensation matters. However, it seems clear that the Government are really thinking only in terms of transitional help and are excluding a privileged position for Churches and charities. This I regret very much.
Regarding the 10-year period, the noble and learned Lord said he hoped this would be enough. I think there is quite clear evidence that it is far too short. For example, in connection with the GLC's housing plans, it is generally known that it takes at least 11 years, if not more, from when the decision is taken to acquire a piece of land up to the time it is occupied by tenants. From my own experience in Somerset of trying to develop some industrial land, I know that we have been planning, negotiating and waiting for various things to happen for 14 years, and still there are no factories. Therefore, I would submit that 10 years is far too short.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Before we leave this matter, I should like to put a "machinery" point to the noble and learned Lord: that is, that those who were not born yesterday as regards Parliamentary procedure know that it is possible for a Government, who are doing things against what may be the general will, to use time. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that he will use his endeavours to get the wording of the Amendments on the paper as soon as possible. I believe that special efforts ought to be made to see that the words which will be enshrined in the Bill are made known to the people who are responsible for looking into this. There is not much time left. We are getting very

1465
near to the end of the stages where Parliament—and at the end of the day it is Parliament and not the Government which makes the decision—can do any thing about it.
The right reverend Prelate has explained that he is speaking for many organisations and he has outlined the various Churches and charities for whom he is speaking today. He indicated in an excellent speech that to get them together in order to consider the best way of using their knowledge of procedure will not be easy. We are not very far from the end of this Session, after which nothing can be done at all, and I believe that a special effort ought to be made to make the words that will be enshrined in the Bill known to those who are involved, so that they can call together their advisers and, if it is considered right—and from the reaction today of your Lordships I rather suspect that it may well be considered right—for Parliament to overrule the Government without in any way interfering with the general principle of the Bill, that should be done.
We have in this Chamber noble Lords who have been Chief Whips of Parties and they know only too well how one may use the last minute or two of the passage of legislation in order to get time on one's side sometimes to defeat the will of the people. I should like to feel that that method will not be used on this occasion and that every effort will be made to see that the words which can be examined arc produced soon enough so that when the matter is eventually put to Parliament to decide on its final stage there will not be the excuse that the wording is not right or that in some technical way it conflicts with another part of the Bill. I believe the principle behind this issue is so important that that kind of manoeuvre, which has been used to often in the past, ought not to be used on this occasion. It can be avoided, and seen to be avoided, only if the words to be considered are in the hands of those who are in a position to examine them in detail soon enough for them to do the job properly.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I wonder whether your Lordships will bear with me while I endeavour to answer the questions directed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. Before I do so, may
1466
I assure the noble Lord, who, like my self, as to political matters knows a hawk from a handsaw, that I will certainly use my best endeavours to get the drafts of the Amendments for Report stage as soon as possible; and I hope he knows me well enough not to think me capable of deliberately delaying putting those matters before the House as a "gimmick" to achieve a Govern mental advantage. I am sure he was not suggesting that. If he was, I hope he will indicate the contrary.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: On that point, it has been known in the past that a Government wishing to have their way, because they believe their way is the right way, usually put up the most charming and persuasive of their spokes men in order to gain the time they think they ought to have.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: That leaves me less satisfied than ever, but having disagreed with the noble Lord for 25 years, I suppose the disagreements will continue. However, the answers to the matters that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, are these. White Paper day land—that is to say land owned on White Paper day—will be exempt from both the acquisition duty and development land tax forever. White Paper development land will receive market value if it is sold for 10 years or until the second appointed day, which ever is the later. After that there will be some prevailing use value provisions which, as I have said, would be brought before the House on Report.
5.13 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: Before embarking on this debate I must declare an interest. Like the noble Baroness, Lady White, I have had strong associations with the National Council of Social Service, but I have an even stronger interest in that I am an ordained clergyman in the Church of England—but, I am afraid, probably unable to be quite as charitable on this issue as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, even when soothed by the soft, Welsh tones of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in that long explanation he offered us. In fact, I am afraid I must say that I think the way the Churches and the charities have been treated by the Secretary of State is the greatest of all the scandals in this

1467
scandalous Bill and the procedure that has been followed is the most grotesque of all the grotesque procedures that are being imposed upon us. The Secretary of State certainly has used time on this occasion.
I should like to run through the process that has been followed so far. First of all—and this is astonishing—there was no recognition at all, no consideration at all, of the Churches or of the charities to begin with; no recognition or pro vision in the White Paper that was produced in September 1974, at paragraph 35 which dealt specifically with exemptions of various kinds. There was no recognition or provision in the original Bill as published early in the New Year, and therefore no discussion on Second Reading in another place as there was no provision in the Bill.
Following Second Reading, as the right reverend Prelate has said and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has confirmed, there was no further public announcement until 15th July. That was at the very end of the Committee stage, on the very last day. I will certainly confirm, as the Lord Chancellor has said, that it was not in the middle of the night. It was in fact at 10.45 in the morning. But there was a good deal of consternation because the document on which the debate took place was not available to the members of the Committee until they arrived in the Committee Room; and I think that that was reason for consternation. There was then, on 15th July, a debate of about two hours. There was no further debate until a mere week ago on Report stage in another place—an other debate of an hour and a half. So there has been no proper discussion of this whole issue in Committee in another place.
As we have heard, there was a further deputation only last Friday after which we again had no further public statement, and, although we welcome his explanations and his promise to look again, there was nothing new in what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just said. So we are in a position where we already know now that we are not to have a proper Committee stage debate on the Government's further proposals which they have now promised. We are not
1468
having that debate because those further proposals are not ready.
If before Report we hear, as I hope we shall, that on mature consideration the Government have decided to relieve the Churches and the charities entirely and completely from the damaging effects of this Bill, that will be fine. We also hope to hear that they have decided to relieve the Churches and the charities from the development land tax—and, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, said, so far Churches and charities have been relieved of every tax and all taxes and here we should be meeting for the first time a proposal that the Churches and charities should be taxed. If we can hear of that double relief for both Churches and charities, of course we shall be foremost in our thanks and congratulations. But if before Report we are faced with another complex set of proposals and compromises—and I was glad to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say that he will use his best endeavours to ensure that we get the proposals well before Report—we shall seriously have to think of recommitment so that at least one House of Parliament can give full and detailed consideration to this whole difficult matter. I venture to say that it is a matter which could hardly be of more concern and anxiety to every community of every kind through out the entire United Kingdom.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 22.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 28, leave out from ("shall") to ("entered") in line 29 and insert ("be treated as owned by any person mentiond in that subsection at any time if, at that time, that person has").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 22B and to take with it Amendment No. 22C.Without them this clause would be too imprecise. Noble Lords will see what the effect of the Amendments would be and will, I hope, agree that taken together they will improve the Bill by giving the necessary extra precision.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 35, leave out ("in construing").—(Lord Sandford.)
Lord MELCHETT: The wording of the subsection is, in fact, taken straight from Section 290(1) of our old friend the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. In general, references to planning permission, both in the Bill and in the 1971 Act, are to be read as relating to permission granted on a planning application made in accordance with the normal procedure. The point of the wording which the Amendments seek to change is that the reader ought always to have in his mind the possibility that planning permission may be granted in some other way, and in particular on an application to retain development which is already in existence, rather than to carry out fresh development. This is something that has to exist in parallel with the main provision, and which cannot replace it entirely as the Amendments suggest, for planning permission granted on a normal application remains the "normal" case, and it would certainly not be right to replace this with the much more unusual per mission to retain development, though the possibility that planning permission may have been obtained in this way always has to be borne in mind.
Lord SANDFORD: With that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: If Amendment No. 22A is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 23 and 23A.
5.22 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 22A:
Page 7, line 5, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("(8) In this Act any reference to planning permission shall include planning permission for relevant development or for any other kind of development under section 22 of the Act of 1971.")
The noble Lord said: One has to read this Amendment with subsection (8), which states:
"In this Act any reference to planning per mission for relevant development, or for any other kind of development, includes a reference to planning permission for development which includes that kind of development."
The more one reads this clause the more obscure it becomes. The notes on clauses shed some light on the meaning by saying that this subsection means that a
1470
permission is still to be regarded as a permission for relevant development even though it covers not only relevant development, but also some development which is not relevant.
Earlier today reference was made to the intelligence of my noble friends. If I am being particularly obtuse and the noble Lord opposite can tell me that the wording of this subsection cannot possibly be altered to make its meaning clear, I shall certainly apologise and withdraw this Amendment. If, however, the sense of this subsection is expressed better by the wording in my Amendment, will the Government accept it in place of the wording in the Bill, because it appears to me to be incomprehensible. I beg to move.
The Duke of ATHOLL: I speak as a member of the Renton Committee. If this Bill had been in existence when we collected our so-called gems or master pieces of the draftsman's art, I feel that this subsection might easily have been among them. Might I ask the Government whether or not they could word it in a slightly more felicitous way?
Lord MFLCHETT: I will do my best to explain the subsection and see whether we are any clearer when I have finished. The existing subsection (8) makes it clear that in deciding whether or not a planning permission is relevant development, the fact that the permission includes both relevant and non-relevant development does not stop it from being relevant development. For example, if a large development were to include a single dwellinghouse that larger development would still remain relevant development although planning permission for a single dwellinghouse is, of course, not relevant development. The words "any other kind of development"—and it is those words, in particular, which may make the subsection less clear than it might other wise be—are included so that the same principle applies to references to designated relevant development in Clause 18. If a planning permission contains both designated relevant development and non-designated relevant development, or even—and I hesitate to add this—non-relevant development, it will still be designated development. To put it simply, the greater subsumes the smaller in all these situations. It is a very simple point. Unfortunately, to get it legally correct needs fairly complicated wording.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am very much concerned about this matter and I will tell your Lordships why. Both in this House and in another place we have made a genuine effort to separate, and make a clear distinction between relevant and exempted or non-relevant development. This is another excellent example of where we should separate completely the definitions of "relevant" and "non-relevant" development with regard to planning permission. I am even more concerned than I was when my noble friend Lord Sandys moved his Amendment.
Lord FOOT: May I ask the noble Lord this question in order to try to clarify my mind on this matter? He has given us an explanation and justification of the words as they now appear in sub section (8) of the Bill, but he has not, unless I missed it, told us in what way the words proposed in Amendment No. 22A would not cover the situation to which the noble Lord has referred. I should have thought that the words suggested in the Amendment were much more desirable, because they are much more comprehensible. If, however, they are not apt to cover the situation that the noble Lord has described, could he tell us in what way they are not apt?
Lord MELCHETT: I accept what the noble Lord has said. It may well be that they are more comprehensible. With out taking expert advice, I could not say whether there is any technical respect in which they are defective. It may be that it would be for the convenience of noble Lords if I took back this Amendment for technical advice. If I find that the words in the Amendment do not contain any technical defects, I can say that we shall bring forward an Amendment at the next stage.
The Duke of ATHOLL: Could the noble Lord try to find some other way? This is a piece of gobbledygook which we cannot allow to pass. This Amendment was on the Marshalled List, yet the noble Lord says that he and his advisers have been unable to consider it. This seems very surprising to me. It is not a manuscript Amendment, it does not have a star against it, and, so far as I remember, it was on yesterday's Marshalled List. I think that it is almost the duty of this House to include this Amendment until
1472
the noble Lord can tell us why it is no good. It is much easier to understand and far more comprehensible.
Earl FERRERS: I apologise for the fact that although the Amendment is down in my name I was not in my place when it was moved. The purpose of having put down this Amendment is for clarification and to make the Bill simpler. As it stands now this subsection is utterly unintelligible. If the noble Lord has been unable to find out whether the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Middleton and myself is inadequate, surely he will agree that it can be accepted. If it proves to be inadequate, then the Government can correct it at Report stage. To leave this subsection as it is does not make sense to anybody.
Lord FOOT: Before the noble Lord answers, may I say that it is a little ungenerous of the noble Duke to take this attitude and to complain that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is unable to give a view as to whether or not this proposed Amendment is apt. I should have thought that those of us who have been here throughout the whole debate owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for the extra ordinary way in which he has been able to deal with every aspect of this Bill. When he says, "I will take this away and look at it again and take advice", I think it is a bit much that we should not accept that and leave it at that.
Lord MELCHETT: I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said. I confess we had assumed that this was an Amendment to probe the meaning of the subsection and not an attempt to improve the drafting. In my response to the Amendment I thought I had set out farily clearly—although I acknowledge that it was a complicated point—what this subsection was getting at. Unfortunately, noble Lords have "spiked their own guns" as it were, because in the meantime I have had a chance to reflect on the aptness of the Amendment and I have to say that it will not do because it does not cover the point. In particular, the words in Amendment No. 22A do not define "planning permission for relevant development", and therefore they are not a substitute for the words in the Bill.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, for pressing the point that I made. Also I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for agreeing to look at these words that I have introduced—
Lord MELCHETT: I am sorry, but I agreed to do that some time ago. I have now done so, but I will not look any more because I am afraid the Amendment is not right.
Lord MIDDLETON: As I understood the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, he was going to look at the wording of the Bill. I appreciate that my Amendment may not be adequate, but I understood the undertaking was given to look at the sub section again. If he will give the assurance that he will look again at subsection (8) of the Bill I will withdraw the Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: I will look at sub section (8) to see whether any improvement in drafting is possible, but I say that without any commitment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.35 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 23A:
Page 7, line 8, after ("includes") insert ("any substantial amount of").
The noble Lord said: This, again, is another small effort to improve the drafting, or so I think. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to say whether or not he would agree that it would be wrong for a tiny plot of land to tip the balance of judgment as to what was, and what was not, planning permission for the purposes of defining "relevant development". We feel that with this small Amendment there would not be any doubt about it. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: To take the Amendment first, I regret to say that in our view it would add uncertainty to the Bill. It provides no basis for saying how one is to determine what is "substantial", nor does it provide any procedure for resolving disputes, for example between an authority and an applicant. Therefore in our view the Amendment would produce a situation which would be administratively impossible, as it would not be clear in some cases whether or not certain provisions of the
1474
Bill applied, and there would be no way of resolving this question.
I think the point is already covered in the Bill, however. Now that "relevant development" is being defined in such a way as to exclude a wide range of minor development, there is no doubt that any application or permission which does include what is now relevant development ought to be within the full scope of this scheme. Relevant development, by definition, because of what is excluded from it, must be "substantial" compared with any non-relevant development included in the same application.
Lord SANDFORD: That reply does not really meet the point that I was making. It is the actual physical amount of the development; the type of development being insignificant and of a minor kind. But the noble Lord has plenty of expert advisers to guide him, and on this occasion at any rate I will certainly bow to the advice he has been given. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
5.37 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: I should like to say a brief word on Clause 4, and particularly with reference to subsection (4). The Committee will know that the whole concept of material interest was introduced into the Bill at the Committee stage in another place in the consideration of Clause 20. It was discussed there and its value was urged on behalf of parish councils. Subsequently, as we have now heard, the concept was used for the benefit of Churches and charities, and we do not want to go into that any more just at the moment. But in the text that we now have transposed from Clause 20 into this clause at the Report stage in another place we also have the addition of subsection (4)(b).
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has been very kind and has supplied us with notes on clauses so we can look there to see what it is all about; but all we find is that the subsection provides for certain other cases in which a material interest is not to be treated as outstanding, and the actual words of the clause are repeated in the text of the note. So we are not really very much further on. On this occasion I am not

1475
being particularly suspicious. All I really wish to know is what that is there for, and what kind of things are to be specified in the order. I cannot for the life of me find out, other than by asking the noble Lord.
Lord MELCHETT: This is a technical point and, as the noble Lord has said that he is not suspicious, I wonder whether he would allow me to write to him with the answer?
Lord SANDFORD: Of course, normally I would agree to that, but I would ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that we are working through a very abnormal procedure. Therefore if the answer is of any significance, or, better still, if he has it now he can give it to me and it will go into the Official Report. Then everybody, whether they are suspicious or not, will know what the answer is, if he has one.
Lord MELCHETT: If I give the noble Lord one example of the sort of thing that subsection (4)(b) would apply to it may be that that will set the noble Lord's mind at rest. I am advised that one thing that might be specified in an order would be something like the Welsh Development Agency.
Lord SANDFORD: I understand the sort of thing that is envisaged. I think perhaps if the noble Lord and his advisers were given a little longer and would like to spell that out and then put it in the Official Report, it might be helpful. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Statutory undertakers]:
5.40 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 7, line 200, leave out ("persons") and insert ("bodies").
The noble Earl said: I feel quite strongly that statutory undertakers are today almost invariably "bodies" and not just "persons". I always think that the term "persons" covers individuals, which clearly is not the case where we are dealing with the modern type of statutory undertakers. Although per haps it appears in other Statutes that a
1476
statutory undertaker may be described as a person, I think in today's understanding it would be much better if we were to use the words "bodies" as they always consist of more than one. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: As the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, knows, wherever possible throughout this Bill we have adopted the wording of the Town and Country Planning Acts, both to add to the simplicity of planning legislation in general and, of course, to make life easier for every one who has to deal with this Bill once it becomes an Act. That is why that word is used in this particular subsection. I do not think the noble Earl's alteration would make very much difference because the word "persons" would, by virtue of Section 19 of the Interpretation Act 1889, include a body of persons, and, therefore, bodies.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.41 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 7, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert—
("(c) any housing authority, body or under taking involved in housing").
The noble Earl said: In order to save time, I put this down as a single Amendment. I felt it might perhaps be of use. First of all, as noble Lords will note, I intend to leave out paragraph (c) and should like to explain briefly why. The Bill states:
"In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, statutory undertakers'means—
(c) any other authority, body or undertakers specified in an order made by the Secretary of State under this paragraph, …".
I think this is extending the powers of the Secretary of State to far too great an extent. In other words, the Secretary of State could create any old body; he could create any sort of body, or any sort of person as a statutory undertaker. I feel that this is not in the interests of people, particularly private individuals, who may be involved under the provisions of the Bill.
The reason for my substitution is quite different. It is to make a very special plea that consideration should be given to such wonderful organisations as—if I may

1477
again refer to Scotland—the Scottish Special Housing Association. They are often invited to put up houses all over the country, very often in areas where the local authorities may be relatively poor. In January of this year I was in Orkney and Shetland where, because of the oil development, the Scottish Special Housing Association had been invited to build houses for the benefit of the influx of workers involved with that industry. Before the reform of local government, many a relatively small borough could not take on as extensive a housing programme as they would have liked, so they invited the Scottish Special Housing Association to do it for them.
I have worded this Amendment fairly broadly. I am sure that many other noble Lords have had experience and can quote excellent examples of housing authorities throughout England and Wales. Perhaps my drafting is not quite right to cover them, but I have tried to make it as broad as possible. After all, regardless of anything else, these bodies are providing people with homes, and I feel they need to be treated within the provisions of this Bill as a very special case. I beg to move.
Lord FOOT: May I partially support what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has just said. The words in paragraph (c) are really inappropriate, because the heading with which we are dealing here is, "Statutory undertakers". By definition, a statutory undertaker must be someone who is given some job to do or some work to carry out under a Statute. If one reads the words at the beginning of paragraph (a), one sees:
"persons authorised by any enactment to carry on any railway …"
and so on. That is what everybody has always understood by "statutory under taker". If you are going to allow the Secretary of State under paragraph (c) to appoint any body of any kind, and that body then assumes the privileges or advantages of a statutory undertaker, you are doing something extraordinary. In theory, at any rate, the Secretary of State, for example, appoints some sort of voluntary body and gives it the status of a statutory undertaker, whereas that body has never been set up by Statute, and is not authorised by Statute to carry out any functions at all. Therefore, I think this is wrong.
1478
The other point I would make about the Amendment of the noble Earl is this. The words which the noble Earl has suggested should be substituted also seem to be defective, because they limit the bodies upon whom the Secretary of State can confer the status of statutory under taker; it is limited to bodies concerned with housing. I see no sort of sense or reason in that. There may be many other kind of works which might well be authorised by the Secretary of State under this paragraph, to carry out undertakings other than those to carry out housing. I do not think either the solution proposed by the Government or that proposed by the noble Earl is quite satisfactory.
Baroness BIRK: Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, was quite right when he drew the attention of the Committee to the part of the subsection which deals with statutory undertakers. The power of the Secretary of State to confer statutory undertaker status on any other authority, body or undertaker, is an important feature in the exemptions from the Community Land Scheme, which derives from that status—broadly speaking, the ability to carry out development of operational land unaffected by the duty or the suspension of planning permission. This, of course, includes the undertakings spelt out in paragraphs (a) and (b) and will also include, as the Secretary of State has in mind, bodies like the Atomic Energy Authority.
It is also true that, in paragraph 53 of the White Paper, it is indicated that in addition to statutory undertakers some comparable bodies would be enabled to acquire and develop land needed for other statutory functions without the intervention of local authorities. But this is all within the area of statutory undertakers, or bodies carrying out statutory functions. It is very important that in the Bill this should be spelt out in a particular way, and not removed and changed in the way that the noble Earl has indicated in the first part of his Amendment, because in the way this is now written in, Parliament would have the opportunity to question the case for granting exemptions for the bodies named, and there is a statutory control.
So far as concerns the second point of the Amendment of the noble Earl, in

1479
which he wants to confer statutory under taker status on,
"any housing authority, body or undertaking involved in housing",
this I must reject, and I do so for the following reasons. First, the term is too vague and far too wide. It could include a body involved in housing which could extend to any firm of contractors engaged in the business of house building, and for such contractors to enjoy the exemption deriving from statutory undertaker status would wreck the whole scheme and put an entirely wrong emphasis on the exemption provisions. Secondly, statutory undertaker status would be inappropriate, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, pointed out, in relation to any body, authority or undertakers whose land would not fit in with the definition of "operational land" in subsection (2), or whose land could not sensibly be defined as operational land in an order under subsection (3).
So far as the intention of the Amendment is concerned, I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Earl is trying to get at, but, if I may suggest it, this is not the way to do it. He is intending in his Amendment to cater for the interests of the voluntary housing movement. It would have to be among other organisations, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot pointed out. The way to do this would be by conferring exemptions by an order under Clause 4(3). This would have the effect that material interests in land owned by the specified bodies were not to be treated as outstanding for the purpose of the Bill and therefore would not be subject to the duty or the suspension of planning permission. I hope that the noble Earl will be encouraged when I am able to say that an order will be made under Clause 4(3) to provide that other bodies with material interests in land shall not be treated as outstanding; the Minister is considering a number of bodies for prescription in this way, and housing associations are expected to be included. I hope the noble Earl will be able to withdraw his Amendment, and will be pleased with the reply.
Lord HYLTON: I think I should say that the Scottish Special Housing Association quoted by my noble friend is a governmental body and not a voluntary housing association, as one might expect. I agree that my noble friend's Amend
1480
ment is defective, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has pointed out, it seems that the text of the Bill as it stands is also defective. The noble Baroness told us that Clause (5)(1)(c) deals only with bodies coming within the area of statutory functions. I do not see anything in the text to make that clear. I hope that she will say that she will take away the Amendment and will come back at the next stage with her own Amendment making it clear that statutory undertaker status cannot be conferred at the whim of the Secretary of State on bodies other than those which Parliament wishes to have that status.
Lord FOOT: May I add to that and suggest that this should not be a very difficult matter. The sort of words that occur to my mind, off the cuff, are these:
"Any other authority, body or undertakers performing statutory duties."
Baroness YOUNG: I hope the noble Baroness will consider this point. We are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for raising this issue, because I think it has drawn attention to an important subsection in Clause 5. I hope very much that the Government will feel able to take this back and look at the drafting of it. As one reads it carefully, it does seem to me to suffer from the defects to which my noble friend Lord Hylton has drawn attention, as has the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I do think we should have this put right. If I have correctly under stood the Government it would be possible for the Secretary of State to give the status of statutory authorities to other authorities not named in the Bill and therefore to allow those authorities to qualify for the exemptions under the Bill. This seems to be very important in relation to the debate we have just had about charities, where no such provision, so far as I can see, is to apply. I feel that this raises rather bigger issues than would at first appear. I hope the Government will consider taking this back and looking at it again.
5.55 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am most grateful to have had some support over this Amendment, particularly from my noble friends. I would ask the Government to make quite certain that in paragraph (c) it is made perfectly clear that the Secretary of State may include only

1481
statutory undertakers who are of a statutory kind. if the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, can give me that assurance, then fair enough. I also realise that the Scottish Special Housing Association comes into a rather special field, but I took the trouble to contact them before I came South. Although I have absolutely no connection with them other than the fact that my father was their very first chairman, they are a body for which I have had a very great respect; I think they have done a marvellous job. Their legal advisers were not altogether happy with the provisions here. Again, we have the old complication—I sympathise with the noble Baroness about this, and I will not press it any further—of trying to provide for Scots law and English law in the same Bill. I will have more to say about that later on. I hope that the noble Baroness will see that suitable Amendments are put in, and I am very grateful to her for her assurance that something to this effect will go into Clause 4(3). I am afraid that for once it is stretching my drafting abilities to the absolute limit, and if I could leave it in her hands I would prefer to do that.
Baroness BIRK: I should make it clear that I said it would be done by order under Clause 4(3). 1 should not like to mislead the noble Earl by giving the impression that the words he is using would find their way into the Statute. That would be quite wrong. His intention is to deal with the housing associations, and we expect them to be included under the regulations.
I think there is still some misunderstanding about the statutory under takers. It is left in this way because, while it is unlikely that there would be more than a few existing bodies authorities or undertakers not already covered by this paragraph, it is felt that the Secretary of State must have power to add to the list. This is what noble Lords are often asking for; there must be flexibility in these matters. But it is not just a case of the Secretary of State thinking of a body and saying "We will put this one in"; it is subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, and therefore Parliament will have an opportunity to question the case for granting exemptions for the bodies named. I should have thought this was a complete safeguard. I think I
1482
did not explain that carefully enough when I spoke earlier. Once that is accepted and understood, there is really no need to tamper with this particular subsection, which both covers the existing undertakings and makes it possible, if necessary, to add to the list. But certainly it is not left to the initiative of the Secretary of State alone; it is subject to Parliamentary procedure.
Lord FOOT: May I say in reply to the noble Baroness that during the course of these debates she has said more than once that if you have the Negative Resolution, or indeed the Affirmative Resolution procedure in the background you have that safeguard against the Secretary of State or anybody else doing any thing stupid. I do not think that is a very satisfactory argument. It is no argument, to my mind, to say that it does not matter if you put something silly in the Statute, thereby enabling the Secretary of State to do something silly if he wants to, because Parliament can always exercise the Negative Resolution procedure and catch him up before the order becomes effective. That is not a very good argument at all. That is an argument for saying you can put anything you like, however foolish, into the statute because you have always got the safe guard that Parliament can stop the Secretary of State from acting on it. I think you want to get the words right in the Statute. I am still waiting to hear from the noble Baroness what is the objection to putting in words to this effect—I do not put any emphasis on the exact words; but why it should not read like this:
"any other authority, body or undertakers, performing statutory duties and specified in an order made by the Secretary of State under this paragraph."
If you do that, it seems to me that it meets all the difficulties that have been raised.
Baroness BIRK: I can certainly give an assurance that the body under Clause 5 will be of a statutory undertaker kind. The difficulty in the Statute is to go any further than describing what statutory undertakers are. If the noble Lord would feel happier about it, I shall certainly take it back and let the Parliamentary drafts men have another look at it, but I cannot promise anything about it. We have noted what he has said, and I shall take

1483
it back. There is a serious drafting difficulty here, and I think that they will find holes even in what he himself said.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): Amendment No. 26. I have to call the Committee's attention to the fact that if Amendment No. 26 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 26A.
6.1 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 7, line 35, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) In this Act "operational land" shall have the same meaning as in sections 222 and 223 of the Act of 1971 or sections 211 and 212 of the Scottish Act of 1972.").
The noble Earl said: Subsection (2) repeats in exactly the same words Section 222 and Section 211 of the English and Scottish Town and Country Planning Acts of 1971 and 1972 respectively. I feel that in this definition of "operational land" the Government have not gone far enough. In the Town and Country Planning Acts the following Sections, Section 223 of the English Act and Section 212 of the Scottish Act, then go on to deal with,
"cases in which land is to be treated as not being operational land."
I feel that the Government have perhaps extended the definition of "operational land" in subsection (2) much wider than originally appeared in the 1971 Act, and I ask them to look again at either that Act or the 1972 Act and see whether the definition of "operational land" now has the same meaning, and has not been extended considerably further, as appears to have been done in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: Noble Lords who have been present throughout the Committee stage will know that it will be a change for me to justify an alteration of wording from the previous planning Acts, but in this case there are very good reasons for adopting a slightly different form of wording. The noble Earl said that this definition is included for the
1484
purposes of planning control, but if it were applied to this Bill it would fail to recognise that statutory undertakers may need to acquire land some years in advance, when the precise form of the development to be carried out is not known. Statutory undertakers need to ensure that land is available at the right time to meet their future commitments and responsibilities for providing the services which the community needs and expects from them.
If land acquired by statutory under takers satisfies the definition in subsection (2) as it stands, it is appropriate that future ability to carry out development (subject, of course, to the grant of planning permission at the appropriate time) should not be affected by the machinery of the land scheme. But it is important to bear in mind that statutory under takers' operational land, whether acquired before or after the dates mentioned, is not outside the authority's power of acquisition under the scheme. I hope that that explains why we have adopted that different definition at this stage in the Bill, and that the noble Earl will accept it.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am afraid that I am a little alarmed at this. I am prepared to accept the Bill as it stands, subject to one important point, and I ask for support from all sections of your Lordships House in this respect. I should like to be certain that, under the provisions of this Bill, where a statutory undertaker acquires land well in advance, the existing use of that land may be borne in mind, particularly in the case of agriculture and forestry.
May I give a classic example of this? In order to improve the water supply for the towns of Dunbar, North Berwick and East Linton in East Lothian, the then North Berwick Water Board, and what later became the Lothian Water Board, acquired land on the estate from my father, in order to build a reservoir. They acquired this land in 1934 and started work on the reservoir last year, 1974. This is by no means unusual. The extension of Edinburgh Airport at Turnhouse was planned almost at the end of the war; they are now about halfway through building it. Therefore. I make a special plea—although, perhaps, an industrial or housing development should not be put

1485
on such land—that, even if it is sold to the statutory undertaker, the farmer or market gardener can continue to use that land until it is needed. Otherwise, it becomes a ghastly patch of weeds and rubbish, everything which people do not want is dumped on it; you get it piled up with old cars, broken bottles, chipped razor blades, and anything else you can think of. This is why I ask that this is borne in mind, in view of the alteration of the definition. May I have a reply on that point?
Lord HYLTON: Would not the Crichel Down principle apply in the kind of case quoted by my noble friend?
Lord MELCHETT: May I be allowed not to be drawn into a legal argument on the Crichel Down procedure? I do not know whether or not it would apply. It is possible that it would, as I see the noble Lord opposite nodding.
Lord SANDFORD: I was nodding to my neighbour.
Lord MELCHETT: Of course, I quite accept what the noble Earl says. I think that the point raised is outside the scope of this Amendment, because the definition we are dealing with is only for the purposes of the Bill, and does not affect in any way whether planning permission is required, and the factors which determine whether or not planning permission should be granted. The fact that special Parliamentary procedures have been removed should help in this kind of case.
As I understand it, nothing in the Bill affects farmers being able to use this kind of land. I agree with him that it is important that anyone who buys farming land and does not have an immediate use for it should ensure that the farming operations continue as efficiently as possible. I am certain that this will be borne in mind by statutory undertakers, and we shall come to an Amendment at a later stage dealing with this point so far as the Land Authority for Wales is concerned.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am grateful for that assurance. I beg leave to with draw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.10 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: Amendment No. 27 corrects a drafting error and has absolutely no other significance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 23, leave out second ("the") and insert ("planning").—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord FOOT: May I draw the noble Lord's attention to what I think is another defect, grammatically or perhaps I should say idiomatically, in this subsection? The subsection says:
"if any question so arises."
I will not delay the Committee by reading the remainder of the subsection, but I think that the insertion of the word "so" is inappropriate and that it should read "if any question arises." Will the noble Lord examine this when he comes to rewrite this provision?
Lord MELCHETT: I will, but at a first look at it, it makes sense to me; in the first part of the subsection the question arises as to which Minister is the appropriate Minister and it then goes on to say "if something so arises," referring back, I would have thought, to the first part of the subsection.
Lord FOOT: Two separate questions arise here. One is contained in the first part of the subsection:
"If in relation to anything required or authorised to be done under this Act, any question arises as to which Minister is the appropriate Minister in relation to any statutory undertakers, that question shall be determined by the Treasury …"
and it goes on:
"… and if any question so arises …"
That points back to the earlier question, as if one is talking about that question again when one is talking about another question, and therefore it should read:
"… and if any question … arises whether any land is operational land of statutory undertakers, or would be such land …"—
which is a different question—then that is something to be decided by the Minister, which indicates that the word "so" is inappropriate.
Lord MELCHETT: I think I was right, but maybe I directed the noble Lord's attention slightly to the wrong bit

1487
of the subsection. I understand that the word "so" refers back to the words:
"… in relation to anything required or authorised to be done under this Act …"
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SANDFORD: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for raising this question on the clause stand part without having given him prior notice. I had framed an Amendment but it does not seem to have got tabled, which I expect is my fault. In any event, it may now be better to have a general discussion and I can probably frame a better Amendment, if I still want to do so, in the light of the reply the noble Lord gives me. Let me say at the outset that this is not an attack on statutory undertakers. They, and all the people listed in the clause, provide essential services and we depend on them for our life to go on, but what I am saying stems from the fact that we can all see—and the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, just quoted some examples—that statutory undertakers are not good husbandsmen of land and particularly are they not good husbandsmen of land which they have acquired but are not using, and they are particularly villains of the piece when it comes to land which they have had and have ceased to use.
This sort of land—land which has belonged to statutory undertakers and operations on which have ceased—represents some of the worst stumbling blocks when it comes to hampering and hindering positive planning and messing up the environment. Noble Lords who have to travel by train have only to look out of the window when approaching and leaving our cities to see what flagrant offences against positive planning and quality of the environment are committed all over the place by British Rail. But they are not the only ones; disused gas works, goods yards, sewage works, and so on, litter the place and we simply do not have enough land in this island for this wasteful use to go on.
There are examples all over of disused, derelict, ill-managed land in the hands of statutory undertakers. There are two reasons for this. One is the natural one—that having got something, even when one ceases to use it one puts it away
1488
in a cupboard thinking it may come in handy, and the statutory undertakers do this on an enormous scale. Sometimes they are justified in retaining land because they really have a future and alternative use for it, but for the great majority it has been lying idle for so long that one is forced to the conclusion that they are keeping it only because it might come in handy, if it were not that there are also signs that there is another reason; namely, that by hanging on to it they hope eventually to realise a very high value in the open market by selling off the land for some entirely different use from that for which it was originally obtained and acquired by them.
I say that by way of prelude. What I am saying is common knowledge and broadly understood, but surely we are losing an opportunity here to rectify this situation. This is a Land Bill and here we have innumerable examples all over the country of land which is being abominably wasted, which is frustrating positive planning and messing up the environment, yet we leave things more or less as they have been all along, with the only action in the Bill being the abandonment of the special Parliamentary procedure. That will certainly help. The prospects of having to take a case through the special Parliamentary procedure has daunted many local authorities in the past and the absence of it will help, but in my view the Government have not gone anything like as far as it would have been possible to go. All I am asking at this stage is this: could not we distinguish rather more carefully between three types of land help by statutory undertakers?
There is the first category of land about which there is no argument or question; namely, land held by them and in use for their operations. Nobody wants to take that away from them. They are all doing a useful job and we want them to have the land they need for their gas works, Post Offices, airports, and so on. The second category is land held by statutory undertakers in connection with current or future operations. Apart from the strictures we had from the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, about land acquired 40 years in advance of need and mismanaged while it is being held. I am not really talking about that category of land. If it can be better managed so much the better, but I see that statutory undertakers need to

1489
hold land in advance, and they must be taught and helped to manage it better.
But there is a third category, which is not in my view sufficiently accurately defined, but which could be more accurately defined; that is, land which has been held by statutory undertakers for operations which have now definitely ceased. I refer to land which a statutory undertaker has had in order to operate, say, a goods yard and the goods yard has closed, or a railway station which has closed or a gasworks which has been pulled down. In that case, surely the land in question does not deserve the same protection as in the previous two categories. Should not that latter category of land revert to the local authorities at current use value of net of development land tax, unless the statutory undertaker can establish by a special procedure or by public inquiry that he has a real claim to it for some future purpose?
To sum up, I ask the Government why they are content to abandon the special Parliamentary procedure and why they cannot go further along the broad lines I have indicated? I do not want to do more at the moment than listen to the noble Lord's reply, and I hope that he will say that he will consider what I have said and put down an Amendment of his own to meet the point, or that he will show that I have failed to find in the Bill that there is more change than the simple abandonment of the special Parliamentary procedure.
Viscount RIDLEY: I should like to support my noble friend in what he has just been saying. I did not know that he intended to raise this subject on the Question, That the Clause stand part, but I entirely support everything he said about the misuse of land by certain statutory undertakers. When my noble friend mentioned British Rail, I wondered whether he would enjoy the experience of looking out of the station at Hartlepool on a wet Sunday morning, because there is a prime example of what he was talking about. More seriously, it should be added that there is a great deal of land in my part of the world and in other coalmining areas which was bought by the National Coal Board or, indeed, was very often bought before the existence of the National Coal Board and came into the latter's owner ship on nationalisation. Such land was
1490
very often purchased in order to avoid paying compensation for surface damage. Not all that land is damaged and much of it is potentially usable for building and for industrial use. Though I did not have time to consider exactly what he was suggesting, I feel that what my noble friend Lord Sandford has said is extremely important, because there may be very large acreages in some areas which will receive special treatment and this seems slightly contrary to the attitude of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in relation to the Churches and charities. I should have thought that the National Coal Board ought to come rather lower down the scale of exemptions than the Churches and charities, but perhaps that view is not shared by the Government.
Lord HYLTON: I am glad that my noble friends have raised this question of the serious problem of redundant operational land held by statutory under takers. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is no longer here, but I hope that our views will be made very clear to the Department of the Environment. I should like to mention the case of London, where it is well known that many hundreds of acres are held, for example, by the Port of London Authority, the Gas Boards and British Rail, to mention only a few of the statutory undertakers. This land holds the key to the solution of London's housing problems. It has been idle for far too long. The delays are intolerable and I sincerely hope that the present debate will lead to some progress on that front.
Lord MELCHETT: I accept that this is a subject about which there are very strong feelings and I also accept that, so far as I understood him, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has excluded from the debate land held for operational purposes and also that he has accepted the need for the statutory undertakers to assemble land for future use. I have already said that I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it is important that that land should be used constructively until the undertakers come to use it for their own purposes. I am sure that every body accepts that.
The noble Lord referred to one major improvement which the Bill will make. That is that local authorities will in

1491
future be able to acquire land more easily because of the removal of the protection of the special Parliamentary procedure if they make a compulsory purchase order. However, the noble Lord passed over this fairly quickly, whereas it has, as I understand it, been a fairly major stumbling block to local authorities when they have looked at CPOs for this type of land. I believe that the removal of the special Parliamentary procedure could be welcomed by all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate on this clause.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, raised the possibility of the land reverting to local authorities. I feel that it comes strangely from noble Lords opposite to suggest that there should be a provision which will add to the burdens on local authorities when the Bill becomes an Act. I suggest that this would be so because I do not imagine that the statutory under takers will come forward voluntarily to the local authorities to say that land is no longer in operational use and should now revert to the local authorities. I imagine that it would he for the local authorities to seek it out. The local authorities are already in the position that they may seek out the land and buy it if they want to and, as I have said, that procedure will now he made easier than it was in the past.
I should like to make one other general comment. Of course there are very bad examples of land held by statutory under takers. I would not deny that, but there are also some very good examples. I have in mind particularly the National Coal Board's work at Stoke-on-Trent, where statutory undertakers have been in the forefront of land reclamation and of providing land for the general public. I am sure that it was an entirely inadvertent slip that it was not mentioned by any of the noble Lords who have spoken that there is a great deal of land in the hands of private industrial corporations which is in an appalling condition and about which very little is done. Very often it has been held on to for many years, so I do not see that the problem is entirely one-sided. However, I feel that the removal of this procedure will be of considerable benefit to local authorities in dealing with this problem.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Could the noble Lord say what information his Department has as regards the land banks of the statutory undertakers and. if the Department has no precise information, would it not be a good idea, in view of the control of land in the Bill, that the statutory authorities should have to produce that information, say, every three years and make it available to the public if necessary?
Lord MELCHETT: I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that question without notice.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Would the noble Lord be so kind as to write to me on that point?
Lord SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for what he has said. I believe that we shall have to try an Amendment on this point. I should like to acknowledge the good work done by the National Coal Board at Stoke-on-Trent, but of course that was a special effort by the NCB on its working colliery sites and good landscaping on land that has passed through opencast mining, where the work is part of the fulfilment of conditions upon which planning permission is granted. They are two quite different cases.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am sorry that I perhaps did not speak clearly enough for the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to hear me. Would the noble Lord write to me on the point I have just raised?
Lord MELCHETT: I will.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Other interpretation]:
6.28 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 27A:
Page 8, line 31, after ("1970") insert ("and, without prejudice to the preceding provision, includes any ecclesiastical corporation, that is to say, any corporation in the Church of England whether sole or aggregate which is established for spiritual purposes").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak to the Amendment on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. The Amendment is designed to remove any doubt as to whether the definition of "charity" in the Income and Corporation

1493
Taxes Act 1970 includes cathedral chapters and corporation sole in the Church of England—for example, the incumbent, so far as his glebe land is concerned. The Inland Revenue accepts that it does, but this view may not be shared by the many local authorities and others who will be concerned with the Community Land Bill. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment is unnecessary, as the definition in the Bill already extends to a charitable corporation whether sole or aggregate. "Charity" is defined in the Bill as having the same meaning as in section 360 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970. Section 360(3) of the Act reads:
"In this section, 'charity' means any body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only."
Because the definition in our Bill gives "charity" the same meaning as in Section 360, the words "in this section" do not prevent the definition from being incorporated into the Bill. To find out what "body of persons" means in Section 360, it is necessary to look at Section 526(5) of the 1970 Act, which reads as follows:
"'body of persons' means any body politic, corporate or collegiate …".
It has been argued by the Churches' representatives that this may not include a Church of England incumbent who is, as a legal entity, a corporation sole. But the expression "body corporate" means merely a corporation and corporations are of two types: they are either corporations sole or corporations aggregate. Corporations aggregate are corporations consisting of more than one member—that seems to be a glimpse of the obvious!
However, it may be thought that the words "body politic" and "body collegiate" used in the same context as "body corporate" imply that only a "body corporate" consisting of more than one member is meant, but that would be quite wrong. This is not the case as "body politic" and "body collegiate" are expressions which need not necessarily have a plural meaning. I call in aid the definition in Halsbury's Laws of England (Volume 9, paragraph 1206) of a corporation sole, which reads as follows:
1494
"A corporation sole is a body politic having perpetual succession constituted in a single person".
It is clear from this—so my note says—that the words "body politic, corporate or collegiate" are apt to include a corporation sole, and suitable to include a corporation sole. In view of this, the noble Lords opposite may wish to with draw their Amendment.
That exordium brings to my mind the totally irrelevant occasion when a certain counsel thought that he would make a big impression before a judge who was a High Churchman, when he introduced his submission by saying, "My Lord, in this case I appear for the plaintiffs, a God-fearing limited liability company."
Lord SANDFORD: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The Churches wanted something with which to deal with the local authorities, and they have now certainly got it! I think that the local authorities will already be trembling. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.32 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 9, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert:
("(2) In any case where this Act gives the Secretary of State power to give directions or consent, that direction or consent may be—").
The noble Earl said: I should like very briefly to explain the purpose of this Amendment. As the Bill stands it refers to:
"Any direction or consent given by the Secretary of State under this Act may be … either general or…unconditional …"
I should like to turn that round and say that:
"In any case where this Act gives the Secretary of State power to give directions or consent, that direction or consent may be … either general or … unconditional …"
That would not change the context to any great extent, but it would prevent the Secretary of State from having quite such wide powers as appear under the Bill as drafted. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Earl may know that similar Amendments were moved in another place, and at that time concern was expressed that the wording might give the Secretary of State powers

1495
to give directions or consents other than those provided in the Bill. In the intervening period we have looked closely at the wording and have taken advice, and I can assure the noble Earl that the Amendments are not necessary. Was the noble Earl taking Amendment No. 29 with this Amendment?
The Earl of BALFOUR: I should be very happy to deal with Amendment No. 29 at the same time, and I should like to say a few words about it. I have put forward Amendment No. 29 because I feel that directions or consent should be put with the rules and orders under Clause 52—and I am afraid that that is beyond my drafting ability. But I then felt that the whole of our interpretation could go under the one clause, Clause 4. The intention was to make it a little easier for people to understand the Bill. But I did not know how to move some thing backwards, although I knew how to move it forward—if I may put it that way.
Lord MELCHETT: We are at one with the noble Earl in wanting to make sure that everybody understands the implications of this wonderful Bill. The Amendment attempts to transpose the subsection and place it in Clause 52, as the noble Earl said, where there is a somewhat similar provision dealing with regulations and orders. However, I have to tell the noble Earl that we are advised that the transposition is not advisable, because, as he will see, the side note at Clause 52 makes clear that that clause is dealing entirely with regulations and orders made under the Bill, and they are distinct from directions.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I see that there is a difference, and so I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [The appointed days, etc.]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 9, line 23, at end insert—
("(1A) The first appointed day shall not be earlier than the date on which the regulations prescribed in accordance with section 3 above have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, and I invite the Committee to look back over the debates we had last night on the Amendments introduced into the Bill only last week at Clause 3, where we now see that relevant development is limited by, on the one hand, the class to be specified in Schedule 1—and there is still much debate and discussion about that—and, on the other hand, by a class to be defined under regulations under Clause 3(1)(c). Those regulations have to be laid in draft for the approval of each House of Parliament. In so far as that key item—namely, relevant development—is not known with accuracy until those regulations prescribed in Clause 3(3) have been approved by the Houses of Parliament, there is bound to be a considerable element of doubt in the minds of all those who have to operate this legislation. That will be the situation until that approval has been given.
Therefore, in our view, it is most important that the First Appointed Day should not be earlier than the date on which those regulations as prescribed in Clause 3(3) have been approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament. That is the sole purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount RIDLEY: I wish to support the Amendment from the point of view of the local authorities which will have to operate this Bill when it becomes an Act. I hope that the Committee will give this matter serious consideration.
Baroness BIRK: The excepted development regulations are obviously an essential feature of the scheme, as they will define the categories of development which will be permanently outside the duties under Clauses 17 and 18. There fore it will be necessary for such regulations to be enforced by the First Appointed Day, and to this extent the Government accept the spirit of the Amendment. Indeed, the intention is to lay these regulations before Parliament well in advance of the First Appointed Day, so as to enable all those concerned to familiarise themselves with the provisions in good time.
The issue here is essentially a practical one. The scheme clearly cannot get under way until the excepted development regulations are in force, as there will be nothing

1497
for the Clause 17 duties and the procedures laid down in Clauses 19 to 21 to bite on. I can most certainly give a firm undertaking that the Secretary of State will not seek to bring in the first appointed day until the excepted development regulations have been laid. We are not convinced that it is necessary to put this in the Bill, but if noble Lords feel they would like me to take it back to consider it, I will undertake to do that without commitment. I should add that the Amendment as it is drafted is technically defective, so I could not accept it in any case.
Lord SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the acceptance of the spirit of the Amendment. I think it will be necessary to have an Amendment there, but in view of her assurance that she will take a look at it to see whether she can put right whatever defects it has, of course we will leave it for the time being. I am grateful that she agrees with us that it is essential that the first appointed day is deferred until the regulations have been approved. I do not think I can agree with her that we can just leave it there, but I will certainly accept what she says and leave it for the time being. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY): Amendment No. 32 has been marshalled incorrectly, and will be called later, after Amendment No. 35.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness YOUNG: Clause 7 is a most important clause, and before we leave it I wonder whether I can press the Government to give any indication as to when they expect the first appointed day to be. It has come to my notice that a number of organisations are certainly under the impression that it is to be5th April, and this kind of information really should not be bandied about. It is obviously far too important for that. So my first question is whether we can know now when the first appointed day is to be.
My next question concerns the second appointed day. This, of course, is constantly
1498
referred to in this Bill. For example the important duties in Clauses 17 and 18 come in on the second appointed day. I wonder whether we can press the Government to say what their intentions are about that, or whether this is a date so far into the future that they have no idea when it is going to come into being. Could they say whether we are talking about five years or 10 years, or what it is that they have in mind? We have talked a great deal about the flexibility of having a great deal in regulations, and yet this kind of uncertainty about the first appointed day, even at this late stage, is very unsettling for a lot of people—house-builders, industrialists and a great many other people who are to be affected by the Bill. As a long-term matter, the date of the second appointed day is of equal importance.
I have no doubt that the date of the second appointed day will depend very much on how rapidly the Government are able to implement those parts of the Bill which come into effect on the first appointed day, and this in turn will depend very much on the economic state of the country and how much money can be expended on all the officials necessary to make the Bill work. Nevertheless, I think that we ought to have some more information about this, and this seems to be an appropriate time to ask for it. I hope the Government will be able to give it to us.
The Earl of BALFOUR: May I add just a few words? I did not move my Amendment, because I felt it would be of far greater advantage to have the discussion which we had on Amendment No. 31, but I should like to say this. Particularly in these days of trying to be as economical as we can, I should not like the date to be before 1st April 1976, the reason being that in the case of England, in particular, that is the end of the local authority financial year. During my years of experience as a councillor, I have often found that we have had to put off this or that because we had not budgeted for it in that year's expenditure. With overdraft rates and borrowing rates being so high, it would be a mistake for local authorities to undertake something for which they have not budgeted in their year's term of working. That is the reason why I should strongly like to

1499
suggest that it should not be before 1st April 1976.
Baroness BIRK: So far as the first appointed day is concerned, all I can say is that there has not been a specific date announced but, as asked for in Amendment No. 30, it will not be before 1st April 1976. The noble Earl withdrew his Amendment, but I can now deal with it and tell him that I was going to accept it in principle, anyhow, although I would have had to say that its drafting was defective. So far as the second appointed day is concerned, as the noble Baroness has said this depends on the progress of the scheme, which will be uneven. The full duty can be brought in even before the second appointed day; and when we get to the full duty and the whole scheme is completely operating we shall then have reached the point when each authority has come fully into the complete scheme.
I think it would be quite wrong, and it would not be helpful to the working of the scheme, to try to put any precise or arbitrary date on this, because, as the noble Baroness herself said, there are outside economic factors and, as she must know very well herself, different authorities work at different speeds. Yester day, when the question of staffing arose, my noble friend Lady Stedman gave us examples of progress in her local authority area; and we also heard about staffing on Second Reading. This must vary considerably all over the country. However, during the Second Reading debate in another place, the Minister said that ample notice would be given. There is certainly no question of taking authorities or anybody else by surprise. So as far as the second appointed day is concerned, there will be ample time, full notice, and the opportunity for local authorities to find their position and set their pace in their own way. I do not imagine that that answer satisfies the noble Baroness, but I cannot produce dates out of the air when not only is it not reason able to fix on one, but the whole scheme is very carefully and not arbitrarily phased, so that it moves in different ways, varying from authority to authority.
The Earl of BALFOUR: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, sits down, could she say just a word or two about "the relevant date" as well? That is
1500
something which we should also like to know about.
Baroness YOUNG: I understand the noble Baroness's difficulty about the second appointed day, which I now realise is a very long way off, but I feel we ought to have some further information about the first appointed day. Not only are there the very real changes which come in on the first appointed day, but we have not begun to discuss disposal notification areas which presumably come in on the first appointed day, and the suspension of planning permissions in some cases; and the Government do not know when this is to be. I find this all very strange, in view of the number of advertisements which have appeared in public newspapers advertising for staff to enable the Bill to work; that we can advertise for staff and yet not know, even at this late stage in the Parliamentary process, when the first appointed day is to be. I feel that before the Bill finishes its progress through this House we ought to have a date, so that some of the uncertainties can be settled.
Baroness BIRK: I can say that it will not be before 1st April 1976, and that if we have a date before the end of the proceedings in this House we shall certainly announce it. We have now established that it will be in the Spring and not before 1st April, and this seems to make it relevant for the authorities and the Land Authority in Wales to advertise for staff. We are getting very near to the end of 1975 and I can assure the Committee that it will be the Spring of 1976. Therefore, I thought it would be timely to advertise for staff. So far as the relevant dates are concerned, those are different in various areas. This is the phasing in of the full duty and, again, it is impossible to give dates for these will vary.
Chose 7 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Commencement dates, etc.]:
6.51 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 52, line 2, after ("showing") insert ("in such a way as enables members of the public to inform themselves as to")
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is taken from the Town and Country

1501
Planning Act to which reference has been so often made. I hope it will be accepted, because it is important that the general public should be able to understand the directions and orders of the Secretary of State. The words appear in Section 21(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I wonder whether it may be convenient to take together the next three Amendments to this Schedule. They all cover similar points.
Lord SANDFORD: I think that Amendment No. 34 speaks for itself, and I shall move it or withdraw depending upon what the noble Lord says. I should he happy for him to consider it in his reply to this Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: It would save time to reply to this series of Amendments as they cover a similar point. Then the noble Lord can decide what to do with Amendment No. 34, which is the one which I should like to start with. The requirement to keep registers in London, Edinburgh and Cardiff is conventional drafting in provisions of this nature. It is the same as in Sections 21(7) and (8) of the 1971 Planning Act dealing with the commencement orders bringing into operation the structure for a local plan system. In practice, the central register would be supplemented by regional registers kept in the regional offices of the Department to which members of the public will have access. Local authorities would also be asked to keep a list of all such orders which concern them. Here, in particular, I am addressing myself to Amendment No. 35. The local authorities will, in any case, have copies of their orders and will be able to give advice to anyone who asks for it.
The purpose of the central register pro vision is to provide a central reference point which will give an overall view of the progress of the scheme over the country. This may be useful to, for example, large firms engaged in development on a national scale. But even for them the register will merely act as an index. What developers or their professional advisers will need to see all the actual orders. These will be published as Statutory Instruments so that people will be able to buy copies of those they
1502
need to see, or to inspect them at the offices of their local authority.
It would serve no useful purpose, in our view, to make statutory provision for the keeping of regional summaries. In the light of what I have said, the noble Earl's Amendment No. 33 would seem to add nothing useful to the existing drafting, as paragraph 1 of Part II of Schedule 2 already specifies sufficient information to enable the public to identify the areas and types of development in question.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: Perhaps I may comment on that reply. I am grateful to hear that the noble Lord's right honourable friend has every intention of going beyond the normal conventions of providing registers in London, Edinburgh and Cardiff, as already specified in the Bill. But I wonder whether it is sensible to specify one thing in the Bill and to mention three places which we can identify as the national capitals, when we all know, from what was said, that something rather different and beyond that will be done. My Amendment, if the noble Lord will accept it—and he has not said whether or not he will—would be nearer to the realities of what is happening.
I make the further point that although it is an advance to provide registers where there happen to be regional offices of the Department, I wonder whether this is the best that can be done. In practice, all those who are concerned with the management and acquisition of land need to know what is going on, for it will get quite complicated between the first and second appointed days with different orders in force for all the various authorities. The provision of registers in the counties will meet the case fairly well, so far as that is concerned. There is nothing in the Bill to assure anybody that they arc to be provided there, although we have it now on record.
What is required in practice, in addition to having the regional registers now specified in the Bill, are regional registers in those parts of the country where the Bill will bite hardest; namely, in the metropolitan counties and the equivalent in Scotland. That is what my Amendment seeks to provide. To what is already there, it adds Glasgow—which I am sure

1503
the noble Lord will agree is the most densely populated and highly developed part of Scotland. Edinburgh should be there as a capital city; but for the purposes of the practical operation of the Bill it is more important to have one in Glasgow.
The noble Lord will notice that among the other cities mentioned there is at least one. Sheffield, where, to the best of my belief, there is no regional office of the Department of the Environment. It happens to be at Leeds. I should have thought that the need to have ready access to this kind of register is just as great in the metropolitan districts of South Yorkshire as in the metropolitan districts of West Yorkshire. What might be interpreted as favouritism towards Leeds rather than Sheffield would, I think, be a source of friction between two proud cities. Therefore, I commend my Amendment to the noble Lord and ask whether he would agree that it is more sensible that paragraph 2 of this Schedule should say what is to happen than to describe the existing convention.
Lord MELCHETT: I should apoligise for not mentioning to the noble Lord that I cannot accept his Amendment. I had some technical difficulty with it, particularly in deciding exactly which offices he was referring to—whether the other offices were other regional offices or other offices of a different kind from a regional office. I had visions of offices being specially set up in these places merely to keep the register in them which seemed not what the noble Lord was envisaging.
I did not make it clear whether I was dealing with Amendment No. 33A, but it may have been clear from what I said that I was not. The noble Lord may like to hear what happens on that Amendment before deciding what to do with his Amendment. It seems to me that there will be a need for central registers for developers who want to know what is happening, and there may be a need for more specific local information. I am not entirely sure whether there is a justification for a regional tier in between these two, apart from the one I have outlined and, as the noble Lord said, have put on the record, which will be provided.
The Earl of BALFOUR: Regarding Amendment No. 33A, I realise that under English law you have the local land
1504
charges register. May I make the appeal that we have something similar to that recorded in the register of sasines in Scotland?
Lord SANDFORD: I do not think the noble Lord has helped us much by suggesting that we discuss these three Amendments together. If we deal with No. 33 now, I will speak on Amendment No. 34 later.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 33.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I move that the House do now resume. Perhaps it may be helpful if I say that the Committee on the Bill will resume at a quarter to eight.
Moved accordingly, and. on Question. Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

SEX DISCRIMINATION BILL
7.2 p.m.
Consideration of Commons Amendment in lieu of certain Lords Amendments.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment in lieu of certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, that the Commons Amendment in lieu of certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (245) as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Amendment is printed in italics.]
[Nos. 1–3]

LORDS AMENDMENT
Schedule 4, page 66, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("section") in line 24, and insert ("3.—(1)").
Schedule 4, line 27, leave out ("marriage") and insert ("sums payable on marriage in pursuance of a contract of employment made before the passing of this Act, or the commutation, at any time, of the right to such sums.
(2) In relation to service within section 1(8) of the said Act of 1970 (service of the Crown) for the reference to a contract of employment made before the passing of this Act there shall be substituted a reference to terms of service entered into before the passing of this Act.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:—
Page 66, line 23, leave out paragraph 3 and insert—
("3.—(1) Section 6 of the Equal Pay Act 1970 (as amended by paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to this Act) shall apply as if the references to death or retirement in subsection (1A)(b) of the said section 6 included references to sums payable on marriage in pursuance of a contract of employment made before the passing of this Act, or the commutation, at any time, of the right to such sums.
(2) In relation to service within section 1(8) of the said Act of 1970 (service of the Crown) for the reference in this paragraph to a con tract of employment made before the passing of this Act there shall be substituted a reference to terms of service entered into before the passing of this Act.")
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos.1 and 2 to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree to the Commons Amendment No. 3 in lieu thereof. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which were made by this House, were Amendments to paragraph 3 of Schedule 4. Later, this House made an Amendment to another part of the Bill and, arising out of that Amendment, there should have been a consequential Amendment to the said paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 but this was omitted. The Commons simply rectified this omission. It leaves the substance of the Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 untouched. In these circumstances, the substitution of Amendment No. 3 for Amendments Nos. l and 2 was accepted in the other place without discussion. I recommend to your Lordships that you do likewise.
Moved, that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree to the Commons Amendment No. 3 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Jacques.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. His noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has been kind enough to write to me about this matter and explain it. It is a matter which is susceptible of fairly lengthy explanation
1506
but, as the noble Lord has said, it is purely technical and I do not think that it is a matter on which we ought to hold up the House this evening. I entirely agree with the way the noble Lord presented this to the House, and I hope that we shall have no difficulty in accepting his Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed.

COUNTER - INFLATION (PRICE CODE) (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) ORDER 1975
7.5 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES rose to move, That the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1975, laid before the House on 5th August, be approved. The noble Lord said: The background of this Order will be familiar to those noble Lords who took part in the debate on the White Paper, The Attack on Inflation, and on the Remuneration Charges and Grants Bill. This order amends the Price Code by providing a sanction against excessive pay settlements. The Government's intention is to use the Price Code as one of the sanctions to support the pay limit. This was made clear in the White Paper, and specific power was taken in Clause 3 of the Remuneration Charges and Grants Bill to enable the Order to be made. The Order's provisions ensure that all firms subject to the Price Code are prevented from passing the costs of an excessive pay settlement through into their prices.
The Order also re-establishes control over the self-employed whose business expenses amount to less than 10 per cent. of their profits or gains. Other self-employed people are already covered by the Code. The Government thought it right to bring them all back within the scope of price control at a time when wage and salary-earners are being asked to make sacrifices as regards their pay increases. In conjunction with the Price Code Order, changes have been made to the procedural requirements on firms in order to ensure that the Price Commission—and through them the Department of Employment—receive sufficient information to permit adequate scrutiny of pay settlements which enter into price increases.
My right honourable friend had to strike a balance between the need to ensure adequate scrutiny of pay settlements which enter into price increases and her desire to avoid unnecessary delay to price increases which can affect firms' cash flow adversely. After full discussions with the CBI and the Price Com mission, my right honourable friend has, I believe, struck the right balance. The CBI have given, and fulfilled, an under taking to urge all their member firms to make full use of a voluntary advance procedure, under which firms may send information about relevant pay settlements 28 days in advance of their price notifications. The Secretary of State on her part has undertaken that, if these arrangements work satisfactorily, she will not implement other proposals such as the lengthening of the statutory pre notification period.
The Price Commission have also issued a pro forma to help firms to present the information on pay settlements. Firms generally have welcomed the pro forma, and the vast majority have made use of it in their notifications and do not seem to have experienced difficulty in completing it. It is early days in the new pay round, but already agreements have been reached covering some 1½million workers in a wide range of occupations: local authority manual workers, grocery workers, plumbers, bakers, shipbuilders, car-workers and so forth, all of whom have accepted settlements in accordance with the policy. In some cases this has involved renegotiation of previous settlements in order to bring them into line with the policy. On the prices side, recent figures have been encouraging. The Retail Price Index for September, published last Friday, showed a fall in the year-on-year mite of inflation for the first time this year, and the three-monthly figure, expressed as an annual rate, fell for the fourth month in succession to 10.4 per cent.
In conclusion, it is important, how ever, that the Government should be in a position to take all available measures to back up the objectives and policies which have been endorsed by both sides of industry as being vital in the national interest. If the pay limit is observed, no firm will suffer as a result of this Order, and the whole of
1508
industry will benefit from a lower rate of inflation. There may be difficult times ahead, but real benefits can accrue if this Order is carried out. I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1975, laid before the House on 5th August, be approved.—(Lord Jacques.)
7.10 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, this is not a subject that I look at very often, and I am bound to say that I am appalled at one of the sentences that fell from the noble Lord, because in it he referred to the self-employed. I suppose I must declare an interest and ask him where the interest is, because I cannot find it in this Order at all. I do not know which part it is that applies to the self-employed or in what way it applies to them, so there fore I shall have to do some more research. But, seriously, without embarking upon a major examination of the economic situation and price policy of the present Government—which, in fact, happened in another place when this Order and a companion Order were discussed—I must express the hope that the present state of affairs will be only temporary, so that we shall not have to endure for too long this incredibly elaborate system of subordinate legislation, the contents of which must be known to very few people indeed. This is an addition to the Schedule to the price control Order of 1974 and here we have new paragraphs 131 to 136. There are, of course, immensely complicated provisions in the earlier paragraphs of the main Order which are not before the House at all.
I suppose that the Government to which the noble Lord belongs is bound to make the employers the ones who are penalised for any contravention of the Code, which is what these paragraphs do. They produce a result whereby, if an enterprise grants to its workforce remuneration which is in excess of the £6 limit, it suffers certain penalties. So far as I can make out, the employers are the only people who will suffer penalties. I suppose that this stage of the Session and this stage of this evening do not represent the right time to argue the full details of the matter, but I am

1509
bound to say that I should have thought there were other methods which might be used—taxation, for example—and ingenuity could no doubt devise further methods by means of which not only employers, but also those who press for remuneration beyond the £6 limit may also suffer penalties. But that is not the policy of the present Government.
It seems to me we have to accept that, for the moment, we must have a policy of this kind, but I would also suggest that as soon as possible we must get rid of the whole apparatus, because not only is it becoming so elaborate, so complicated and so difficult to follow, but it also seems to lay the penalties very unfairly on one side rather than on the other. I do not think that any of the bland words of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, can cover up what appears on the face of these Amendments to the Schedule, which would put all the onus and all the disagreeable side of any wage increase on to the employer.
There has just been a certain wage increase in Northern Ireland. Can the noble Lord say whether the provisions of this new amendment to the Price Code Order will be used in order to deal with the situation at Standard Telephones and Cables, because that seems to be exactly what this provision is apt to do. I have been told that instead of this there are other means which the Government pro pose to use. If that is so, would the noble Lord tell us why they are using other means and not the means provided for under this Order?
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, we on these Benches recognise the need for continuing control over inflation. But, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, has said, this extremely complex Code is, in our view, by no means the right way in which to do this. We have urged for a long time the need for an inflation tax, which would be a far simpler and fairer way of bringing inflation under control. We urged this long before the Government were converted to any need for an incomes policy, and we continue to urge it. In the circumstances, we accept as far less than even a second best the procedure which the Government are con firming once again tonight, with all its complexity and, indeed, unfairness. Of course, the prime importance of control ling inflation makes it essential that we
1510
should go along with the legislation in front of us, but we would underline how much better it would have been if the policies advocated from these Benches had been adopted in due time.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I first say in regard to the self-employed that originally they were all in the Code, and in the liberal policy that was followed by this Government in making changes to the Code during last year and earlier this year, we took certain of the self-employed outside the Code. I have not had an opportunity to look up the part which refers to this, but I will advise the noble Viscount later. I was so busy listening to what he said that I could not concentrate on finding it. It is reason able that if those who are employed are subject to restriction, those who are self-employed should be similarly subjected. That would, I think, be generally regarded as reasonable, and that is the reason why that small sector of the self-employed have been brought within the Price Code.
So far as other methods are concerned, there might be other methods of con trolling prices, or of penalising those who go outside the Code. So far as the latter are concerned, having regard to past experience in this country in regard to pay policies, and to similar experience in other countries, we believe the method which we are now following to prevent industry going beyond the Pay Code is the best. We believe it is likely to be the most effective and least likely to result in bad industrial relations.
May I make it clear that we inherited the Price Code and we have liberalised it a good deal; for example, there is now an investment allowance which did not exist earlier. But we are not committed to the Code for ever. We say, first, that the Code in its present form will undoubtedly be needed until July 1976, but we do not accept that it is absolutely essential for working in conjunction with a pay policy. There could be other ways, and that is a matter to which the Government need to give a great deal of thought. So we are committed to control, but not control in the present fashion after July 1976.
So far as the Northern Ireland company are concerned, I understand they were told some time ago that a wage settlement for certain employees of the Northern Ireland subsidiary company did

1511
not conform to the pay policy. Subsequently, the company asked for a re consideration of the matter and supplied further information. My right honour able friend the Secretary of State for Employment has considered these further representations and has informed the company that the settlement breaches the pay policy. I understand that is the stage which the matter has reached at the moment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House stands adjourned during pleasure until 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The sitting was suspended at 7.20 p.m. and resumed at 7.45 p.m.

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
House again in Committee.
Schedule 2 [Commencement dates, etc.]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 33A:
Page 52, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) Orders shall not be effective until they are so registered, in the relevant register of local land charges.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a slightly different point from the one we were discussing just before the break. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that there is adequate advance publicity of the intentions of local authorities in respect of land. The Amendment would prevent local authorities from thwarting the present owners' intention to develop by declaring land owned by landowners to be development land and thus triggering off the procedures leading to acquisition. It could therefore prevent the arbitrary exercise of power, but at the same time it would not in any way conflict with the purposes of the Bill. As I understand it, it is not the intention under this Bill that local authorities should acquire land which is being developed expeditiously. In this sense this Amendment is different in purpose from either Amendment No. 33 or Amendment No. 34. I beg to move.
Lord GRIDLEY: May I speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Young who has moved this Amendment. One matter which I consider is of importance is this. The intention of local authorities regarding land is, as she has stressed, of the utmost importance to those people in the building industry, and if the Government would give sympathetic consideration to the points she has raised they would be extremely grateful.
Lord MELCHETT: Before replying to the noble Baroness's Amendment, I hope I shall be in order, as this Amendment affects Schedule 2 on much the same point as the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, raised on his Amendment, to say two things to him. First, having had dinner and generally being in a much better mood than beforehand, I would say that if he saw fit to bring forward his Amendment No. 33 at the next stage we would certainly be disposed to accept it, after having had a chance of looking at it and considering what he has said about it. The second thing I would say to the noble Earl concerns a point about Sasines. I have to tell him that it is not possible to provide for registration of these notices in the Register of Sasines, since this register is concerned with registration of documents which create either proprietorial or possessory rights. The notices in question do not create such rights in the authority. However, by ensuring that in Scotland notices are registered in the planning register they become freely avail able for inspection by the public, and of course search of the planning registers is a normal part of the customary legal searches prior to a disposition. I hope that with those two remarks directed to the noble Earl he will be satisfied.
To turn to Amendment No. 33A, a relevant date order under Clause 18 brings in the duty for the authorities concerned in the area designated by the order to arrange between them for the supply of all land for such relevant development as is designated in the order. It also brings into operation in that area the provisions of Clause 21, under which all planning permissions for such designated relevant development granted on or after the relevant date are suspended until the land is in or has passed through public ownership. Such orders will not be brought in out of the blue without adequate notice. In practice orders will

1513
not and cannot be brought in until the ability of a local authority to intervene in the land market is such as to enable it effectively to carry out the duty under Clause 18. Thus, for example, the in creasing level of local authority activity in an area will in effect already give landowners some notice of the likely introduction of relevant date orders.
Before I emphasise that point, may I say that the orders bring in the duty on the local authorities to acquire whatever development land is designated in the order. This does not stop local authorities from either acquiring such land before the order is brought in or indeed acquiring land beyond the order after it is brought in; it merely brings in the duty that all such land will go into public ownership. So in a sense this matter is very important but, in another sense, just because an order is not in operation for a particular size of development that does not provide any guarantee that the authority will not be interested in purchasing land for development of that kind. It will of course depend on the planning considerations of the authority, and that will in the normal way be discernible from the local authority's development plan or other planning documents which will be available for public inspection in the usual way. I was going to say that this will also be clear from the rolling programmes of land acquisition and disposal which authorities will be required to prepare for investment purposes and which will certainly be open to public inspection. These will show the scale on which an authority expects to intervene in the land market in the coming five years.
The Amendment of the noble Baroness specifically refers to the register of local land charges. The local land charges register was established to provide a register of financial burdens affecting pieces of land so that purchasers of the land would know what liabilities they were incurring by their purchase. It has subsequently been extended to cover other restrictions on the use of land where it is necessary that a future purchaser of a piece of land shall know whether there are any special restrictions relating to it. This is especially so where the prohibition or restriction on the user of a piece of land is imposed by a local authority itself. However, there is a specific provision in the Land Charges
1514
Act 1925 which prevents such prohibition from being registered if they operate over the whole of the district of the authority.
As I understand it, the essence of the register is to provide information to potential purchasers of land about restrictions applying to areas of land, especially in cases where they have no other means of finding out whether or not the restriction applies. Relevant development orders are primarily of interest to people who want to develop land. In most cases the orders will apply to the whole of the area of a district. In any event, as I have already said, they are part of the general law of the land, being Statutory Instruments which are published and generally available from the Stationery Office. In other words, they are already public documents. May I suggest to the noble Baroness that they are not of the type of restriction on a piece of land which is normally included in the local land charges register.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am grateful for the noble Lord's reply to my noble friend. Equally, I am grateful for his other remarks, which I will note.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sure that we are all very grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said that he will be moving an Amendment in the terms of Amendment No. 33 at a later stage. So far as my Amendment is concerned, I see entirely his point that relevant development orders will be available for public inspection through the Stationery Office and that therefore it can be said that my Amendment is unnecessary because the public could be aware of them in this way. However, the difference is that it is often very difficult to get hold of any thing from the Stationery Office. That applies to quite important matters, let alone something like this.
I do not believe this is the way that local people will feel that they ought to go about finding out whether or not an order for relevant development has been made. If the register of local land charges is not the right place in which to keep this information, I consider that there ought to be some local means whereby it could be kept. It seems to me that it is very important that people at local level should know in advance what the intentions of local authorities are to be with regard to land acquisition.

1515
I am not really satisfied that it is a satisfactory answer to say that this will appear in an order.
7.55 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: I take the point which the noble Baroness has made about Statutory Instruments. My point was that this is a public document. It is available publicly and therefore is not of the type of limitation on land which is normally included in the local land charges register. I said earlier that what is important is the local authority's intentions from a planning point of view. As noble Lords on this side of the House have tried to emphasise to noble Lords opposite, land acquisition under this scheme is linked to planning. Our intention is not that local authorities should go round wildly buying land anywhere that they feel like doing so just because they have that power. The scheme is linked directly to planning. Therefore, what is important from the point of view of people buying land in an area is to know the local authority's plans. These will be available for inspection in the offices of local authorities, as will their rolling programmes of land acquisition which again, I would suggest to the noble Baroness, are the most important things.
At the same time I accept that there may be a need for local publicity when an order is made. May I emphasise that I do not believe that an order is the be-all-and-end-all of the matter. As I have said, local authorities can still acquire land even if they are not under a duty to do so. In much the same way as a development plan, a local plan or, indeed, a structure plan is advertised locally when it is made, it may well be that there is a case for orders under this Bill being advertised in the same way. If the noble Baroness feels that it would be useful, I should certainly be prepared to consider that point.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful for that offer and would certainly be grateful if the Government could look at this point. There is this difference, that at the moment local authorities do not go round looking for land just for the sake of it in order to buy it and eventually develop it. However, when this Bill becomes law there will be a general presumption that local authorities will be doing just that. They will have the power
1516
to acquire land much more easily than they have it now. Therefore, I think that it is important to enable the public to know what are the intentions. I am disappointed that the Government cannot accept my Amendment. However, I am grateful for that assurance and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 52, line 10, at end insert ("and regional summaries shall be kept at the Regional Offices of the Secretary of State or other appropriate office in Glasgow, Newcastle, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and Birmingham.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 34. I am glad to be doing so after supper because my hopes have been raised after what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said. I will not speak extensively because at his invitation I have already explained the Amendment. I am glad to hear from him that his right honourable friend will do something more and that it will be quite different from what is prescribed in the Bill. It would be better to pro vide the regional registers in all of the major cities which are at the centre of the Metropolitan counties of England, and in Glasgow as well, rather than just where there are Regional Offices because they cater only for four out of the seven great cities. Glasgow, Liverpool and Sheffield are all places of sufficient size, significance and complexity to have the registers available at their city centres.
I am glad to have the noble Lord's assurance that Amendment No. 33 is acceptable because that is another way of expressing in general terms what I should prefer to see expressed precisely. I am glad to have the statement made by the noble Lord on the record in Hansard, although that is not as good as having the Bill reflect what will be the reality on the ground, rather than just describe the conventions. I hope the noble Lord will say that if he cannot accept this Amendment he will consider putting something like it into the body of the Bill, so that everybody knows where he stands. I beg to move.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I rise to support this Amendment. Scotland has very extensive areas and, as your Lord ships know, we do not have counties

1517
any longer—we have regions—and if records which affect Scotland could be kept at the Scottish Regional Head-quarters, wherever they happen to be, it would be a great help. I have spoken about Wales so often, and if the Land Authority are to be set up I feel that the full records should also be available at their headquarters or at any sub-office which they possess.
Lord MELCHETT: In a way, I think the noble Earl has underlined the difficulty of writing certain cities or towns into the Bill. As somebody who lives in East Anglia, it always infuriates me that nowhere remotely near where I live is ever included in such a list of cities.
Lord ABERDARE: Now is your chance!
Lord SANDFORD: A manuscript Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: I have already told the noble Earl that we will accept an Amendment on the lines of his at the next stage of the Bill. I have told the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we will look at the question of giving local publicity when orders are made. I told the noble Lord when replying to this Amendment earlier that provision would be made for Regional Offices to have the relevant orders. There is a limit to how much we can write into the Bill, but on the other hand we on this side of the Committee are extremely concerned that everybody should know what is happening so far as the scheme is concerned, and that as much information as possible should be given to the general public.
I should like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, having told his noble friend that I would consider the possibility of each order being publicised locally when it is made, that it might not be sensible to go on from that and make a provision in the Bill that each local authority should keep the relevant date orders relating to their area at their own offices. This would avoid our having to make any arbitrary decisions about which cities should have registers, and which should not. After all, the scheme will operate locally and at different speeds at different local authority areas. This might be the most sensible way of doing it. As I have said, having taken on board
1518
what noble Lords opposite have said, I should like to take this away and look at it on the basis of something along those lines, rather than along the lines of the noble Lord's Amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.5 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR: Briefly, would the noble Lord consider that not necessarily every authority but every county in England, or every region in Scotland, should keep extracts of the register? I do not want to delay the Committee at all, but I think the point is worth considering. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 12, at end insert—
("(3) Every authority shall keep extracts of the register affecting their area at their offices.")—(The Earl of Balfour.)
Lord MELCHETT: I have already undertaken to consider this point.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I thank the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 8 [The Authority]:
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 9, line 36, leave out ("THE LAND AUTHORITY FOR WALES").
The noble Earl said: For the benefit of your Lordships, I should point out that this Amendment was put in the wrong place. We are back again on the Land Authority for Wales. I shall not say any more on that point, because I have aired my opinion all the way through. I will say only that I urge the Government to consider again whether they will accept the proposals which I am putting forward in Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 45.
When I was studying the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, I had the opportunity of meeting the top officials of St. Andrew's House on three or four occasions during September 1973, between the Committee and Report stages, and one of the points that those officials put to me was the importance of an

1519
authority, particularly in the field of planning, being wealthy enough from its in come in rates to be able to afford to employ officials who were skilled in the job of planning, which is so important. For that reason it was decided to make these special planning arrangements in Scotland. As I have said earlier, these arrangements appear in Part IX of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
I felt that I should like to explain briefly to your Lordships the reason behind these Amendments. They would leave both the county and district planning functions under the English Act for that populated part of South Wales, being Mid, East and South Glamorgan and the County of Gwent. But if your Lordships will look at page 10 of the Marshalled List, you will see a reference to a general planning authority for the counties of Clwyd, Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys. There is no major town there and I thought that Wales might take advantage of the same provisions as were provided for in the case of Scotland—and there would need to be additional Amendments if this were accepted—and make the county responsible for planning functions and for land acquisitions under the provisions of this Bill, which would keep it at local authority level. At the moment, I am extremely concerned that the local authorities are not to have any thing to do with land acquisition under this Bill.
This has given me an opportunity of explaining the Amendment and I am fairly satisfied that its drafting is reason ably correct. I do not want to take up a lot of your Lordships' time but I should be pleased to have some idea from the Government of their views. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: In dealing with this Amendment the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has also dealt with a number of Amendments which have been tabled in his name in relation to Wales. As a Welshman I am greatly flattered by his immense interest and concern in government in Wales. May we take it that in discussing this matter generally we may be deemed to have discussed Amendments Nos. 2, 5, 39, 43, 44, 45, 85, 88, 94 and 108? I note the affirmative nod from the direction of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and that may clear the path for the many hours of labour that lie ahead of us.
1520
The general effect of the Amendments of the noble Earl would be to apply to Wales the planning system adopted in Scotland which is based on regional, general and district planning authorities who would be entrusted with both planning responsibilities and responsibilities under the Bill. These Amendments are intended, to change the planning system of Wales, as the noble Earl has indicated, and they would give Wales a system of planning authorities similar to that in Scotland, that is to say, with regional, general and district planning authorities.
The basic objection to the proposals of the noble Earl is that it would involve a major upheaval in the structure of local government in Wales. The present structure came into existence only on 1st April 1974—I trust there is nothing significant in the choice of that date!—so it has not had more than 18 months in which to settle down to these new responsibilities. The general wish now—and it certainly is the view of the Government—is that the new authorities should be given time to adjust to their new responsibilities rather than to have more major changes. With proposals for devolution in the offing, this would be a particularly in appropriate time to introduce the major changes that the noble Earl has mentioned. The planning system itself has only recently undergone important changes.
Then, when one comes to consider the scene in Scotland, the Scottish system it self only came into force in May of this year, so we have had only five months' experience of how it is working in Scot land. We on this side of the Committee do not think that Scottish experience can yet be said to provide at any rate over whelming evidence that a system right for Scotland can be translated and trans planted, lock, stock and barrel, to Wales.
Another factor highly relevant at this time is that of cost. Changes of the scale proposed by the noble Earl will be expensive, and those costs would fall on the ratepayers. Certainly Wales has rural areas like Scotland, but the countries are far from identical. In size, Scotland has 30,000 square miles; Wales has about 8,000 square miles. Scotland has 5,226,000 inhabitants; Wales 2,760.000. But the difference which is particularly significant is that of size. We believe that these proposals for setting up the Land Authority for Wales is the best means of

1521
dealing with the matters towards the achievement of which this Bill is directed. However, I am grateful for the interesting proposition put forward by the noble Earl. At any rate for the time being, we would prefer to proceed as we are, and I say that in no sense of mere pride in the fact that I happen to be a Welshman.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am most grateful for that reply, particularly as it comes from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. If the noble and learned Lord is satisfied that the proposals for the Land Authority for Wales are all right, that is good enough for me. Let us face it, the noble and learned Lord has had many years of experience in politics and obviously knows that part of the world very well.
I should like to add one further comment. I checked up very carefully in Scotland with the local authorities, particularly those which are run by the counties, or regions as we have them in Scotland. They are of the opinion that this provision—although many others in the Local Government Acts they have not liked—has on the whole worked well and very successfully. But I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I will not raise the subject again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [The Authority]:
8.15 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 10, line 3, at end insert—
"( ) When the Secretary of State gives a direction under this section, he shall either—

(a) lay a copy of the direction before each House of Parliament within 28 days of giving it; or

(b) lay a copy later, but lay with it a statement of the reason why a copy was not laid within 28 days.

( ) The Authority's report for any accounting year shall set out any direction given under this section during that year."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 36. One of the criticisms of this Bill is the amount of power that is given to the Secretary of State. This has been a feature of a large number of Bills which have been brought to this House over the last few months, and we have tried to modify this power in
1522
every case in Bills with which I have been concerned—the Industry Bill, the Welsh Development Agency Bill, the Policyholders Protection Bill, where we had great success in modifying the powers of the Secretary of State—and also in other Bills. Although there are criticisms of the powers of the Secretary of State in the case of England and Scotland, it is particularly true of Wales under this Bill. In England and Scotland, the functions are carried out by democratically elected local authorities, but in Wales it is the Land Authority which is an independent body and responsible only to the Secretary of State. Moreover, under Clause 8(3):
"The Authority, … shall comply with such directions as may be given to them by the Secretary of State".
This is a very wide power to give a Secretary of State, and we believe it should be subject to some form of Parliamentary scrutiny. We are not suggesting even going as far as Parliamentary control. We are not asking that it should be subject to any Resolution, be it Negative or Affirmative. All we are saying is that when the Secretary of States gives such directions to the Land Authority, he shall either lay a copy of that direction before each House of Parliament within 28 days, or lay a copy later on with a statement of the reason why he was unable to lay it within 28 days; and secondly, that the Authority's report for any year should set out the directions given by the Secretary of State in that year. That seems to us an entirely reasonable thing to ask. More over, we have every precedent for asking for this very minimal safeguard, in that similar provisions have appeared in other Bills—first of all in the Industry Bill.
Clause 7, subsections (3) and (4), of the Industry Bill are in almost exactly the same terms as this Amendment. I will not read them out, but I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is aware of them. Secondly, and even more apposite to the case in Wales, Clause 1 subsections (10) and (11) of the Welsh Development Agency Bill are again in exactly the same terms as we are proposing to this Bill. So it seems to me that in the interests of the kind of principles that the noble and learned Lord certainly supports, of open Government and democratic control, and following on what we have been so often told about the

1523
democratic way in which the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, this is an entirely reasonable thing to ask: that when he gives directions to that body, just as when he gives directions to the Welsh Development Agency, these directions should be divulged to Parliament. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: There is, of course, nothing sinister about the concept of a Secretary of State giving directions to an authority like the Land Authority. Indeed, it is common for the Government to be able to give directions to public bodies, and I do not think it is the general practice for Parliament immediately to receive copies. But I have noted the references that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. I think the matter arose also in relation to the National Enterprise Board. Precedents for what is proposed in the Bill are to be found under the legislation of the previous Administration—in the Maplin Development Act 1973, Section 4(1), and the Water Act 1973,Section 5(2). A close parallel is the power of the Secretary of State to give instructions under the New Towns Act 1965, since New Town Development Corporations have functions in many ways similar to those proposed for the Land Authority. The Development Corporations are to be authorities under the Community Land Bill. In none of these cases do copies have to be laid before Parliament.
It is also common for the Secretary of State to be able to notify statutory bodies that directions involving considerations of national security or national interest should not be reported in their annual reports, and I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will be sympathetic to the necessity of that in the interests of protecting national security. There are provisions on those lines in the Maplin Development Act and in the Civil Aviation Act, and we similarly propose such precautions under Clause 13(2) of the Bill. The Land Authority will in due course be obliged to provide land for all major industrial developments, which will involve, inter alia, developments for defence purposes, and we feel that it is important that, when the Secretary of
1524
State has to give directions in relation to land for defence projects, there should be power to exclude them from the annual report.
Provision is also made in the Bill for directions given under all provisions in the Bill to be made known to Parliament when the Land Authority's Annual Report is presented to Parliament. Clearly, I willingly accept that Parliament will have a legitimate interest in directions given by the Secretary of State, but I submit that that does not make it reasonable that a copy of every direction should be laid before both Houses within 28 days. I do not think it can be contended, either, that the laying of directions before Parliament by the Secretary of State is essential to enable Parliament to know quickly what is happening. Meetings of the Land Authority and of their committees will be open to the Press and to the public authorities, and there will be safeguards in the same way as meetings of local authorities and there will be safeguards for confidential matters. I should have thought there would be rapid publicity for directions from the Secretary of State, and anyone who 'has been aggrieved by a direction will, of course, have the normal right to raise it with his M.P. who can take it up with the Secretary of State. Accordingly, I feel that what is proposed in the Bill is reasonable for the circumstances of the case, and perhaps having heard what I have submitted the noble Lord may be disposed to form the same view.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: May I support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Aberdare. Of course, on security we are not asking for anything at all. What we are asking is that Parliament should be informed. I think it is slightly ridiculous, when Parliament takes new decisions, as under this Community Land Bill, that we should not try to see that conditions affecting the new Bill should be included in the Bill. I do not mind what the House of Lords did 50 years ago, so long as we keep the things that were good. When we have so much information being required by Government, I think it is absolutely urgent that Members of both Houses of Parliament should know what directions are given. If I may say so with great respect, it is no good saying

1525
that somebody can write to their M.P. There are many people who have no idea that if you write to your M.P. it gets a higher priority than if you write direct. One of the questions that I raised the other day in the House of Lords expressed concern that a lot of ordinary people have not the slightest idea who to write to, nor do they know that, if they write to their M.P., at least it gets a higher priority. I am rather surprised that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whom I have always under stood to be a rather progressive man, should not be delighted to accept this Amendment. I do not want to be connected with a body of people who cannot keep up to date.
I hope that my Party will divide on this issue, because it is very important that directions given, sometimes by Ministers with whom I certainly would not be in agreement, should be registered with Members of both Houses of Parliament. I never regarded the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whom I know reasonably well, as an old-fashioned man. I now regard him as an old-fashioned man. I do not think I want a Lord Chancellor who is old-fashioned; I want a progressive Lord Chancellor. The directions given may be in the Press, but surely the noble and learned Lord knows perfectly well that provincial newspapers do not always know of their importance. There may be a direction given which might not be of the slightest interest to my old ex-constituency of Tynemouth, which is a fishing and industrial area. I have known the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor well, and I am speaking my mind. I think it is ridiculous to have an answer such as he has given, though given in the most delightful terms with his very attractive voice and very pleasant way. It makes him an old-fashioned Lord Chancellor, and I hope he will not remain so. I hope my Party will have the courage to stand up and say it is a very bad answer and we do not like it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may intervene for a moment, there was one matter which did surprise me a little in the noble Baroness's characteristic intervention; that is, that she thought that her constituents had difficulty in knowing how to write to their M.P.
1526
From 25 years experience of the noble Baroness in the other place, I should have thought all of her constituents knew all the time how easy it was to get in touch with her.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: If I may say so, I am, of course, delighted with that. Of course, I saw to it that they did know. But there are quite a lot of people in other parts of the world. I have always had to fight like mad in my part of the world. I fought like mad and, of course, my constituents knew; but that is not to say that there are not a lot of people who would like to write to their M.P. but who would not know how. You cannot get the Press to keep on printing, "Write to your M.P. "That again, if I may say so, is rather an odd answer. I will not say more than that. How do you think I would have held my seat if I had not done that. I think it was very nice of the noble Lord to say so, and I accept that it was meant to be nice, but it is not realistic, and it does not make me alter my view that this Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Aberdare should be accepted.
Viscount HANWORTH: Could the noble and learned Lord enlighten my ignorance and tell me what extra administrative burden is placed on a Department by laying a copy of the directions before Parliament? I cannot imagine that this involves any great work. If it does not, surely the sensible thing is to do so, because it is terribly difficult in this modern world to establish communication and not everybody can spare the time to do everything. Maybe there are reasons. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell me whether there are.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The difficulty is that the Amendment proposes that they should be laid within 28 days, and there will be a multiplicity of directions to different authorities to be given. I should have thought that that imposes an excessive and intolerable bur den, bearing in mind the fact of annual reports, and the other opportunities for ventilating the content of the directions which I mentioned in my reply to the speech of the noble Lord.
Viscount HANWORTH: I do not want to be facetious, but what more is

1527
involved in this process other than making a duplicate copy of whatever you have sent out? There must be something else, otherwise surely 28 days to make a duplicate copy and send it to Parliament is not a great burden.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: It would be better if we did hurry up.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: It would be an administrative burden to add to the Department and, with the very great respect which I have for Parliament, whether anyone in either House would examine the directions as they flow in is a different matter.
Lord ABERDARE: I am a little surprised at what the noble and learned Lord said on two counts. First, I am surprised that he prefers to follow the precedent of our two Acts rather than his two Bills. I should have thought that he would much prefer to follow the precedent that he has given us on the Industry Bill and the Welsh Development Agency Bill, in which this provision appears. Secondly, I am astonished when he talks about a multiplicity of directions to authorities. I thought we were talking about very rare occasions on which the Secretary of State would feel it incumbent on him to give a direction to the Land Authority—just the one Authority.
We must probe a little further as to what this vast multiplicity of directions might be. I take the point where it comes to national security, and I am quite sure that something ought to be written into the Amendment to ensure that where the matter of national security arises there is some way out, but otherwise I am not satisfied about this multiplicity of directions that is to flow out from the Secretary of State.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want to prolong this matter because I am willing to look at it again. In regard to the analogy with the Welsh Development Agency, there similar provisions in relation to the Welsh Development Agency do not apply to all directions given by the Secretary of State to the Agency. They apply only to directions in respect of those functions of the Agency which are analogous to those of the National Enterprise Board. A
1528
similar obligation to lay directions will exist in England in relation to the National Enterprise Board. The obligation will not apply to other functions of the Development Agency—for instance, its functions in relation to derelict land, or provision of industrial estates. The reason is that the Government decided that special considerations applied to NEB-type activities, since they may involve finding finance for industrial undertakings, or might involve the Agency itself in establishing and carrying on undertakings. It was felt in those circumstances, with that type of activity, there were special reasons for informing Parliament. Of course, the Land Authority will not be carrying out NEB-type activities.
The other factor which was relevant in our dealing with it in that way in the Welsh Development Agency was that their meetings, unlike those of the Land Authority, are not required to be open to the Press and the public, so the public would not get to know directions as they will with the Land Authority. As the noble Lord and his colleagues feel strongly about this matter, I am certainly willing to have a look at it again. It was not merely because I was following the precedent set by the noble Lord's Administration that I thought that what was proposed in the Bill was a good idea, but I shall look at it again.
Lord ABERDARE: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.36 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 10, line 4, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord received a note from me to explain what I was at. It is simply to ask whether the Land Authority for Wales will be subject, in respect of their administration, to one or other of the Ombudsmen. Will they be subject to the scrutiny of the Parliamentary Commissioner, or the local Government Commissioner? In England and Scotland the local authorities who have the responsibility for functions under this Bill will be subject to the Local Authority Commissioner, and I wonder what the situation

1529
is in regard to the Land Authority. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The Bill expressly provides in Schedule 10, paragraph 9—and I do not criticise the noble Lord for having missed it—that complaints of maladministration against the Land Authority may be investigated by the Local Commissioner for Administration in Wales, in the same way as a local authority. If the noble Lord looks at the Schedule, he will see that it is dealt with with particularity. Page 92, Schedule 10, paragraph 9 says:
"In section 25(1) of the Local Government Act 1974 (authorities subject to investigation) after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph: —
'(aa) the Land Authority for Wales and any body corporate established by an order made by the Secretary of State under section 49 of the Community Land Act 1975.'"
There is a similar reference in relation to Section 30 of the Local Government Act in regard to reports on investigations:
"… after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
'(2A) Where the complaint related to the Land Authority for Wales, the Local Commissioner shall also send the report or statement to the Secretary of State.'"
The point that was very properly concerning the noble Lord seems to be well covered.
Lord ABERDARE: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [The Land Authority for Wales]:
8.39 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 53, line 16, leave out ("with the approval of the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to the appointment of a secretary of the Authority. Paragraph 5 of the Schedule reads:
"The Authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State, may appoint a secretary of the Authority …".
1530
I was wondering why it was necessary for the Authority to have the approval of the Secretary of State. First, does it mean that the Authority have to have the approval to appoint a secretary, or does it mean that the person appointed must be approved by the Secretary of State? If it means that the person appointed must be approved, I wonder whether this is necessary. Presumably the members of the Authority are going to be people of high standing and repute, and I should have thought that they were perfectly capable of chosing their own secretary without the need for the approval of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Lord is right. It is the person appointed who will be approved by the Secretary of State and perhaps I can explain why we felt that this was necessary. First of all, it is normal for the Government to control the establishment of statutory bodies. In the case of the Land Authority, this will be particularly necessary to check that they do not seek to attract local authority staff or to inflate their requirements in staff with scarce professional skills. It is also considered prudent to provide in the Bill for the Secretary of State to approve the appointment of the Land Authority's chief executive. This provision was taken from the Land Commission Act 1967. This is not because of any serious doubt about the ability of the Land Authority to appoint a competent chief executive; the Land Authority should, however, have a chief officer who is acceptable to the Secretary of State. The chief officer will be in immediate control of the day-to-day running of the Authority, but it is the Secretary of State who will be responsible to Parliament, who will initially be making loans to the Authority and who in the last resort will determine the policy which the Authority must execute.
Lord ABERDARE: I am obliged to the noble Lord for that explanation and we are glad to welcome him to our Welsh debates. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Borrowing powers]:
8.42 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 11, line 10, leave out ("£40 million") and insert ("£20 million").
The noble Lord said: I will, with per mission, discuss at the same time Amendment No. 41. The Bill allows the Land Authority to borrow some very consider able sums of money—
"The aggregate amount outstanding … shall not exceed £40 million or such greater amount not exceeding £60 million as the Secretary of State may specify by order".
The object of my Amendment is to reduce those amounts to £20 million and £30 million to help the Government cut down on their public expenditure.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE SIDE: Hear, hear!
Lord ABERDARE: The calculation of these totals must necessarily be mostly guess work and must depend on the price that the Land Authority have to pay for the land they acquire and the price at which they can eventually sell it. I see from the proceedings in another place that the Government estimates are based on purchasing land at between £10,000 and £15,000 an acre and selling it at £20,000; but I should have thought that once this Bill becomes law, together with the Development Land Tax Bill, there will be a very different kind of market in land and that these figures are likely to be far in excess of what is really necessary. They seem to be based on years when property was fetching very high prices. The future is surely much more likely to see a great reluctance on the part of people to sell land and indeed to buy it for development, and I believe there would be great merit in reducing these huge figures to more realistic sums.
I have other reasons for suggesting this reduction. First, since the Bill was introduced in another place we have had new categories of exempt and excepted development. If certain forms of development are either exempt or excepted, that surely must result in a reduction in the scope of the Land Authority's powers, and one would have expected to see a reduction in the amount of money the Authority needed to borrow to carry them out. That is one reason why I suggest that things have altered
1532
since these figures were put in the Bill and why they could happily be reduced to lower figures.
The second reason I put forward is that the county manpower estimates—I mentioned this in the course of our debate yesterday—put forward by the counties on a county basis, taking into account the requirements of the districts within the area of that county, show that the estimated manpower requirements are considerably less than those foreseen by the Welsh Office. If that is so, then it goes to show that the local authorities could carry out the functions that are to be put on them by this Bill much more economically than could one single Land Authority. But it also means, I should have thought, that the Land Authority, by working through the agency of the local authorities, could reduce manpower costs considerably; and here again is an argument why the total amount of borrowing could be reduced.
The last argument I advance is that the Government themselves admitted an error in their estimates when they reduced the figure for the Land Authority's initial debt. The initial debt in the original Bill was £750,000 and the Government have now reduced this to £100,000. It would seem that if they are capable of making such a vast miscalculation in the initial debt, they are liable to make a vast miscalculation in the full amount required to be borrowed. These, therefore, are the reasons why I think that since the Bill has come to your Lordships' House there are certain quite solid reasons for thinking that the amounts put in for the limit of borrowing are too large, and at a time when the need is to control and reduce Government expenditure it would be advisable to reduce these two figures.
Lord MELCHETT: The size of the maximum indebtedness is crucial to the speed with which the Land Authority can get the Land Scheme operating in Wales. When the scheme is fully operational and profits are being made, there will, of course, be no debt. It is during the first few years of the scheme that a debt will be incurred—when the Authority are borrowing to acquire land—when the rate of disposal inevitably lags behind and when receipts from disposals do not match the cost of borrowing. The amount which needs to be

1533
borrowed could be reduced by various means; for example, the time lag between borrowing and disposing could be reduced. The Authority will be advised to concentrate, as far as possible in the early years, on land which can be turned over quickly; but this cannot be the sole criterion for buying land if account is also to be taken of the needs of planning.
Our assumptions—that is, the acquisition of 5,000 acres and disposals of 1,500 acres—already allow for land to be turned over as quickly as possible and as quickly as we believe is going to be reason able. It would be possible for the Land Authority to buy more green field sites, but I am sure that noble Lords opposite will agree that this would not be consistent with good planning. The Land Authority could lease less land at annual rentals, but our assumptions on which the calculations are based already suppose that virtually all land is disposed of free hold or for a single major premium. The Land Authority could of course buy less land. This would produce unacceptable delays in getting the scheme off the ground.
On the same assumptions as used in the estimates given in Committee in the other place by my honourable friend, if the debt had to be kept to £20 million or £30 million, the amount of land purchases which could be financed by disposals and borrowing would be not 5,000 acres but only 3,000 acres, and the time required to complete these trans actions would be longer because it is clearly easier to dispose of 1,500 acres out of 5,000 acres than out of only 3,000 acres. It is true that, since these sums of £40 million and £60 million were first included in the Bill, the scheme has been amended, in particular by the proposal to include small housing plots in the category of excepted development. These are plots of up to 10,000 square feet of floor space which authorities under the Bill will be under no duty to acquire.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, suggested that this will reduce the amount of land which the Land Authority will acquire and hence the maximum indebtedness. This is not the case. The concept of maximum indebtedness applies only to the early years of the scheme when more land is being acquired than is being disposed of and indebtedness is
1534
growing. The exclusion of the need to acquire land for excepted development will enable the Land Authority, during their early years, to concentrate on acquiring other land, but will not of itself reduce the amount of land to be bought. The ratio of land acquired to land disposed of used in our initial calculations will still apply and the maximum indebtedness should not change for that reason. I would add that of course the categories of excepted and exempted developments are, in our view, not out side our intentions as outlined by my honourable friend on Second Reading in the other place. They have merely made clearer and simpler to understand the intentions of the Bill as first introduced, but we have made it perfectly clear all along that it would not be our intention that the Land Authority or local authorities should involve themselves in buying very small plots or in taking into public ownership small areas of development land. So this change in the categories in the Bill has not affected the need for this borrowing.
The noble Lord mentioned the claim by Welsh local authorities that they could do the work of the Land Authority with fewer staff. What I believe has happened is that the Welsh local authorities which have seen the staff estimates of the Land Authority in relation to the tasks to be done think we may have over-estimated the Authority's manpower needs. If so, we shall be delighted because, if the Land Authority can do the job with fewer staff than we have estimated, the comparison of cost effectiveness will swing in favour of Wales. But of course a small reduction in staff will not make any substantial difference in the need for borrowing by the Land Authority.
The noble Lord also mentioned the question of land values. We have, in making these calculations, based them on Welsh professional advice, assuming that development land tax will enable land to be bought more cheaply than the price at which it is sold or disposed of. That has already been considered in our calculations. The initial debt figure to which the noble Lord also referred is not directly on the point of the Amendment because it covers only the costs incurred by the Secretary of State before Royal Assent.

1535
I hope I have outlined the reasons why we do not think that it would be right to reduce the figure which appears in the Bill. I apologise for having done so at some length.
Lord ABERDARE: I must say that I am very grateful to the noble Lord for going into this at some length because it will all be on the record and I appreciate it. He said that, if we were to reduce the figure to the proposal which I had put into the Amendment, this would reduce the amount of land that could be acquired by the Welsh Land Authority. That would suit us very well indeed, and I am sorry to think that this will not be done because, at least for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Champion): The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has intimated that he does not propose to speak on Clauses 10, 11, 12 and 13, so I shall straight away put the Question, That the clause stand part?
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Accounts and audit]:
8.57 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 41A:
Page 12, leave out from end of line 20 to end of lane 42 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 Viscount said: I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would explain how the public account ability of the Authority in Wales is to work. We shall have a fairly complicated system, because the Land Authority will be doing some of the work and the county councils and district councils will be doing, as agents, other of the work. The local public will be able, in the ordinary way under the Local Government Act, to examine, as will the district auditor, that part of the operation of this Bill which is done by the local authorities in Wales in the same way as any other exercise of power by a local authority. However, as I understand Clause 12, they
1536
will not have any local power to scrutinise or ask for further details of what is done by the Land Authority themselves.
I do not necessarily suggest that the Amendment is the right answer. It is, of course, a complete attraction of all the powers and duties of district audit, the possibility of surcharge and all the rest of it, which appear in the Local Government Act and which will apply to all the local authorities which are acting as agents. However, it seems to me—and the Committee may agree—that, where as the local people will be able to ex amine what is done by the local authorities, nobody in Wales will be able to do anything about examining what is done by the Land Authority.
Would the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, tell us what recourse there is if the Comptroller and Auditor General examine the accounts and find—and I am not suggesting for a moment that this would happen, but these things always have to be dealt with in legislation—that the members of the Land Authority have done something which is illegal or which requires explanation? What can anybody do about it? Is it only a Select Committee of the other place which is able to inquire into it, or is there any power whereby people in Wales itself will be able to carry out some local exercise in questioning what has been done and put ting forward their points of view?
It is, incidentally, becoming quite a popular exercise for ratepayers in a local authority area to use, or at any rate to consider using, the opportunity of the District Audit to vent some of their dissatisfactions, complaints and helpful suggestions about local authorities, but I do not believe that anybody will be able to do this in Wales with the Land Authority. Nor do I believe that there will be any local sanction on members of the Authority who should chance to misbehave themselves. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, could explain a little more fully what are the remedies and recourses whereby the public can look into this. I think we should be greatly assisted—at any rate, I certainly should and I shall then be able to see what to do about the Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: It was decided when drafting the Bill that the Land

1537
Authority should not be given the same freedom as local authorities to have their accounts audited by private auditors. This is the effect of this provision in the Bill. The two main reasons for this are, first, that the Land Authority will be a freshly created body operating in a new field. They will be borrowing comparatively large sums of money for their initial operations. The Government, therefore, wish to keep a close watch on their financial activities. The Land Authority will take time to build up the long financial traditions which exist among local authorities and the Government considered that this factor had to be recognised in the auditing arrangements. In other words, it was for the Government to keep a close eye on the financial operations of the Land Authority.
Secondly, the relationship between the Land Authority and the Government will not be exactly the same as that between local authorities and the Government. Local authorities are elected bodies, whereas the Land Authority are to be appointed, although their membership will include four representatives of local authorities. This special relationship is recognised in the general power of the Secretary of State under Clause 8(3) to give directions to the Land Authority. The Secretary of State for Wales will be more closely answerable to Parliament for the operation of the scheme in Wales than will his colleagues in England and Scotland. This is also recognised in the fact that accounts of the Land Authority are to be laid before Parliament but not accounts of local authorities operating the community land scheme.
The Secretary of State will therefore be concerned in the case of the Land Authority with matters going beyond mere financial propriety, and it was thought right to insist that the Land Authority's operations should be open to full scrutiny by the Government's own auditors. That is the purpose of the provision, but I emphasise that it is for the purpose of wider scrutiny rather than for less scrutiny. It will be the case that the accounts will be placed before Parliament; thus anyone with an interest in the matter will be able to raise anything he is worried about when the accounts are laid before Parliament.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: How are they to do that? What member
1538
of the public in Wales will be able to raise these matters, and in what form? I am sure that the noble Lord will not mean to be misleading, but he started his speech by saying that the Land Authority were not to be audited by a private auditor. The District Auditor is not a private auditor. He is appointed by the Secretary of State and is a public official. There is no question of some private, surreptitious audit in the case of the District Auditor. This is the ordinary process.
The noble Lord has not made any attempt whatsoever to answer the questions I asked. I think that I asked him quite nicely, and I hope that they were sensible questions. How are members of the public in Wales to raise questions and complaints on what has been done—I suppose on their behalf, because they are the community—by the Authority in Wales? They will have this right in England and in Scotland. They can do it locally through the District Auditor. But the noble Lord has not explained how this works for the purposes of the private individual. Is this simply another case where they will have to write to their Member of Parliament and hope that something will happen?
Lord MELCHETT: First, they certainly will be able to write to their Member of Parliament, and ask him to raise a matter, and, as I said, there will be Parliamentary scrutiny of the accounts in that they will be laid before Parliament. We have been asked by noble Lords opposite, at several stages in our consideration of the Bill, that more documents should be presented to Parliament, presumably because this would be of some use to someone. The noble Viscount now appears to be presenting this as a totally useless exercise, which is of no use to anybody. If I may say so, this is not particularly consistent of him in the light of what his noble friends have said. There will, of course, be nothing in the Bill which will prevent criminal proceedings from being taken against any member or staff of the Welsh Land Authority, and the local commissioner would be able to investigate any complaints raised by individual members of the public. Thus there are two ways in which individual members of the public could raise matters.
Of course, it is still an open question what relationship there will be between

1539
the Land Authority—and this matter has been touched on before—and any authority set up under the devolution proposals; and it may well be that there will be additional scrutiny of the Land Authority when those proposals take effect. It is not very charitable of the noble Viscount to say that, because the accounts will be laid before Parliament, this is merely another matter where people will write to their Member of Parliament.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I do not think that there is anything inconsistent in this. I entirely support the idea that material should be laid before Parliament. But I was giving the noble Lord an opportunity to explain how people who live in Wales could have a local channel of complaint to deal with this matter, the same as all their fellow citizens in England and Scotland. As I understand it they have two—and two only. They can write to their Member of Parliament, which I am sure is a most admirable thing to do; but it is not the same as being able to go along and argue the matter oneself at a district audit, which is what everyone else can do in England and Scotland. Secondly, they can go to the local commissioner and then, I suppose, they would have to com plain about maladministration or some thing of that kind. That sort of requirement is not present when one wishes to complain at a district audit; it is not necessary to go so far as to allege maladministration. One can go into some of the details of what has been happening in the activities of the local authority, without necessarily at that stage alleging that there has been maladministration or anything evil done.
I am merely hoping that the noble Lord will be able to reassure me that the people in Wales are not being deprived of these rights which are available to everyone everywhere else. But if it is the case that they are to be deprived, I shall have to think very seriously about it.
Lord MELCHETT: So far as local authorities in Wales are concerned, the local electors in the areas of those authorities will have exactly the same rights as they have at the moment, and exactly the same rights as people in England. It is true that when the Land Authority are
1540
set up they are answerable to the Secretary of State, who in turn is answerable to Parliament; but that is quite a different situation from local authorities in England.
I gather that the noble Viscount thinks that that is the trouble. But it is no good, on the one hand, having a separate system and then trying to say that it must have all the features of the system in England. That is simply not possible. I think it should be accepted that the Secretary of State will be answerable to Parliament, and that the Secretary of State will have ultimate control of the behaviour of the members of the Land Authority; and it is through that channel that the control will be exercised. I have tried to demonstrate as fully as I possibly can to the noble Viscount how members of the public will be able to take action if they feel aggrieved.
Viscount RIDLEY: I should like to know, for information, whether members of the public who feel aggrieved can go to a district councillor or a county councillor in Wales? Can he play any part at all in this process?
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, certainly. As I said earlier, there will be four local authority representatives on the Land Authority. I should have thought that it would be through that channel that a member of the public in Wales could also pursue a matter.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Reports]:
9.7 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 41B:
Page 13, line 6, leave out from ("Act") to ("and") in line 8.
The noble Viscount said: We heard from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a moment ago that the Land Authority for Wales would, among other things, be in receipt of directions, I sup pose from the Secretary of State for Defence, to buy or to do something regarding land required for that Department; and I suppose it is for those purposes that under Clause 13(2)(a) there will be certain directions omitted from any report made by the Authority for their accounting year.
Now this occurred to me when I read this clause, and I wanted first of all to ask whether this was likely to be a common event; but what the noble and learned Lord said earlier on this evening led to a rather wider point upon which I should be very grateful for enlightenment. If the Land Authority are going to act on behalf of the Ministry of Defence in acquiring or managing land which is of such a secret nature that no direction given can possibly be published, what else are they going to do? Are they going to take over all the acquisition of land for the Ministry of Defence which at the moment the Secretary of State for Defence can carry out under his own special defence legislation? Is the whole of the acquisition of land and management of land for defence purposes going to be taken out of the hands of the Secretary of State for Defence and out of the powers of the legislation which at the present moment govern it, and be handed over to the Land Authority for Wales? If so, so far as I know we have not previously been told this; and if that is going to happen in the case of the Secretary of State for Defence, shall we also find that the powers under the Education Acts, for instance, and under many other pieces of legislation whereby land can be acquired and managed for various statutory purposes, are going to be abandoned? Are we going to find the Authority being given directions to deal with all the matters under the procedure in this Bill, which we shall come to discuss a little later on, instead of having it done under the legislation which at the present moment governs it and which hitherto, so far as I know, has been tolerably satisfactory for that purpose?
I should be very grateful to know how far this is going, and what help noble Lords opposite can give us about the extent of these sort of directions, particularly in the case of defence but also in respect of the other activities that I have mentioned. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: In reply to the questions of the noble Viscount, I would say that the Land Authority will not act on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. They will deal only with land for private development; but this could include military contractors, and if that were the situation and it was felt that directions to the Land Authority were
1542
relevant to that matter and might touch upon a matter of national security, there should be power to allow the Secretary of State to notify the Land Authority not to include directions in regard to matters of that kind in the Authority's annual report. There is no more to it than that, and I would imagine that that situation would not arise very frequently.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Will the noble and learned Lord also confirm that in, for instance, the field of education, they will not be acting under the powers of this Bill in lieu of the various powers which already exist under the Education Acts; that all these powers will still continue to be used as hereto fore and that we are grafting this on simply as an additional power?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the position as I understand it, yes.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
9.13 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 13 insert the following new clause:
Agency arrangements
"( ) The authority shall furnish to each council of a county in Wales details of what ever agency arrangements it has made with local authorities in that county and such de tails of such arrangements shall be published in the head offices of each such county."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment to introduce a new clause relating to agency arrangements in Wales. The Committee will have seen and heard, both from yesterday's debate and from the debate we have just had on Amendment No. 41A, that the pro vision of a single Land Authority for Wales disenfranchises all the local people and all the local communities in Wales in the exercise of their democratic control over those functions that every person and every community in England and Scotland will be able to control; and, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said frankly yesterday, the people of Wales and the community of Wales will have to rely solely upon their Secretary of State.
In those circumstances I think that we in this Committee have the task of making the best of a bad job and of seeing that the people and communities of Wales, even if stripped of the democratic rights which arc enjoyed in England and Scotland, at least are not deprived of information available to the people and communities in England and Scotland. The particular information to which I refer as being available to the peoples and communities of England and Scotland is the information shown and indicated in Schedule 5, paragraph 5.
Even this information was not going to be available anyway in Wales, Eng land or Scotland when the Bill was first drafted; and after a struggle in Committee an undertaking was given that it would be provided. At Report stage it was provided and/or that we are grateful to the Government. But having got it provided for the community and people of England and Scotland, my noble friends and I see no reason why it should not be made available in Wales. In fact, because there has been this disenfranchisement in Wales in relation to other parts of the Kingdom, it is even more important that this information be furnished. Without it, the people and communities of Wales will know only that there is a Land Authority and that they have made some agency arrangements—because from the notes to the clause we know that that is going to happen—but exactly what agency arrangements there are and how they are operating in their own county they will not know. For all these reasons this Amendment, or something like it, is a necessary addition to the Bill. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government accept the spirit behind this Amendment: that there should be open ness about agency arrangements. The manpower studies which the Welsh local authorities have been carrying out to establish the capacity of each to under take agency functions has been organised on a county basis. The Government believe that the fact that the Land Authority have made an agency arrangement with a local authority for a particular function will become public knowledge in the normal course of events; so that local authorities themselves
1544
and the people dealing with them in their capacity as agents for the Land Authority will know what is going on.
The Government nevertheless have considered whether more needs he done. There is a provision in Section 34 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 for local planning authorities to keep and to make available to the public during reasonable hours a register of planning applications and decisions. The Act prescribes a complicated procedure, involving the making of a development order, for the way in which the register should be kept. This is right for that particular type of register which contains information which might affect development in a whole neighbourhood; but the Amendment does not propose and the Government do not think it necessary to have such complicated arrangements for agency agreements.
The Government intend therefore to use the provisions of Clause 42 of the Bill dealing with accounts and records to require the Land Authority to keep a central record of the agency arrangements which they enter into with local authorities and to make this available for inspection by the public at their head office and at such regional offices as they may establish in Wales and to do so at all reasonable hours. The Land Authority would also supply information about the list to persons inquiring by letter or by telephone. In this way all local authorities both at county and district level would be able to ascertain what agency arrangements have been made, as would any interested member of the public. An arrangement of that kind should not be less convenient than having the information at county council offices and it would avoid the awkward problems of meeting the costs incurred by county councils if they had to publish and make available information about agency arrangements. We believe that these suggestions are reasonable to deal with the point which has been very properly made and I hope that in view of what is proposed and of those assurances the Amendment will be withdrawn.
The Earl of BALFOUR: One of the problems in planning could be that you do not know necessarily whether it is a county or a district function. Perhaps my noble friend's Amendment may not fully bring this out. I feel that it is a

1545
help if the general public know where to look. I think that this is another point which needs to be considered.
Lord SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply, but I think that, once again, Wales is getting a very poor deal. It is true to some extent that these arrangements will become public knowledge, but I do not think that the average citizen is quite as alert as this. This is the kind of information in which you do not take any interest at all until you need to engage in some land transaction, and then you need to take an interest.
It is perfectly true that all the local authorities will get to know because to some extent they will be involved in an approach from the Land Authority as to whether or not they are going to act as an agent, and they are all right. I am thinking about the individual citizen. It does not seem at all reasonable for the Government to have agreed—I admit under pressure—that it is necessary in respect of England and Scotland to make provisions in the Bill which are set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 5 in relation to the nearest equivalent, the Land and Acquisition Management Schemes, and to provide, as they have, that these should be made available by all the authorities in the area of each county.
I was not asking for quite as much as that; I was asking that as a minimum provision details should be published and available for the public to look at in the county council offices throughout Wales. If, on further reflection, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor feels able to provide for the relevant agency arrangements to be available in the district council offices as well, so much the better. I cannot see that he and his right honourable friends are being the least consistent in relation to Wales in denying them, of all people, information which the Government now feel—when pressed in another place—is justified in England and Scotland. This is especially so as the Welsh communities and people are being dealt with by one single, remote authority. I wonder whether the noble
1546
and learned Lord would care to add anything to what he said.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not admit that the Land Authority will be a remote Authority. I would be most anxious that the people of Wales should of course know what is going on. This is an essential element in, I hope, the approach of all Parties now to democratic Government. It is because the people feel that they are not having sufficient voice in determining their own fate that we are now engaged in what looks like being a major change in our Constitution. At the moment, the Constitution and our law are like a gently bubbling vat with all sorts of yeasts being poured into it. I can only hope that what will emerge as "VAT 75" will be as drinkable as another vintage! I expect that is very doubtful. However, I hope it may prove satisfactory.
Coming back to what we have been discussing, if there is a great feeling that not sufficient is being made available in the way of information about these arrangements, I cannot see the people of Wales flocking to the offices of the county council to see what arrangements have been made as between the Land Authority and the local authorities as agents. But if it is felt strongly, and we think it is practicable that that should be done, we will certainly have a look at it.
The ambitions of the noble Lord extend to requiring the information to be nailed to the doors of the district council. We shall have to look at that. There are limits to what burdens we must place upon the district county authorities, but I am willing to have a look at that point.
Lord SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. From my much more limited knowledge of Wales, I should have thought that the Welsh are as vigilant democrats as anybody in England and Scotland—
The LORD CHANCELLOR: More so!
Lord SANDFORD: Therefore they need at least as good a provision as we have provided for England and Scotland. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Management, etc. of land held by the Authority]:
9.25 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 42A:
Page 13, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) The authority shall make arrangements for the management of land held by the authority pending development, with particular regard to the need to encourage the full and proper agricultural use of any farm land acquired by the authority in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns another important matter relating to Wales, and perhaps I might intro duce it by reminding the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who has presented us with this very interesting vat full of yeasts, of the position overall which the Government have stated in regard to Wales. If we turn to the White Paper Land, we read in paragraph 24:
"In Wales, however, the acquisition and disposal of land for private development will be the responsibility of an all-Wales body, which will also be able to provide local authorities with an advisory service."
In paragraph 25 of the same White Paper we read:
"The land to be acquired will be land which the community accepts as requiring development or re-development generally not more than ten years ahead."
Here is the use of the word "community" to which my noble friend Lady Young referred in such an important and interesting discussion earlier today, when it refers to,
"which the community accepts as requiring development …".
I do not think we need embark on a further discussion of the community in Wales, but the important point here is that generally the land will not be required more than ten years ahead. I should like an assurance from the noble and learned Lord, or one of his noble colleagues, as to whether or not this is a maximum.
Turning to Clause 14 and the Amendment itself, your Lordships will appreciate that we have to look further in the Bill, to Clause 16, because in subsection (12) we see that it relieves the Land Authority for Wales from preparing and submitting land acquisition and management schemes. This is a very important and unusual feature. Amendment No. 42A
1548
seeks to lay a duty on the Land Authority for Wales to make arrangements for the management of land held by the Authority pending development, and particular stress is laid on the need for encouragement of continued use of green fields. These were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and we appreciate that there must be more than one green field in Wales which may have to be acquired if this Bill becomes law. So we wish to provide for the possibility of green field sites remaining in agriculture for as long as possible. To quote the words of the Amendment:
"… with particular regard to the need to encourage the full and proper agricultural use of any farm land acquired by the authority in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture."
We feel that this Amendment should be considered at the same time as a later Amendment (No. 92A), which does not specifically relate to Wales. With your Lordships' permission I should like to speak to that Amendment now. I do not, of course, intend to move it until the appropriate moment arrives. It relates to Schedule 5 which, in turn, relates to the whole question of land acquisition and management schemes. It has been said, as I mentioned earlier, that there are to be no land acquisition or management schemes in Wales—the shorthand version would be "no lams in Wales". There fore, we wish to reinforce these arrangements by making sure that under paragraph 2 of Schedule 5, which relates to contentious schemes under Amendment 92A, we add:
"arrangements for the management of land held by any authority pending development with particular regard to the need to encourage the full and proper agricultural use of any farm land acquired by any authority party to the scheme in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture."
This reflects very much the wording of the previous Amendment. I do not feel that your Lordships would wish to hear a further enlargement from me at this stage, although I am very happy to provide it. I beg to move.
Lord MIDDLETON: If local authorities are to be encouraged to purchase land well in advance of the time when it will be developed, then clearly without proper arrangements for management there is bound to be a fall in production. So it is essential that the Welsh Authority and the local authorities should be required to

1549
take land management into consideration when preparing a land acquisition scheme. It is perfectly true that under paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 5 the authorities are to consider the resources available and the services of persons qualified in, among other things, management. But the danger is that they may well consider the matter and find themselves short of qualified estate management staff but go ahead nevertheless and acquire the land, with out being able to look after it properly when they have got it.
If the acquiring authority becomes the occupier as well as the owner then the land must be properly stocked, equipped, cropped and managed. If the original owner or occupier is allowed to continue in occupation, one must ask what the legal relationship is to be between him and the acquiring authority. If the existing occupier becomes the tenant of the acquiring authority, then there must be a proper tenancy agreement containing the normal statutory landlord's obligations with regard to repair, capital expenditure, tenant right, security of tenure and so on. There is another point. It is very important that there should be no cut back in Government grants towards land which is designated for development.
9.32 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: I hesitate to embark on something to do with Wales. One noble Lord who comes under the auspices of being "a noble friend" asked me a short while ago: "What on earth are you doing putting down an Amendment for Wales?" I said that I was trying to help. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will realise that this is a helpful and important Amendment. The problem here is quite simple, but important. As I understand it, local authorities—and for the purposes of this debate one would be talking to Amendments Nos. 42A and 92A—and in this case the Authority for Wales, can buy up land they want to develop. They may have a stock of land for the next five or 10 years I do not say that this likely to happen all over the country, but they are empowered to buy up land, which they think will be required for development up to 10 years ahead. Inevitably, this will be good agricultural land. Whenever there is a development scheme, the agricultural case is always put—that good agricultural land should not be used—but when the "crunch" comes it
1550
always goes. Therefore, inevitably this will be good agricultural land. Under the Bill, not only can land which is needed for development be taken, but other land which is not intended for development for up to five to 10 years can be acquired.
What will happen to this land? It may be that the farmers will be dispossessed and possibly there will be large tracts of land which will grow wild and no production will be forthcoming. At the worst, that would be unsightly. But it could also be, and almost certainly would be, contrary to the Government's White Paper, Food from our own Resources. We shall not get the production out of it, and we cannot afford to lose land of this kind.
The purpose of this Amendment is to lay an obligation on local authorities to ensure that land so acquired will be properly managed and looked after until such time as it is required for development. If the farmers are not dispossessed, it may be that the local authority will say, "We want to buy up this land but you, who have been farming here for some while, can go on farming until we require it for development purposes". What kind of a state will that person be in? He will not be able to have the security of borrowing from a bank, be cause his security will be a rapidly dwindling asset. He will not be able to avail himself of capital grants, because no Government Ministry in its right senses would give them to something which it knew could well come to an end within five or 10 years. Therefore, if left on its own that enterprise will dwindle and gradually become bad. We want to avoid that happening. I would suggest, with the greatest respect, that the best way to avoid that happening is by the Government accepting this Amendment which quite clearly lays upon the Authority the duty to see that that land is properly managed for agricultural purposes, if it has been so used, pending its development.
9.37 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: I understand that my noble and learned friend is well apprised of the fact that noble Lords opposite are always trying to be helpful in the Amendments that they move, and I agree with him in that view. May I add that I accept the principle underlying the Amendment. Indeed, it would be

1551
very inconsistent if I did not, because I said earlier today when we were dealing with statutory undertakers that if they took agricultural land for future use it was right that in the meantime it should continue to be used for agricultural purposes, and that as much food as possible should be produced from it. However, I have doubts about both the advisability of and the necessity for the Amendment which has been moved by noble Lords opposite.
For a start, under Clause 14(1) the authority will already be under a general duty to manage and turn to account land that is acquired by them under the Bill. In the case of farmland this will include continuing to operate the land for farming. Development of the land, involving its being taken out of farming use, would require planning permission. The granting of such permission will be under the control of the local planning authority and subject to a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
This might be a good moment once again to try to lay to rest a myth which I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, perpetuated in his speech when he said—I think I am correctly paraphrasing what he said—that when the Bill is passed there will be more green field sites brought into development. We have attempted, and obviously failed, to make it clear—myself and noble Lords on this side of the Committee, and my honourable friends in another place—that there is no question of this Bill altering planning procedures, planning priorities. There is no question of more agricultural land—green field sites—being developed because this Bill is passed. This Bill will not have that effect.
While I accept, as I have said, the principle underlying the Amendment I do not accept that the problem, if there is one, will be exacerbated by the passing of the Bill. Normal planning constraints will apply. Indeed, in Wales, with which we are dealing in this Amendment, it will be the local planning authorities, not the Land Authority, which will decide planning functions. The one argument of noble Lords opposite against the points that I have put forward, which is that local authorities will be planning and buying land—which is something that we
1552
see as desirable—and will therefore tend to give planning permission to green field sites, does not apply in this case to Wales. Therefore, I cannot accept that there is any question of more green field sites being developed than would happen in any event. I accept that green field sites will be developed in Wales, regardless of what happens to this Bill.
Secondly, in exercising their functions, and in particular in deciding whether development land, including farmland which they have acquired, should be made available for development, the Land Authority will also be required under Schedule 1 to have regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry. These provisions will be supported by the general oversight powers of the Secretary of State, who may give the Land Authority directions on any aspect of their operations. This Amendment specifically calls for consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If I may say so, the drafting of this part of the Amendment is rather imprecise, but it is argued that such a requirement is unnecessary. In most cases agricultural land will not be acquired until development is imminent. In other cases, it should be possible to arrange for the existing farmer to continue to farm the land.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Middle ton, asked me under what sort of arrangements that would be done, and of course he would be a tenant farmer, tenant of the Land Authority. As the noble Earl said, it may well be that a tenant in that position would not want to undertake capital projects, just as any farmer farming on land which he knew was likely to be acquired by some authority for some other purpose would not want to under take capital projects, and therefore grants for those projects might be affected. But I do not think any other grants given to farmers in Wales would be affected by the fact that the farmer was a tenant of the Land Authority. Hill farming subsidies, and soon, would continue in the usual way. The Land Authority themselves would have available farming expertise which, in our view, would generally suffice to ensure that the land is kept in productive use, and would have a financial incentive to derive rent from the land for as long as possible. So there should be no question of the land merely being

1553
left to grow weeds while the Land Authority decided what to do with it.
They will also have available the full range of advisory facilities of the Ministry of Agriculture. 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 than mere consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture. This would be a more serious matter than one which merely called for consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, and if the Land Authority fell down on their clearly de fined duties in this respect the Secretary of State would be bound to step in. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, asked me a question about the 10-year provision and I can tell him that that is a maximum.
Earl FERRERS: I long to get into the mind of the Government; I have tried, and still try, but I am still not correctly understanding the noble Lord. I am sure it is my dumb-wittedness that is the cause, but as I understand the position the Authority have the powor to acquire land under Clause 15, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, hung a certain amount of his case on the fact that under Clause 14(1) this Amendment is unnecessary because,
"The Authority shall have the general function of managing and turning to account land acquired by them".
I do not think that to have the requirement upon the Authority to turn to account land which they have necessarily means that they have to see that that is farmed and looked after properly.
The noble Lord said that there would be an incentive, because the Authority would have to derive a rent from these farms. One thing that has come out of this debate is that when that land is taken over and until it is to be developed farmers will continue to farm that land. My real worry is that there could well be an occasion when a farmer says, "If this is to be developed in, say, three years' time"—it may be that, in fact, it is not developed for five or six years—"I will get out of it", and if he does so who will take over the tenancy? No other farmer will take over that tenancy if he thinks it has two years to run, and it may well be that that land becomes derelict. When the noble Lord says he is in sympathy
1554
with the meaning of the Amendment, I would ask: would it be wrong to include this Amendment? If he is in sympathy with it, if all it does is underline the practicality and need for this land to be properly looked after, there is nothing wrong in putting it in the Bill. But I do not think it is enough to say that Clause 14 says that the Authority shall have to turn to account the land they have under their ownership. I hope the noble Lord will be a little more helpful towards this Amendment. He says he is in sympathy with its spirit. If he could be a little more sympathetic and say, "Yes, we will accept the Amendment, because it puts into the Bill the requirement which both of us wish to see", that would be very helpful.
Lord SANDYS: While I am glad to acknowledge the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, gave me about the 10 years, I would like to make a number of remarks about this matter. It is the intention of the Government, should this Bill become law, to impose a duty on local authorities to make plans 10 years ahead. Many of your noble Lordships present are very well experienced in the role of local government in making plans and contingencies for this period. Nevertheless, I am sure all noble Lords will agree that when this new burden, which is a scheme of a certain novelty, is laid on local authorities, surely a number of them will either cater excessively, or change their minds. That is our anxiety. Not all local authorities are equally proficient; not all national priorities come into effect.
Supposing there were intentions for large housing schemes, or industrial development, or something of that nature, and suppose that priorities changed. This is by no means an impossibility. I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to the fact that important schemes which were devised over the period of the early, middle and late 'sixties, such as the Severnside scheme, reached the waste paper basket approximately in the early part of 1973. There are very good reasons why important and far-reaching schemes are scrapped. One is undoubtedly the difficulty which the Registrar-General has in his population statistics. I am not anxious to criticise the Registrar-General in the planning

1555
field, but notoriously his figures are known to be at least between 80 per cent. and 100 per cent. wrong.
This is a most difficult area, but I think noble Lords will agree that from time to time, when important schemes are scrapped, local authorities must be relieved of much of their responsibility in making over-bids for land planning. It is the intention of my noble friends and I that farmland, should it remain in the hands of the Authority during the period of 6, 7 or 8 years, should be expertly farmed and managed for the benefit of all.
Lord TRANMIRE: May I give an illustration of the dangers of including this clause without this proviso? Some 20 years ago, an area in my old constituency was bought by Hull Corporation for purposes of development. The farms were all let to the former farmers on a 364-day tenancy. As a result, for 20 years no improvements were carried out on those farms, and the whole of that area relapsed. I should have thought some form of words, either from this Amendment or some other, should be inserted on Report stage to encourage local authorities to see that the farms were properly prepared for the extension in agricultural production of which this Government are in favour. Without it, I am afraid what Hull Corporation did will he copied in many other places, not only in Wales but in this country. I hope, therefore, that further consideration w ill be given to this before the Report stage.
9.50 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: Far be it from me to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, was prolonging debate on what I have acknowledged is a very important subject, but I really do not think, with great respect, that the Registrar-General's figures have very great relevance to the Amendment we are discussing. The noble Lord who has just spoken has said that this has happened in other situations, and of course the acquisition of land in advance of development schemes which change is not going to be a new feature or one associated solely with the land scheme. The responsibility on the Land Authority will be to avoid this situation,
1556
but, if I may say so, the present Amendment will not help, and I will in a moment say yet again why I do not think it will help.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, reverted to this question of the ten-year period, and it might be helpful if I spell it out in a little more detail. The ten-year period in Clause 18 is a maximum and a limitation. It is not saying that authorities must buy all land needed for the next ten years—in other words have a ten year land bank. Indeed it would not be the Government's wish that they should buy too far ahead because of the financing costs, but we have recognised that in some cases—for example, where they are concerned with the amalgamation of several small sites into one large one—the land will have to be bought ahead of need. Apart from this we shall ensure, through the rolling programmes which will be submitted annually to the Department, that their land is not bought too far ahead of need.
I said that I did not think this Amendment would help with the problem which noble Lords opposite see. To start with, I cannot for the life of me see how consultations with the Ministry of Agriculture will help to find a new tenant when the existing tenant walks out. I have, as any farmer has, an enormous respect for the advisory role the Ministry of Agriculture play for working farmers, but I really do not see that the Amendment is going to help in that situation. I said earlier—and perhaps I did not say it forcefully enough—that the Land Authority will themselves have available farming expertise, and it is our view that this expertise will generally suffice to make sure that land is kept in productive use. In fact I should have thought that the Land Authority may well be in a comparatively strong position when they buy land and find that they have no sitting tenant; because if they are buying land over a wide area, and if noble Lords are right—I do not know whether or not they are—that tenants will simply give up farming when the Land Authority appear on the horizon, they are going to be in quite a good position to build up an expert management team which can manage the land in accordance with the strict obligations the Authority are under before development takes place.

1557
I think the Amendment not only would not help the situation, but it would be wrong. It would be unreasonable, in our view, to place on the Land Authority a statutory obligation to consult the Ministry of Agriculture every time they buy a piece of farming land. The Amendment would place no corresponding duty on the Ministry of Agriculture as to the value of the advice they must give, and would place no duty on the Land Authority to comply with such advice. In practice, there is absolutely no doubt that the Land Authority will keep agricultural land in production for as long as possible. I have spelled out the reasons for that in considerable detail, and I hope noble Lords opposite can accept that position.
Earl FERRERS: The noble Lord has said that he does not think the local authorities would buy up land very far ahead, have vast land banks ten years ahead, because of the financial implications involved. I entirely accept that. The fact is that the Bill allows them to do so. Our Amendment is put down with that in mind. Of course, if local authorities are only going to buy up the land they require in the next year, then this Amendment would not be required. The fact is that the Bill allows them to buy up land some way ahead, and that is why we feel this is desirable.
Much of the noble Lord's argument was based on why an authority should consult with the Ministry of Agriculture, and that this was unnecessary. I want to be helpful. Do I understand from that that he would be prepared to accept this Amendment if the last few words were cut out, namely, "in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture"? That would leave:
"The authority shall make arrangements for the management of land held by the authority pending development, with particular regard to the need to encourage the full and proper agricultural use of any farm land acquired by the authority".
If he were to think that that would be acceptable, then we could come to some agreement.
Lord MELCHETT: It may interest the noble Earl to know that I took advice on this specific point because it
1558
had occurred to me. If I were to accept that Amendment, we, on this side of the Committee, would be in the position of having to accept any Amendment which repeated things which were already in the Bill. I have spelt out in some considerable detail and at great length why this is unnecessary, because the Land Authority are already obliged to act in this way. I do not think that merely to repeat it yet again would be useful either from the point of view of making the Bill simple and straightforward so that people could understand it, or that it is necessary.
9.57 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, opened his remarks by saying that Amendments from this side of the Committee were usually helpful. This was indeed intended to be a helpful and indeed valuable asset in promoting the scheme in Wales. The point where I depart from the noble Lord is where he hangs much of his argument, is my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, on Clause 14(1), which says:
"The Authority shall have the general function of managing and turning to account"—
because "managing and turning to account" could easily be over quite a large area of agricultural land forming perhaps the opportunity for caravan sites et cetera, which would in no way be an agricultural use for this land. Should this continue for a long period—and I am glad that my noble friend Lord Tranmire mentioned a case in his knowledge—this could have a disastrous effect.
I should also like to return to the point I made about the change of plans over a period. I am quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will remember the problems faced by her county in 1965, and how different the world looks in 1975. An enormous change has taken place in the planning field. In a humble capacity in a voluntary organisation, the CPRE, for over a period of more than ten years I have been in close touch with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and its successor the Department of the Environment, and there is no question or doubt that radical changes have taken place in as short a period as nine or ten years.

1559
Surely in this time scale, if we are to look forward to, say, 1985, as pro posed by the Government, it is likely that the demands of Government and local government are liable to change. In the 1960s, we had the planned corridors of growth; and I mentioned the total stranding of the Severnside scheme. We had linear towns. Perhaps that was before the time of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett—I do not know. But the linear town built-up area between Bristol and Exeter was on the drawing board as a contingency plan at one time and has been thrown overboard. It must be that plans are formed on data provided by other Government Departments.
The noble Lord suggested that the Registrar-General's figures were irrelevant in this context. One must make one's own judgment. I feel that the
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Registrar-General has a very important part to play in the planning role, and that his figures of the birth rate and so on have a tremendous effect not only on the staffing of local government but on the management of schools and the whole remit of Government and local government throughout the country. We are not satisfied with the noble Lord's replies. We had intended this Amendment to be helpful and we still believe it to be helpful; but one must make a judgment, and in our judgment it is better that the Bill should contain this Amendment. I therefore regret that I shall have to press it to a Division.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 42A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northchurch, B.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gage, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Balfour, E.

Gainford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Ridley, V.

Brecon, L.

Hastings, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Salisbury, M.

Chelwood, L.

Hylton, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kemsley, V.

Sandys, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Savile, L.

Cowley, E. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Sherfield, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Dundee, E.

Mansfield, E.

Tranmire, L.

Elles, B.

Middleton, L.

Vickers, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Falkland, V.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Jacques, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Phillips, B.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Raglan, L.

Champion, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stedman, B.

Crook, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

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

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
10.9 p.m.
Clause 15 [Powers of acquisition and appropriation]:
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 45A:
Page 14, line 20, leave out ("land which, in their opinion is suitable for development") and insert ("development land").
The noble Earl said: With this Amendment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 46B and to manuscript Amendment No. 46E. The Amendment leaves out the words,
"land which in their opinion is suitable for development"
and inserts the words, "development land". This is slightly complicated and I ask your Lordships to attune your minds as we retrace the complexities of the definitions. Clause 15 gives the powers of acquisition for land which, in the opinion of the local authorities, is suitable for development. In order to find out what "development land" is—and we suggest that "development land" should be inserted instead of the words "suitable for development"—it is necessary to turn to Clause 4. This clause defines development land as having the meaning given to it by Clause 17. One then turns to Clause 17, subsection (4) of which states,
"In this Act 'development land' means land which, in the opinion of the authority concerned, is needed for relevant development …".
Not "suitable for …", but "needed for …". One then looks to find out what is "relevant development". To find that out one turns to Clause 3, in which one finds that "relevant development" means any development except exempt development, or dwelling-houses, or excepted development.
Therefore if the Government, and in deed your Lordships, were to accept this Amendment local authorities would be given power to acquire only land which is needed for relevant development; not which is suitable for any development, but which is needed for relevant development within the next 10 years. I should have thought that that would be a sufficiently wide power to give any local authority, because, after all, as it is at the moment, it is power to take land
1562
suitable for any development which, in the opinion of the local authority, is suitable. The land does not have to be needed for relevant development. The local authority has to say merely that it thinks the land is suitable. We believe that it would be better to restrict the power to that which is needed for relevant development; and indeed one begins to wonder for what other reason a local authority would wish to buy such land, when already there are a myriad of other laws and powers under which local authorities can buy land.
Under this Amendment, local authorities could not acquire land which was exempted land; nor could they acquire dwelling-houses or excepted development land, but they could acquire any land needed for relevant development. There fore, it would protect smaller properties, and I suggest that the need which is described in Clause 17(4) is far more specific than the word "suitable" which appears in the Bill, and which this Amendment seeks to clarify.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will agree that this would be an appropriate alteration to the Bill. The manuscript Amendment, to which I have referred, is only a small and consequential Amendment which would leave out sub section (2), which in itself refers to development land, which, if this Amendment is accepted, would not have to be referred to. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: These Amendments and others which are linked with them—Amendments Nos. 45B, 46, 46C, 49 and 49A—are designed to limit the power of authorities to acquire land under Clause 15 of the Bill, and it may be convenient for me to begin my reply to the submissions of the noble Earl by endeavouring to clear up what seem to me to be some basic misconceptions in regard to the land scheme. The scheme is about buying land for development: that is the heart and soul of it. It has no effect on land which is not coming into development, it is not land nationalisation; and what is to come into development will be controlled by the planning system, as now. Those are basic propositions which I think should be emphasised.

1563
The compulsory purchasing power which we are discussing is no different from existing powers. The changes made by Part I of Schedule 4, which we shall be discussing in detail, are all changes, I submit, in procedure, and two of these—the power to dispense with an inquiry and the power to disregard certain objections—are precedented in the New Towns Act. We have not invented some new, expedited process of compulsory acquisition. Neither the procedure on planning applications in Clause 20 nor the disposal notification area provisions provide any new powers of acquisition; they are simply ways in which authorities identify land. When they want to buy they have to go through the compulsory purchase procedure set out in the Bill. There is, therefore, no reason why any types of land should be taken outside the compulsory purchase power.
Local authorities already have wide powers to buy any land they need for their own statutory purposes, or to bring it into private development. For example, the acquisition power in the Housing Act 1957 extends to land for any housing, and not simply local authority housing. Similarly, authorities have power to buy compulsorily now any land which the Secretary of State is satisfied they need to acquire immediately,
"for a purpose which it is necessary to achieve in the interests of the proper planning of an area in which the land is situated".
That language is not the language of a Socialist Act of Parliament: it is in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, Section 112(1)(d).
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Will the noble and learned Lord forgive my interrupting on that point? It is a point which has been made throughout the Bill, and it is a bad point. The 1971 Act was a consolidation Act, and I think that the noble and learned Lord will find that the power that he is referring to derives from other legislation. The 1971 Act was not a piece of Conservative legislation. I happened to be the Chairman of the Consolidation Bills Committee at the time, and it was a consolidation Act.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: If it gives the noble Viscount comfort to say that it was consolidated only in the period of the Conservative Administration, he can derive what comfort he can from that qualification of what I have said, but I really must not submit to the temptation to approach this is in any Party political sense. But, having been to that extent chastened by the intervention of the noble Viscount, and after that exordium on the general principles which I thought it was important to make in order to remove some of the anxiety about these acquisition powers generally—at least, I hope it will—I proceed to say that these Amendments are not acceptable for reasons which I hope to indicate.
First, I stress that the Bill is concerned with the development of land—I repeat, with the development of land—not with land for its own sake. Land can be suitable for many types of development. Even if it has planning permission for one type of development, it may be equally suitable for one or more other types of development; so that any Amendment that takes land either on its own or with a certain type of planning permission outside the acquisition power is wrong in principle. For instance, you cannot have a situation where would-be development cannot take place because there is a bit of land in the middle which could be totally exempt from acquisition because it has a certain type of building upon it which could conflict with all the proposed development around it.
Secondly, the Bill is concerned with three categories of development. First, exempt development in Schedule 1: very minor development for which land will never need to he acquired under the land scheme. This is specifically excluded from the acquisition power by Clause 15(2). Secondly, there is excepted development. This will normally proceed with out public intervention; but acquisition for such development may, very exceptionally, still be justified. Thirdly, there is "relevant development" with which the land scheme is concerned. But the acquisition power—and I emphasise "power" and not duty—must extend not only to land for relevant development; it must cover and embrace land for excepted development as well, even though the Secretary of State would not

1565
normally allow the power to be used compulsorily.
Not only is this to guard against evasion of the land scheme by breaking a single development down into smaller but artificial units, but there are some cases—for instance, industrial and recreational development—where the only way to bring the land into that development may be for an authority to acquire it and where it is right that they should be able to do so. Finally, it must be borne in mind that the local authorities already have compulsory acquisition powers which go far wider than "relevant development". To restrict the power in the Bill to "relevant development" only and to exclude everything else could produce an intolerable situation of fragmented compulsory purchase orders with different bits of land needed for one scheme having to be acquired under different powers if the Clause 15 power got out of line.
The general case that I have adumbrated covers these and, I submit, most of the other Amendments which will follow. Having given that general indication of the grounds on which we have gone in this field beyond the limited range of development land, I hope that I may have persuaded—although I doubt it—noble Lords on all sides of the Committee that what is proposed is necessary, reasonable and precedented.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: For which purposes does the noble and learned Lord suggest that we shall need to have compulsory powers? He has said that we have already got them under various legislation in the Housing Act and under paragraph (d) of Section 112(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 which I would just remind the noble and learned Lord is derived from the Socialist Act of 1968 before it was consolidated. As he rightly said, there are various powers which already exist.
All that this Amendment does, as I understand it, is to confine the power—and I appreciate that it is a power under Clause 15—to those cases where the land is development land within the meaning of Clause 17(4). What other developments are going to require the use of compulsory powers which are not already dealt with, either under the legislation which concerns relevant development
1566
under this Bill, or the role of Statutes giving compulsory powers of which the noble and learned Lord gave a list? There are others as well. If it is only evasion he is after, let us know that is the point. That may be one thing, but are there other situations not covered by existing powers of compulsory acquisition, not relevant development, which are going to need compulsory powers under this Bill? I do not know what they arc. It would be helpful if I knew.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: I should like to support my noble friends. While I am loath to challenge the views that we have had from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor I am a little foxed by what is really intended by these two very different words, "needed development". We all know that the powers exist at this moment, should a local authority require land for development for roads, schools, hospitals or council housing, for it to pursue compulsory purchase orders to acquire that land for a necessary public service. But the term "suitable land for development" in my lay, unlegal mind, means any land that could be developed for any purpose, whether or not it had anything to do with a local authority or public service.
I think this term opens an enormously wide field. I am not in any way opposing the grounds on which the noble and learned Lord outlined the powers that a local authority requires for land needed for development. It is a very different matter if a local authority is going to have powers to take over land which it does not want for any public purpose but which, under the classification, as I have read this Bill, would be suitable for development, possibly by someone seeking to build houses for private purchase and occupancy, or for a light industry area, or even for some shopping complex. All those interests would have to obtain planning permission. It seems wrong that we should lay wide open any piece of land suitable for development. That, to my lay mind, means that anything can be taken over which anybody might for any purpose seek to develop. I person ally would be very happy indeed to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord HYLTON: While this Bill is to be passed into law, I do not think I would

1567
go so far as my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith, I would strongly support my noble friend who moved the Amendment. I hope he will stick to his guns because it is most desirable that we take out of the Bill questions of opinion. Questions of opinion are endlessly debatable. What we ought to be doing is to try to restrict the acquisition, and sometimes compulsory acquisiton, of land to real needs which can be proved and shown to exist. That is why I very much hope my noble friend will, if necessary, press his Amendment.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I should like to refer to several points, but I should first like to say that I find it disagreeable that at 10.30 p.m. we should be dealing with such an important subject as compulsory purchase. It is a very thin Committee. I know that your Lordships regard compulsory purchase and the acquisition of new powers as being of great importance, and I very much regret that the Government feel they have to plough on against the wish of many of your Lordships until the magic hour of midnight. I regret this very much, because there has been so much criticism of these powers in the Bill. Many of us have received briefs from dozens of organisations who are worried about these powers. Listening to the soothing words of the noble and learned Lord, I feel that perhaps we are wrong, perhaps there is nothing to be worried about in these new powers. But, with the greatest respect, I think that the noble and learned Lord, with his great ability for persuading us of what is sensible, has erred on this occasion.
If I may refer to one brief which I have received, concerned with compulsory purchase, it rather strays into Schedule 4, but perhaps that is necessary when we are talking about new powers of acquisition under Clause 15. This very responsible body said this about the new procedures which the noble and learned Lord has mentioned as being so acceptable. They said, first, that they abolish the obligation of an acquiring authority to state the purpose for which the land is required. That, in itself, is one of the greatest safeguards which an individual has. Secondly, the Secretary of State is enabled entirely to
1568
ignore objections questioning the expediency or necessity of the acquisition. Thirdly, the Secretary of State is empowered to consent to the acquisition of land for purposes which still need not be publicised, which would otherwise be ultra vires. I think these are pretty damning comments from a very responsible body.
I should also like to ask how many Members of this Committee have been involved in compulsory purchase; I suspect that there are very few. I know some of the procedures involved, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, knows them well. They are long and tortuous and, at the end of the day, the individual may receive his compensation perhaps three years after the acquisition. It is a long and cumbersome procedure, and this is a power which Parliament should look at most carefully. I believe that Parliament, and in particular your Lordships, should look at this clause most carefully.
Turning to the rights of the individual, I direct your attention to paragraph 35 of the White Paper, which reads:
"Other permanent exemptions from acquisition under the scheme will be set out in due course, but they will include alterations and extensions to dwelling houses; the building, within the curtilage of a dwelling occupied by the owner at the date of this White Paper, of a single house for occupation by the owner or a member of his family; buildings used in agriculture and forestry; and development related to the extraction of minerals. Consideration will be given to the extent to which extensions to buildings and changes between use classes can be exempted, and the exemptions will also take account of the need not to con strain important industrial development and expansion."
Those words are worth repeating, because the advice I have received on the rights of the individual and his house is something which I find disturbing. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will address his reply to this. I have been told that under Clause 3 the private individual may build a house, and that comes within "relevant development".
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: No.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I mean within "development". I am afraid that at this time of night arguments can get mixed up. It is not "relevant." What I am saying is that there are two classes of private individual; those who will be exempt and those who relate to excepted

1569
development. As the noble and learned Lord said, there will be a great deal of difference between excepted development and exempt development. Exempt development was a specific point made in the White Paper. The private individual would not suffer; he would be exempted for all time by this Bill. What I am saying is that, on certain occasions, the private individual is not fully exempt, because he comes within the sphere of excepted development. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will reply to that point tonight. It is a vital issue.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am a little concerned with some of my noble friends. Once again, perhaps I may take advantage of the perch I sit on right at the back of the Chamber. My noble friend who moved this Amendment would be putting the Bill back to exactly how it was written when it came from the Committee stage in another place. Then the words which he seeks to leave out were inserted at the Report stage in another place. I should like to place a little emphasis on the word "suitable". My reason is that I think that far too often and on far too many occasions a local authority acquire land without having really surveyed it to see whether they can properly use it. This is a constant fight of mine all over the place. I re member having a real battle over this one when, although the land had been surveyed, we could not drain for certain houses and the landscape architect cheer fully said: "Oh well, we can plant trees on it." I said: "Good heavens! You are taking away some of the very best agricultural land and spending the council's good money on it and then planting trees. "I ask my noble friends—and I am sorry to be the odd man out—to think again a little on this Amendment.
10.38 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I endeavoured to indicate in my opening observations the types of land and the categories of development with which the Bill is concerned. There was exempt development, which I indicated as minor development for which land will never need to be acquired under the land scheme and that is specifically excluded from acquisition power. Then there is excepted development. As I said, that
1570
will normally proceed without public intervention. Nevertheless, I have indicated the reasons why, exceptionally, even excepted development might for the purposes of good planning need to be acquired. Thirdly, there is the "relevant development" with which the land scheme is concerned.
The acquisition power must, I submit, cover land for excepted development as well, even though, as I indicated, normally the Secretary of State would not allow that power to be used in respect of excepted development. But one can conceive of a situation where, if there was no power at all, if it was totally excluded to acquire houses, it could happen that a large industrial development planned for an area with, say, a farmhouse in the centre of it could be frustrated by making it impossible to acquire the house by means of a compulsory purchase order.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I apologise for interrupting, but already there are compulsory purchase powers in the case of the very example which the noble and learned Lord has given. I feel strongly about this issue, because of the new powers. The example of the farmhouse which the noble and learned Lord has cited would come within this new procedure and many of the individual rights would disappear. Why not leave cases of that kind to be dealt with under the old powers?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The out come of that situation would be that the authority would have to make a separate compulsory purchase order for the farm house, and another for the acquisition of the land round about for industrial development. One can think of a similar kind of situation arising if the authority wanted to buy land for 100 houses and to provide an open space in the middle. If the open space were excepted development, that land would not be needed for relevant development. Again, the authority would have to make separate compulsory purchase orders for the housing and for the open space if they wanted to use the new power for the housing. It is a situation where this additional power is needed. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, thinks that all of these powers already exist. If so, the Bill as drafted is mere duplication. If, however, the power does not deal with

1571
some excepted development of the kind I have indicated—and I do not believe that there are adequate powers to deal with it—the Bill's power is required to fill the gap.
The point I wish to emphasise in the consideration of this matter is that the compulsory purchase order for excepted development has to go through the normal compulsory purchase order procedures. At the end of the day, there is the ultimate decision of the Secretary of State. He has said that he will expect special justification for the acquisition of land in the category of excepted land—the consideration of fragmentation or evasion, or the needs of positive planning. If those factors are present and if, in the public interest, positive planning of that kind for the sensible and effective development of an area exists, and if the compulsory purchase order procedures are adequate, then I submit that this is an acceptable situation. In the course of the detailed consideration of these powers we shall go into the matters which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has raised. I do not propose to traverse them at this point. I submit, however, that these Amendments, designed to restrict the area in which these powers are to be exercised, would damage the conception and basically undermine the purposes of the Bill.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, a good deal of what he has said is based upon a collection of false premises. Let me take first his complaint that there might have to be a number of different compulsory purchase orders. There are frequently a number of such orders now, and so far as I know it causes no difficulty. I promoted one the other day whereby rather more than half the land was being bought by the district council under the High ways Act for car parking and another portion was being bought by the county council for a fire station. The whole matter was dealt with at the same public inquiry; the same people were there; the same Inspector presided and the procedure works perfectly satisfactorily. I do not think there is anything to worry about just because one has to act under more than one set of powers.
1572
Before now I have promoted compulsory purchase orders to buy land for open space. There is nothing difficult about that. It is done under one of the oldest Acts which give compulsory purchase powers. The procedure is a little strange but it is not all that difficult and one can get through it perfectly satisfactorily. I am pleased to say that on this occasion it was eventually confirmed and to the best of my knowledge it is now enjoyed by the public. So there is no great difficulty about that.
The noble Lord asked—and I think we are getting into a difficulty here—what would happen if there was a farmhouse on the plot. He has fallen into the same trap that the noble Baroness was telling us about yesterday. The point about the farmhouse does not arise under this Bill. It would apply only if it was a plot upon which somebody was proposing to build a farmhouse. If the farmhouse is already there, there is no bar upon the use of the powers under this Bill because that is not a development which is covered by Clause 3(1)(b).
We were told yesterday, very properly and rightly, that this Bill is concerned with proposed development—not with land and existing buildings upon land. If there was a farmhouse in the middle of it that would not be development consisting exclusively of the building of a single dwellinghouse, because that dwellinghouse would already be there and the proposition woud not be to develop land by the building of another one. What I think has happened is that because of a number of processes in Parliament we have gone a long way from the pattern of the Bill as it was originally introduced. I do not know that we ought necessarily to come to any complete conclusion on this Amendment but I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could help us on this.
We had to rely on the White Paper for our actions for a long time before the Bill was eventually produced, and many people framed their activities and took personal and commercial decesions based upon it. As my noble friend has said, we were told that within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse occupied by the owner at the date of this White Paper—the famous White Paper Day—the building of a single house for occupation by the owner or a member of his family, would be

1573
permanently exempted from acquisition under this Bill. That of course was dealt with in what used to be Clauses 4 and 5. Those have gone and have been replaced by at any rate part of what is now Clause 3(1)(b). Clause 3(1)(b) goes a good deal wider, because it deals not only with single dwellinghouses on plots intended to be built at White Paper Day, but single dwellinghouses on plots intended to be built at any time.
But what is happening is that under this provision in Clause 15, as it now has been worked out, if we define "development" without any reference to the private dwelling-house on White Paper day, or any other day, we are reducing the areas of exemptions which were promised in the White Paper. The noble and learned Lord must realise that this worries me. It is quite true that even those plots of land may have to be bought for some other scheme. They may have to be bought for part of an industrial estate. There are powers which the noble and learned Lord himself mentioned in the Town and Country Planning Act, under which a great many pieces of land could be assembled together and purchased for precisely that purpose; and the more we get down to structure plans, the more the other pro visions in Section 112(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act will be apposite. So it will still be possible to do it.
All I am suggesting to the noble and learned Lord is that if we are not very careful, and if he does not say that he will look at this again, he will end up in a position where he is actively detracting from the exemptions that were promised in the White Paper, relating to single plots on which people propose to build houses for members of their families. There are a number of people who were in that category on White Paper day, and I seriously suggest that the noble and learned Lord ought not just to brush that aside. He certainly ought not to base his whole argument on the proposition that it is an existing farmhouse, whereas what we are talking about is a proposed single dwellinghouse, not yet built on a plot owned on White Paper day.
10.50 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly see whether there is anything in the Bill, save in the utterly exceptional
1574
circumstances which I indicated, which amounts to a derogation from what is provided for and contemplated in the White Paper. I will give serious thought to that. I am not satisfied that it is so, and indeed, the power to build on small plots for the owner-occupier is something that is preserved. But I will see whether there is some development, save in the exceptional circumstances where the need for development may require acquisition even of a single plot. If that should occur in given circumstances, then the aggrieved owner would have his power of objection and his remedy in respect of loss. I will certainly look at that.
One has got to come back to a view about the basic principle of this scheme, namely, the principle that all development should be through publicly-owned land, that that development should be governed by planning principles which will be applied and governed by the local authorities, the responsible persons in this field, who are the experts on these matters. Half development land is owned by local authorities. We take the view that the principle that development land should be owned by the public is crucial, not only from the point of view of enabling the community to reap the reward of the increment in land values, which is the result of the effort of the community at large, but, also as we believe—and we shall be considering this in detail—that in terms of planning itself and the proper use of this most precious commodity in the community, namely, land, it is desirable that it should be publicly owned. It is upon this principle that I can see there can be no agreement between both sides of the Committee, at least between the Conservative noble Lords and our selves. I am afraid we shall not be able to come together on that. I will certainly look at any of these detailed matters on the kind of point that the noble Viscount has raised, in case I may have misled myself. But I do not think so.
10.53 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I am very glad to hear that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is to look at this matter. I do not speak in any sense as a planning expert, but on several occasions in the course of debates on this side of the Committee we have been

1575
criticised for misleading the public. If we look at what is an absolutely crucial clause in this Bill, Clause 15, and see how very complicated the language there is, and the amount of misunderstanding that there can be among those who have tried to study it, it is easy to see how the public can misunderstand.
I think my noble friends have raised an exceedingly important point about the fact that we are not talking about relevant development, as we were in Clause 3. We are talking about land suitable for development, which is quite different. It means that all the assurances given about the single plots do not apply under Clause 15; and assurances, as I understand it, that were given yesterday are now being taken away today, because we are told, as the noble and learned Lord has told us, that in exceptional circumstances the exceptions themselves can be overridden.
I am not suggesting that the Government are deliberately misleading the public, but they are certainly confusing everyone. It is no use anybody leaving the Committee and saying, "You may be quite sure that the single plot is safe", because clearly it is not safe, at least, not in my understanding of what the noble and learned Lord has said. I think that this kind of language simply con fuses people. I will not repeat my arguments about the community, as we had a long talk about what we meant by that. But one group I think we meant was the thousands of people who owned single plots of land on White Paper day or had bought them since. They have a right to know where they stand, and I do not think they know now.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Before my noble friend decides what to do with this Amendment, may I put one short point to the noble and learned Lord? My noble friend Lord Ferrers raised the interesting point that under Clause 17 you have the definition of "development". Would the noble and learned Lord consider whether this definition could be put into Clause 4, which is where all the others are? It seems quite stupid that in Clause 17, which gives the general duties of the authorities, we have this specific point on "development". I hope that the noble and
1576
learned Lord has taken my point and will consider it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I will look at that. I think the draftsmen, in dealing with the varied subject matters that arise in this admittedly complex Bill, thought it might be convenient to put in the definitions as the Bill went along. This point arose in earlier discussion on the Bill. It is quite right that the definition clauses appear in several places, and if this is unnecessarily adding to the confusion and can easily and conveniently be remedied we will look at it.
I deny that there has been any significant change in the scope of the acquisition powers since the Bill was introduced, but I will certainly look at the technical point which has arisen about single plots and we will have an opportunity to revert to it again. My under standing is that there was never any promise in the White Paper or in the original Bill that these plots would be exempt. It was simply certain development on such plots that was to be specially treated. It is true that multi-compulsory purchase orders have very occasionally been made, though I have never been professionally involved in them myself.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I do it quite frequently.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: It is obvious that I left the Bar too soon. Though they are made on occasions, my understanding is that they are exceptional. But if they are not, they cause needless work by duplication. However, we will have a look at these highly technical matters and will no doubt revert to them in the course of the next few days.
Earl FERRERS: I hope that your Lordships are now perfectly clear as to what the situation is, because, speaking for myself, I am in a complete and utter muddle. We have heard all the arguments put forward by lawyers on both sides of the House, indeed none less than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. If I may say so, his original reply was in the nature—and I do not mean this in the slightest bit offensively—of a departmental answer which referred to exempted development, excepted development, relevant development and so forth, all of which are highly relevant. But the danger is that you put

1577
into the Bill things that are totally incomprehensible to the average person, in which modest category I put myself. The purpose of Parliament is surely to try to put forward legislation which is comprehensible. That means that it ought to be able to be considered and understood by people who are not right at the top of the legal profession.
I am bound to say that I come down to two simple premises on this Amendment. First, the Bill says in Clause 15(1):
"An Authority—(a) shall have power to acquire by agreement … and land which, in their opinion, is suitable …".
That gives the impression that a local authority can buy any land, however good or bad, whatever the justification may be, provided that it is in their opinion all right. It does not matter about anybody else's opinion, even the owner's opinion, provided that in their opinion it is suit able. That is far too wide a power to give without redress to any local authority.
What is it that they are going to purchase or acquire which, in their opinion, is suitable? Not relevant land, but any land for any development. As the noble and learned Lord himself said, local authorities have at the moment vast powers compulsorily to purchase land. That we all agree, but then we come along with this Bill and say, "Now we will give them power to acquire land for any development irrespective of the needs, requirements, or the interests of others" is far too great a power.
I have no hesitation in saying that it is my impression and consideration that I think that this Amendment should be pressed, but I have a hesitation in that in so far as there are other Amendments which may be better and which may possibly be required to be included in the Bill, and which maybe this Amendment would exclude. If I do not press this Amendment on this occasion, I say to the noble and learned Lord, with the greatest of humility, that I hope he will consider what has been said this evening by everyone; not just the technical point, though it is very important, which my noble friend Lord Colville put forward, but all the other points which have been mentioned by noble Lords. I was going to say by noble Lords from all sides of the House, but in fact they are only behind me because
1578
no one on the other side has taken part. I hope he will consider them, be cause we do not intend to let the matter rest here. If some kind of consideration is not forthcoming, I give notice that we shall return to this.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course I will give consideration to these matters, and what has been raised in this debate. That is the whole purpose of a Committee stage in the House. I thought I had given that indication earlier. I am not, by that token, indicating that I enter into any commitments to alter that which exists, but I will certainly give consideration to this Committee stage, and to whether something has taken place which is contrary to what was intended or what was undertaken. I do not believe that that has come to pass, but I will certainly give it the most serious consideration.
Earl FERRERS: I beg leave to with draw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.5 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 14, line 20, at end insert ("within two kilometres of any land owned by the authority").
The noble Earl said: This is one of the few occasions when I feel I must declare an interest, which is that I live three miles from the nearest bus stop. The purpose of this Amendment is to prevent authorities from extending matters to too wide an area. For the benefit of noble Lords who are not familiar with kilometres, two kilometres equal about one and one-quarter miles. From time to time, a local authority will be developing areas and carrying out various functions, perhaps an industrial estate or a housing estate, and I feel that in the interests of good agriculture and to enable farmers to plan ahead—and farmers need to plan at least 10 years ahead—the safeguard that the Amendment would give should be in the Bill. It would also be in the interests of food production in this country.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess to a certain lack of understanding of what the noble Earl has in mind. He proposes, as I understand it, to deprive an authority of any power to acquire any land within two kilometres of any land owned by the authority. I find myself

1579
totally bewildered by the terms of the Amendment.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I apologise. I wanted to prevent an authority from buying land more than two kilometres away. I suppose that this is the sort of thing that happens to the best of us and my drafting is clearly defective. Accordingly. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 46C:
Page 14, line 22, after ("in") insert ("section 3(1)(b) of or").
The noble Viscount said: I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will forgive me if I try to spell out my argument in moving this Amendment because that might assist him in the consideration he has already promised. However, I can be brief in doing so because I am now going back essentially to the single plot on which somebody had the intention of building on White Paper day. Building a house on a plot is development, and therefore under Clause 15(1) an authority has power, as the Bill is drafted, to acquire that land by agreement or compulsorily if it considers that that plot is suitable for development consisting of one dwellinghouse. There are, of course, for these purposes certain exceptions to what is development—they appear in subsection (2)—because if what the local authority considers the place to be suitable for is one of the matters that appears in Schedule 1, then that is the only sort of development for which it cannot buy land under Clause 15(1); but it can buy land for the development of a single dwellinghouse on a single plot, and it does not matter who owned the plot and when, according to the way the Bill is now drafted. The White Paper said:
"Part 7—Permanent exemptions from acquisition."
I think that that meant—and that the Government intended it to mean—that anything which …
Lord MELCHETT: I am listening to the noble Viscount.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS. I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is to reply, but I
1580
entirely understand how it is that messages have to be conveyed and I would far rather wait until that had been done so that I may have his undivided attention until I have finished. I was reminding him that Part 7 of the White Paper referred to permanent exemptions from acquisition. I believe that everybody who read that White Paper thought that anything that came immediately after that, as being something that was to be exempt from acquisition, was not under this legislation going to be able to be acquired by compulsion at all. What the very next paragraph says is this:
"The Government propose to exclude from the scheme—"
and the scheme is what the White Paper is about and the scheme is the Bill—
"the building—"
that is, the development—
"of a house for owner occupation on a single plot which was owned by the prospective owner occupier on the date of the White Paper."
Everybody whom I have met has always understood that to mean that the local authority, even if it did think, as did the owner, that that plot was going to be suitable for the development of one dwellinghouse, would not be able compulsorily to acquire it under the Bill. I think I am right in saying that that was provided for in the way the Bill used to be drafted because we had Clauses 4 and 5. Those have gone; the Bill has been simplified and there have been certain extensions. What we now have is not land owned with the intention of building a single dwellinghouse on White Paper day, but Clause 3(1)(b), which is another thing which is not relevant development. It provides for the building of a single house on a plot whenever it was owned by the person who wishes to build.
I simply say to the noble and learned Lord that I believe that the Government have, probably without realising it, changed the Bill so that the plot owned for development of the single dwelling-house on White Paper day is no longer exempt from compulsory acquisition under Clause 15(1). I know that my Amendment does not confine itself to a White Paper day plot, but that is because nothing else in the Bill does so either. That will come into the regulations made under Clause 3(1)(c). We have not seen

1581
them yet, so it is difficult for me or anybody else to draft an Amendment on that basis; but I have raised the point in this way not in order that the noble and learned Lord should answer me tonight because I know he wants to look at the point, but because I thought that it would be helpful for him if I spelt out the argument now. I believe that there is something in it. The provision is probably there by mistake and I very much hope that it will be corrected by the Government at the next stage of the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful for the careful way in which the noble Viscount has set out the problem, which I shall certainly look at. Clauses 4 and 5 of the original Bill did not, as I understand it, exempt single plots from acquisition under all circumstances. They were concerned with building on plots and not with the plots themselves. I am not aware that, in the 100-plus hours spent on this in the other place, the interpretation of the noble Viscount was elaborated or accepted, but I may be wrong about that.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: The noble and learned Lord is perfectly right. It is the development consisting of the building of the dwellinghouse that is the point. It is when the local authority considers that the plot is. in its opinion, suitable for that sort of development—that is, the building of the dwellinghouse—that it gets its powers under Clause 15(1). Those were precisely the circum stances under which it did not get its powers under the old Clauses 4 and 5.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: We will look at it. It is a point of technicality, which is important, and we can return to it again. At the moment I am not wholly satisfied that the noble Viscount is right and that I am wrong, but I certainly have an open mind on the matter.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: That is good enough for me. I feel sure that the noble and learned Lord will be persuaded, and I shall try to do so privately behind the scenes, if given an opportunity. Meanwhile, I beg leave to with draw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 46D:
Page 14, line 25, leave out from ("agreement") to end of line 26.
The noble Viscount said: We are also concerned here with a very broad power. I cast my mind back to the compulsory acquisition powers under the Housing Act, where there is very commonly—particularly in the case of slum clearance—a compulsory purchase order which deals with two different types of land. It deals with land upon which there are standing houses which have been certified by the medical officer of health as being unfit; and that area is usually coloured pink on the plan. There is also included in the compulsory purchase order other houses which are not unfit, but which stand upon land which is necessary to be incorporated in the scheme of the redevelopment which will take place; and that land is coloured grey on the plan. It is always known as "grey land", and it is available and can be compulsorily acquired only if the acquiring authorities show that they really need it—or that they are most likely to need it—in order to build the scheme they have in mind.
So far as I know, that is the only example in the whole realm of compulsory purchase where it is possible to buy land adjoining the land which is the subject of a compulsory purchase order; but not so in this Bill. Where it is decided that land A is suitable for development it is also possible to buy compulsorily land B adjoining it, simply by stating that it is required for the purposes of executing works, or for facilitating its development or use. There is no firm criterion. Land can be bought without any particular reason being given. Land of any size can be bought simply on the grounds that it adjoins and is required for executing works. What works? How big an area?
Can the noble Lord give some examples or instances where this would be necessary? Can he tell us why it is necessary to have this adjoining land purchased under subsection (3), because I suppose it would not be available to be purchased under subsection (1)? It apepars to me very strange that if works are to be executed for facilitating the development of the main piece of land, it is not also possible to buy that extra

1583
piece of land under subsection (1) itself. Of course works may be of a temporary or permanent nature, or may involve easements, for instance. There are all sorts of implications here, and a great deal more explanation is needed before we can be satisfied that it does not go much wider than most of the powers which previously existed. I should very much welcome some explanation of this and of why it has been necessary to put this provision in the Bill at all. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: The effect of the noble Viscount's Amendment would be that where land was needed, for example, for access purposes, or as exchange land, which was something which the noble Viscount did not mention in his introduction of the Amendment—I under stood that it was affected by Amendment 46D—to enable a primary site to be brought into development, the whole development would be prevented if the additional land could not be obtained by agreement. Given the acceptance of the need for compulsory purchase powers to be available for the acquisition of the primary land, it is in our view simply illogical for them not to be available for the secondary land as well.
The normal, existing CPO procedures will apply to acquisition under Clause 15(3). The need to buy small areas of land to unlock larger development sites is the sort of circumstance in which local authorities are sometimes prepared to use their existing compulsory purchase powers to facilitate private development. It would be anomalous if the new power given by the Bill was made less apt for this purpose. The modifications to compulsory purchase procedure in paragraphs 2 to 4 of Schedule 4 would not generally apply to acquisitions under Clause 15(3) because the land will probably not be development land; in other words, it will not be needed for relevant development.
The noble Viscount asked me to give him some examples of the sort of case, other than access, where land might be needed. I think that this is a point which applies equally to Amendment 47, so perhaps the noble Earl. Lord Balfour, will take particular note of what I say in response to this. Land might be needed for such works as visibility splays at the
1584
entrance to the main site, which arguably might not constitute access. Another example would be where the land would be used to plant a screen of trees in order to comply with a condition imposed on the grant of planning permission for the development site. It would, therefore, in our view, be inappropriate to restrict this supplementary acquisition power to specified works. I hope that helps the noble Viscount as an explanation of why the power is needed.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Before my noble friend comes to reply perhaps I may say that I think the noble Lord, when he replied on behalf of the Government, said that local authorities already had powers to do this, and that in certain circumstances they had used these powers to assist private development. I think that is exactly what he said. If they have these powers, why on earth do we have to extend them in this clause? The case my noble friend is making, as I understand it, is that these areas of grey land are areas which are very sensitive because one is going outside the general scope of the purpose of the development and wandering into this delicate area where owners are very sensitive. That is a matter about which I understand my noble friend to be trying to ask the noble Lord, who, frankly, did not give the reasons for which he was asked. What are the specific reasons? The only example he gave was of access to a large development. They already have the powers for that, so there is no purpose there. Would the noble Lord spell out this evening the specific reasons for which they would require these powers? If he cannot spell them out, would he write to us about this matter?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I think it is perfectly true that there may be cases where exchange common land may have to be acquired compulsorily, and the noble Lord is perfectly right in suggesting that my Amendment—and I did not mean it to do so—would take away the compulsory powers for that purpose; so to that extent it is defective. But the first part—and it was intended to refer to the first part in paragraph (a)—is really the piece upon which I am concentrating. The noble Lord speaks of access, and he is quite right in saying that of course there are existing powers under

1585
the Highways Act whereby access to a development could be obtained, but in order to build a road you have to have planning permission, and it is development. Is the noble Lord telling me that it is not relevant development or it is not development? I think, and I would suggest to him, that building that access road is development. It is not development which appears in Schedule 1, and there fore the acquiring authority has powers to buy that land for the road under Clause 15(1) anyway. Now, what are the circumstances where it does not have the power under Clause 15(1)? That is what I want to know. The access road does not work in those circumstances because they have other powers, and at the moment I do not think the noble Lord has given me an example of something which is not in itself development.
Lord MELCHETT: I thought I had given two examples. One was the example of planting a screen of trees, which might be part of the planning permission for the main site. It might be said that if a site is to be developed a screen of trees is to be planted on adjoining land. That presumably is not development, but it may be necessary to enable development on the main site to go ahead. I also gave the example of work such as visibility splays at the entrance to a main site. Again—and I confess that I am using a term whose meaning I am not sure about—I am advised by legal advisers that this arguably might not constitute access but might be necessary to unlock the main site.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULCROSS: All of us who deal with these matters know about "visibility splays" and "sight lines" and so on, but they are usually part of the highway development which forms the actual access. They may anyway be covered by Clause 15(1). The other example—that of forestry—given by the noble Lord is probably not development; but if we are to have powers sweepingly stated as in Paragraph 1(a) in order to provide a piece of land for landscaping to be purchased compulsorily, the Government have really gone rather far. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to think of other examples beyond that which are not development and which are more important even than some trees and bushes for landscaping; otherwise I
1586
shall have to return to this at Report stage.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Before my noble friend withdraws this Amendment—if he is going to withdraw it—I do not think that the Government have yet given us a satisfactory answer. What my noble friend said is that the local authorities already have powers to do all that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has suggested. Why on earth are we passing this power? What is the purpose of it? I feel that in the Committee stage of a Bill the Government should reply to these questions. We should not leave it to the Report stage all the time. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reply further on this now.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I think it would be better to await a further explanation. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, with his advisers will be able to find other examples. I shall try to draft a better Amendment to consider just for the purposes of paragraph (a) next time. Mean while, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.29 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 14, line 28, leave out from ("for") to end of line 29 and insert ("the necessary operational land access, services or way-leaves to that development land").
The noble Earl said: I shall spend only a few minutes on this, but it gives me the opportunity to ask a question at the same time. I am concerned with the Secretary of State's powers. The local authority can acquire any land adjoining that land without a satisfactory explanation as to how much or what quantity or the reasons for acquiring it. But I should like to take this opportunity of asking the Government if they will draft an Amendment. At line 33, page 14 there is again the word "exchange". A little further on come the words:
"… in application of this subsection to Scotland …
certain words are going to be omitted.
Could we have the Scottish word "excambion" put in as well. It is just about beyond my drafting ability to

1587
make certain it is right; but I am sure it is necessary to comply with Scottish law. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I assume from what the noble Earl has said that he has taken the point that my argument on the previous Amendment also applies to his Amendment. So far as the Scottish law is concerned, I will take advice and if "excambion" is needed in the Bill no doubt we can return to it at Report stage.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 47A:
Page 14, leave out lines 30 to 33.
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 47A which relates to commons. I was not intending a few moments ago to stop the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in his tracks, but just to indicate that there was going to be another opportunity to talk about commons on this Amendment.
We all recognise that even valuable open space and commons which are much treasured by local communities have from time to time to be developed and to be acquired for public development. But the rules that then apply are particularly stringent unless suitable land is given in exchange. What I want to be sure about is that the terms of Clause 15(3)(a) which read:
"any land adjoining that land …"
and do not read:
"Any land not being part of a common or open space …"
do not take away anything of the full procedure which has to be pursued if commons are to be acquired compulsorily for development without exchange land being offered.
The noble Lord will know that the procedure is such that it can only be done by order, the order has to be advertised and 28 days have to be allowed for objections. If there are any objections, there has to be a public inquiry. The Secretary of State, after confirming it, has to lay it before Parliament. There are 21 more days for an opportunity to petition
1588
Parliament, and it goes before a Joint Committee of both Houses. Common land is so important that we want to be certain that there is nothing in this part of the Bill which short-circuits those pro visions in cases where any land adjoining that land includes part of a common, and other land is not given in exchange. I hope the noble Lord can reassure us on this point. We shall need a very clear reassurance. I beg to move.
Viscount RIDLEY: May I add one or two questions to my noble friend's remarks. He really said what I wanted to ask. Is this a new power which does not exist already? I think that was worrying the noble Lord, Lord Digby, yesterday. Secondly, is there anything in this which would indicate land taken from a common has to be replaced with land which is at least roughly adjacent to the land which is lost? Is it not possible under this subsection to take a piece of land in London and replace it with another piece of land the other side of London? I see nothing to stop that being done. I may be wrong; I am not a lawyer.
Lord MELCHETT: I can give both noble Lords the assurances they seek. Clause 40 does not abolish the special Parliamentary procedure in these cases. Regarding land next door to the common, as I understand it, there is a special Parliamentary procedure unless the Secretary of State certifies under paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Lands Act that other land not less in area and equally advantageous to the public is being given in exchange. That is unaltered by the Bill.
Lord SANDFORD: I beg leave to with draw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.34 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 15, line 12, at end insert ("only where the proposed development is shown on an approved development plan or amendment to such plan which has been the subject of public participation and inquiry in accordance with the provisions of Part II of the Act of 1971 or of the Scottish Act of 1972.").
The noble Earl said: The wide powers in Schedule 4 is one matter that concerns me very much. I should like to make certain that the local authority comply within their own development

1589
plans that they have drawn up. I worded this rather wide because I feel it is import ant. I should like to stress the importance of trying to preserve things like green belts around towns, and I feel strongly that we must follow known plans. The local authority obviously must have powers to vary plans occasion ally, but to a great extent they must stick to their own plans. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I shall suggest some thing to the noble Earl, because this Amendment would mean that the whole of Schedule 4 would have effect only where the proposed development was shown on an approved development plan or amendment which had been subject to public participation in an inquiry. The way in which it is at present drafted makes it really inappropriate, since it is tied to the whole of the Schedule. I imagine the noble Earl is really concerned with the first part of Schedule 4, where it is possible to make a case for some limitation of the proposed changes in the compulsory purchase procedure, although the Government would not accept that any limitations beyond those already existing are justified. But there is really no justification whatever for such limitation on the remainder of Schedule 4, which applies to acquisitions by agreement as well as to those made compulsorily. Here we have almost an exact repetition of the provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act of 1970–1971.
I would suggest to the noble Earl that there is room for debate and discussion on the relationship between changes in the compulsory purchase order procedure and the development plan, but there are Amendments down on these points—Nos. 55 and 56A, which are still to come. So it seems rather a pity to have a truncated debate now and then to discuss this again later when there are other Amendments which touch more closely on the point with which the noble Earl is particularly concerned. Therefore, I would ask him to consider withdrawing this Amendment and then making his points later. I believe I have got them quite clearly.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am most grateful for that explanation, and I am happy to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.37 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 15, line 12, at end insert—
("5A. Nothing in this section shall authorise an authority to acquire compulsorily any land—

(a) in respect of which planning permission is in force for the carrying out of development not constituting relevant development;

(b) in the curtilage of a dwelling-house which is occupied by its owner as his residence;

(c) in the curtilage of any building owned by a charity which is receiving a reduction or relief from rates because of its use;

(d) in respect of which planning per mission is in force for the erection of any building which when completed would be eligible for reduction or relief from rates; or

(e) which is operational land.").

The noble Earl said: Once again, if I may say this very briefly, it was the last clause in the Bill which so concerned me, when it cheerfully said:
"No compulsory purchase order shall be made under this section before the first appointed day, and no land shall be appropriated for the purposes of this Part of this Act before that day."
I am concerned about what happens after the second appointed day. I wanted to make certain that, certainly in the case of a dwelling-house or where planning permission is really in force for a development not constituting relevant development, certain developments could be put in so as to make the meaning of this clause clear beyond doubt. That was the main object of my moving this Amendment; and I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I think we had a general discussion earlier embracing the issues involved in this Amendment, and I then endeavoured to explain and to justify the need for the powers which are sought in the Bill. I do not know that I have anything to add to the generality of what I said earlier.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I will accept that for the moment, but should like to reserve the right to return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 49A:
Page 15, line 16, at end insert—
("(7) In order to comply with articles 8 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the 4th November 1950 the Secretary of State shall not authorise any authority to acquire an occupied dwelling-house under this section so as to interfere with the exercise of the right of any person to respect for his home unless he is satisfied that to do so is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 49A. When this particular Amendment was first drawn to my attention. I am bound to say I was in two minds about putting it down. I am not usually one for dealing with Amendments which refer to international law or to European law, because I have always taken the view—perhaps wrongly—that our own law safeguarded the rights of individuals, and that this was something which was so fundamental to our thinking that it was unnecessary to look beyond our own country for other laws to maintain these basic freedoms.
I am bound to say, having sat through the Committee this evening, that I now think I was quite right to put it down. The discussion we have had on Clause 15 has been so entirely unsatisfactory, and for my own part I do not think I am using too strong words when I say very frightening to the individual householder; and it is as well that at least the debate on this Amendment should be on the record for people who will be concerned with the implementation of the Bill to read.
In order that everybody may know what Articles VIII and XIII of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights says, I would point out that Article VIII provides that everyone has the right to,
"respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence",
and secondly that,
"there should be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals or
1592
for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
Article XIII provides that,
"everyone whose rights and freedoms as set out in the Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
I think this has a relevance to this Bill and a very real relevance to Schedule 4 which we shall be coming to. I hope therefore that the Government will bear in mind what this Convention says.
We have already had two long debates on the important Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ferrers on the first subsection of Clause 15. I am very grateful that the Government have agreed to reconsider this, because the wording is very confusing, and certainly if one compares what the Government are saying this evening with what they were saying yesterday about the point of the single plot it will be readily apparent that the two are not exactly the same. Certainly the undertakings given in the White Paper have not been honoured in the Bill. This is undoubtedly true for any ordinary reading. An ordinary member of the public would not read it as it has appeared. We have also had the long debate on the Amendment by my noble friend Lord Colville about the single plot, and again I am very glad that the Government have agreed to look at this matter. But the fact remains that there is a fundamental uncertainty for all people owning single plots and certainly for owner-occupiers about the sanctity of the home. As to Schedule 4, although it is perfectly possible now for a house to be compulsorily purchased of course everybody has the right to object at a public inquiry, and in a great many cases the rights to object will be extinguished by Schedule 4.
It therefore becomes very important to realise that the European Convention makes it perfectly clear that under this Convention, to which we are a party, those people whose rights have been violated ought to have an effective remedy even against a public authority. That clearly applies to the rights of an individual owner-occupier at a public inquiry when his house is likely to be compulsorily purchased against his wishes—this is the point. Therefore,

1593
although at first I felt that this kind of Amendment was unnecessary I have now come to believe that the situation under this Bill is so serious that we ought to consider those international Conventions to which we are a party. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My submission is that the first reaction of the noble Baroness as to the usefulness and relevance of a reference to the Inter national Convention was a sound one, but her second thoughts were not, because in my submission the Convention has nothing whatsoever to do with the lawful acquisition by a public authority through Parliamentarily approved compulsory purchase procedures of private property, be it a house or anything else. The Article is concerned essentially with the right of privacy. Everybody has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. The whole context of the Article is in an entirely different domain from the domain which we are talking about. The second part of Article VIII reads:
"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary to democratic society …"
When Parliament has approved methods of enabling the citizen to state his grievances and have them redressed, as our laws do in this domain as in everything else, there is no infringement.
Article XIII deals generally with remedies and states:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority".
It is because this has got absolutely nothing whatever to do with what we are debating tonight that the point has never been raised when in certain circumstances any other Government have sought powers of compulsory acquisition of land or owner-occupied dwellings. Of course there are plenty of precedents for this power being taken and exercised, but previously there has never been any reference to these Conventions in relation to all of the other compulsory purchase powers that are available. This is not because Members of Parliament were sleeping, but because they were aware that it had no relation to the right of a
1594
public authority lawfully to acquire someone else's house or property with the approval of Parliament for a public purpose.
As we shall see when we examine the detail of the procedures that flow from a compulsory purchase order—the right to a hearing, the power of the Secretary of State finally to determine the matter, his answerability to Parliament for what he decides—there will be an impressive mechanism to enable the aggrieved citizen to have his grievance ventilated and, if necessary, redressed. With great respect, this attempt to bring into issue the Human Rights Convention is indeed scraping the barrel.
Lord HYLTON: Could the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say what rights have been given back to the aggrieved owner-occupier to replace those which my noble friend Lady Young pointed out he used to have in calling for a public inquiry? It seems that this has been whittled away by Schedule 4. What has been put in its place?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I fear that we shall examine at considerable length Schedule 4, although it may not be possible to go very far with it tonight. We shall examine in great detail the provisions in the Bill. In my submission, nothing of substance has been taken away. Conceivably a few things have been added, but we shall do the arithmetic at the end of our examination of Schedule 4.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Do I under stand from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that he intends to begin tonight consideration of Schedule 4? May I suggest than we should leave Schedule 4 until we are all fresh on Friday?
Baroness YOUNG: I was very surprised at the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to my Amendment. Clearly he thinks that the European Convention is a joke.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: No; on the contrary, I said nothing of the kind. It is an important statement about the right of privacy. When in due course this Government bring forward legislation to give effect to the right of privacy, or any equivalent approach to it, I hope that

1595
we shall have the support of the Conservative Party.
Baroness YOUNG: The Government have the support of the Conservative Party on this issue and therefore I object very much to it being suggested that when I am using the Convention I am scraping the barrel. I should have thought that as Her Majesty's Government were a signatory to it we should take it seriously. As it obviously applies to the home I should have thought—
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: To privacy in this context.
Baroness YOUNG: Of course it applies to privacy. I quite agree with that. But as we are not discussing privacy, but rather the home, it is perfectly possible to use it in this context. I found the argument that because a law says it is possible for a local authority to acquire somebody's property therefore it is perfectly all right, a singularly unconvincing argument. All that argument amounts to is that anything that Parliament decides is all right. What is not actually said is what the law says about the rights of the individual, and I thought my noble friend Lord Hylton made a very important point in that regard.
It is very late tonight and I do not intend to press this Amendment to a Division, but we shall return to the important matters of individual rights in Schedule 4 and we shall not expect what we regard as important principles to be brushed aside as being of no account. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
11.52 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I should like to raise two points this evening with the noble and learned Lord. We have had a long, interesting and I hope instructive debate on Clause 15, although I must confess that I am more befogged now than I was at the start. The first of my two points concerns the timing of compulsory purchase procedures. Where in the past those who have been concerned with compulsory purchase have been satisfied with the procedures of the rights of appeal, I think quite frankly
1596
that the noble and learned Lord has not satisfied this side of the Committee to night that the new procedures are so protected. But, in the old procedures, people were undoubtedly unhappy with the time-scale, whereby from the moment a draft order was served to the moment when the recipient received the money could be anything up to three years?
I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord that if he is to streamline the procedure of the compulsory purchase orders, as he is doing, it is only right that we should streamline the payment of the compensation. I hope the noble and learned Lord will look at that. The second point I should like to raise with him tonight concerns the question of compensation. I know this does not specifically come within this clause, but it does in one sense.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Hear, hear!
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am glad the noble Lord agrees with me. Under the old rules—and indeed under the present rules—of compensation from the first appointed day, the recipient will receive market value. When he instructs a valuer, the valuer looks at the compulsory purchase order and on it there will be a purpose for which that land has been purchased, and that purpose will define the market value. We now see in this clause that there will not be a purpose; there will be a reason. I have not consulted other valuers, but I can see that there will be a tremendous difficulty in deciding what is to be the market value. It is a matter that will go to the Lands Tribunal time and time again. I hope the noble and learned Lord will look at this as well, because it is a very important point, particularly as in the White Paper—and we have to stress this again—it is firmly stated that the compensation would be the market value.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I think we shall have to examine both the question of streamlining payment and the bases of compensation when we come to consider Schedule 4 in detail, as we may do before very long.
Clause 15 agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: While I know the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is eager to continue the fray into the small

1597
hours, and I am in very good heart and would be happy to continue this exchange with her, it will be for the convenience of us all—I see the noble Lord shakes his head. If he is serious and receives the general support of the Committee we, of course, are willing to proceed; but I think the general opinion of this noble community, if that has not now become a dirty word, is that this might be a convenient hour to call it, if not a night, a day.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sure we should all like to thank the noble and learned Lord for those remarks. But, rather like Cinderella, I had better escape now.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I hope the noble Baroness will not leave her slipper behind her! I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

SCOTTISH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
RECESS ELECTIONS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.